|
Bich Ngoc, Anders Hjort-af-Ornas, Nashon Musimba and Moses Nyangito
26.2.08
In a joint Kenya – Sweden – Vietnam project we have worked with pace setting agri-SMEs to address the entrepreneurial spirit among the Poor. We have learnt and concluded together with successful entrepreneurs. Our joint goal has been to form a think-tank with potential agri-SMEs among the Poor: What to do, and what not to do to gain sustainability. The idea has been to turn attention towards improving life not only for them but also for their home area as spin-off. We have tested this interaction between success and potential, aiming to enhance market access and build networks for future up-scaling the learning approach. In particular, this has mobilized women entrepreneurs, CBOs, and cooperatives to build their capacity both to produce and reach markets for their services.
In order to concentrate on these issues we have combined an inventory of success factors with applying them for four cases with hand-picked pace setters. We have selected a stakeholder approach to monitor the combined efforts of these four and the project. The project initiative has provoked a community initiative to get out of poverty. In order to reinforce an interactive process, an extension by means of Training of Trainers in production and skills deepening has been implemented.
A notion, “pace setter”, has been used to indicate the ambition to interact with those agri-SMEs who have proven to set a positive example locally through their constructive operation. And those we seek among the strata of the Poor are accordingly the “Entrepreneurial Poor”—likeminded persons but without the physical resources to start up business.
In parallel studies in Kenya and Vietnam, as earlier also in Sweden, universal features, clusters of issues, appear. This is background only for the present article aimed to specify approach. At present we deal with the key factors that need to be overcome. This means both identifying them and dealing with them in real situations.
Some issues stand out from the success cases. One is to enhance production (environmental conservation and protection, credit access and skills deepening). This comes with handling/storage (product quality and safety, and new technology input into a traditional one), and processing (product diversity, value addition by combining traditional and conventional technology), packaging and credit access. All efforts become geared towards marketing; niche market identification and selection, networking, logistics and access.
The design has aimed to involve stakeholders not only in data collection but also in setting the research focus. Therefore, a small number of indicators has been developed jointly through running an interactive process. This process began from overview studies locating key issues, and continued into key success factors according to the Pace Setters (success cases). These issues were tested in order to facilitate advice from experience to poor entrepreneurs. The recommended issues from the Pace Setters and the needs identified by the Entrepreneurial Poor have been matched to single out the indicators presented below.
Four case studies were selected, two from each country. For the research side of the project these indicators have shaped a platform specified by businessmen, government and administrators. Results have been fed back to initial stakeholders by reporting on the results of the initiative. This has included giving policy recommendations at the end of the project.
The issues and their indicators
The broad context is an interest in safe and hygienic food products in both countries, markets developing in pace with urbanization, poverty eradication and the millennium goal give rise to awareness and international commitments, WTO process. The more specific national context is shown by the governments’ support to the agri-SME sector, their goals for economic growth, and political interest in the issue (safe food, poverty reduction, environment protection, sustainable natural resources use). The two governments have similar priorities in decentralization policy, targeting geographically vulnerable locations, and priorities infrastructure and management of the explosive urbanization process. This implies for the project to link up: A quickly growing awareness, beginning in urban populations, about the connection between food and good health, and so there is a public debate that has become substantial during the project period.
This contextual message has been taken to all four case studies. They are varied with respect to production organization (Women’s Union and cooperative in Vietnam, enterprise and CBO in Kenya). All concern how to support existing structures, how the initiatives relate to the local community, how institutional support is mobilized, and indirect effects in terms of awareness (for future out-scaling).
The four sub-projects are thus selected from situations already filled with dynamics. The project has had the opportunity to enter and catalyze a process towards how poverty struck entrepreneurs still can reach the market on a small scale but in a strategic way, offering the means to crawl out of a poverty trap.
Partnership matrix and measuring success
The project is stakeholder driven. It is aimed to improve sustainability. Outcome in the form of impact areas for the project have fallen in four key fields:
- Participation: Functional involvement of stakeholders and collective project management (with 3 sub-indicators)
- Knowledge Management: Sharing, learning and exchange (with 3 sub-indicators)
- Capacity building: Improving research and research management capacity (with 3 sub-indicators)
- Institutionalization: Mainstreaming innovative partnership arrangements (with 4 sub-indicators).
