Proctor tools and_methods_for_analysing_value_chains_respondent
Download as PPT, PDF0 likes311 views
The document discusses a mapping study on value chain initiatives in ACP regions, highlighting significant donor investment and the application of various tools and methods, yet noting weaknesses in defining beneficiaries and impact assessments. It emphasizes the need for improved coordination, accessibility of methodologies, and enhanced learning at national and regional levels to ensure effective value chain development. Recommendations include updating methodological guides and fostering discussions to help practitioners choose suitable tools for their contexts.
Proctor tools and_methods_for_analysing_value_chains_respondent
- 1. Tools and methods for analysing value chains - how far have we got in practice? Felicity Proctor fjp@proctorconsult.org UNECA/CTA November 6-9, 2012 Session Respondent
- 2. This presentation: • Overview and user demand – reflections from a CTA commissioned study – Felicity Proctor and Valerio Lucchesi (2011) Mapping Study on Value Chain Initiatives in ACP regions. See UNECA-CTA Conference 2012 website http://makingtheconnection.cta.int/resources/mapping-study • Respondent to the session presentations
- 3. Mapping Study on Value Chain Initiatives in ACP regions Methodology and approach – in summary • Literature review including grey • ACP commissioned papers • Key initiatives review (X15 programmes reviewed) • Key informant interviews (X15 – ACP regional) • Electronic survey (65 – all stakeholder types)
- 4. Mapping Study on Value Chain Initiatives in ACP regions – some observations • Significant level of donor programme investment in Value Chain Development (VCD) in ACP regions • Multiple tools and methods applied but few are explicit on the tools and methods used • ‘VC Development paradigm’ - largely development partner and northern institution led • Multiple interventions made within a given ‘value chain development’ initiative but weak articulation of how choices were made
- 5. Chain development interventions – vertical (frequency across portfolio of 15 initiatives, per cent) Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011
- 6. Chain development interventions – horizontal (frequency across portfolio of 15 initiatives, per cent) Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011
- 7. BUT …what happens in practice (review X15 initiatives ACP): observations relevant to MG • Weak definition of the intended ultimate beneficiaries and causal linkages of intervention for poverty reduction and small-scale producer/SME outcomes • ‘Full chain’ versus ‘partial chain’ interventions? - Interventions rarely along entire VC • ‘Supply/market’ chain versus ‘value’ chain? • Institutional setting for VCD weakly articulated • Weak coordination/linkages between multiple (and different donor supported) VCD programmes (and methods used) in given country /commodity • Limited use of/availability of national expertise • Few impact assessment /end of programme reviews including of tool and methods used and of outcome/impact
- 8. Raises questions about • Suitability of and access to VCD tools and methods available • The use/application of such VCD tools and methods • Pre-set development partner /donor ideas on intended intervention type – lack of flexibility to address priority perceived needs/or sequence interventions in an optimal manner • Lack of post programme evidence-based and publically available impact assessments to inform refinement of VCD tools and methods, etc • Inadequate mechanisms and structures for shared understanding and learning at all levels • Inadequate country/regional level VCD skills capacities and of wider leadership
- 9. Perspective of users of MG: Do available resources meet your needs? Number of respondents Proctor and Lucchesi, 2011
- 10. Today's presentations: • An analytical review of eleven Value Chain methodological guides (Donovan et al 20XX in draft- ICRAF/CTA) • Two case examples: ValueLinks and CARE (which is based in the work of CIAT, 2007). Both case examples given are part of the ICRAF/CTA review This ICRAF-led methodological review is a first to try to do a comparative study of this type – thus a useful contribution to work on chain development
- 11. Analytical Review (ICRAF) - reflection • Sample – Methodological guides (MG) what sampling method used? omissions possibly those with strong VC quantitative (costs, value, time) assessments e.g. – Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS)/IFC: Moving Toward Competitiveness: A Value Chain Approach - 2007 – WB: Competitive Commercial Agriculture in SSA - Keyser 2006 – CIRAD/CGPRT: Handbook based on CADIAC - Bourgeois and Herrera 1998 • Intended users and accessibility of information – Provides information on scope/coverage of the 11 MGs . Much useful material reviewed – but currently researcher focussed – Categorised by 8 elements - Difficult to explore the causal linkages in given MG i.e. between development objectives’ (specifically ‘chain-wide development’ cf ‘VCD’) ‘data collection’ and ‘tools used’ – so not comparing like with like or providing easy access for practitioners – Would benefit from also presenting the ICRAFanalysis by each MG
- 12. Analytical Review (ICRAF) - reflection • Setting market and value chain development in wider development context – Need for new thinking on how to place MGs on value and market chain development (tools and methods) in the wider development environment • MGs cannot cover all aspects of interventions to support the development of the market-value chain – Need for new thinking on how MGs can draw down on related good practice e.g. laws/policy for wholesale market reform, grades and standards, contract law, etc • How are MG updated and maintained – With some exceptions e.g. USAID and ValueLinks, there is little upgrading of the materials used on an ongoing basis
- 13. MGs in general - some final thoughts • Enhance documentation and shared learning on VC methods and tools – We don’t know - what is used and by whom and when in practice and how well a given MG work and what has not worked – evidence based • Enhance ease of access to content of MG for users in local context – No one tool or method is optimal – but more effort needed to make valid comparisons – Make tools and methods more accessible • Increase debate and capacity at national and regional levels to select tools and methods fit for local context – Avoid multiplicity of different MGs used in local context by different donors and their consultants – Enable national practitioners to select and use the best tools and methods which work in their context (also called for in the ACP study)
- 14. Thank you Felicity Proctor fjp@proctorconsult.org
Editor's Notes
- #8: ICKM tools are traditional e.g. workshops
- #9: ICKM tools are traditional e.g. workshops
- #12: Value chain approaches are not a ‘silver bullet’ As a methodological tool, it is highly eclectic with a diverse application that is far from standardised It is an experience-based approach for problem solving, and learning and continues to need adaptation in order to become a tool to generate interventions
- #13: Regional Co-ordination Centre for Research and Development of Coarse Grains, Pulses, Roots and Tuber Crops in Asia and the Pacific. Coarse grains, pulses, roots and tuber crops (CGPRT crops)