Innovation is the successful introduction of new knowledge and technology in social and productive processes. Conventional approaches to fostering innovation in agriculture and the food industry in developing countries have often emphasized the transfer of technology and knowledge from researchers to extensionists and then to producers. However, the recognition that there are also other agents, such as neighboring producers, family members, agricultural input providers, buyers, local governments, development projects and many other agents contributing to the same process of developing and using an innovation has recently opened up a new set of opportunities for development interventions. For example partnerships in which a wider set of agents exchange information about important properties of the innovation, contribute to the generation and diffusion of new knowledge and technologies, and jointly participate in processes of collective learning have sprung up in many developing countries and are supported by governments and development agencies.
This report analyzes partnerships among small farmers and other agents aiming at innovation in Bolivia's agricultural and food sector. 16 partnerships were studied within three subsectors - highland cereals, leguminous crops, and fish culture - with regard to a) the political and institutional context in which they emerged, b) the way they function distribute benefits among the partners and generate synergy in learning and technology development, c) their performance with regard to the relation between costs and benefits, and d) their evolution over time. The information was gathered through structured interviews with representatives of the partners and promoting agencies involved in each of the partnerships. This information was complemented through individual and group visits to 60 producers and/or representatives of producer organizations.
Study findings show that partnerships are a recent phenomenon in Bolivia. They occur across all agro-ecological zones in Bolivia and involve producer organization, development agencies and NGOs, government and parastatal funding bodies as well as public and private knowledge and technology providers including universities, semi-private research centers and producer associations. With the exception of three partnership cases all of the partnerships studied were funded by the government or international donors, in addition to some minor inputs from producers, knowledge providers and buyers. Among those partners that were supposed to obtain mayor benefits from the partnership, the small producers, average contribution was less than 1% of its total value. Innovation partnerships occur in basic food staple subsectors where they deal particularly with improved varieties as well as in cash crop subsectors, such as highland cereals (quinoa) for export or fish culture production, where they deal with issues of reducing production costs, food quality, processing and marketing.
The political and institutional context for the creation of innovation partnerships in Bolivia's agri-food sector is not very conducive for at least four reasons: the limited confidence and interest of producers and other agents to collaborate; the lack of opportunities to meet with other actors and plan and initiate collaborations; the prevalence of funding mechanisms that do not encourage the building of partnerships; and administrative hurdles in the Bolivian Agricultural Technology System (SIBTA), the country's most important mechanism for the promotion of agricultural innovation. In general, partners comprehend the benefits of collaboration with respect to accessing markets and projects, but less with respect to the positive effects of joint. Partners start contacts mostly on the basis of prior relationships; this is particularly the case for the relationship between producers and private extension agents. In a few cases, contacts were established in program fora that brought together agents from territories and agricultural value chains. Most partnerships create on the basis of subsidies and funding opportunities from governments and development agencies. Without these subsidies partners normally consider the risk of the activity too high. A good part of the partnerships were formed in response to SIBTA-sponsored projects. However, SIBTA does not provide enough room to develop closer collaborations which allow processes of joint learning.
With regard to the functioning of partnerships the results reveal that partnerships often do not make more off their potential because key partners lack a clear understanding of their roles and duties. Partnership performance is limited where partners assume passive recipient-like roles. However, a better understanding of roles occurs in those partnerships where partners have worked together in the past. Some participating individuals or organizations, particularly the knowledge and technology providers, granted excellent leadership based on their good reputation, their capacities and their vision. In partnerships without such leadership partners are unlikely to organize initial activities. Some funding agencies have taken an active role in promoting the partnership with the effect of substantial improvements in its functioning. With some exceptions, partnerships in Bolivia have a lean organizational structure, based on project operation plans set forth in respective project proposals. For partnerships that develop towards more diverse and complex operations a less consensus-based and time consuming administration is usually more appropriate. The flow of information in the partnerships studied varies among partners. There is a clear correlation between better information flow and performance. However, some partnerships seem to be troubled by getting information out to all of the partners. For example, occasionally producers receive only the information that the knowledge and technology provider considers necessary for adoption of the technology. Normally information on market and sales is better disseminated than technological information. Despite all the efforts, in most partnership cases information sharing has not reached the level to create a culture of joint learning supporting the generation of innovations.
Problems in the functioning of the partnerships also affect their performance. The study did not collect quantitative information on the performance of the partnership and the outcomes and impacts resulting from the use of innovations developed by partnerships. However, it did provide qualitative results regarding the advantages that the collaboration produced for each partner. Any collaboration provides partners with the opportunity to acquire new capacities and skills with regard to production, processing and marketing—whether through learning from partners or through learning together with partners. If partners actually benefit from this opportunity depends on the way the partnership provides for active and fluid communication, space for reflection on potential solutions among the partners, discussion and joint experimentation. The 16 partnerships studied in this study fall short with regard to this aspect because they remained in the initial phase. Partners' commitments were limited, and this in turn lowered the partnership's performance. In a few cases it was observed that the partnership developed over time and partners learned about the benefits of their commitment in it.
