Capturing the impacts of agricultural innovation platforms: an empirical evaluation of village crop-livestock development platforms in Burkina Faso

Gabriel Téno and Jean-Joseph Cadilhon

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Box 30709, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
jo.cadilhon@gmail.com

Abstract

This study provides real-life insights on how innovation platforms (IPs) work while illustrating a conceptual framework for the monitoring and evaluation of agricultural IPs. The framework posits that the IP’s structure has an impact on the conduct of its participants, which in turn impacts on the IP’s performance in achieving its expected development outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data collected from all the platform stakeholders in four villages of Yatenga province, Northern Burkina Faso, provide insights to illustrate the conceptual framework. These real-life Burkinabe insights seem to fit the conceptual framework proposed: the IPs contribute to increase their members’ human and social capacity; they improve exchange of information and knowledge between different stakeholders; and they facilitate the access to agricultural support services. All these improvements lead to increase crops and animal production for the project beneficiaries. Further empirical research is nevertheless needed to validate IPs as a tool to foster the social capital of agrifood chain actors in developing countries.

Key words: agriculture, innovation systems, mixed farming

Introduction

African smallholder farmers continuously seek to improve their agricultural enterprise, their food security and income by making more efficient use of their assets. By reason of continuous, often unforeseen and sudden changes in their production and marketing environments, African smallholder farmers need to adapt continuously their production systems, which presupposes continuous innovation (Nederlof et al 2011; World Bank 2012). One of the ways that can help African farmers to be in phase with this continuous innovation process is the establishment of innovation platforms (IPs) (Cullen et al 2014).

Understanding the emergence of innovation systems, through their aims and functions, has recently been put at the centre of research analysing the process of technological change (Hekkert and Negro 2009). Innovation platforms have been widely used as a tool for fostering innovations in agricultural systems (Nederlof and Pyburn 2012; Schut et al 2015). IPs are equitable and dynamic spaces designed to bring heterogeneous actors together to exchange knowledge and take action to solve a common problem (Homann-Kee Tui et al 2013). While often focusing on marginalized poor stakeholders (Swaans et al 2014), IPs are a strategic tool to enhance collaboration for agricultural development in developing countries (van Paassen et al 2014).

The practice of IPs has been developed over time using the experiences of earlier multi-stakeholder research-for-development approaches: Farmer Field Schools, Participatory Research, Learning Alliances, Local Agricultural Research Committees and Natural Resource Management Platforms (Schut et al 2016). Today, the term ‘innovation platform’ is the latest one in fashion to describe multi-stakeholder agricultural knowledge and information systems. IPs, taken in their broadest sense, allow development actors a lot of freedom and flexibility to work with interested parties in solving concrete issues (Ngwenya and Hagmann 2011). They are dynamic spaces where members can join and leave according to their interest (Swaans et al 2014). IPs are thus more open than committees which are often instituted with a set of members to solve a given problem. Likewise, IPs are a space for discussion and do not necessarily need a clear legal framework to operate, which removes institutional constraints (van Paassen et al 2013). They are thus nimbler as conversation tools than consortia, which often require some sort of legal agreement between involved parties. Because IPs ideally involve diverse types of stakeholders with different backgrounds and experiences for a common interest, they have more potential to identify innovations suited for a given context than mono-stakeholder groups of individuals with similar backgrounds and experiences (Horton et al 2010).

Indeed, agricultural systems are intrinsically a multi-stakeholder complex environment due to interactions between animals, plants and humans; which in turn are influenced by other factors like diseases and pests, climate change, drought, flood, etc. Due to these interactions and factors, innovation platforms are more likely to identify and address common concerns (Homann-Kee Tui et al 2013; van Paassen et al 2013).

Working through IPs has become increasingly relevant to projects developing agrifood value chains in developing countries. Governments and donors have finally recognized the role of multi-stakeholder approaches in achieving agricultural development and food security (World Bank 2008; van Paassen et al 2014; Cullen et al 2014). Also, previous studies on agricultural intervention through IPs have shown the potential positive role of this participative approach in terms of impact upon the livelihood outcomes of rural smallholder farmers in Africa (Mapila et al 2011; Nyikahadzoi et al 2012; Schut et al 2015). Today, national agro-industrial development policies in developing countries are encouraging the strengthening of value chain networks (FAO and UNIDO 2010). Innovation platforms are one example of such networks.