Focusing on these four areas during project implementation is the result of stakeholders’ involvement. Successful Pace Setters, local and national governments, local NGOs, and researchers have jointly contributed to establish a consensus focus of the research process. This section provides selected key issues for each project area. Their empirical context is summarized in boxes. Their reliability when transformed into indicators is addressed in tables showing consistency.
The intention with the set of indicators is to measure change capacity to impact on sustainable development. Each of the 13 sub-indicators therefore has a value; either a quantitative and measurable or one qualitative expressing the significance of the particular indicator. The combined score expresses success potential in each case. For the POPSe project, the base for the current study, there will be four cases to evaluate (safe vegetables, fish sauce, camel milk, and honey production).
Participation: Functional involvement of stakeholders and collective project management
The indicators used to specify and evaluate participation are three (numbering refers to the full account in the final report, due August 2008):
1.1 Number and type of stakeholders involved
1.2 Actual role of stakeholders in project implementation
1.3 Project governance structure.
Their empirical features and the issues raised through them are given below. The empirical features They have been specified into detail in the following ways.
1.1 The active organizations
This sub-indicator aims at the organizational strength of the project.
|
The organizing institutions are for Vietnam the Centre for Rural Economic Development Research, Union for New Technology Applying Research (UNTAR), for Kenya the University of Nairobi, Department of Range Management in cooperation with the Institute of Dry land studies (IDRDU), and for Sweden the Department of Water and Environmental Studies at Linkoping University. Other stakeholders are for Vietnam the
Women’s Union in Hue province (Women entrepreneurs in food processing) – Vietnam, the Fish sauce women group, Hue, the Van Noi Safe Vegetable Production Cooperative, a number of government departments (Hanoi DARD, Plant Protection Institute), mobilized, local authorities, researchers, policy makers, and administrators. To all these come interactions with other programs: Markets for the poor, UNIDO, Hue agricultural university, SIYB of VCCI, Vietnam Cooperative Alliance. Stakeholders in Kenya have been CBOS/ self-hep women groups (eight in Kajiado and 16 in Kibwezi), NGOs (heifer International ; KREB – bank; Masaai Rural Training Institute), government departments (Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Local Authorities: Kajiado County Council-Kibwezi County Council). Among other Institutions are ALRMP, KARI. |
All the stakeholders in the above box have involved in defining the project’s research agenda. This has brought about some specific features, as shown in the following table.
Indicator consistency assessment table
|
Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
An active stakeholder participation approach is immediately feasible thanks to already ongoing activities |
The project disturbs government management priorities |
Motive of the stakeholders to join |
Synergy between different initiatives is attractive; the current project was considered to have a small budget but good ideas |
Farmers loose time in the field by involving in decision-making |
|
Lead partners in the project are open for recruitment through interaction |
Researchers don’t get proper resources since the project is not conventional intra-sector |
|
Those directly affected by the project can also involve in decision-making |
The fact that a stakeholder may join with destructive intentions creates vulnerability |
|
Those in support, coming from outside the project, can back up |
A stakeholder with preconceived ideas may stick to her /his point rather than involve in an interactive process |
|
Researchers learn more about local knowledge |
|
|
Government takes the opportunity to get closer to people through the project |
|
|
Group and community get benefits from “learning by doing” |
|
|
1.2 The role of stakeholders in project implementation
This sub-indicator aims at accounting for how involved stakeholders have been.
