WSSD partnership review report Ethiopia - Government.nl

Diederik de Boer and Stella Pfisterer

March 2009

This report has been based on input from respondents in Ethiopia. The organization of the field research

was supported by Geert Westenbrink and Julia Bröker (Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in

Addis Ababa). Rob van Tulder (Rotterdam School of Management – Erasmus University) and Meine

Pieter van Dijk (Sustainable Development Center – Maastricht School of Management) critically

commented on draft versions of the report. The authors wish to thank all respondents who were generous

in their time and their experience, and we are very grateful for the free and frank discussions you had with

us.

Review of the WSSD Public-Private

Partnership Program in Ethiopia

Final Report

1

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION: RATIONALE OF THE WSSD PUBLIC-PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIP IN ETHIOPIA ................................................................................. 6

2. ASSESSING THE WSSD PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN ETHIOPIA:

METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Framework of Analysis for Partnerships ................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Review Process of the WSSD Partnership Program in Ethiopia ................................................................................... 8

3. PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERING PATTERNS ............................................. 11

[A] INPUT........................................................................................................................................................... 11 A1. Context of the Horticulture Sector in Ethiopia ...................................................................................................... 11 A2. Partnership Roots and Overall Objective............................................................................................................... 13 A3. Partnership Cycle ............................................................................................................................................ 14

[B] THROUGHPUT .......................................................................................................................................... 16 B1. Partners, Individual Objectives and Drivers ........................................................................................................... 16 B2. Partnership Governance Structure ........................................................................................................................ 16 B2.1 Role of DGIS, LNV, EKN and the Agricultural Office ...................................................................................... 16 B2.2 Role of the Partnership Committee ..................................................................................................................... 17 B2.3 Partnership Account Unit ................................................................................................................................ 18 B2.4 Partnership Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 18 B2.5 Internal Accountability Mechanism .................................................................................................................... 19 B2.6 Transparency ................................................................................................................................................. 20 B2.7 External accountability.................................................................................................................................... 21 B3. Brokerage/Process Facilitation............................................................................................................................ 21

[C] OUTPUT....................................................................................................................................................... 22 C1. Partnership Project Results................................................................................................................................. 22 C1.1 Development of Training Component.................................................................................................................. 22 C2. Sustainability .................................................................................................................................................. 23

[D] OUTCOME .................................................................................................................................................. 24 D1. Contribution to Improved Market Access ............................................................................................................. 24 D2. Market Access Conditions addressed by the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia? .................................................. 25 D3. Governance - Facilitating Policy Reform ............................................................................................................... 26 D4. Spin-off on Social and Economic Development ....................................................................................................... 26

[E] EFFICIENCY............................................................................................................................................... 28 E1. Cost-Benefit Ratio............................................................................................................................................ 28 E2. WSSD Budget as “Seed Money”........................................................................................................................ 29 E3. Reflecting on the Efficiency of the Partnership Process .............................................................................................. 29 E4. Critical Success Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 30

[F] EFFECTIVENESS ....................................................................................................................................... 31 F.1 Was the Partnership Necessary?.......................................................................................................................... 31 F2. Value-Added .................................................................................................................................................. 31 F2.1 Integrated Capacity Building Strategy for the Sector ............................................................................................... 31 F2.2 Window of Opportunity for the Private Sector....................................................................................................... 32

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 33

2

4.1 A unique Partnership Approach for the Ethiopian Horticultural Sector ...................................................................... 33 4.2 Comparative Perspective: Lessons Learned for the Ethiopian WSSD Partnership.......................................................... 34 4.3 Recommendations for the WSSD Partnership in Ethiopia ........................................................................................ 34

5. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 36

6. APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 42 Appendix 1: Program WSSD partnership review mission Ethiopia ................................................................................. 42 Appendix 2: List of Partners ................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 3: List of Critical Success Factors and their Average Score ............................................................................... 47 Appendix 4: Factsheet E01..................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix 5: Factsheet E03..................................................................................................................................... 55

3

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Framework of analysis for partnerships Figure 2: Project Assessment Phase Figure 3: WSSD partnership program Ethiopia – Partnership Cycle Figure 4: Partnership Structure WSSD Partnership Program Ethiopia Figure 5: Capacity Building Strategy of the WSSD Partnership Program Table 1: List Interviewees Partnership Committee Table 2: Overview of Projects Table 3: Market Access of Flowers from Ethiopia to the Netherlands