However, despite the potential of the innovation platform approach, the understanding of how a multi-stakeholder platform functions and how it can lead to its development outcome is still largely ongoing (Dror et al 2016; Lundy et al 2013; van Paassen et al 2013). Indeed, to replicate successful innovation processes, it is fundamental to understand the various possible designs that make innovation platforms function (Homann-Kee Tui et al 2013). Researching the mechanisms of how these multi-stakeholder systems foster agrifood chain development and the impact pathways between different elements of these systems and its resulting performance is thus highly topical.

Cadilhon (2013) has proposed a conceptual framework based on several theories of new institutional economics and business relationship management. This framework involves understanding how the structure of an IP will influence the conduct of its members, and in turn, how this affects the performance of the platform. This new conceptual framework captures the complexity of multi-stakeholder innovation systems by reducing them to intertwined elementary constructs that are easier to measure individually. In this model, the structure of the IP is approached by understanding the composition and diversity of its membership, decision making processes, whether sub-committees exist within the platform, what are the sources of funding and staff available to make the platform work. The structure of the IP can also be characterized by the attributes of its individual members: type of value chain stakeholder, gender, level of education and an indicator of wealth. Finally, the legal and regulatory framework linked to multi-stakeholder groups in the country, potential by-laws set up by the platform members and the cultural norms in place in a society also contribute to characterize the structure of the IP.

In his framework, Cadilhon (2013) uses business relationship marketing theory to characterize IP conduct by different constructs relating to how the platform members interact together: information sharing, communication, coordination, joint planning and trust. Despite coming from the business management literature of industrial value chains in developed countries, many of these constructs are nonetheless relevant to agrifood value chains in developing countries. Indeed, information sharing has been linked to increased performance in several studies of agrifood produce marketing in developing countries (Alemu et al 2012). Effective and frequent communication, including physical visits, was shown to have a direct positive impact on relationship benefits such as profits and waste reduction in Vietnamese fresh produce supply chains (Cadilhon and Fearne 2005). Cooperation has been defined as ‘similar or complementary coordinated actions taken by firms in interdependent relationships to achieve mutual outcomes or singular outcomes with expected reciprocation over time’ (Anderson and Narus 1984). Joint planning is part of cooperation and specifically addresses the actions decided by both firms together (Claro et al 2003). Badibanga et al (2013) have shown that coordination between members of Congolese multi-stakeholder platforms led to a 6% increase in the probability of the platform reaching at least one of its goals. Kumar (1996) proposed that trust was the belief that each party was interested in the other’s welfare and that neither would act without first considering the impact of his or her action on the other. The literature identifying trust as a fundamental component of food markets in developing and emerging economies is still growing (Lyon 2000). It seems relevant to extrapolate the concept of trust from the business relationship literature to apply it to IPs. Indeed, the different types of stakeholders within IPs also must learn to trust each other so as to solve common problems. Yet, they might be competing or in a dependency situation within their value chains.

Finally, the conceptual framework relies on the objectives set by the platform members themselves to identify relevant indicators of performance to measure whether the platform has met its development outcomes. Figure 1 shows Cadilhon’s (2013) conceptual framework for monitoring and evaluation of innovation platforms, adapted to the performance objectives of the Yatenga innovation platforms under study here.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for monitoring and evaluation of Volta2 IPs in Yatenga Province

This case study aims to provide phenomenological insights on how the conceptual framework proposed by Cadilhon (2013) for monitoring the performance of agricultural IPs can be relevant to a real-life setting using data collected in the Volta2 project innovation platforms in Yatenga province, Northern Burkina Faso. The following section presents the Burkinabe context of the study and the methods used to collect and analyse field data. Our data provide phenomenological insights on how the conceptual framework can fit the reality of an African village IP: the IPs contribute to increase their members’ human and social capacity; they improve exchange of information and knowledge between different stakeholders; and they facilitate the access to agricultural support services. All these improvements lead to increase crops and animal production for the project beneficiaries. We then discuss these findings considering academic endeavours on socio-economic development in agriculture. Our conclusion suggests avenues for development practitioners and policy makers wishing to set up IPs that will genuinely contribute to agricultural development.

Materials and methods

Study context

This study is linked to the Volta2 project, launched in December 2010 for three years around integrated management of rainwater for crop-livestock agro-ecosystems in Burkina Faso and Ghana. This project has been implemented by a consortium of partners: the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), the Ghana Animal Research Institute (CSIR-ARI), the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), the Agricultural and Environmental Research Institute (INERA) and the University of Wageningen - Plant Production Systems (WUR-PPS).

The Volta2 project was launched under the Volta Basin Development Challenge (VBDC), part of the global Challenge Program for Water and Food (CPWF). Its overall goal is improving rainwater and small reservoir management in Burkina Faso and Northern Ghana to contribute to poverty reduction and improved livelihoods resilience, while considering downstream and upstream water users.