| Last indicator highlights the stakeholders; who they are. It is followed by one that addresses the role of stakeholders. For Vietnam the lead proponent (UNTAR) and the Hue Province Women Union and Safe Vegetables Cooperative have collaborated have collaborated with the researchers to manage the project effectively. They have participated in a transparent recruitment of local staff carrying out field survey, data collection, workshops, training. They have also participated in coordination meetings with steering groups, and in the workshops and local meetings. Some constraints have emerged, such as shortage of funds for possible complementary activities, and for improvements. Available services from existing offices have been drawn on to balance this. It means that project implementation has taken place by drawing on the resources of existing networks. Government departments provide technical support. In the Kenyan case the University and IDRDU have been the principal implementers of the project. They have contributed to the financial management, planning and execution of project activities. The roles of CBOs and self-help groups have been as recipients of project packages (training and equipment). They have been directly involved in production and value addition of promoted project interventions. This includes marketing the targeted products. NGOs (heifer International, KREB, and Masaai Rural) have been involved in sharing of experiences and inputs to training program. Government Departments have involved in mobilization of project recipients and sensitization on importance of training and SME development. Institutes (KARI and KEFRI) and national programs (notably ALRMP) have shared expertise on value addition and marketing. ALRMP is a partner to upscale to project in next phase. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
People experience that consensus building makes sense |
Conflict of interests may not be easily resolved |
A stakeholder may have several loyalties |
Concentration on key issues means a focus that has been hard to keep up before |
Limited capacity of the project to follow up stakeholders’ initiatives |
|
Efficiency in management |
Shortage of proper resources for capacity building |
|
Conflict of interests come out in the open and can be dealt with (maybe not with consensus) |
|
|
Direct influence on research agenda makes active involvement meaningful for stakeholders |
|
|
Responsibility has to be taken by all |
|
|
The interaction process also becomes learning |
|
|
In particular capacity building comes through interaction, rather than by design |
|
|
Spin-offs outside the project are identified through interaction |
|
|
1.3 Project governance structure
This sub-indicator aims at documenting how the project has succeeded to draw on the stakeholder involvement.
| Governance and decision-making in the project reflects how committed stakeholders may be. In Vietnam this includes project staff, who has modified research orientation by research community, policy makers and administrators (national workshops and planning interaction at local meetings), Interaction has taken place across scale from local community to national level and cross-country Vietnam/Kenya. The interaction has concerned success stories. Assessment have been made, along with providing feedback and modifications towards consensus building in partnerships with communities to identify issues for final analysis. In Kenya the Project staff from University and IDRDU, the Lead Institutions, have set up interaction process. Community resource persons among the CBOs have provided uptake of project interventions. Government departments/NGOs/Institutes have all interacted to provide project backstopping. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Mutual understanding of issues |
A project structure may conflict with host structures (focus, time, activity level, mandate) |
The reaction in other structures |
Networking |
|
The chemistry between governance proponents (leadership). |
Support if given from government departments Governance structure gives legitimacy |
|
|
Legitimacy and influence in terms of government policy change |
|
|
Recognition by the university |
|
|
Knowledge Management: Sharing, learning and exchange
The second main indicator consists of Knowledge Management: Sharing, learning and exchange. It is also divided into three sub-indicators:
2.1 Frequency of inter-stakeholder interaction (email, telephone, face-to-face meetings)
2.2 Implementation arrangements modified/improved as a result of lessons learned from inter-stakeholder interactions identified above
2.3 Creation of an active network (e.g. local organizations, group of researchers, organizations) involved in the project.
These indicators have features as follows:
2.1 Frequency of inter-stakeholder interaction (email, telephone, face-to-face meetings)
This sub-indicator aims at measuring degrees of interaction.
| The number of contacts between stakeholders is a hands-on measurement, telling if it has been properly documented. In Vietnam, the project staff of the lead institution have been involved almost daily face-to-face meetings. Their relations to the two lead case study partners have been frequent face-to-face, and over telephone at least monthly. There have been occasional meetings with key institutional representatives. Interaction with the Kenyan part of the project have comprised two component meetings in Kenya in design and implementation phases respectively, email interaction on monthly basis (more often with reporting and Activity design), and one site visit from Kenyan key staff to Van Noi. The lead institutions in Kenya (University/IDRDU) have had weekly meetings for planning purposes. They have had two meetings per site per month (Kajiado and Kibwezi) with CBOs resource persons, and monthly meetings with government Departments/Institutes/ Programs. The interaction with NGOs has taken place every second month, during training/demonstration sessions. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Unconditional meetings with the farmers |
High costs and long distance discourages face-to-face interaction |
|
Work as friends with the farmers |
Differences in socio-cultural and environment circumstances |
|
Interaction encouraging for up-taking of credit, education, training |
Ambiguous issues may be gossiping or coming with closed minds already |
|
On the part of the scientist the face-to-face interaction increasing through |
Targeting a specific interest |
|
Increased interaction for better solutions |
|
|
2.2 Implementation arrangements modified/improved as a result of lessons learned from inter-stakeholder interactions identified above
This sub-indicator aims at understanding how capacity and lessons learnt are transferred through networks.
