The path from the greenhouse into practice

Innovative ideas like apps are very shiny and beautiful. But for the successful implementation of an innovation, we need to broaden our focus beyond the boundaries of the respective project. It is time to question our fundamental mentality and the associated thinking patterns and structures. Only by doing so can we succeed in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Lennart Woltering explains in an interview with Jan Rübel (Zeitenspiegel Reportagen) what such a mindset shift might look like and how innovation can make its way from the greenhouse into practice.

Kenya, Machakos District: Farmer Justus Mwaka prepares the soil in his greenhouse for a new planting. (c) Christoph Püschner/Bread for the World

Lennart Woltering

As a scaling catalyst at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Lennart Woltering helps scientists and development practitioners scale the impact of their work beyond the project boundaries. He advocates for a shift in mindset around scaling from “reaching many” to include sustainability, responsibility and systems change. Passionate about translating academic research findings into practical application, he developed the Scaling Scan tool that helps users quickly identify bottlenecks and opportunities for scaling. Beyond CIMMYT and the CGIAR, Lennart advises a range of development organizations, alliances and donors on scaling strategies. His position at CIMMYT is supported by GIZ through the Fund for International Agricultural Research (FIA) within the CIM Integrated Expert program.

Mr. Woltering, how does one become a Scaling Advisor?

I am a civil engineer, but my first job was in an agricultural research institute in Niger. There, we focused on innovations that would undoubtedly improve agriculture - me with an eye on irrigation technologies. But despite our ideas, which we thought were great, we had to keep convincing farmers, going back and forth: a difficult process. The project didn't take off the way I wanted it to, and that frustrated me. Then I went to Hamburg for six years, where I managed several projects at the same time in consulting. There, I was tasked with making each of these projects as efficient as possible - which also disappointed me a bit, because there they looked more at the numbers and were more concerned about meeting targets than about making a difference, making sure that you were no longer needed. My current job as a scaling advisor combines these two professional experiences from Niger and Hamburg: first, many good innovations do not find their way into widespread use, and second, we do one project after another that falls silent after its end and leaves little behind.

 

What is the main problem with innovation projects?

Some say: If my idea is good, people will adopt it. Or the others say: My idea is so good that other people will help to take it to scale. Then the end of the project approaches, the responsibility stops - and the idea peters out. Too little thought is given to scaling from the beginning. That's how I got the job that is funded by both GIZ and CIMMYT, as part of a GIZ/CGIAR task force on scaling.  If we really want to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, we have to think beyond our project boundaries.

 

Many of the solutions are already there, but the conditions were never created for a broad mass of people to use them, that is the problem.

What is preventing the global community from achieving them?

The problem is our mindset. It has created structures, institutions and ways of working that are not very conducive to what we want to reach. We tend to see the poor people as kind of beneficiaries. We are giving them something. And our projects feed that mindset back again. But development funding is the tip of an iceberg. It is really about catalysing or helping change to happen and not making the change ourselves. We have very limited resources. Hence, we have to use development funding very wisely to enable organizations in those countries to fight hunger themselves.

 

Are you arguing for a more realistic view of the situations on the ground?

Well, I see a rat race between developing organizations: Everybody wants to show what they contributed. Governments want tax payers money spent well. Hence, they demand proofs. But then you end up with many projects that focus on something very shiny and beautiful, like innovations, prototypes, cool stuff, apps. But what is required in many places in Africa are not those shiny things. Many of the solutions are already there, but the conditions were never created for a broad mass of people to use them, that is the problem.

 

An African farmer checks the weather reports he receives via SMS on his mobile phone. (c) GIZ

Do you have an example for that?

Take a new app to plant your crop. But farmers may be illiterate or can’t read that kind of phone, or they don’t have that kind of network that is required, or they can’t watch the videos – those need to be taken care of in parallel to that innovation. You need to extend the focus of getting an innovation running. This is the non-sexy part of the work. Instead of only looking to numbers like how many people have been reached, we should want to see private sector involvement and investment in this kind of solution. That shows the interest and willingness of the local actors to do what you think is the right thing to do.

 

But what if the private investment is not taking place? Would that also mean the end of a project?

We should be more strict in that. If you can’t mobilize the private sector, the government or the civil society there – then it is not the solution needed. You can keep on pushing with international donor’s money which is not very critical in many cases. If it does good, not many people will object to it. But if you want to really make a change you have to understand that you catalyse, that you help others to do more of it, and change it, if necessary, in a way like: Hey, it is not a blue car, it is a red bike which is more suitable to the solution. The principle would be to enhance mobility; people on the ground will develop it. You should not fall in love with the solution, you should fall in love with the problem, right? Instead, we are catching ourselves in our system.