The Volta2 project has used innovation platforms, launched in the summer of 2011, as its principal development tool to achieve integrated management of rainwater for crop-livestock agro-ecosystems in Burkina Faso and Ghana. The potential platform members were identified at the beginning of the project in the target villages through a rapid rural appraisal and actor mapping (CPWF 2010). Farmers who were interested in volunteering to experiment with new water management techniques and crop and livestock production innovations joined the cycle of platform meetings to learn about and share their experiences. At first, platform activities concentrated on trials of new water management techniques at plot level, use of improved seeds, and of veterinary and phytosanitary products. The project supplied the inputs to farmers volunteering to test them out. Farmers had to contribute their labour to the trials and share their experiences in platform meetings. The platform meetings were also the locus for project training sessions on irrigation furrowing, livestock enclosure building, animal feeding and husbandry, market access, group commercialization and better access to market information. When the platforms moved on to tackle post-harvest issues (village-level processing and developing linkages to markets), women producers in the community who were also processing and marketing food were coopted to join the village platforms. The project also linked farmer beneficiaries with various stakeholders providing services to the agricultural sector. The objectives aspired to in 2013 by these IPs in their second year of existence were related to natural resource management and agrifood marketing. Platform members declared they wished the platforms would help them obtain access to inputs, access to credit, increased crop and livestock production, improved soil and water management, information access and exchange, capacity development among value chain actors, coordination of activities among value chain actors and improved market access.

In Burkina Faso, Volta2 innovation platforms have been implemented in two main areas: the central and northern regions of Burkina Faso. This study was conducted in Yatenga province in the Northern region of Burkina Faso. Given its geographical position, Yatenga province shares the physical characteristics of northern Burkina Faso. Northern Burkina Faso seems naturally disadvantaged because it has physical constraints like soil erosion, which leads to a continuous loss of soil fertility, erratic and low rainfall, and endangered wildlife (Ripama and Sawadogo 2009).

In general, Yatenga’s physical characteristics make it difficult to practice agriculture due to low soil fertility, low rainfall, lack of water and pasture for animals. This means producers face a clear pressure to adapt their agricultural practices in this area. Some agronomic and water management techniques known as stone bunds, half-moons, zai, are often practiced in this area to retain rainwater and enhance soil fertility. The main crops grown in Yatenga province are millet ( Pennisetum glaucum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) (Dugué et al 1994). The main livestock kept are zebu cattle (Bos taurus indicus), sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) and local poultry like chicken ( Gallus gallus domesticus) and guinea fowl (Numididaesp.).

Our study focused on four Yatenga villages: two villages in Oula commune (Koura Bagre and Ziga), one village in Ouahigouya commune (Bogoya) and one village in Koumbri commune (Pogoro Silmimosse) (Figure 2). The study was conducted from April to September 2013 with two months of field surveys between mid-May and mid-July 2013, two years after the Volta2 project launched the IPs.

Figure 2. Administrative map of Burkina Faso and Yatenga Province

Given the objectives set by the Volta2 Burkinabe IP members, Cadilhon’s (2013) conceptual framework for monitoring and evaluation of innovation platforms can be adapted to reflect locally relevant performance indicators (Figure 1).

Data collection

To gather real-life insights on the relevance of Cadilhon’s (2013) conceptual framework to the Volta2 platforms, a mixed-research approach using qualitative and quantitative methods was used. The data collection process was relatively elaborate to capture all the complexity of multi-stakeholder systems like innovation platforms focusing on agrifood development.

To implement this study, focus group discussions were first organized with innovation platform members in each of the four villages identified to understand the local context and the structure of the innovation platforms. Then, three questionnaires for individual surveys were administered. One questionnaire was administered to all 57 members of the innovation platform, including seven women. This survey collected quantitative data for the empirical validation of the conceptual framework, eliciting the demographic characteristics of individual respondents and asking them to rank their approval with statements representing the conduct and performance of their innovation platform along a 5-rank Likert scale. However, these individual surveys also led to side discussions where individual respondents explained their qualitative viewpoint on how they operated within the platform. One other questionnaire was administered to 12 key stakeholders (including one woman) chosen among innovation platform members. Another questionnaire was used with four facilitators of the platforms and five project managers in charge of setting up the platforms in Yatenga. All survey instruments and quantitative data collected are available online (Cadilhon et al 2013). The key stakeholder and organizer surveys dug deeper into collecting qualitative data with an individual viewpoint on how the platforms were organized, how they were working and whether they were achieving their objectives. These individual surveys were followed by more focus group discussions to understand better the collective viewpoint of the stakeholders in terms of their perception of the innovation platform and its impact on their activities.