Table 4: Comparison Imported Rose Value Ethiopia to EU with main competitors Table 5: Project goal-alignment Table 6: Partnership projects contribution to MDGs Table 7: Cost-Benefit Comparison

Acronyms and Abbreviations: CBI – Centre for the Promotion of Imports for Developing Countries DDE – Department for Sustainable Economic Development of DGIS DGIS – Directorate for Development Cooperation (DGIS) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs ECSAD – Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation EHPEA – Ethiopian Horticulture Producer Export Association EKN – Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands EU – European Union GTZ – German Agency for Technical Cooperation LEI - Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Wageningen International LNV - Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality MDG – Millennium Development Goals MoU – Memorandum of Understanding NGO – Non-Governmental Organization NUFFIC – Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education PAU – Partnership Account Unit PC – Partnership Committee PPP – Public Private Partnership WSSD – World Summit on Sustainable Development

4

Executive Summary

This is the mission report for the Directorate for Development Cooperation of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS) and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) on a review of the Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership within the framework of World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) public-private partnership program on ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’. This review was executed by Diederik de Boer and Stella Pfisterer from Maastricht School of Management. The project was coordinated by the Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation (ECSAD). The findings presented in this report are based on desk research and on a review mission in October 2008 to Addis Ababa. It is part of an assignment by both above mentioned ministries to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the WSSD public-private partnership program ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’ in East Africa. The Netherlands Government has committed itself to contribute to a balanced growth of the horticulture sector in Ethiopia through a public-private partnership program along similar lines as the WSSD partnership program ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’ implemented in Kenya, Zambia, Uganda and Tanzania. The partnership idea was based on the Dutch policy paper “Aan elkaar verplicht” which emphasized the creation of collaborative synergies through (tripartite) partnerships in order to achieve a good balance of the three dimensions of sustainability: ecological, economical and social sustainability. The partnership aimed to contribute to a competitive, demand driven, self sustaining and innovative horticulture cluster (flowers, fruits and vegetables) well connected in international networks. Human resource development was expected to contribute to enlarging the positive spin-off on local, regional and national social and economic development. The objective should be achieved through contributing to capacity building for environmentally and socially friendly production in order to comply with international quality standards. The unique feature of the WSSD partnership approach was to include a governance platform where businesses, public organizations and civil society organizations set jointly the agenda for a broad defined problem of the Ethiopian horticultural sector. Relevance of the partnership program

In Ethiopia, export-oriented horticulture – in particular floriculture – had a huge growth potential during the last years. Strategic capacity building support for the sector was highly required in order to avoid the development of a hit-and-run sector The WSSD partnership program aimed to support the sector with specific projects to become self-sustainable. The Ethiopian government demonstrated its commitment for building an enabling environment for the export-oriented horticulture sector. The Prime Minister portrait his commitment to the sector. This situation opened an opportunity to involve the private sector stronger in political decision-making processes. The WSSD partnership entered at the right time the scene in Ethiopia. There was a need to apply an instrument which has the capacity to facilitate public-private dialogue and strengthen capacity of the sector to become sustainable. Value of the partnership program The WSSD partnership program strategy to support a training and capacity building program was valuable. The program supported to build up an integrated industry driven strategy for a sector which has to be implemented in cooperation of public and private sector. The partnership program included Dutch interests and expertise. Dutch training and research institutions were involved in the partnership program by providing new technologies to the export-oriented horticulture sector in Ethiopia. The cooperation of Dutch and Ethiopian actors resulted in:

• Improved post-harvest handling methods based on a direct feedback loop with the market;

• Introduction of IPM research and pilot studies in Ethiopian rose sector;

• Implementation of a tailor-made Code of Conduct for the Ethiopian context. At the stage of the review, the WSSD partnership program supported the sector to build up capacity to innovate, and to ensure continuous improvement in product and process development. The added value of the program to focus on process, product and functional upgrading of the sector played a vital role in supporting the sector towards becoming sustainable.

5

The consultative mechanism included in the partnership design demonstrated to be an effective way to create a ‘window of opportunity’ for the private sector. The Ethiopian government recognized the important role of business for benefiting the sector and the whole country. Together the public and private sector address in concrete projects important challenges in the sector. The collaborative work at project level facilitated a two-way learning process for the individuals involved. It enriched the understanding that a partnership is not only enabling material support but knowledge exchange and learning from each other. Overall, it can be concluded that the partnership in Ethiopia was effective. The approach was integrated in the country strategy as well as in the strategy of the EKN. This facilitates a broad approach trying to find synergies with other funds. On the one hand, this bears the risk that the partnership is only seen as an additional funding option. On the other hand, it showed that the specific focus of the partnership (directed to build up capacity of the flower farms in order to be sustainable) built cohesion for the sector.