 

DR Congo, Katende: In a communal field, the inhabitants of two villages work together to cultivate the land. (c) Christoph Püschner/Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe

Are our approaches outdated?

They are very outdated and very linear. They focus more on the survival of the organisation that brings them and on pleasing the donor rather than really make a difference in those countries. May be, the red bike is more needed than the blue car…it is really about listening more to the local actors and about investing in strengthening their capacity with that mindset that we are just a temporary support. We need to look for the exit strategies of ourselves. I don’t think we should be out, but we should change from doing massive projects, showing pompous innovations and focus more on the silent work behind the screens.

 

You demand a lot. Aren't there too many factors, such as political conditions, market forces, or power relations, that simply cannot all be surveyed at the beginning of a project?

That is what we call a paralysis by analysis: that you analyse so much that you get stuck. It is about recognizing the complexity of it, but not being paralyzed by it. The linear path is the easiest, but it is seldom the right path. It makes sense to check not only if an innovation is working as well as planned but also how does it work. And we have to ask more how this could work without us.

 

Many projects start in a greenhouse. Do you say that we should not build them anymore?

Innovations are great and we should continue developing new ideas. The problem is that the way that move from the greenhouse to the reality is just not right. We remove the greenhouse at once and the tomato plant will die because it is not adapted to the environment. Or we build a bigger greenhouse which is a bigger fake environment. Both models don’t really work. We should work develop these innovations maybe not in a greenhouse but in nethouse or more permeable to the environment where you get those influences. Many projects are shielded from reality. We create controlled conditions of the project, we pay for certain staff, for experts and collaborators, and this is not the reality at scale.

 

Let's take an example. If the goal of a project is to help small farmers with mechanization, this will be well received by them. Why is it necessary to involve much of the surrounding community? When they see a tractor, they take it…

Yeah, for us it is an attractive innovation to bring, because you get nice pictures of a woman on a tractor, it breathes progress. And the farmer says: Wow, I have a tractor, my grandfather and my father never had one. Progress! But repairs and maintenance are not up to the level needed. What if the farmer and the community don’t have the troubleshooting capacity? You need an environment for that. It depends on many things that should be considered before you start handing out tractors. We work a lot with local organisations and local manufacturers that have shown that they can adapt machines to the local conditions. They use the material that is locally available. Maybe it is better to scale these companies than letting John Deere in from somewhere else. It is about learning lessons from the past.

 

I prefer initiatives where you are able with a multidisciplinary team to develop local capacities so that they reach the high numbers, to really look at what is needed to sustain and grow change.

So is it a matter of changing existing systems?

That is what I am very excited about. In the past, the discussions focused on scaling innovations, and recently you see this idea going mainstream that it is about the system; that we have to give just as much, or more, focus on changing the system where such innovations can make an impact.

 

How can this be done? By establishing contacts with as many potential local partners as possible?

We have to rethink the glasshouse again. How can our super and proven idea reach many people without us? This is a question that needs to be asked from the beginning. Without people and their capacities on the ground, you won’t make it. If you have a fantastic seed but not the fertilizer to back it up, maybe it will not work as it could. You need also those puzzle pieces lined up to support an innovation.

 

Kenya, Nairobi: An e-learning workshop with GIZ expert Monika Soddemann. (c) Dirk Ostermeier/GIZ

The number of projects is increasing worldwide, but with shorter durations and less budget. What does that mean?

There is a risk that you get these more short term quick returns and you strengthen that model of the project. We are going backwards, we have become our biggest enemy. We set up a system we believe in, but does not really help us going forward. It will only help us show shiny things in three years, that’s it. I prefer initiatives where you are able with a multidisciplinary team to develop local capacities so that they reach the high numbers, to really look at what is needed to sustain and grow change, not just to reach that target via numbers but to see what is needed, to build trust with local actors.

 

Are too many innovations going to waste?

Yes, we spent too much time on innovations and not so much about the conditions that make them work. How many projects are there to repair water pumps that have been installed in Africa? Nobody does it, this is not sexy. But they would be important because they foster the conditions.

 

Why is scaling often only talked about in the private sector? Are there other conditions to scale innovations in the public sector, in ministries of agriculture?