The questionnaire to platform members had three main parts related to structure, conduct and performance of the platform. The majority of interviews and discussions were held through an interpreter because most respondents could not communicate in French. This interpreter was selected for his long experience of explaining innovative farming techniques to smallholder farmers in the study area. All along the fieldwork, all opportunities were taken to join and observe village-level platform meetings and project meetings involving platform members and managers to see how the platforms operated and how the different actors interacted.

Information to describe the various components of the structure of the IPs was gathered through focus group discussions of platform members and through detailed interviews with platform facilitators and individual members. Questions on individual structure of platform members, which was part of the individual survey of the members, aimed to identify individual characteristics such as age, gender, seniority within the IP, level of education, participation to platform meetings, type of activity within the platform, indicators of wealth, etc. Another questionnaire was administered to facilitators and managers of the innovation platform with questions related to the structure of the platform. This questionnaire aimed to identify the modus operandi of the IP such as membership composition, decision making process, dedicated committees, units or sections, source of funding, staff availability, function and numbers, legal and regulatory framework.

Information capturing the conduct of the platform members was gathered through detailed interviews of individual platform members and through observation of IP meetings. Questions related to platform conduct aimed to take the opinion of platform stakeholders on the way the platform facilitated interactions between chain members. This questionnaire was administered to both members and facilitators of the platform. The individual questionnaire was based mainly on 5-rank Likert scales to capture the variability of stakeholders’ opinions.

The Volta2 IPs had set out to achieve specific objectives by the summer of 2013. Performance achievement was captured by asking respondents to rank along a 5-rank Likert scale their level of agreement with statements describing various elements of the performance measure to be achieved. Although information was gathered to measure achievements in all performance criteria set out by the platform members, this study chose to focus its analysis of platform performance on the improvement of crop and livestock production of the platform members. The improvement in crop and livestock production was not measured directly in field trials. Rather, it was measured by asking farmers about their perception of this improvement. Although this subjective viewpoint of production improvement cannot replace physical data on yield and production, sufficient resources were not available for the collection of physical data on crop and livestock production.

Data analysis

Quantitative data mixed with qualitative data have already been used to analyse and test Cadilhon’s (2013) conceptual framework on the Yatenga innovation platforms (Téno and Cadilhon 2016). This case study focuses only on the analysis of the qualitative data assembled during the fieldwork to illustrate the relevance of the conceptual framework to the local context of the Volta2 project IPs in Yatenga province of Burkina Faso. No particular software or tool were used to analyse the qualitative data. The conceptual framework presented above and adapted to the Volta2 IPs is used as a grid to make sense and classify the qualitative data gathered.

Results

Table 1 provides the ranking by platform members of selected statements related to platform conduct and performance as gathered from all the Volta2 platform members in Yatenga province. For most of the statements, a ranking could be gathered for further statistical analysis. There was only one statement on joint planning that was not well understood with only 37 valid responses from the 57 interviewees. This suggests that the Burkinabe respondents could relate their real-life situation to the statements proposed by the researcher and translator to measure the indicators of the conceptual framework for evaluating IPs. What is more, respondents were largely in agreement that there had been improvements in components of platform conduct and performance during the duration of the project, which could be linked to the IPs set up. When explicitly asking about the impact of the platform on joint planning and improved production, the majority of respondents tended to agree strongly that the platform had had an impact on these two components of conduct and performance.

The following section reports information gathered from the focus group discussions, key informant interviews, side conversations from the individual respondents and observation of platform and project meetings aligned with the elements of the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1. These findings also provide hints as to how the various components of platform conduct and performance listed in Table 1 may be connected. The evidence suggesting a link between the platform structure and the conduct of its members is presented first. This is followed by illustrations of the linkages between platform structure and conduct on performance.

The Volta2 IPs have improved coordination of activities among value chain partners

The platform members interviewed as a group mentioned that the platform had organized regular gatherings for the Volta2 project; these regular meetings helped the platform members collaborate. They also mentioned that these meetings allowed the platform members to form a multi-stakeholder network involving producer-herders, traders, processors and microcredit institutions. This network of stakeholders has helped farmers increase the share of their product being commercialized. For example, thanks to the credit obtained from the microcredit institutions, the traders and processors could obtain cash to buy crop and livestock products exactly when producers had them ready to be sold. According to a key informant involved in the platforms, they have led their members to organize their enterprises so that their activities are better coordinated.