Main lessons learned Partnership Exploration, Building and Realization Factors which contributed to the efficient partnership exploration and building process included:

• Pro-active role of Agricultural Counselor and support of the EKN;

• Stakeholder involvement on highest level;

• Good facilitating process of Dutch experts;

• Commitment of the Ethiopian government to be actively involved in the partnership;

• Build upon existing projects and structures. Take time in particular in the start-up phase. Some respondents mentioned that it is important to allow time for setting up a partnership. The partners need to build up respect for each other. The partnership followed an integrated capacity building approach. It was integrated in the country and PPP strategy of the EKN. This approach is expected to be sustainable. Partnership Governance In the specific Ethiopian case it was even more important to work on basis of equal footing. Mutual respect and look at each other as equal partners was mentioned as important critical success factor of the partnership. The institutional context and power-sharing arrangements in the country need to be taken into consideration in the partnership design. Transparency was one major weakness of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia. Weak transparency structures were identified on different levels: internal transparency on program and project level as well as external transparency towards the main beneficiaries. In future, the lack of transparency (especially financial transparency) on different level might be a threat for the partners: it could be assumed that it will be difficult to build up trust. Future of the Partnership Program The consultative process and set up demonstrated to be appreciated in the Ethiopian context. The partnership is effective. Therefore it is important to keep the momentum and go on with the process and create a success story/best practice. So far, the main activities of the partnership are concentrating on floriculture. The potential of fruits and vegetables need to be assessed in order to identify potential intervention possibilities for public-private activities. The partnership program involves directly and indirectly many people in Ethiopia and The Netherlands. It is successful and has a lot of potential. Therefore, it could be thought about more pro-active awareness creation by participating farmers and civil servants. The partnership demonstrated to be depended on process facilitation by Dutch consultants (on project level) and the Agricultural Counselor (program level). The involvement of a local program manger (maybe at EHPEA) who is responsible for monitoring the program could create more transparency and ownership.

6

1. INTRODUCTION: Rationale of the WSSD Public-Private Partnership in Ethiopia

Horticulture exports from Ethiopia are growing very rapidly and are considered to be an important element in the country’s efforts to diversify exports. Horticulture exports contribute directly to poverty reduction by generating foreign exchange and the creation of employment, particularly in rural areas. In order to secure a further well balanced growth of the sector and to minimize the possible negative impact on natural resource base, all stakeholders involved need to work together. Moreover, one of the main problems of Ethiopian horticultural products in gaining access to markets is meeting the high quality standards of agricultural products in the field of health, food safety and social standards. The Netherlands Government has committed itself to contribute to a balanced growth of the horticulture sector in Ethiopia through a public-private partnership program along similar lines as the WSSD partnership program ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’. The objective of the partnership is twofold. It was aimed to contribute to capacity building to comply with food safety regulations. Second, attention was drawn to strengthening structures and awareness to contribute to sustainable development, not only with respect to economic issues, but also to social and ecological issues. The latter objective is based on the understanding that horticulture exports are expected to contribute directly to poverty alleviation by generating foreign exchange and creating employment, particularly in rural areas. The framework to work in a partnership aimed to improve mutual understanding of the need to effectively address both the market failure to ensure continuous improvement in product and process development as well as the governance failure to secure accountability between the decision makers and the horticulture industry. The PPP initiative delivered an overview of Ethiopia’s specific opportunities and constraints for improved trading of horticultural products to European markets. On basis of a country specific needs assessment, specific measures and activities were identified, in particular related to capacity and institution building. The intension of the program was that projects take the form of a collaborative effort of stakeholders to address specific bottlenecks of the sector. The developed activities were implemented under the coordination of a ‘Partnership Committee’ where the main stakeholders of the Ethiopian horticulture sector were represented. This report discusses the findings of a review of the WSSD partnership program ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’ in Ethiopia. The report is structured as follows: in section two, the methodology and the review process are outlined. In section three, the findings are presented and discussed. Section three gives special attention to roles of partners in the WSSD PPP in Ethiopia and the partnering governance system. Results of the projects, contribution to capacity building for market access, contribution to sector upgrading and spin-off effect for economic and social development are discussed in section three. By focusing on the ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’ of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia, the report seeks to analyze in detail cost-benefit ratio, critical success factors and added value of the partnership. The review aimed to discuss lessons learned of the reviewed partnership program and provide feed-back to partnership practitioners. Section four, therefore, provides recommendations and compares some selected lessons learned of the Ethiopian case with the outcomes of the programs in Tanzania and Kenya. Amongst others, the appendices include factsheets of the reviewed partnership projects.

