Tools and methods for analysing value chains - how far have we got in practice?, by Felicity Proctor (UNECA/CTA)

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