Joint planning resulting from the IPs

One key informant mentioned that his platform was perceived by its members as a set up that enabled them to work together in a concerted way to find solutions to common problems. Another key informant also reported that platform members who were also part of other groups or associations did identify a key difference in how their IP worked when compared with other forms of collective organization: IPs are particular in the fact that they teach their members to function as a network to be mutually useful to one another. Furthermore, all the four facilitators interviewed attributed improved joint planning and coordination of activities between value chain partners as a direct consequence of the IP’s activity.

As was evoked by some members, the IP has taught them that working together is a powerful way to improve mutually their activity and their income. All members of the value chain are important to others and no one can improve his or her activity by not considering the other value chain partners. During focus group discussions, the platform members declared that through joint planning of the activities, they have understood that when their animals have diseases, they can call immediately the service of animal health, which they did not do before. A consequence of this has been reduced mortality through the timely treatment of sick animals. The producer members have learned the necessity to prepare for marketing of their produce even before production by contacting the traders on their requirements. This has resulted in the improvement of market access, which contributes to the improvement and increase of their production.

Linkages between IPs and strengthening trust

The platform members interviewed during focus group discussions reported that the IPs had enabled members to get to know other producers in other villages where the project also had platforms running. This meant that they were no longer considered as strangers when going to these other villages, which had improved trust between members of different villages. One key informant interviewed also mentioned that the IPs had even reinforced the social relationships within the villages where they operated. Further discussions with the members revealed that their participating in IPs had taught them the necessity of integrated work, which had positively affected their mode of operation within their family and reinforced unity within their village.

However, one original idea of the Volta2 project was to facilitate linkages between the different platforms supported by the project within one country and across both Burkina Faso and Ghana, where the project was undertaking similar activities. Because of various logistical reasons such as unfavourable timing of other activities, translation issues, transport problems, these linkages between members of platforms from different regions within a country and between platforms in the two countries never materialized for the platform members. Only the project implementation team met to share lessons across regions and countries. Individual platform members did complain to the various evaluation missions they met about this lost opportunity for information sharing, learning and networking.

Capacity development among value chain actors

Quite plainly, the platform members recognized that the platforms had undertaken training activities targeting members. They had seen their capacities developed in techniques to access markets; their awareness had been raised on the pros and cons of grouped commercialization; they had learned how to dig irrigation furrows, build livestock pens, and how to feed and take better care of their animals. The key informants saw the strengthened capacities of platform members as a clear impact of the IPs: better information sharing on innovative ideas among platform members and the training activities had led directly to improving the members’ capacities in using improved production and marketing techniques but also in better farm, post-harvest and marketing enterprise management.

As evoked by platform members, capacity development is one activity that can differentiate their mode of collaboration within the IP from that of other organizations. The platform meetings also serve as the main forum for members to receive training from the Volta2 project and these events reinforce their social capacity through their meeting with new contacts and new partners. Platform meetings are therefore the basis for exchanging information and knowledge between different participants of the platforms.

Information access and exchange

Information access was a conduct construct in the conceptual framework presented in Fig. 1, but in the case of the Burkinabe Volta2 platforms, information access and exchange was also an objective chosen by members of the IPs. In this case, the platform members interviewed in focus group discussions mentioned that Volta2 project meetings allowed the representatives of different village platforms to meet and share information, creating a network between members of different villages. This point was also highlighted by the key informants who are the movers in this complex multi-stakeholder system. The key informants also noted that the platforms had led their members to improve their exchange of information. The platform facilitators illustrated this further: the meetings set up by the IPs within villages and between different villages had led individual members to meet and exchange mobile phone numbers. This had then led platform members to coordinate their activities among themselves by calling each other directly.

Some changes in mode of operating came from better market access by IP members. Before the platform was set up, members sold their products without any preliminary activity. But today they know that before selling their products they should ask for information on markets, for example by exchanging information with producers from other villages, by calling other friends from another location to get market information, in order to know where they can sell their products at good value. This changing in mode of operation is very interesting for IP members to improve their income and thus, further invest in increasing their crop and livestock production.

Access to inputs and credit

Platform members involved in focus group discussions highlighted the linkages the platforms had created between producers and microcredit institutions. The key informants went further, mentioning that the platforms had brought farmer members closer to the different public and private agricultural service providers: services of livestock, agriculture or animal health. These linkages had increased the social capital of the farmers who had more knowledge about which number to dial or which door to knock on to obtain agricultural inputs and services they needed. Awareness was also raised by the platform on the warehouse receipt system. The warehouse receipt system can help producers not to sell their product at low prices during harvesting through access to credit for their urgent needs; they can thus keep their harvest for sale during the period when the prices are good on the market. This system is yet to be implemented, but it is interesting to mention that many platform members found this idea very promising to improve their market access and their income.

