Multi-stakeholder Workshop For Knowledge Sharing
Theme: Partnership arrangements as strategic action for inclusive
development: Practice and Outcome
NMIMR, University of Ghana, Legon, 11th March 2015
Present:
The 47 participants of this workshop include policy institutions such as the Ministry of
Agriculture and CSIR, private sector, International Organisations, Farmer Based Organisation
(FBOs), Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and actors connected with the partnership
arrangements.
Introduction
Partnership arrangements are increasingly seen as a promising approach to mobilise
strategic actors for economic growth and inclusive development in the agricultural sector in
Ghana. Partnership practitioners see the value of partnership arrangements in spite of the
fact that integration in the overall governance structure remains a challenge. There is limited
knowledge on the functioning and outcomes of partnership arrangements in various
agricultural value chain contexts.
Against this background, a research project has started with collaboration between
Wageningen University and University of Ghana. The research involving practitionerknowledge-sharing therefore aims to generate in-depth evidence and joint understanding of
(a) the conditions for strategic actors to initiate or get involved in partnerships for inclusive
development, and the institutional entrepreneurial mechanism that partnership members
employ to create this development; (b) the induced institutional bricolage leading to new
forms of innovation governance; and (c) the impact in terms of economic practices and
relationships between smallholders and other value chain actors.
A preparatory workshop held in February 2014 identified the following partnerships in
Ghana:
1. Local-level partnerships: Funded by agricultural donors like IFAD, FAO and
FARA/CORAF, AusAID, researchers of the CSIR-CRI and the MOFA initiate local
innovation platforms in the Transition and Savannah zones, focusing on improved
agricultural productivity, food processing and marketing.
2. COS-SIS partnerships: Funded by DGIS, the COS-SIS programme initiated a national
level innovation platform in the cocoa sector and a regional/national platform in the
palm oil sector of Ghana. Platform sought to create institutional change for the
benefit of smallholders.
3. Public-private partnerships: Private actors and NGO’s such as fair trade organization
Solidaridad and IFDC initiated Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP) for smallholder
development in the domain of cocoa, palm oil, soy beans, fruits and vegetables.
1
The main concerns of the participants at that workshop were on issues of governance and
sustainability. In other words: what are suitable and sustainable collaboration initiatives and
structures to engage smallholders and other chain actors in the development of their value
chains?
Research Project Objectives
To gain insight in this, the current project seeks to analyze and compare the conditions,
actions and outcomes of partnerships: How, and to what extent do they mobilize strategic
actors and attain inclusive development? And what is the outcome, in terms of innovation
governance structure and the economic position of smallholders? For this analysis, the
project will use the concepts of partnership structure, institutional entrepreneurship,
institutional bricolage and institutional economics.
As part of the project implementation two post-doctoral researchers: one with a background
in social and political science/Innovation systems and one from Institutional Economics are
undertaking exploratory studies on partnership arrangements in agricultural value chains.
Purpose of this Workshop
This first multi-stakeholder workshop is a kick-off knowledge sharing workshop that launches
the project. It will also bring together various stakeholders and provide the opportunity for
partnership actors to share their partnership stories. They will also jointly look at the
different phases of the partnership-innovation process from the angle of the project,
analysing (1) the partnership composition (2) the partnership internal functioning and (3) the
partnership action for change (institutional entrepreneurship, .
Workshop process
The workshop began with the introduction of the Chairman for the occasion Prof. Samuel K.
Offei, Pro-VC Academic and Student's Affair, University of Ghana, by Dr. George Essegbey,
Director CSIR-STEPRI. This was followed by a response from the Chairman and a welcome
statement from the Project Coordinator Dr.ir. Annemarie van Paassen. There were
presentations from researchers from Solidaridad, Donata and CoS-SIS followed by group
discussions on the various presentations.