7

2. Assessing the WSSD Public-Private Partnership in Ethiopia: Methodology

Assessing partnerships involves gaining an insight in their (1) efficiency and (2) effectiveness. Evaluative activities can take place at different stages during the design and implementation of a partnership. Since there is not yet much experience in the review of partnerships in development cooperation, the focus of present assessment studies on partnerships should facilitate a systematic coverage of the ‘lessons learned’ from the partnership activities to give feed-back on how to improve the design and implementation of partnerships. The challenge of the present approach, therefore, is to combine formative and summative evaluation mechanisms.1 The review assignment interpreted that the partnership assessment can facilitate:

• to provide evidence on how to improve partnership performance based on experiences and lessons learned at different project stages (partnership exploration, partnership building and partnership monitoring);

• to adjust the partnership on the basis of intermediary results;

• to inform decisions on future policy as well as on upscaling;

• and to learn from the process of conducting partnership assessments.

2.1 Framework of Analysis for Partnerships

This review asked the question whether partnerships for sustainable development have indeed successfully reached their goals and have added value to the partners involved and to development. The aim of the study was to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the WSSD partnership in Ethiopia and to identify factors influencing the partnership performance. Research on effectiveness of public-private partnerships in a development context is not yet well established. Assessment frameworks of these collaborative ventures have largely been focused on tangible project outputs rather than a review of the true effectiveness of the partnership. Given that partnerships require significant time and resources to develop and maintain, understanding how to maximize their added-value becomes crucial (Caplan et al., 2007; Kolk et al., 2008). The Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation (ECSAD)2 developed an analytical framework and a detailed interview and dialogue protocol to evaluate the efficiency/effectiveness of partnerships (Van Tulder and Kostwinder, 2007). The analytical framework aims to measure the efficiency of the process of partnership building and the effectiveness of the PPP instrument. The analytical framework is based on the premise that most partnerships go through comparable stages. Basically the partnership process consists of four stages: (a) input, (b) throughput, (c) output, and (d) outcome; and has two evaluative dimensions: (e) efficiency and (f) effectiveness (Figure 1).

1 Formative evaluation (review) is undertaken during the implementation phase to gain a better understanding of what is being achieved and to identify how the programme or project can be improved; Summative evaluation is carried out after implementation to assess effectiveness, and to determine results and overall value 2 The Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation (ECSAD) is a network of institutions: Sustainable Development Center (Maastricht School of Management); Amsterdam Graduate Business School (University of Amsterdam); Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University Rotterdam); European Institute for Business Ethics (Nyenrode University) and Wageningen University and Research Centre. The complementary skills and expertises of the network increase the knowledge of the role and functioning of international and local business in promoting economic growth and sustainable development in countries in transition. For more information see: http://www.ecsad.nl

8

Figure 1: Framework of analysis for partnerships

Source: Van Tulder and Kostwinder, 2007

2.2 Review Process of the WSSD Partnership Program in Ethiopia

The total review consisted of desktop research and a mission to Ethiopia which took place from October 27th to November 1st, 2008. During the mission the functioning of the Partnership Committee and the partnership projects were reviewed through a series of focused interviews with major stakeholders. Additionally, a follow-up meeting with a consultant3, involved in a project aiming to improve post-harvest techniques in Ethiopia, was arranged at the auction in Aalsmeer. Methodology Partnership Committee Review: The methodology for reviewing the Partnership Committee (PC) focused on interviewing several PC members. Table 1: List Interviewees Partnership Committee H.E. Ato Fantay Biftu, Special Advisor to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (chairman) Heilesalassie Tekie, Director-General Ethiopian Horticultural Development Agency (will take over the chairman position as of end of 2008) Ato Fikre Markos, Head of the Crop Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ato Dhuguma Adugna, Dean College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jimma University Geert Westenbrink, Agricultural Counselor, EKN, (secretariat)

At the end of the week, the preliminary findings of the review mission were presented to three PC members. During this session with the PC members the review team aimed to justify the findings and gather more information on planned future activities of the partnership.