Increased crop and livestock production

The platform members acknowledge the direct impact of the platform in helping its members improve their cropping and livestock activities. First, the project provided improved seeds and fertilizer to the farmers who were involved in production trials. The platforms also provided technical support to improve their farming practices (for example in teaching an innovative and easier way of making compost). According to the four facilitators of the platform and the key informants interviewed, the increases in crop and livestock production observed over the last two years have been a direct consequence of the activities of the IPs.

Another outcome example is more indirect: before the platform was set up, some producers did not use improved seeds. With the IP, they began to use improved seeds and tried to see how they could make a good combination between improved and traditional seeds. Indeed, according to what was said by some producers interviewed, using the improved seeds is profitable when there is good rainfall and they also offer the possibility that their residues can be further used for animal feed. But with low rainfall, use of the improved seeds is less profitable than the traditional seeds. So, the strategy of these producers is to combine both types of seeds in their production to produce in a context of uncertain rainfall.

Discussion

This study intended to provide phenomenological insights on the relevance to real-life innovation platforms of a conceptual framework to understand how IPs work and how they impact on the achievement of their objectives (Cadilhon 2013). Fieldwork was undertaken to collect data from members of Volta2 project innovation platforms in Yatenga province, Burkina Faso. This study has used the qualitative data collected in the field to illustrate the conceptual framework’s assumptions that participating in an IP as opposed to another form of collective organization has an impact on the conduct of platform members, which in turn does indeed impact on reaching the objectives of the platform. According to the platform members and facilitators interviewed, Volta2 Project IPs in Yatenga province have contributed to changing the conduct of their members. Indeed, through the platform, members have benefited from different support in their crop and livestock production activities, which have contributed to developing their capacity. Members’ developed capacity resulted in reinforced human and social capacity through a better exchange of information and knowledge and a better access to different support services and inputs. Joint planning and coordination of activities among IP members were also improved through closer collaboration in work and a better exchange of information in their activities. All these improvements have resulted in the improvement and increase of crop and livestock production. This study therefore also contributes further evidence that IPs are an effective mechanism to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, as already identified by Mapila et al (2011) and Nyikahadzoi et al (2012).

Moreover, these findings contribute to wider academic endeavours on socio-economic development in agriculture. They provide further support to the advice of Nederlof et al (2011) to use IPs as an effective tool for multi-stakeholder joint problem solving to intensify African agricultural production systems and adapt to continuous, often unforeseen and sudden changes in a relatively uncertain environment. The case of the Yatenga platforms also provides anecdotal evidence that IPs can be the locus for information sharing and deal making between different actors involved in agrifood value chains, as defined by Kaplinsky and Morris (2000). Although the platforms are not a market mechanism in themselves, they facilitate the meeting of value chain actors who can then decide to do business together. Finally, the results of this study also provide some hints that a new conceptual framework (Cadilhon 2013) to deconstruct the complexity of multi-stakeholder innovation systems into elemental constructs can be used to understand how innovation platforms function and how they lead to expected development outcomes (Lundy et al 2013). Finally, the development process of the Volta2 IPs reflects the difficulty of research projects using IPs to embed themselves in a local institutional environment, as identified by Schut et al (2015). However, this study has some methodological limitations.

First, the findings rely mainly on qualitative data collected from smallholder farmers involved in the Volta2 project IPs in Yatenga Province of Burkina Faso. Because most of the respondents could not speak French, the interviews were held through an interpreter, which could have introduced some bias in the responses.

Another limitation of this study, which is trying to identify the impacts of the Volta2 project IPs, resides in the very short duration of the platforms. They were only set up in June 2011 in Yatenga province with data collection undertaken two years later. This short duration could have made it difficult for respondents correctly to appreciate the impact of the IP on their achievement of its objectives. The fact that the research team undertaking this evaluation had been introduced by the Volta2 project partners could have also induced beneficiaries interviewed to provide only positive feedback on the project and its platforms.

Finally, the major limitation of the current research protocol was to limit the data collected to members and facilitators of the platform. There is thus no control group, which could have provided insights on how the Volta2 Project IPs had really helped to improve their beneficiaries’ agricultural production and market access, all other components of the complex agricultural development system staying constant.