That is another condition about which we have learned a lot. Now, we are applying those models of scaling that are really good for the private sector. Basically, it comes from the industrial revolution: set up a factory and make as much as possible – the more bottles of lemonade you sell, the better it is. That is also the model we apply to our innovations – the more machines that the project distributes, the better. These are great methodologies, but we need to go further and ask ourselves: Is this the right change and do we want to see it? Because there are limits to growth. More bottles of lemonade is not automatically good for the world. The innovations we are working with also face that: Agriculture is the biggest polluter of water, the biggest user of water and the biggest threat to biodiversity. So we have to have responsible limits to growth. We have many innovations that can improve productivity, but the women have to do the processing and maybe they have then more work to do this – hence, you need another innovation that assures that women don’t suffer more. Maximum scale for a few is not our target – but an optimal scale for many. Leave no one behind, don’t harm biodiversity – that is to consider. Scaling per se is not good.

 

How did you experience that?

Let us look to solar panels, by example. Solar powered irrigation pumps water for free, which is great for the farmer – but can you imagine what happens to the water table and the other users? In that sense, you also have to work on limits like: Maybe we have to put timers on these panels or reduce their distribution on a certain amount of hectares. We need to think about the public, not only the beneficiaries…

 

Can innovations be scaled without addressing gender issues and behavior change?

Adoption of innovations and scaling are basically change processes. They can imply big changes for a family, by example that you have to consider as well, especially in terms of gender. The innovations we develop are focused mostly on those who can adopt them more easily, so that we can reach our project targets. These are mostly the men and young men who have the agency and the power to adopt this. Women are often not even able to adopt innovations because this would mean something strange and new and this is traditionally not looked well upon. Hence, we have to understand what are we messing up when we bring these innovations at scale. It is a social progress as well. It gets more complicated and therefore need multidisciplinary teams to look at this. If not, you do more harm than good.

 

Lennart Woltering was interviewed by Jan Rübel.

Go back

Ähnliche Beiträge

The hope of development cooperation lays in innovation

Policy makers wish for innovation. But what is an innovation that truly takes Africa a step forward? With the support of the SEWOH partners, journalist Jan Grossarth took a critical look at the demand for innovation.

Is innovation a cure? A meaningless filler? Even problematic? And: In what way? Taking a critical post-colonial look at the past, the “innovation history” of Africa appears to be a double-edged sword, in any case. Historian Clapperton Chakanetsa Mavhunga, who teaches at MIT in the USA, deplores the failure and even largely destructive effect of “western” technology and knowledge exports to Africa. In his works about innovation in Africa, “capitalistic entrepreneurship” appears as “imperialism” in modified form and downright “parasitical” in its nature. A problematic definition of innovation, he says, has been transferred to Africa particularly from Europe. A definition that is limited to technical aspects, industrial scaling and commercial use.

Read more

A globally popular export

"One for all, all for one" - this motto became the basis for action of agricultural cooperatives that were founded in the 19th century. They became a success story that will continue to be written well into the 21st century.

Read more

Babban Gona's holistic financing approach

What are innovative financing mechanisms and how can financing help to scale innovations? Kola Masha, Managing Director of Babban Gona explains his holistic business model, which he built up in Nigeria with financial help and support from the German KfW.

Read more

Even innovations take their time

Some good ideas never become reality. It takes patience, long-term thinking and the courage to learn from mistakes. Based on a conversation with software developer Simon Riedel, journalist Jan Rübel focused on the challenges of innovation in an international development context.

Read more

Drones for Inclusive Growth in Agriculture

BASF’s project Drones for Smallholder Farmers aims to build an inclusive business model that will facilitate access of smallholders to drones for spraying crop protection products. A report by Dr. Diana Moran.

Read more

How the Green Innovation Centre in Mali backs women in the San lowlands

Proper nutrition. An adequate diet. Higher incomes and more employment in rural areas. These are the goals of the 15 Green Innovation Centres established in Africa and Asia on behalf of the BMZ. But how are these goals put into practice in Bamako, Mali?

Read more

From Space to Seed: Innovation for world nutrition

From crop forecasts out of space to resistant seeds: What ideas and technologies have been developed in recent years to revolutionize the world's nutrition? We present a selection of innovations that could be decisive in the fight against hunger.