Chairman's remarks
In his remarks, Prof. Samuel K. Offei indicated that, the aim of the workshop was to share
ideas on the partnership arrangements. A question was on the governance structure of the
partnerships and how these were undertaken? He added that in CoS-SIS, there were various
partnerships at various levels with e.g., farmers, Universities, Government Institutions, and
various stakeholders. Other questions according to him to be answered included how the
benefits were to be derived from these partnerships and their arrangements? Do these
partnerships disintegrate after the project was completed? He stressed that, at the end of
the workshop answers to these questions will be obtained.
2
Welcome statement by the Project Coordinator
In her statement, Dr. Annemarie van Paassen stressed that the current project was inspired
by previous experience with CoS-SIS innovation platforms. According to her, the study of
partnerships was important so that at the end of a project the roles and benefits of these
partnerships could be derived. Three groups (Solidaridad, Donata, and CoS-SIS) would
present the story of their partnership process so that the participants could make a first
analysis of (a) the partnership composition/structure, (b) the feature of their internal
partnership functioning, and (c) the partnership action and institutional impact (institutional
entrepreneurship). Dr. van Paassen mentioned that an area of concern highlighted in the
preliminary workshop was sustainability of these partnerships and governance issue. How do
the value chain innovations work in an effective and sustainable manner for inclusive
development? These were questions to which answers were needed. There are currently
two Post-Doctoral Researchers, Dr. Charity Osei-Amponsah and Dr. Alexander Nuer working
on partnership arrangements in two domains. At the end of the program they will provide
answers to some of these questions.
Seminar Presentations (Story Telling)
Presentations were made by 3 groups (Solidaridad-Mr. Eric Amoako Agyare, Donata-Dr.
Grace Bolfrey-Arku and CoS-SIS-Dr. Richard Adu-Acheampong).
3
A) FIRST STORY TELLING BY MR. ERIC AMOAKO AGYARE- SOLIDARIDAD
The overview of his presentation had the following features:
 CORIP Key Features
 Implementation strategy
 CORIP Conceptual Framework
 The Story
CORIP key features included the following:
 4 - year programme (2013 – 2017)
 Implemented by consortium of partners (Cocoa companies, IFDC, COCOBOD, EKN,
IDH, Solidaridad West Africa (SWA) & coordinated by SWA
 Funded by Dutch Embassy, with co-funding from private sector cocoa partners, IDH
 Grant budget; plus other matching contributions from
 Focus on learning and innovations development
CORIP implementation strategy also involved the following:
 Set up and run cocoa Rural Service Centres (RSC) as vehicles for service delivery
 RSCs established and managed by private companies
 Work towards financial viability/sustainability of RSC
 Core technical & coordination support provided SWA/IFDC/CRIG)
 Additional technical assistance services provided through other private sector service
providers
 RSCs organise demand for and supply services
PLANTING
MATERIAL
AGROCHEMICAL
INPUTS
TRAINING OF
FARMERS/GROUPS
FINANCIAL
SERVICES
PROVIDING SERVICES
OTHER COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
INCOME STREAM/
COST STRUCTURE
RURAL
SERVICE
CENTERS
CROP BUYING
SERVICES
OTHER COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
ECONOMIC
VIABILITY
ADDING VALUE TO
FARMERS
FARMER GROUPS
YOUTH
5
Fig 1. Conceptual framework
4
THE STORY
Comps & inds
s’holders discuss sust
options to enhance
sector competiveness
Embassy
hires
Advance
