INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAIN COLLABORATION   INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAIN COLLABORATION GAABIC UENR   INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAIN COLLABORATION Inclusive learning with and for farmers Yves van Leynseele – University of Amsterdam 27 July 2017 My role in the project has been to discuss the learning processes: looking at the quality of the interactions and also if the outcomes leads to more ownership and empowermnet for farmers.

NEW BUZZWORD? Moving to a information and service economy  how relevant to farmers?

Our focus: inclusive learning Farmers’ knowledge counts Two-way knowledge exchange Fits farmers’ needs & the context in which farmers live and work Uses diverse learning styles Achieve equitable outcomes Promote self-determination Offers a safe learning environment Embedded in farmers’ social networks Agricultural training and other support services tend to focus on productivity gains and adoption of ‘best practices’. This may lead to higher production and quality at farm level, but is does not always mean that it promotes more inclusive development. also in terms of enhancing farmer voice and empowerment. Yet, transformative change may better be captured when considering agricultural learning in value chain collaboration and the extent to which farmers are able to shape innovation processes and technology development themselves (Kilelu et al. 2014; Hounkonnou et al. 2012). Transformation then refers to a form of value chain collaboration that fosters sustainable and durable forms of bi-directional learning. Below, we discuss outcomes in joint learning along a spectrum that includes the theoretical possibility when innovation processes are locally-embedded and no longer require external steering and funding. We focus on innovation and agricultural learning within value chain collaborations, looking at the roles of different actors involved, their interactions and how socio-economic institutions and contextual factors shape the nature, direction and quality of the interaction. Drawing on these theories, we consider agricultural learning processes in value chain collaboration as potentially inclusive, when interventions effectively align knowledge exchange with farmers’ livelihood orientations and their local contexts and when they achieve more equitable outcomes and self-determination for farmers (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015; Gupta et al. 2015). This focus means that learning should not merely be approached in terms of higher productivity and quality at farm levels, efficiency gains through chain coordination and farmer technology uptake as suggested in the vertical chain participation model (see Bitzer 2011) but also in terms of enhancing farmer voice and empowerment (Ton et al. 2013) and by seeking active alignment with and valuation of farmers’ existing knowledge and capabilities (Sen 1999) and livelihood priorities. Questions: 1) what are the gaps and opportunities in support network around farmers? 2) How to overcome mismatch between supply of services and demand by farmers?

Action research: inclusive learning across levels Value chains: A blind spot? District National International Connecting levels VC NP P SA Value chain and commodity focus: will look very much at one product and how it travels in the value chain and how support can be given to enhance quality and bulk of a certain produce and improving trust relationships between actors in the value chain; vertical relations. This implies a blind spot for seeing farmers in their environment and looking at the different interactions locally but also beyond the local that influence their livelihoods. Through our learning platform process: we have started to focus on the district level, seeing that those actors closest to farmers actually perform important support roles and are much closer to farmers; they could also potentially fulfil a stronger role which is not foreseen in the classic VC approach. New actors into focus like LBCs who also engage in extension, provide livelihood security. Usually there is a national innovation platform that coordinates more local Ips; national actors will then be there for experimentation (local sites) and national levels to influence policy etc. Building relations is a process: understanding interactions and scope for innovation. Multi-level learning: circulate information, material, lessons learned and knowledge from one level to the other; set up new relationships, try to stimulate learning across levels. Purpose was clear yesterday with also giving some of you a place yesterday in the panel. You are intermediaries can also have a bridging function: ensuring that the district level is connected upwards. Dynamic exchange: roles and responsibilities may change: platform has to adjust to this. Action research: facilitate (cross-level) platforms built on existing partnerships

Research questions 1. How do social, natural and VC systems interact? 2. What gaps and opportunities in farmers’ support network? 3. How to overcome mismatch services offered and needed? 4. How can farmers shape innovation and technologies?

Inclusive learning model Continuous monitoring match/ mismatch Feedback loops This is the ideal – can be applied to any learning system and innovation system including ICT development or agric extension. Linear extension no more sufficient: innovation processes are dynamic and interactive, also unpredictable: demand-driven approaches may require a range of innovation support services. Not a menu of options! Depending on the problem at hand: it may be necessary to co-develop a new technology (e.g. better variety that is suited to local context) but innovation may also be about removing policy obstacles – may be a combination also. Needs diagnosis – is also about exploring what is there: we had very nice presentation yesterday showing how innovation may be very diverse; it responds to a local situation but is not always fitting perfectly with what support actors are providing. o Technical innovation o Livelihood innovation: engage in entirely new livelihood (e.g. driver is land scarcity) o Organizational innovation (sponsorships, joint funds for boreholes, farmer associations and rice partnerships that are based on compensation in kind; types of credit union. Intermediation is finding a match between supply of services and demand. Especially: work to match demand and supply; our project is trying to do this; but requires also that you build on existing structures. Arrows: show that agricultural innovation processes are dynamic; require a flexible, matching process with different services being offered (especially when challenges are related: food security plus intensification plus different interests of parties like COCOBOD and forestry commission). LP specific: process of collaborative learning in which experts who add knowledge on the topic of the intended innovation team up with local farmers who bring understanding of the local situation, demand and implementation potentials. Monitoring: not only to meet your performance indicators but also more general about how organisations collect information about farmers and how they then use monitoring of their impact or effectiveness as input for redesigning the services you provide. In this way you get a learning cycle: learn – report - adjust to achieve a learning organisation: organisations that have systems in place to allow for good ‘demand articulation’ and have flexible systems. Source: Kilelu et al. 2014

What can ICT do for farmers? It can reduce information costs and promote self-reliance in information gathering and exchange by: - Improving access to information (markets, available varieties, new government programmes, training videos, consumer preferences etc.) - Providing early warning on extreme weather, pest outbreak - Helping farmers to network and organise groups - Getting access to banking services …….. Small scale farmers are often isolated from banks and other centres or do not have the time or money to travel to centres like Thohoyandou for workshops or getting training. In fact studies show that farmers spend a lot of money on information costs. Already widely used in commercial farming: farming is increasingly a business that is conducted behind the computer and behind the telephone. There are many ICT services already out there and a lot of systems are in place to cut labour costs by automatic feeding, irrigation etc. Farmers also get their information less and less from the radio or through word of mouth but rather through Whatsapp groups and online resources. WB report: The most sustainable and transformative impact of ICT in rural areas will come from its effect on the markets and institutions with which the poor interact. Improving the capacity of these institutions to use a broad range of technologies, including Web-based technologies, will increase their effectiveness as sources of local service delivery. Yet new options can also be merged with existing media like radio: do not have to be mutually excludable. Ad last: ICT can extend the reach of financial services in rural areas in two ways. It can help traditional financial institutions reduce the costs and inefficiencies of reaching, assessing, and servicing rural clients. In Ghana, for example, ICT has helped an extensive network of independent rural banks, to both increase their efficiency and extend their services to a wider population. ICT can also facilitate new business models for providing financial services to the poor, helping them to afford higher-quality inputs and to secure prompt payment for their outputs..

However…how inclusive is it for smallholder farmers? Services still cost money and require information infrastructure Certain groups are not reached Farmers and their farming conditions are different: requires diverse and context-specific information Q: How can farmers and other district-level actors be involved in developing ICT to make it relevant and accessible? Conditions for a good and workable ICT system would then be a strong information management structure, that is responsive to changing farming needs. The ideal picture is of course very complicated but today we can exchange ideas on how it work here and start already exploring how it is actually being used and perhaps if new knowledge on ICT use can be shared.