| The indicator for implementation arrangements picks up the capacity to learn from interaction for already intended implementation. Community groups in Vietnam identify their needs at local meetings and agree with the research teams about priority activities on the basis of consensus-building. From inter-stakeholder interactions and lessons learnt in Kenya, the component was modified to give first priority attention to capacity building for production and product development for the market. After that has followed linking the entrepreneurs to markets was emphasized. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
A major opportunity to address the real needs of farmers |
Danger that a top-down approach introduces a hidden agenda |
The “negative” items might, rather than being considered negative, be classified as unknown aspects |
Efficiency and delivery of project outputs are enhanced |
Loss of time because of loss of tedious involvement in implementation |
|
Stakeholder approach opened the opportunities for stakeholders to identify and express views |
Ambiguous issues may be gossiping or coming with closed minds already |
|
Farmers get basic knowledge on their production environment before seeking markets |
Targeting a specific interest |
|
2.3 Creation of an active network (e.g. local organizations, group of researchers, organizations) involved in the project
This sub-indicator aims at accounting for the strength in involved networks.
| Project dynamics are reflected in ways in which networks have evolved. This is central in the second project phase; when experience and design shall be out-scaled. From the Vietnamese horizon the network between Vietnam and Kenya deepened during the project period. Active network with government institutions has been built on technical and finance support to organic vegetable production. The Women Union support to fish sauce production (loans and administration) has brought wholesale networks to hotels, supermarkets and local markets into the project. Project trials at local level have generated much interest so that networks developed, especially to learn from product quality and reaching the markets. The active networks in Kenya were created between CBOs, NGOs, Government departments and institutes. They also lead to inter-CBOs networks for marketing of their products. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Access to project findings make involvement very attractive for the active stakeholder |
An active network can become exclusive |
Passiveness in network building |
Committed farmers move on with the project; if quick gains are not forthcoming this can mean sympathetic farmers withdraw |
Relations between researchers and government can become tense |
|
Last comment also applies to researchers |
Friend-enemy principle applies |
|
Research networking is useful for knowledge exchange |
|
|
Testing ideas and getting feedback should be a special opportunity |
|
|
Knowledge exchange provides opportunities to open new markets |
|
|
With a network connection the individual becomes assertive (for example giving the farmer a voice; example camel herders forgotten to coffee support, or bee producers to tea production). |
|
|
Capacity building: Improving research and research management capacity
The third indicator is Capacity Building: Improving research and research management capacity. It falls into the following three sub-factors:
3.1 New skills obtained/improved due to the project
3.2 Research/innovation/technology uptake
3.3 Improvements in research infrastructure.
3.1 New skills obtained/improved due to the project
This sub-indicator aims at assessing the transfer of know-how.
| The extent the project contributes to sustainable capacity building is of prime significance. In Vietnam a key issue has been to harmonize traditional and modern technologies in fish sauce production and preservation. Another key issue has been how new skills in organic vegetable cultivation have developed; including applied (from the Kenyan colleagues) preservation technology for safe vegetables. An increased understanding has grown over the significance of upgraded package and trademark utilization in presenting the food quality in the market. Marketing skills improvement has been raised as a key issue in both countries. For Kenya improved production skills have comprised new technology in honey production and camel milk, along with improved processing and value addition skills (milk products). |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Traditional techniques questioned, and new skills anticipated to give added values |
A limited understanding by researchers leads to replace tested traditional techniques |
|
|
The farmers may worry to apply new skills for the scare of failure |
|
|
High costs of new technology prohibiting |
|
|
The POPSe budget is too low for up/scaling, meaning disconnecting with development |
|
|
POPSe time is too short for proper monitoring |
|
|
Long-term environmental cycles can not be monitored under the project period |
|
3.2 Research/innovation/technology uptake
This sub-indicator aims at documenting the capacity to absorb new impulses.