Read more

Meet the people: Joseph Ngaah

Joseph Ngaah is chairman of the Kakamega County Farmers Association in Kenya. Through his commitment at national and local level, he gives farmers a voice - both in the media and with political decision-makers. Within the SEWOH, he cooperates with the Andreas Hermes Academy, the Green Innovation Centers and TMG - Sustainable Think Tank.

Read more

Genetic engineering, fertilisers and agricultural chemicals - conflicting perspectives

Is modern genetic engineering an innovative answer for ensuring global food supply? And what about fertilisers and agricultural chemicals? Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein believes all three are part of the problem. Matthias Berninger thinks rejecting these new technologies is a risky ideological proposition. A debate.

Read more

Climate change affects everyone, but not equally

Claudia Ringler, Deputy Division Director of EPTD at IFPRI, describes the adverse impacts of climate change and its related risks on populations in poor countries. What can be done to reduce the impact of climate change on food and nutrition security?

Read more

The world needs empowered farmers!

The world needs empowered farmers! But what does that mean and how can it be organized? With the support of the SEWOH partners, journalist Jan Grossarth has gathered guiding thoughts on the topic in an article.

Organised agricultural lobbying is rare in industrialised nations. Is the political influence of certain interest groups that have excellent parliamentary connections and work quietly behind the scenes in aid of meat exports or biomass subsidies excessively large and insufficiently transparent? Such questions are a subject of discussion in Europe and the USA, but also in Brazil or Argentina. And for good reason. With regard to global food security another, to some extent countervailing question arises: how can “good lobbying” for the development interests of the world’s smallholders emerge? Would it not, after all, be widely beneficial, and also necessary in order to ensure a stable global food supply, if the hundreds of millions of local farmers in Africa and Asia were able to represent their income- and development-related interests more effectively in parliaments, the media and international organisations?

Read more

Agroecology: a global political guiding perspective?

Agroecology is a popular buzzword in food policy worldwide. It is based on a complex concept that journalist Jan Grossarth, with the support of the SEWOH partners, has examined and called into question.

Agroecology cannot be defined in one phrase. It would take some pages. As a political guiding perspective – perhaps because of its variety – it is suitable to pleasing everyone. The European Commission is relying on this approach as part of the Green Deal as its 10-year transformation plan, and the term is also mentioned in the Farm to Fork food strategy of the EU Commission. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has commissioned its leading experts from the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to shed light on the approach in a 163-page report (the HLPE Report, 2019). The summary alone uses eleven key points in its definition. An agroecological approach, it says, “favours the use of natural processes, limits the use of external inputs, promotes closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stresses the importance of local knowledge and participatory processes” – while also being designed to reduce social inequalities and to help the sciences to gain in importance. 

Read more

Agroecology at UN level: The FAO's Scaling up Agroecology Initiative

Growing scientific evidence and local experiences demonstrate how agroecology has the potential to offer a holistic response to the multiple and interrelated challenges facing food systems.

Read more

The garden of agroecology: A few real-life examples

The challenges of population growth, dwindling biodiversity and climate change require to rethink our current food systems and call for solution approaches in terms of an agroecological transformation.

Read more

Why the transformation of our food systems is imperative

Current crises highlight the need to transform food systems. Dr Sinclair, team leader of the World Food Security Committee, presents 13 agro-ecological principles that might be effective for change.

Read more

Ms Neubert, what is a trilemma? And what can be done about it?

In order to alleviate the trilemma of land use, the climate crisis, the destruction of biodiversity and the food crisis must be addressed simultaneously. Susanne Neubert explains in an interview what such strategies might look like.

Read more

Beyond your own field

An exchange program between the German Farmers' Association and the Andreas Hermes Academy for young German and Ugandan farmers shows: North-South cooperation works best at eye level. Four graduates report on what is possible when farmers learn from each other.

Read more

Labels, customs tariffs and supply chain legislation: Do they benefit or harm smallholders?

In the discussion about sustainability in supply chains, European states focus on labels, customs tariffs and government regulations. With the support of the SEWOH partners, Jan Grossarth questions these measures.

After the eight-storey Rana Plaza factory collapsed in Bangladesh in April 2013, killing over a thousand textile workers under the rubble, the issue of human rights in sewing factories dominated global news for a few days. The initial shock turned into shame. After all, wasn’t everyone who bought cheap T-shirts and jeans somehow responsible? This was followed by a political debate: Hadn’t the disaster happened in a domain where the state, i.e. Bangladesh, should have ensured compliance with its laws? Or, on the other hand, do we not have a say in the regulations determining how the products we consume are manufactured? Not only through consumption, but through our government and companies?