Conclusions

• More empirical research is needed to start a robust validation of the conceptual framework proposed by Cadilhon (2013) to monitor and evaluate the performance of IPs. Such a study should ideally involve two different control groups to identify the impact of the platform being evaluated: farmers from the same community but not involved in the platform and farmers involved in another IP with similar development goals in another community. To dissociate the effects of the Volta2 project’s input provision from the innovation process fostered by the project’s platform, a parallel experiment should compare farmers receiving inputs from the project through its IP, others obtaining inputs from traditional extension services or through an input subsidy scheme, and a third group of farmers who are participating in an innovation process without the free distribution of inputs.
  
  
• More empirical research could also be undertaken to understand the possible interactions that may exist among constructs of platform conduct, how performance can modify the way an innovation platform is structured and how its members interact together. Further research should also delve into the possible relationships between the various indicators of platform conduct (communication, information sharing, coordination, joint planning and trust) and how they are linked together in loose multi-stakeholder network settings more closely related to that of IPs. Finally, similar research in other different platforms set up in other locations is needed to validate the hypothesis that platform structure can influence its members’ conduct and the platform’s performance. In this study, the structure of the platform was approached mainly by the individual characteristics of its members.
  
  
• Despite this study’s methodological limitations, our results do suggest that IPs are a potent complementary tool to other organizational settings to develop the social capacity of smallholder tropical farmers within a given institutional environment, which helps them attain their agricultural development goals. Development practitioners and policy makers wanting to setp similar IPs should be aware of their complex nature to make sure their development tool will successfully contribute to change.

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Funding support for this study was provided by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets and by the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) in the Volta with funding from the European Commission (EC) and technical support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The opinions expressed here belong to the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of PIM, IFPRI, CGIAR, EC or IFAD.

We would like to acknowledge the following persons for their contribution to this study: Jane Poole (ILRI, Nairobi); Alessandra Galie (ILRI, Nairobi); Francis Wanyoike (ILRI, Nairobi); Michel Garrabe (University of Montpellier I, France); Hubert Somé (SNV, Burkina Faso); Augustine Ayantunde (ILRI, Burkina Faso); Olufunke Cofie (CPWF, Burkina Faso); and all members and facilitators of the innovation platforms in northern Burkina Faso.

References

Alemu A E, Mathijs E, Maertens M, Deckers J, Egziabher K G, Bauer H and Hiwot K G 2012 Vertical coordination in the local food chains: evidence from farmers in Ethiopia. International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies 4: 11-20. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://www.sobiad.org/ejournals/journal_ijef/archieves/2012_1/abebe_ejigu.pdf

Anderson J C and Narus J A 1984 A model of the distributor's perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relationships. Journal of Marketing 48: 62-74.

Badibanga T, Ragasa C and Ulimwenge J 2013 Assessing the effectiveness of multistakeholder platforms: agricultural and rural management councils in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Discussion Paper 01258. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/127479/filename/127690.pdf

Cadilhon J-J 2013 A conceptual framework to evaluate the impact of innovation platforms on agrifood value chains development. Paper presented at the 138th EAAE Seminar on Pro-poor Innovations in Food Supply Chains, 11-13 September 2013, Ghent, Belgium. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33710

Cadilhon J-J and Fearne A P 2005 Lessons in collaboration: a case study from Vietnam. Supply Chain Management Review 9: 11-12.

Cadilhon J-J, Téno G and Mariami Z A 2013 Questionnaires et données pour la validation empirique d'une approche conceptuelle pour évaluer l'impact des plateformes d'innovation sur le développement de chaînes de valeur agro-alimentaires au Ghana et au Burkina Faso. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33829

Claro D P, Hagelaar G and Omta O 2003 The determinants of relational governance and performance: how to manage business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management 32: 703-717.

CPWF 2010 Project proposal, Volta Basin Development Challenges of the CPWF. CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

Cullen B, Tucker J, Snyder K, Lema Z and Duncan A 2014 An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management. Innovation and Development 4: 259-275. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921274

Dror I, Cadilhon J-J, Schut M, Misiko M and Maheshwari S (eds) 2016 Innovation Platforms for Agricultural Development. Evaluating the mature innovation platforms landscape. Routledge, Oxon, United Kingdom, and New York. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68755

Dugué P, Rodriguez L, Ouoba B and Sawadogo I 1994 Techniques d'amélioration de la production agricole en zone soudano-sahélienne. Manuel à l'usage des techniciens du développement rural, élaboré au Yatenga, Burkina Faso. CIRAD-SAR, Montpellier.

FAO and UNIDO 2010 African Agribusiness and Agro-industries Development Initiative (3ADI). FAO, Rome and UNIDO, Vienna. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1587e/i1587e00.pdf

Hekkert M P and Negro S O 2009 Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 584-594.