consulting
to support
MASP
Embassy
looking for
opportuniti
es for
dev’t supp
Cocoa comps
involved in
sustainability
initiatives
Contribution
agreement signed
b/n SWA/Embassy
Series of mtgs
between
comps/NGOs/
Cocobod
Embassy draft
steering note
to support
cocoa sector
2011
Market
demand for
sust,
supply of
cocoa
beans
Prog off set
up &
logistics
Embassy
interest in
cocoa;
Mission to
Ghana
Cocoa comps
involved in
sustainability
initiatives
2014
2013
2012
SWA/IFDC/
Cocobod/
comps
discuss
productivity
improve’t
initiatives
Press
ceremony at
Embassy
MOU signed
among
partners
Series of mtgs
between
comps/NGOs/
Cocobod/
Embassy
PAG
formed
Series of mtgs
between
comps/NGOs/
Cocobod/
Embassy
Prep. of
prog gov
& Imp
manual
Inception meeting of
partners to discuss
way forward
THE STORY, CONT’D
6
Signed subagreement with
GRIG, April
Inaugurate
TSSC, April
Signed subagreement
with IFDC,
Feb
2nd
Signing of
comp sub
agreements,
Aug-Oct
Sign agmt
with IDH,
April
Approval of
grant
proposals,
Apr & May
Technical
site visits to
RSC
locations,
Aug-Sept
Set up of
nurseries,
demos etc
begins, Oct -
call for
proposals, Dec
PAG
meeting,
Dec
MELI disc
begin with
UoG, IDH,
WUR Aug
2014
Monitoring
visits, Cap
Dev of
RSCs ongoing
Receive EOI
from
interested
comps
2015
Submission of
comp
proposals, Mar
Approval of Prog
Impl Manual, Mar
Official
launch of
CORIP,
June
Provision of
grant award
letters, June
1st
grant
disbursements,
Sept-Nov
Capacity
dev for
RSC staff,
begins
Consortiu
m meeting,
Dec
Monitoring
visits
RSC set up
commence, Sept
Fig. 2. The story
Evaluating
company
proposals
Baseline dev
commences
7
5
B) SECOND STORY TELLING BY DR. GRACE BOLFREY-ARKU
Experiences from DONATA Ghana: Cassava Innovation Platforms, Wenchi Municipality
Focus of Ghana DONATA IP: Improve income of smallholder cassava producers, processors,
marketers and other stakeholders along cassava chain.
Objectives:
-
transfer and disseminate improved technologies to farmers along the cassava chain
i.e. production to marketing
Exchange and share indigenous knowledge and practices among various stakeholders
Foster strong collaboration and trust among stakeholders
Enhance skills and knowledge
Initiation of DONATA
National launching of DONATA Project - June 2011
 In attendance partners of Agric R&D
Presentations and Discussions
• Focus and objectives of DONATA, Ghana
• IP systems
• Existing technology transfer and dissemination systems
• Ensuring the sustainability of the IP after the exit of DONATA.
• Challenges to be encountered in the implementation
• Roles of major institutional stakeholders on the platforms
Setting up of IP - Determination of Entry Points
 PRA
• all relevant beneficiaries, target groups, and stakeholders.
• identify challenges/constraints and needs
• Analysis of the problems and needs
 Prioritization of constraints
 Defining entry points by consensus – ensure it can be addressed in project life span.
 Determination of thematic area
 Ensure proposed interventions answer “real felt needs”.
PRA Baseline Information 2011 for DONATA Communities
•
•
•
•
•
•
Heavy reliance of farmers on local variety with yield range of 5-9 t/ha
2 known improved varieties – Bankyehemaa and IFAD yielding 12 to 16 t/ha.
Maximum net profit is about $80.00/ha.
Improper or inadequate weed and soil fertility management
Weak or non-existence formal linkages among stakeholders
Information sharing was weak among major stakeholders.
6
Experience has shown that most farmers expected monetary reward for taking part in
project activities, thus the objectives of the DONATA IP was fully explained and discussed.
Hence actors along the chain were selected based on willingness to participate.