Read more

Farmers in revolt-their movement brings unity and hope

Since 2014, a law has guaranteed all Indians sufficient healthy food at affordable prices. Now one of the biggest waves of protest in history is rocking the subcontinent. Farmers are fighting back against laws that abolish guaranteed minimum prices and put nutrition programmes in jeopardy.  

 

Read more

Deforestation and ecosystem conversion: a strict EU legal framework is imperative

Christine Scholl, Senior Advisor at WWF Germany, explains why a binding and comprehensive EU regulation is crucial in avoiding deforestation and conversion of valuable ecosystems and what such legislation must take into account.

Read more

Banking on innovation and sustainability in the cocoa value chain

Juliette Kouassi founded the cocoa cooperative ABOUd'CAO in Côte d'Ivoire, which dismantles traditional role definitions. The aim is to promote women producers and "throw anything away in the cocoa value chain, by rendering value to everything."

Read more

We begins with you: Three propositions for consumer communication

Generation Z (1995-2010) is forcing manufacturers of consumer goods to rethink their production values. The “Greta effect” not only compels companies to act. It also promises great potential for development cooperation to reach its goals.  

Read more

The right to nutrition: how we can realise it

Stefan Schmitz is head of the Crop Trust and has been SEWOH Commissioner until 2019. We asked him which aspects of the SEWOH could be groundbreaking in order to achieve global goals such as SDG 2 at a national and a global level.

Read more

Supply chains: “The EU’s general principle is to support, not to punish”

Aside from the German Federal government, EU institutions are also encouraging the introduction of a supply chain law. What would be the consequences? Questions for Bettina Rudloff of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP).

Read more

A masterplan for nutrition governance

Ending worldwide hunger by 2030 requires effective governance. This masterplan is based on the experience of the GIZ global programme for “Food and Nutrition Security, Enhanced Resilience,” which works on improving nutrition governance in ten countries around the world.

Read more

Creating a political momentum for global food governance

To feed the world's population in 2050, "the fine art of governance" is required, according to Jan Grossarth. With the help of the SEWOH partners, he has shed light on what this art includes and what challenges it encounters.

There has been some modest progress everywhere and in many thousands of local projects. But what if this won’t be enough in view of the global challenge? According to UN forecasts, Africa’s population is set to double by 2050, reaching over two billion people. Yet food imports on the continent are already exceeding exports, so it is not providing enough food for itself. Climate forecasts are predicting that in some African (and Asian) regions average temperatures will rise by 3 degrees or more. Moreover, deserts are spreading, with the prospect that development cooperation will be ineffective if it merely distributes resources under the watering can principle. 

Read more

In the land of conflicts 

Land is the foundation of life for most Ugandans. In central Uganda, an ancient land tenure system has caused an impasse for both landlords and tenants hence causing conflicts for decades. An innovative approach to conflict solving, and awareness-raising is about to create change.

Read more

Global Hunger Index: Political action is the key

The World Hunger Index 2020 indicates that the goal of "Zero Hunger by 2030" will not be met. Miriam Wiemers, leading expert for the World Hunger Index, traces the main challenges and describes how the path to Zero Hunger can be taken.

Read more

Why successful transformation needs strong governance?

The special initiative One World no hunger (SEWOH) is one donor nation's attempt to decisively push forward the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2). Observations and conclusions from the accompanying discourse.

In the summer of 2019, António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), raised the alarm on the growing number of people going hungry. A “World Food Systems Summit” (UNFSS) in the autumn of 2021 intends to draw the necessary public attention to the issue of combatting hunger and increasing sustainability and provide fresh impetus for transforming the entire food system. In 2014, Germany’s Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, Gerd Müller, launched a remarkable experiment: SEWOH, the Special Initiative ONEWORLD No Hunger. The idea was to drastically advance UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) with a sector approach initially driven by a single donor nation. Germany has invested around 1.5 billion euros annually towards achieving the UN goal, becoming the world’s second-largest donor in the fields of food security, rural development and agriculture. The initiative has explored new possibilities, yet it also had to face its limits. Vastly exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, it had to realise the vulnerabilities of global food security.  

Read more

Climate crises

Population growth, lawlessness and dwindling resources, accelerated by climate change, are leading to conflicts that leave thousands dead across the Sahel every year. "Many will leave their homelands or perish from hunger, disease or wars. Only rapid socioeconomic development [...] would be able to prevent this disaster."

Read more