Homann-Kee Tui S, Adekunle A, Lundy M, Tucker J, Birachi E, Schut M, Klerkx L, Ballantyne P G, Duncan A J, Cadilhon J-J and Mundy P 2013 What are innovation platforms? Innovation Platforms Practice Brief no.1. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/34157

Horton D, Akello B, Aliguma L, Bernet T, Devaux A, Lemaga B, Magala D, Mayanja S, Sekitto I, Thiele G and Velasco C 2010 Developing capacity for agricultural market chain innovation: Experience with the “PMCA” in Uganda. Journal of International Development 22: 367-389.

Kaplinsky R and Morris M 2000 A Handbook of Value Chain Research. International Development Research Center (IDRC), Sussex, UK. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/pdfs/VchNov01.pdf

Kumar N 1996 The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard Business Review 1996: 92-109.

Lundy M, Le Borgne E, Birachi E, Cullen B, Boogaard B, Adekunle A and Victor M 2013 Monitoring innovation platforms . Innovation Platforms Practice Brief no. 5. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/34159

Lyon F 2000 Trust, networks and norms: the creation of social capital in agricultural economies in Ghana. World Development 28: 663-681.

Mapila M A T J, Kirsten J F and Meyer F H 2011 The impact of agricultural innovation system interventions on rural livelihoods in Malawi. Development Southern Africa 29: 303-315.

Nederlof S and Pyburn R (eds) 2012 One finger cannot lift a rock: facilitating innovation platforms to trigger institutional change in West Africa. KIT Publishers, Amsterdam. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/discussions/contributions/Facilitating%20innovation%20platforms%20to%20trigger_0.pdf

Nederlof S, Wongtschowski M and Van der Lee F 2011 Putting heads together: Agricultural innovation platforms in practice , Bulletin no. 396. KIT Publishers, Amsterdam. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://www.bibalex.org/Search4Dev/files/417494/363104.pdf

Ngwenya H and Hagmann J 2011 Making innovation systems work in practice: experiences in integrating innovation, social learning and knowledge in innovation platforms. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7: 109-124.

Nyikahadzoi K, Pali P, Fatunbi A O, Olarinde L O, Njuki J and Adekunle A O 2012 Stakeholder participation in innovation platform and implications for Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D). International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 2: 92-100. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijaf.20120203.03.html

Ripama T and Sawadogo S P 2009 Recensement général de la population et de l’habitation (RGPH) de 2006. Monographie de la Région du Nord. Ministère de l’économie et des finances du Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou.

Schut M, Cadilhon J J, Misiko M and Dror I 2016 The state of innovation platforms in agricultural research for development. In: Dror I, Cadilhon J-J, Schut M, Misiko M and Maheshwari S (eds). Innovation Platforms for Agricultural Development: Evaluating the Mature Innovation Platforms Landscape, Routledge, Oxon, United Kingdom, and New York, pp. 1-15. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68755

Schut M, Klerkx L, Sartas M, Lamers D, Campbell M M, Ogbonna I, Kaushik P, Atta-Krah K and Leeuwis C 2015 Innovation platforms: experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Experimental Agriculture 52: 537-561. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447971500023X

Swaans K, Boogaard B, Bendapudi R, Taye H, Hendrickx S and Klerkx L 2014 Operationalizing inclusive innovation: lessons from innovation platforms in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique, Innovation and Development 4: 239-257. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925246

Téno G and Cadilhon J-J 2016 Innovation platforms as a tool for improving agricultural production: the case of Yatenga province, northern Burkina Faso. Field Actions Science Reports 9. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://factsreports.revues.org/4239

van Paassen A, Klerkx L, Adu-Acheampong R, Adjei-Nsiah S and Zannoue E 2014 Agricultural innovation platforms in West Africa. How does strategic institutional entrepreneurship unfold in different value chain contexts? Outlook on Agriculture 43: 193-200.

van Paassen A, Klerkx L, Adu-Acheampong R, Adjei-Nsiah S, Ouologuem B, Zannou E, Vissoh P, Soumano L, Dembele F and Traore M 2013 Choice-making in facilitation of agricultural innovation platforms in different contexts in West Africa: experiences from Benin, Ghana and Mali. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 9: 79-94. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://journal.km4dev.org/index.php/km4dj/article/viewFile/156/257

World Bank 2008 World development report 2008: agriculture for development. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Accessed March 11, 2017, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5990

World Bank 2012 Agricultural innovation systems: an investment sourcebook . World Bank, Washington, D.C. Accessed March 11, 2017, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/335807-1330620492317/9780821386842.pdf

Received 14 March 2017; Accepted 3 August 2017; Published 1 September 2017

Go to top