There were few efforts towards a positive evolution of the partnership and adjustment to changing technological, institutional and market conditions. Several of the partnerships have limited capacities continue without subsidies from third parties. Partnerships in areas and product lines where the business is solid and enables the partners to generate profits and partnerships that count with more substantial investment from the side of the private sector tend to have more chances of continuation once third-party funding (of the project) concludes. However, the majority of the partners lacks a business vision and remains in partnerships to assure current subsidies and other potential rents from the relationships with donors and technology providers in the future. Keeping a "project" philosophy, partners rather follow the plan and often fail to visualize opportunities arising in reaction to changing conditions in markets and technological knowledge.
In conclusion, the deficiencies identified in partnership building and orientation hampers the development and diffusion of innovations in Bolivia's agri-food sector. The study identified a majority of partnerships that have failed to evolve away from the first stages of setting up collaboration. Most of them do not generate enough profit for some of the partners to justify their involvement. In the current development context where much rhetoric attention is given to partnering, there exists a tendency towards the creation of inadequate partnerships in which some partners fail to provide minimum inputs and therefore have little motivation towards commitment and the generation of benefits for everyone. Development agencies and governments still promote a project mode where there is providers and recipients of knowledge and technology which is not conducive to the development of real multi-stakeholder partnerships in agri-food innovation that take advantage of the potential that lies in sharing resources and learning together.
On the basis of the analysis the study also comes up with a number of recommendations that would help those decision makers that involve in partnerships in agricultural innovations (representatives of producer organizations, extension agencies and private companies) as well as those who promote them (government and development agencies, fund managers):
- Partnering is not always an option. Those who involve in partnerships and those who promote them should make sure that the minimum conditions for innovation partnerships are met: Partnerships must produce
- Synergy from bringing knowledge and resources together and enabling learning and problem solving as well as they need to provide proportional benefits to the partners. In particular each partner must see that the benefits exceed the costs of their involvement. If these conditions are not in place can be found out only by an in-depth analysis of technological opportunities and the demands and interests of all partners.
- Representatives of partnering organizations should make sure that their organizations don't enter partnerships without a profound analysis of the demands and interests of all the partners and the existing technological opportunities of the innovation and the market potential. Organizations which seek to promote the formation of partnerships can support the conduct of such analyses as well as they can strengthen the analytical capacities of the partners.
- Projects and programs promoting innovation in the agri-food sector can benefit from incorporating the partnership approach, since innovation is not created by isolated actors but through collaboration among many actors in an innovation network. The partners should learn that the exchange of information and knowledge and the search for solutions to common problems among all partners is a crucial requisite for the success of the partnerships and their own benefit. Many meetings, discussions and practical exercises where all partners contribute their experiences and knowledge need to be organized by the partnership leaders.
- Partnerships require an organizational structure that reflects the participation of multiple actors; a project setup based on a service provision contract is not enough. Initially the organization needs to be simple and without hierarchies allowing open participation of all partners. With the maturation of the partnership and the involvement in more and more complex activities comes the delegation and subordination of tasks.
- Programs and funding mechanisms should broaden their approach to accommodate projects that operate in a partnerships mode enabling the inclusion of more partners with complementary capacities. They should also allow for flexible re-orientation of operating plans and the inclusion of new partners during the project cycle. During the life of the projects, options should be sought to guarantee continued collaboration among the partners after outside financing ends.
- Partnership projects benefit from a financial and organizational support during the initial phases of. They also require the establishment of more complex contractual relations beyond the project mode, with mechanisms capable of managing the diverse interests and levels of co-financing- not only to meet co-financing goals, but also to obtain producers' commitment.
- Governments and developing agencies may also envisage supporting platforms which allow potential partners in agricultural value chains and specific regions to meet, plan and initiate the formation of partnerships. During such meetings emphasis should be put on the analysis of partners' needs and interests as well as technological and market opportunities. Moreover, when actors find promising possibilities of collaboration and feel sufficiently committed, third-party financing is not required. In other cases seed funding is needed for actors to begin taking the first steps in the collaboration.
- There are still not sufficient agencies that provide technical support on the promotion of innovation through partnership building. It would be advantageous to create capacities that would allow specialized agents to identify potential partners, conduct feasibility studies based on technological demands and market conditions, and accompany the building and evaluation of partnerships.