Access to knowledge can make change a reality |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Policy advice and planning frameworks to help strengthen pro-poor institutional learning and change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New knowledge is shedding light on how pro-poor institutional learning and change occur, and how to encourage and promote them. It includes syntheses of principles and procedures as well as lessons that can be useful to a range of actors. These insights are part of a pro-poor innovation framework that can be used to guide the application of knowledge, technology and information for pro-poor economic and productive impact. Numerous organisations are using the framework to guide policy making for change in norms, habits and practices, including the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, International Livestock Research Institute, Institute of Rural Management (India), as well as several civil society organizations. Project Ref: CPH13:
Research Programmes: Crop Post Harvest Research Programme Relevant Research Projects: R 8310- Institutional Learning and change- A capacity development approach to exploring and strengthening post-harvest innovation systems in South Asia
R8500- Institutions for Poverty Reduction-understanding and enabling institutional changes that promoted pro-poor post-harvest innovation
Problem- An earlier study on crop post harvest innovation (R7502) revealed how institutions (rules, norms, habits and practices that govern relationships and influence outcomes in different organisations), constrain (and facilitate) development of partnerships. Partnership among the different actors within an innovation system is essential for rural innovation and this would necessitate developing new ways of working. Institutional learning and change (ILAC)- the process that can enhance learning at the level of the individual, the organisation or the system and allows development of new ways of working is the way forward for building an effective innovation system.
Addressing these institutions is especially important for the poor who have restricted access to knowledge and information products and limited capacity to participate in the governance mechanisms of innovation systems. Evolution of the required diversity of approaches and trajectories necessary to support the poor (diversity of aspirations and opportunities that the poor can realise), would necessitate formation of appropriate coalitions of partners and institutional learning and change among the different actors and in their relationships. Little was known on how pro-poor institutional changes happen and how to encourage and promote pro-poor institutional learning and change. The projects (R8310 and R8500) used an innovation systems framework to unravel these issues and were implemented to generate policy relevant knowledge on how to promote pro-poor institutional learning and change. Output- The major output of the projects (R 8310 and R8500) was policy advice on how to promote pro-poor institutional learning and change. This output was generated through synthesis of lessons (principles and procedures) on institutional changes that bring about pro-poor post-harvest innovation and experimenting with ways of promoting these lessons with a range of other actors.
Our focus has been on the post-harvest sector, but the policy relevant insights on enabling pro-poor institutional learning and change could be applied in other sectors and commodities.
The policy advice on enabling pro-poor institutional learning and change have been widely promoted through publications, participation in policy consultations, conferences, meetings, facilitated capacity development programmes and capacity development workshops. However, considering the large number of stakeholders and their huge institutional inertia more efforts are needed to promote these lessons widely. This would include: a. exploring other rural sectors that the poor are engaged in with special emphasis on pro-poor institutional changes b. organising advisory and promotion groups to advise the project and act as conduits for promoting the findings more widely c. organising capacity development workshops to facilitate adoption of a systems approach to innovation and promoting lessons on pro-poor innovation more widely d. organising action research studies and using it as a platform to build relevant coalition of partners and bring about learning based (system-wide) institutional changes e. forming learning alliances with rural financial agencies to understand issues related to financing for rural innovation and promote uptake of "innovation systems" principles in rural financing f. networking with other policy and research actors in different regions to explore similar issues in various rural sectors, learn lessons and facilitate change. The project team has been exploring some of these issues by undertaking case studies on some of the RNRRS projects and this include: R-8266 Integrating markets, products and partners: linking tribal communities to markets through value addition; R-8262 Developing a coalition approach to non-timber forest products for better livelihoods of tribal communities of MP; and R-8267 Exploring market opportunities through a research, industry and users coalition: sorghum poultry feed. The project team has been also involved with two non-RNRRS projects led by UNU-MERIT. The first project, (DFID Funded project- Promoting Pro-poor rural innovation: lessons from civil society) allowed us to draw new insights on a. pro-poor innovation in civil society organisations (CSOs); and b. using a Rural Innovation Policy Working Group (RIPWiG) to advise and promote the work. The second project (World Bank funded project on Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: Tools and Options for Strengthening Agricultural Innovation System Capacity) allowed us to explore the nature of innovation systems in 8 sectors from 4 select countries How the outputs were validated: The output was validated in two ways. Firstly, the research team in India has been involved with 3 CPHP projects: a. R-7502(1999-2003); b. R-8310 (2003-2004); and c. R-8500 (2004-2005). Each project was based on the outputs of the previous project and added value to it. Each project was thereby validating the outputs from the previous project. The Andrew Barnett review report on "Lessons from the DFID's Crop Post Harvest Research Programme- Partnerships for Innovation" at several places has quoted the methodological and process related insights that were developed from these l projects (Source: Journeying from Research to Innovation, CPHP, March 2006).The other form of validation has been that the organisations needed to use our policy advice have indeed tried it out in their own organisations. The specific cases include:
Where the Outputs were Validated: Our target group has been the policy makers, innovation policy analysts, R & D managers in agricultural and other rural enterprise/industrial development organizations, civil society organizations, besides a range of actors interested in promoting pro-poor rural innovation. Who are the Users? The outputs from these projects are being currently used by the following organisations. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)- The National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) implemented by ICAR is using the concepts and approaches developed by the projects in planning and implementing NAIP. Bringing about institutional reforms in the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) is the overarching goal of NAIP. NAIP is currently setting up several "consortiums" comprising research and non-research actors to address issues related to agricultural research and development (http://www.naip.icar.org.in/) This project is heavily influenced by the lessons on institutional learning and change synthesised by the project team. This includes insights on forming and managing coalitions, learning lessons from collation approach and using these to guide institutional change. International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Two members of the project team are lead authors of the IAASTD assessment team constituted for the ESAP (East and South Asia and Pacific) region. IAASTD-ESAP is currently using the insights developed from these projects on Institutional change and innovation systems in their assessment exercise (http://www.agassessment.org/). The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is using the methodology and analytical framework developed from these studies in the new project "Enhancing livelihoods of livestock dependant poor people through increasing use of fodder: India and Nigeria" (Fodder innovation project- Phase II(2006-2011) Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), Anand (India) is currently using the knowledge generated from these projects in designing a course on Rural Innovation for the post-graduate programme in rural management. Apart from these, civil society organisations like Technology Informatics Design Endeavour (TIDE), Bangalore, the Centre for Technology Development (CTD), New Delhi, Centre for Community Development (CCD) Gajapati district Orissa, are using the insights on pro-poor institutional change and rural innovation in several of their new projects. Scale of Current Use: The scale of current use is modest. Our outputs are related to policy insights on institutional change (change in norms, habits and practices in organisations). These changes require facilitation and relatively longer time frame to be adopted. Our publications, especially journal articles and policy briefs were helpful in sensitising the policy and academic community fairly fast. Facilitated Institutional Learning and Change efforts and the two capacity development workshops we organised (2004 and 2005) allowed us to sensitise other stakeholders (agricultural scientists, R & D managers in Universities and research institutes and civil society organisations) on the possibilities of applying new frameworks such as innovation systems and ways of bringing in pro-poor institutional changes. There is every reason to believe that the usage is spreading, though at a slow pace. There is an increasing demand on the project team for collaboration in research projects, policy consultations, capacity development programmes and curricula development activities. We are selectively responding to them based on availability of funding, personnel, and our own commitments. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: Promotion of outputs has been facilitated by some of the following programmes, platforms, policy and institutional structures.
Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: In India, currently promotion is taking place through the research team's (Andy Hall, Guru Naik, Norman Clark, D. Raghunandan, Rajeswari Raina and Rasheed Sulaiman V) participation in new research projects; Rural Innovation Policy Working Group (RIPWiG); working groups and task forces constituted by the Government of India, capacity development programmes, curricula development initiatives and workshops and conferences. The organisations to which the teams currently belong namely, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht; CPR, New Delhi; CRISP, Hyderabad; CTD, New Delhi and ACTS, Nairobi are also promoting the outputs from the projects in several ways. In other regions in South Asia, currently we are using the publications (journal articles, policy briefs) to promote the outputs. IAASTD for ESAP Region has provided a window of opportunity to promote the work in the region. We plan to promote some of these outputs through LINK (UNU-MERIT's new initiative) and its recently initiated regional hubs in South Asia and East Africa. Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: Bringing about institutional changes is very difficult and the process needs to be facilitated. The linear approach to knowledge development (Research) and promotion (Extension/Technology Dissemination), continues to hold sway in most of the public sector. Systems perspectives to innovation have started to penetrate these barriers through special programmes or projects, policy consultations, etc.. Several institutional innovations are being tried in these kind of special projects, but very few people are able to understand the importance of learning lessons from them. Moreover, very few people have skills at unravelling the process and learning lessons so that these could guide institutional reforms. Institutional change among several actors needs to be facilitated as part of action research projects, specially designed learning alliances etc.. Very few in the policy circles realise the importance of knowledge about habits and practices and the experimental nature of reform process and the need for learning lessons from them. Rural innovation policy studies are not considered as an important area of research by most of the social sciences, mainly because of rigid disciplinary definitions and habits and practices within social sciences. Capacity to understand, appreciate and implement a systems approach to innovation and institutional change continues to remain an important barrier. How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs:
Lessons Learned: The outputs from the projects are related to policy and institutional change. These have no direct poverty relevance. The outputs are basically intended for use by a wide range of policy, research, and development actors in the public, private and NGO sector, and are meant to change their ways of working or institutional arrangements to work in pro-poor manner. The poor can gain significantly if national programmes and donors (DFID, World Bank, etc) understand and implement this policy advice. Action research, workshops, capacity development programmes, and policy advocacy for institutional learning and change are the best ways to promote use of these policy relevant outputs by these actors. Poverty Impact Studies: Impact on policy and institutional changes are difficult to estimate due to several methodological difficulties. As mentioned earlier, the output of this research was not expected to have a direct or immediate impact on the poor. Moreover, we believe that understanding and facilitating learning (institutional learning) is more important in this case than assessing impact on poverty. Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: Not estimated so far. Adverse Environmental Impacts: None. Adoption of pro-poor habits and practices in organizations working with the marginal/poor populations and ecosystems like semi-arid regions or tribal tracts will only add to the environmental management skills of the poor. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: Policy insights on promoting institutional learning and change strategies within the innovation system, once widely implemented, would promote pro-poor innovation which would increase the capacity of the actors including the poor to cope with/manage/effectively respond to different kinds of shocks, like changes in global prices, avian flu or other epidemics, climate change etc. As an indirect or enabling outcome of the projects, the capacity of the poor to cope with emerging stress/other risks better will improve with new habits and practices, improved knowledge flows and interactions among coalitions of policy, R&D, finance and other service actors along with the poor. Continuous learning as part of rural innovation coalitions will considerably reduce the response time and improve the nature of response of these innovation coalitions to new problems and risks. Basically the move from ad hoc responses to rigorous systems perspectives based analysis of contexts and responses will improve the resilience of entire systems (natural, physical and social capital) and strengthen the most vulnerable in these systems. Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information Geographical regions included: India,  Target Audiences for this content:Crop farmers, Livestock farmers, Fishers, Forest-dependent poor, Processors, Traders, |