| The up-take of project experiences at institutionally higher levels than those of project research is also an indicator of increased sustainability. In both countries this is addressed in top-down and down-top research. In the case of the first direction, issues identified through stakeholder involvement lead to a process approach going in-depth into four cases. Research findings on innovation processes have been compiled and presented. Many stakeholder categories assess own experience, share their own experience and give R&D recommendations. Going the other direction, down-top, the research has identified pace setters who have taken own initiative and welcome research. It has been process oriented through this involvement and become tuned with local community needs. Upscaling of findings for policy recommendation have been an agenda issue.
Innovation issues in both countries have concerned how to find a platform for pace setting entrepreneurs to launch their initiatives in community development against poverty. The research has been driven by pace setters’ demands (technologies/skills transfer plus new thinking open for future independent development). In all cases techniques for value addition have been introduced and tested through multi-stakeholder participation (cultivation and production, food processing and preservation). The technology uptake has been based on new technology introduced into several fields. The communication itself has also found new forms. The additional technology has increased incomes of individual households and CBOs |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
The process is open for initiative from pace-setters groups |
/As with the negative aspects above/ |
|
The project can have a catalyst effect so that existing knowledge becomes activated |
If research finding has to be transformed into production in a top-bottom fashion there is a risk of long-term negative effects |
|
Pace-setters grow in the POPSe project; they take own initiative based their needs |
High costs of new technology prohibiting |
|
3.3 Improvements in research infrastructure
This sub-indicator aims at assessing lessons learnt for research.
| In both Vietnam and Kenya research opportunities have been enhanced through linkages with CBOs/individual producers/ lead institutions, and the institutes. This has been achieved through synergy in problem identification, sharing experiences, and expertise and other resources. In particular, possibilities that have been available are for pooled resources and sharing existing research infrastructure by involved stakeholders enhanced. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Demand-driven research style |
Limited financial source |
|
Synergy in pooling of resources brings effective management |
|
|
Institutionalization : Mainstreaming innovative partnership arrangements
A fourth indicator is formed by the institutionalization quality: Mainstreaming innovative partnership arrangements. It is made up of four sub-indicators:
- Counter-parting (funds, skills, time, information)
- Project activities integrated in regular activities of the organizations involved in the project
- Change in policies of institutions involved (e.g. encouraging participatory research, involvement of civil society organizations in R&D process, etc.)
- Spin-offs (i.e. other initiatives developed directly or indirectly from DURAS project).
4.1 Counter-parting (funds, skills, time, information)
This sub-indicator aims at evaluating the interplay between project counterparts.
| Funds/time in both countries have concerned allowance for researchers to implement activities, field stations laboratory, local transport, and technical inputs from the side of the governments. Skills/information have been shared both between the countries and within each of them. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Interest and motivation of the research team / partners, so that they are willing to contribute and share experience free of charge |
Part-time attention; other work and need to keep several activities going hampers involvement |
|
Facilities for research already available |
|
|
4.2 Project activities integrated in regular activities of the organizations involved in the project
This sub-indicator aims at analyzing the degree of involvement into regular development activities.
| For the lead institutions in both Vietnam and Kenya, project activities form part of long term mandate in research and rural development. The activities also compliment the mandate of government departments and the research institutes, hence are in the mainstream. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Effective use of resources |
Project looses identity and becomes co-opted by government or other initiatives |
|
Opportunity to harmonize development initiatives |
|
|
If project is within government initiative this enhances its performance of government projects towards the role-out of development |
|
|
4.3 Change in policies of institutions involved (e.g. encouraging participatory research, involvement of civil society organizations in R&D process, etc.)