3 Jeroen van der Hulst, FlowerWatch ([email protected])

[B] THROUGHPUT Partnership characteristics, dynamism and design

[C] OUTPUT Partnership objectives, sustainability and deliverables

[D] OUTCOME Impact: direct and indirect contribution of partnerships to upgrading and MDGs

[E] EFFICIENCY Costs-Benefit: Critical success factors and lessons learned during process

[F] EFFECTIVENESS Added Value: Relevance and added value of the partnership

[A] INPUT Goals, motives and resources of individual partners

9

Methodology Project Review: The WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia has six projects. Table 2 lists the six projects and the methodology used for their review. Table 2: Overview of Projects4 Project Purpose Methodology E01 – Code of Practice

The implementation of the Ethiopian Code of Practice requires a dedicated and well-planned effort of all parties involved. Purpose of the project is to facilitate EHPEA with an effective strategic planning tool for the sustainable development of the Ethiopian floriculture sector.

• Meeting with training expert and training team

• Meeting with project partners

• Farm visits E02 – Phytosanitary Services in the Ethiopian Export-oriented Horticulture

To change from the present farm-based inspections to – point-of-export-inspections in combination with a general surveillance system. This proposed model is in line with expectations and demands of the countries where horticulture products are market. In addition the project includes hands-on support for the implementation of the new pesticide registration proclamation and the actual registration process of priority pesticides.

Not studied in detail

E03 – Integrated Pest Management in the Ethiopian Rose Sector

Development of a comprehensive research and development plan for a systematic and responsible introduction of IPM.

• Meeting with focal organization

• Meeting with project partners

• Farm Visits E04 – Identification of Opportunities and Setting Agenda of Activities in the Ethiopian Fruits and Vegetable Sector

Overall goal of the project is a targeted support to the development of a competitive and sustainable export-oriented fruits and vegetable sector in Ethiopia. This should be achieved by establishing sustainable PPPs which are adequately assisted in technical and organizational issues to address identified constraints in fruits and vegetable supply chains.


E05 – Market Information System Floriculture

The project covers two parts of a needs assessment and system designing to enable the implementation of a Market Information System (MIS) for the floriculture sector with possibilities to expand the system to the overall horticultural sector if desired.


E06 – Decision Support System for Localization of Potential Horticultural Growing Areas

The project foresees to conduct a research on Decision Support Systems (DSS) based on agri-ecological data. The research addresses the following issues: the needs of prospective users; already available systems and expertise and possible option for improvement and their expected performance and implications as well as implication of the different options in terms of organizational and cost aspects and risks involved.


The reviewers gained a ‘helicopter view’ of the partnership. The review focused however on two projects more in detail (E01 and E03). The partnership project review included interviews with project partners and farm visits.

4 More information on the two studied projects can be found in the factsheets included in Appendix 5 and 6

Farm visit and discussion with farm manager and trainers on IPM and post-

harvest issues

10

In Ethiopia, some WSSD projects build upon processes which already started earlier. As figure 2 demonstrates, the baseline studies and frameworks for the IPM and Code of Practice have been developed before the projects received the status of WSSD partnership projects in June 2007.

Partnership

Exploration

Partnership

Building

Partnership

Realization

Partnership

Phase-out/Renegotiation

Figure 2: Project Assessment Phase

E01: Project initiated in 2006 and Code launched in June 2007; E03: Baseline study in 2006 and Inception of a collaborative IPM network in Jan 2007.

WSSD partnership supports the implementation of the CoP and implementation of IPM since June 2007

11

3. PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERING PATTERNS

[A] INPUT

A1. Context of the Horticulture Sector in Ethiopia

Ethiopian export horticulture is developing at a unique and unexpected high speed. In 2000, 9ha were under flowers, which has increased to over 1.200 hectares in 2008, with more than 80 flower growers. More than 90.000 jobs have been created in and around these flower farms. Ethiopia began exporting flowers in 2001/2002. In 2008, Ethiopia was on track to produce between 800 million and 900 million stems for export worth $150 million. That compares to 365 million stems worth $64 million in 2007.5 Table 3 shows the increased Ethiopian flower exports to its main market (The Netherlands). Table 3: Market Access of Flowers6 to the Netherlands 2005 2006 2007 Import Value (1000 EURO)

6 064.960 17 595.200 33 244.710

Import Quantity (1000 kg)