Determination of Entry Points & Establishment of IP
1. Producer access to improved cassava varieties and enhanced soil fertility
management
2. Use of herbicides to control perennial weeds in cassava
3. Cassava product development and market access.
 Five IPs defined by community name established based on above entry points
- consensus
Setting up IP – Stakeholder Analysis
Research
Local Assembly
Producers
Local artisans
Retailers
1Local & 1 regional radio
Traditional leader
NGO
Agri-input dealers
Transporters
WIAD
Extension
Business Advisory centre
Processors
EPA
Wenchi Rural Bank
Process and Product Innovations
2011 : 3 IPs with 30 actors; We considered our limited experience on IP management, also
fact concept is new to all stakeholders and resources available, all guided by past experience
2012: 4 IPs, 100 actors
2014: 5 IPs, Better understanding IP Concept after workshop and field visits for facilitators of
DONATA in sub region by CORAF
Challenges
• Knowledge Gap: Limited knowledge on IP process
• M& E: Effective integration on Platform activities
• Data Collection: tendency to present or report qualitatively
• Perception: Changing mindset of research & extension facilitators and other actors
• Influencing policy: issues eg use of weighing scale
• Risks: Getting buy in on private partnership to promote entrepreneurship
• Sustainability: Funding the IP and sustaining
• Governance structures - Municipal, Regional and National
Immediate Outcome from Platforms
• Farmers through sensitization appreciated importance of quantitative data in
assessing performance of their activities.
• Enhanced interactions and participation through Farmer –led field visits/tours, Peer
learning and Mentoring.
• Regular interactions among various actors promoting trust.
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brokers: Marketing challenges of Nkonsia IP resolved through a transporter who
realized a market opportunity as well.
Purchase of used motorbike by a platform member from Nkonsia
Constant sensitization on sustainability encouraged Ayigbe Platform to contribute
$1250.00 towards the construction of Good Processing Centre (GPC).
Resource mobilization by IP actors from constant Sensitization has encouraged buy
in of IAR4D concept by policy makers thus one way of technology dissemination by
WAAPP
Emerging 2014 Municipal best cassava farmer from Wenchi IP.
Championing: An actor converged all 5 IP for a joint proposal to COVET for skills
training to enhance quality. First stage passed & now in 2ndphase of processing.
Achievements
• Direct beneficiaries of 33 actors (22 M, 11 F) in 4 platforms from inception to 201
(86 M, 115 F) in 5 platforms and 131 indirect beneficiaries.
• Access to 6 other improved varieties (Ampong, Agbelefia, Dokuduade, Esambankye,
Sika and Otuhia), besides the 3 (Afisiafi, Bankyehemaa and IFAD) that existed prior.
• 70% increase in use of herbicide nozzle.
• Glyphosate application rate reduced by 60% (10 L/ha to 4 L/ha)
• Row planting increased population by 47%
• Root yield increased from 12 -16 t/ha to 42 t/ha
Business Enterprise:
• Ayigbe IP GPC completed for launching; contribution of $1250 (kind and cash) by
Ayigbe IP actors towards GPC to encourage ownership.
• 2 commercial grower/processors linked to 30 producers
• Local chiefs and queen mothers motivated to be part of Amponsakrom, Nkonsiaand
Wurompo IPs and have release land for establishment of GPC.
•
8
C) THIRD STORY TELLING BY DR. RICHARD ADU-ACHEAMPONG
Title: Innovation platform for institutional change: the case for cocoa in Ghana
Importance of cocoa to Ghana:
1. Foreign exchange earner
2. Major source of income for some 800,000 smallholder farm-families
Ghana has reputation for producing high quality cocoa beans, but a number of key
institutional constraints cause low productivity, profitability and lack of sustainable
livelihoods.
Innovation in the context of improving livelihood
• A new way of thinking with implications for the cocoa sector : for livelihood
development and poverty reduction
• An innovation platform termed ‘concertation and innovation group’ (CIG) was
created with the objective of working towards removing institutional constraints
facing small-scale cocoa farmers.