This sub-indicator aims at addressing the project impacts on policy.
| The project only intends to initiate a policy discussion, since we realize that this is a large-scale undertaking that would form next step of the POPSe project rather than being part of it. The methodology side, however, with stakeholder driven identification of issues, is seen to be meaningful for out-scaling and up-scaling. Project partnerships have helped to influence and focus policy towards production systems and enterprise development that enhance incomes and improve standards of living of the poor. Also, the partnerships have enhanced participatory action research and community development. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Policies do not change easily but the project can lead to policy discussion by bringing about new knowledge |
No communication for change is possible if interaction between project and government is lacking |
|
Change of government and donor human resource may enhance a project’s prioritization and performance |
Government and donor human resource changes may alter a project’s perspectives and priorities |
|
Evaluation may bring in new insights |
External evaluation may hinder a project’s development |
|
4.4 Spin-offs (i.e. other initiatives developed directly or indirectly from DURAS project)
This sub-indicator aims at accounting for spin-off effects from the project.
| The POPSe mandate has in Vietnam been understood to identify pace setters and motivate them to involve. Creative entrepreneurs have become motivated to implement dormant ideas. Seen from local administration viewpoints, stakeholder processes can be applied for community development projects. In Kenya the project has taken one further step by linking to the value addition and processing of milk and honey at small scale into the broader KARI Programs on Enhance delivery of extension packages from government departments and Program mes on natural resource management, and enterprise development. |
The positive, negative and uncertain potential aspects of the indicator are:
Indicator consistency assessment table
| Positive |
Negative |
Uncertain |
Spread of project impact |
Bad elements in the project can have long-time effects |
|
Inspire government to take the direction of the project initiative as theirs (hijacking) |
Short-lived projects attracts social resources from the community in vain |
|
Harmony between development agents can pick up spin-offs and push the project to a higher level |
Lost spin-offs mean re-inventions and loss of resources |
|
Measuring sustainability change through the indicators
The information generated through stakeholder interaction around key issues relating to four different levels of sustainable development. The four sustainable development related macro indicators have been broken down into in all 13 indicators. Each of these key issues will be analyzed and compacted into scoring:
1.1 Number and type of stakeholders involved
1.2 Actual role of stakeholders in project implementation
1.3 Project governance structure
2.1 Frequency of inter-stakeholder interaction (email, telephone, face-to-face meetings)
2.2 Implementation arrangements modified/improved as a result of lessons learned from inter-stakeholder interactions identified above
2.3 Creation of an active network (e.g. local organizations, group of researchers, organizations) involved in the project
3.1 New skills obtained/improved due to the project
3.2 Research/innovation/technology uptake
3.3 Improvements in research infrastructure
4.1 Counter-parting (funds, skills, time, information)
4.2 Project activities integrated in regular activities of the organizations involved in the project
4.3 Change in policies of institutions involved (e.g. encouraging participatory research, involvement of civil society organizations in R&D process, etc.)
4.4 Spin-offs (i.e. other initiatives developed directly or indirectly from DURAS project).
An account will then be made for Magnitude (“quantity”; how much/many?) or Importance (“quality”; how does it matter?). The quantity indicators are 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2. The other seven indicators are qualitative, to be assessed in accordance with the Indicator consistency assessment tables above. This will be based on qualified judgements using different value perspectives (positive, negative, and undecided). Detrimental as well as positive effects and mitigation possibilities are considered.
Scales (0–4 points) utilised for either Magnitude or Importance. While the quantitative indicators are site specific, the qualitative ones are applicable both in Vietnam and Kenya. Following the relative assessment principle the definitions for each parameter scale will be made.
Conclusions
This article is about the significance of a stakeholder driven research process. It draws on a project dealing with agri-SMEs where successful business meets the entrepreneurial poor. The potential for change, towards sustainable situations under poverty circumstances, is expressed in four parameters, valued in terms of key related issues. By ascribing each of these issues a score, a rapid analysis can be carried out of development potential in each particular situation. Since also process related information is included, the methodology opens for reaching beyond the particular into what is generally applicable. This opens for later out-scaling. The approach offers a technique to evaluate a range of situations and identify those with greatest potential as far as stakeholder capacity to deal with crucial issues is concerned. This should combine with consequence analyses of ecological, economic and social impacts if the interest is to move from development potential of agri-SMEs to their sustainable development potential.
 Setting the boundaries
Project description
Analysis
|