2 411.900 6 599.600 13 842.500

Source: Market Access Databank of DG Trade (European Commission)

In 2007, Ethiopia ranked on position 4 on imported rose value to Europe (only after The Netherlands, Kenya and Ecuador). Ethiopia increased its rose imports to EU markets from 3 million to 41 million Euro in only five years time. Table 4: Comparison Imported Rose Value from Ethiopia to EU with main competitors (value in € x 1000)

Exporting country

2003 € (Rank) 2006 € (Rank) (Change) 2007 € (Rank) (Change)

Netherlands 439.639 (1) 580.137 (1) 32% 640.833 (1) 10% Kenya 153.182 (2) 229.122 (2) 50% 242.174 (2) 6% Ecuador 45.548 (3) 59.357 (3) 30% 71.391 (3) 20% Ethiopia 3.226 (12) 19.456 (5) 503% 37.005 (4) 90% Uganda 17.518 (5) 20.461 (4) 17% 21.048 (5) 3% Source: International Trade Centre (November 2008): Market News Service Cut Flowers based on AIPH

Some 70 percent of the country’s flower products are exported to the Netherlands while 10-15 percent is exported to Germany. The rapidly growing flower sector in Ethiopia has now became the fourth foreign currency generating product of the country next to the top three products coffee, oilseeds and cereals.7 Next to the positive impacts in terms of foreign exchange, economic development and creating employment, the floriculture sector provides an inspiring example of a successfully introduction of advanced labour-intensive production technology. The export of fruits and vegetables is less developed, but is expected to growth further in the coming years (Den Belder and Elings, 2007). Since 1991 Ethiopia has a federal administrative structure constituting the federal and regional government. A number of ministries and research institutes provide services and create an institutional framework to the floriculture sector that enables the development of the sector. Only recently (June 2008), the Ethiopian Horticulture Development Agency was established as an autonomous Federal Government Agency accountable to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. This newly established institution has amongst others the objectives (1) to ensure the fast and sustainable growth of horticulture production and productivity; and (2) to facilitate the export of diversified horticulture products which meet internal food safety standards.8 This specialized governmental institution is assumed

5 International Trade Centre (November 2008): Market News Service Cut Flowers based on AIHP 6 Includes: Cut flowers and flower buds of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes 7 Africa News 15/12/08 8 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2008). Federal Negarit Gazeta. 14th year No. 43. Addis Ababa: Federal Republic of Ethiopia.

12

to complete services for the export-oriented horticulture sector which were so far mainly stimulated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Ethiopian Government created a very conducive environment for investors in the floricultural sector such as customs duty exemption, income tax exemption, land availability for investment on leasehold basis, interest rates and available airfreight space with Ethiopian airlines. In addition, general investments in electricity, communication and road infrastructure further have stimulated foreign and local investments in the sector. Compared to other countries in the region, the general security conditions around Addis Ababa (compared e.g. with Nairobi) attract foreign investors (Humphries et al., 2006). Especially Dutch investors are attracted to invest in the Ethiopian horticulture sector; it is estimated that twenty-three Dutch-Ethiopian joint-ventures are operating in the horticulture sector.9 But also Indian investors have moved into the Ethiopian flower sector. A floriculture sector organization exists (EHPEA), but needs further strengthening to effectively deal with the many issues related to a fast growing industry. Dialogue between government and private sector has only recently developed. At the time of the review the launch of a ‘Public Private Partnership Dialogue Forum’ was announced by the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations along with the Ministry of Trade and Industry. This consultative meeting between Minister Meles Zenawi and the business community will be conducted twice a year. The business community has never before programmed a discussion forum with the Prime Minister’s Office. According to the IMF’s latest report on the Ethiopian economy, growth will slow over the next five years, reflecting the combination of high inflation (which will have to be tackled by tightening fiscal and monetary policy), the infrastructure deficit (which will constrain production) and declining competitiveness, caused by real exchange rate application. If one focuses on competiveness, aside from exchange rates, three factors are critical to Ethiopian competitiveness: wage level, the state of infrastructure and the ease of doing business. In terms of wages Ethiopia is reckoned to be the most cost-effective country on the continent, with a manual worker earning US$60 a month (as against US$ 190 in China). In term of the World Bank’s doing business indicators, Ethiopia is near the top of the African league table, behind only Botswana, Kenya and South Africa. Despite this and despite the country’s impressive export performance, it seems clear that competitiveness is under threat from high inflation and an appreciating real exchange rate.10 While it is important to acknowledge the efforts and successes of the past, it is also important to assess how best to consolidate the recent achievements and strengthen the future position of the Ethiopian export-oriented horticulture as a basis for further growth and development. The fast growing industry requires access to up-to-date production technology and equipment. The level and quality of local input suppliers and service providers are currently lacking behind the demands of the sector. Most of the equipment and technical production and post-harvest knowledge are imported from Europe, Kenya and Israel. In general a rather ad-hoc approach is observed towards technical training, with many initiatives by individual companies, limited coordination and attention to a sustainable build-up of technical capacity.