Stakeholder
Identification
Stakeholder
Analysis
Establishment of
the CIG
Fig. 3. Stakeholder-Actor Identification
Cocoa Supply Chain Map
Cocoa Marketing
Company
Exporting
Processing
Quality Control
Company Ltd
Transport
Bulking/Quality
Control/Warehousing
Production
Quality Control
Company Ltd
Processors
Haulage
Cocoa Marketing
Company
COCOBOD
Licensed Buying
Company
Cocoa Farmers
Quality Control
Company Ltd
Input Suppliers
7
Fig. 4. Map of cocoa supply chain
9
Constraints addressed by the IP
• Incentives for cocoa quality at producer level
• Policies of subsidized input distribution
• Incentives for private sector input supply and support services, and inappropriate use
of agro-chemicals
Entry point
Pricing and
price
incentives
for farmers
Activities
Joint
experimentation
on pricing
policy and price
incentives for
cocoa farmers
High level
institutional
issues
System
Innovation
Institutional
changes in
price
incentives
CIGs/RA
PhD
Establishing
equitable
distribution of
farming inputs
Building
network
among
actors
Expected
outcome
Improved
income for
farmers
PhD Thesis
Research with
farmers at
local level
Supervisors
Fig. 5. Entry points and expected outcomes of CIG/RA/ PhD student interactions
Facilitation
• Identification and prioritization of institutional and technical onstraints/opportunities
for innovation
• Facilitate the activities of the Concertation and Innovation Group (CIG) and promote
interactions among the members
• Facilitate the identification and validation of alternative institutional experimentation
that addresses identified constraints
The CIG in Action
• Working on pricing policy (composition of price structures – f.o.b. & price paid to
farmers and pricing in neighbouring countries).
 Free/subsidized input supply, support services: more transparency input distribution
in the newspapers
Fig. 6. Higher producer price for farmers in 2010
10
Group work
After each story, 3 Work groups analyzed the story on
a) Partnership structure/composition:
• Who initiated the partnership, motivated/focussing on what issue?
• Which type of actors participate and who not?
(NGOs, policy-makers, value chain actors, etc.)
• Which type of resources are they bringing in? And what lacks?
(a) authority/legitimacy to decide/control
(b) knowledge/skills
(c) human and material resources (including money)
b) Partnership features (internal functioning)
• Level of sharing:
How much do they share (a) authority, legitimacy, decision making, (b)
knowledge/information; (c) investment of resources for implementation
• Formalization:
Do the use informal/face-to-face personal or more formal arrangements for
collaboration and action?
• Type of coordination elements:
(a) Are there democratic (collegial) or hierarchical procedures in place?
(b) What type of incentives do (organisational) actors have to participate/contribute
to the partnership?
c) Partnership actions (Institutional Entrepreneurship)
• Using legitimate authority to change ‘the rules of the game’
• Education/training and technical development to improve the performance capacity
of value chain actors
• Resource/Asset focussed actions
• Type of impacts / effects
11
Plenary-Comparison of cases, with extra reflection on inclusiness and sustainability
aspects
In the end there was a comparative analysis of the composition, internal functioning and
actions of the various types of partnership, after which a plenary reflection was launched on
the critical issue of inclusiveness and sustainability. The following challenges were identified:
1st story telling CORIP cocoa case
 Service providing system should be sustainable
 The beneficiaries of an intervention should be included in the planning stages of any
partnership
 Apart from input costs, other related costs should be taken into consideration e.g.,
post-harvest losses
 Taboos and how they are incorporated into interventions must also be noted.
2nd story telling DONATYA Cassave case
 In managing interests of broad-based partners to achieve the goal of inclusiveness,
specific stakeholders must be brought in when their roles are needed.
 Facilitators should be chosen based on the experience they possess e.g., managerial
skills.
3rd story telling CoS SIS cocoa case
 Bringing diverse types of actors, including farmer representatives, together to be part
of an innovation system is highly encouraged.
 Sustainability concerns stimulated CoS SIS researchers-cum-facilitators to present the
approach to other research institutes and develop a curriculum for graduate
students. In this way many professionals will be sensitized on the value of multi-actor
innovation platforms for overcoming institutional constrains for smallholder
development in various agricultural sectors.
Closing remarks by the International Coordinator
Dr. Annemarie van Paassen thanked all participants for their commitment and critical
contributions throughout the workshop. She hoped the workshop had provided the
participants with an idea of the type of analysis and reflection the NWO program aimed for.
She further thanked the national coordinator and workshop leader Dr. George Essegbey, the
consortium members and the other support staff for their help in making the workshop
successful.
12