engagement platforms for food and water security: lessons learned

Engagement Platforms for Food and Water Security: Lessons Learned

Olufunke Cofie

CPWF SessionAASW, 16 July 2013

Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta

Presentation Outline

1. What is Engagement Platforms

2. Why engagement platforms

3. Typology of engagement platforms

4. Lessons from CPWF African Basins

2


Engagement Platform

An opportunity for individuals from different organizations to come together to diagnose problems,

identify opportunities and implement solutions on issues of common interest:

• as individuals• in small groups• or as a platform


Diversity of Engagement platforms in CPWF Basins

Purpose / Scope Scale•Input into policy making process•Participatory action research•Collective action and decision making for resource management•Local economic development through value chain development•Empowerment•Combination of issues

• Local• District• National• Basin• Regional• Multi-level

ProcessUse of many different methods

Typology forms the basis for the selection of engagement tools for maximum participation and impact

Participants• Policy makers• Civil society• NGOs and CBOs• Farming communities• Research and Educational Insts.


Common Underlying Principles


Generally Involve…

Communication

Trust


Why Engagement

Complex problems in water and food management

Multiple actors are implicated

Need for integrated solutions that are aligned to stakeholders needs

Thereby enhancing ownership of research result and use to improve livelihoods


Major Lessons-1

Successful engagement platforms are:

• Self-reliant

• Demand driven

• Evolve over time

• Embrace multiple perspectives

8


Major Lessons-2: Engagement platforms are useful for dealing with complex problems that require people to work together

Volta: answering a question collectivelyUsing conceptual models and role playing game

Collective identification of actors, resources and their dynamics through multi-level consultation

Collective identification of socio-ecological dynamics

Biophysical model


Major Lessons-3

• Build on existing relationships and networks rather than set up new platforms and systems.

• Example: use of platforms of GWP, VBA, LIMCOM, WATERNET

Make informal links to relevant people and organisations.


Major Lessons-4

• Engagement platforms are not neutral mechanisms.

• They aim to promote change so they are adaptive in nature.


NBDC Learning Alliance

Other Districts

Local level

Regional

National

Sites within district

Other sites within district

Learning

Scaling out

Major Lessons 5: Establishing a set of connected engagement platforms horizontally and vertically stimulates better integration and chances for scaling up processes and impact.


Example Dialogue for water resources governance in the Volta

Promoting multi-level interactions for IWRM at the

watershed level

Participatory support for IWRM implementation

Local actors are aware of broader issues, policies and strategies

National decision makers consider local points of view and perceptions

Major Lessons 6:Platforms can empower local actors to influence government Policy


Major Lessons-7• Markets provide clear incentives for investments in

production. • Examples: IP for value chain development in the

Volta and Limpopo Basins


Conclusions

– Need to understanding appropriate engagement processes in each context- no blue print

– Quality of participation is very important– Integration of multiple scale/sectors:

• Resources required• Skills

– Flexibility, alignment – Leadership versus Facilitation– Ownership and sustainability, facilitating uptake beyond

research project life spans: the institutionalization of sound research findings


Thanks for your attention

engagement platforms for food and water security: lessons learned

Technology

engagement

platforms

volta

individuals

set