9 From 2003-2005 thirteen Dutch-Ethiopian companies, who joined hands on joint ventures, have been awarded PSOM grants fro Ethiopia given by the Netherlands government. The total investment for these thirteen companies is more than 10 million EURO, for which the Netherlands government granted the amount of 6.2 million EURO (http://www.ethiopianflowerexport.com/index.php) 10 Economist Intelligence Unit (2008). The Price of Success (28.08.2008). http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12011304

13

A2. Partnership Roots and Overall Objective

During the WSSD conference in 2002, a number of partnership initiatives were launched, aiming at collaborative efforts of the public sector, private partners and civil society to jointly reach objectives of common interest. The initiatives are based on mutual respect and shared responsibility of the partners involved. The Government of Netherlands (through the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) has taken the initiative for a partnership on market access of food and agricultural products by meeting export standards. Then, with the respective governments of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia such partnership programs have started in 2005 focusing on export horticulture (e.g. cutflowers, cuttings, fruits and vegetables). Given the impressive and encouraging development in the floriculture, it was concluded in June 2007 that Ethiopia also qualified for the WSSD-partnership facility. Before falling under the framework of the WSSD partnership program on ‘Capacity Building and Market Access’, several Netherlands-Ethiopian activities were set up aiming to strengthening the enabling environment for horticultural development and to address new challenges pro-actively. The specific collaboration started in 2006 with the joint formulation of a working agenda by public and private stakeholders in the horticultural sector. Based on this agenda projects were formulated and implemented. In 2006, all these activities were initiated with funding from the International Research Program of the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, implemented by Wageningen University and Research Centre. Additional financial support was provided when needed by the Netherlands Embassy (consultancy fund). The activities have resulted in the following outputs:

• Formulation of strategy of capacity building program (short and long-term);

• Global outline and process agreements on code of conduct;

• Action plan for capacity and institution building in phytosanitary issues;

• Identification of options for IPM programme, including institutional framework;

• Participation of stakeholders in study tours (Zambia, The Netherlands) and conferences (EUREPGAP, Nairobi).

The status of a so-called ‘WSSD partnership’ made available an additional amount of €1 million for projects under the partnership. The WSSD partnership design is a combination of a broadly chosen thematic approach (market access and capacity building) and a tripartite cooperation between businesses, public organizations and civil society organizations in the country of concern and The Netherlands. In general, the Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership aims to contribute to:

• The development of a competitive, demand driven, profitable, self-sustaining and innovative horticulture cluster well connected to international networks;

• Implementation of environmentally and socially friendly production systems and technologies;

• Human resource development and enlarging the positive spin-off to local, regional and national social development;

• Establishment of a strong international reputation of the Ethiopian Horticulture Cluster;

• An institutional framework which enables the sector to meet (future) market demands and opportunities and to operate in a socially and environmentally friendly and broadly accepted manner;

• Reinforcement of fruitful cooperation between the horticulture sector and the government;

• Strengthening of the cooperation between Ethiopia and the Netherlands.11

11 Memorandum of Understanding for the Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership.

14

A3. Partnership Cycle

To develop a detailed plan of action for the intended Ethiopian-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership, a mission of Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR) to Ethiopia has been fielded in April 2006. The findings of the mission have been based on cross-checking the strategic directions for the horticulture sector based on a sector study, and the tentative ‘Agenda for the intended Ethiopian-Netherlands horticulture partnership’ through discussions with representatives of the public and private sector. The agenda has been drafted by the Agricultural Counselor. The research by WUR emphasized the need for a two-tiered support approach towards the ‘floriculture’ and ‘fruits and vegetables’ sub-sectors because of their highly different characteristics, pace of growth and potentials. The strategic directions had been based on an overview of the sector, a SWOT analysis at sector level and a stakeholder consultative meeting. The tentative agenda which was developed for the Ethiopia-Netherlands Partnership included four follow up and two new projects proposals. It concerns the following projects:

1. Code of Practice 2. Capacity Building Phytosanitary Service 3. Integrated Pest Management 4. Fruits and Vegetables 5. Market Information Service 6. Decision Support location horticulture production.

Project 1-4 were follow-up proposals for ongoing projects. The other two project proposals (6 and 7) were prepared for a first phase. The need for training and capacity building in the horticulture sector, especially at growers’ level, is one of the prominent item of the agenda for the partnership. In this context, some projects are in implementation/in preparation which are financed outside of the WSSD partnership but which have very close links to the WSSD activities in the area of capacity building (e.g. financed by Netherlands Program for Institutional Strengthening of Post-secondary Educations and Training Capacity (NUFFIC-NPT) or by CBI).

15

Figure 3: WSSD Partnership Program Ethiopia – Partnership Cycle

Partnership Exploration

• WSSD conference in 2002

• April 2006: WUR sector

analysis mission

• Plan of activities developed

with sector stakeholders

• Design of CoP

• 2006/007: Development

Strategy for the Horticulture

Partnership Realization

• June 2007: Projects funded by WSSD

• End 2008: change of PC chairman

Partnership

Ending/Renegotiation

• The partnership will end on Dec 31st, 2009.

• Embassy funds are available for continuation up to 2011

Partnership Building

• June 2007: Integration of Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture to WSSD framework

• PC building

• June 2007: Launch of CoP

16

[B] THROUGHPUT

B1. Partners, Individual Objectives and Drivers

Chain actors in the flower, fruits and vegetable sector are the primary target group of the program. Based on a sector analysis the most relevant organizations in the Ethiopian horticultural sector were identified. Since we speak about the key organizations of the sector, all of them were still involved in the partnership at the time of the review. The institutional change which currently takes place in the Ethiopian horticulture sector is interesting; the newly established Horticulture Development Agency will become a partner of the partnership and will chair the Partnership Committee. Motives Individual partners have specific goals and motives for joining a partnership which reflect their ambitions. Goals and motives to enter into a partnership are strongly influenced by the societal position of an organization (market, state and civil society). Appendix 2 gives an impression on the motives and roles of the partners involved in the Partnership Committee and in the projects. Divergent interests of the government (FDI and poverty reduction) and the private sector (lobbying for policy reform and improved export earnings) can be identified. The strong emphasis of the partnership on capacity building required a closer consideration on the motives of the research institutions. Both training institutes involved in the partnership (Jimma University and Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute) are public. They still have to find a division of roles and responsibilities. Also within and between the Ministries there are ongoing discussions on roles and responsibilities. With the establishment of the Ethiopian Horticulture Development Agency under the Minister of MoARD has brought about a major rearrangement in the institutional setting.

B2. Partnership Governance Structure

Governance is a process by which a partnership is managed and regulated. Partners who seek to collaborate must understand how to jointly make decisions about the rules that will govern their behavior and relationships; they also need to create structures for reaching agreement on collaborative activities and goals through shared power arrangements. The challenge for this review study was to try to capture the partnership’s evolving working arrangements, while at the same time looking at how partner relationships might be optimized in order to enhance participation and thus improve performance. An understanding of the processes involved is required in order to understand to what extent a partnership is living up its potential, or what factors are causing success or failure (Caplan et al., 2007).

B2.1 Role of DGIS, LNV, EKN and the Agricultural Office

The EKN in Addis Ababa is following a two track approach: one focuses on improving governance, human rights and regional security. The other track focuses on poverty alleviation through fostering sustainable growth, investing in health, education and the rights of women. The growth and distribution approach of the EKN tied in well with the joint policy letter on Rural Entrepreneurship by DGIS and LNV which allowed the agricultural counselor to contribute in an integrated manner towards the realization of the objectives.

In general, the EKN understood public-private partnerships as an instrument to stimulate a good enabling environment in the horticulture sector. The embassy’s strategy planed to continue to support three public private partnerships in floriculture, oilseeds and the seed sector. The first two PPPs demonstrated to be good export income earners and important drivers of economic reforms. The focus on PPPs was seen as an extension of the EKN’s past efforts to strengthen value chains and improved market integration.

The Netherlands involvement in the agricultural sector is valued highly in Ethiopia. The Agricultural Counselor, who was assigned to build a partnership in the horticultural sector, started exploring possible set ups for partnership fitting to the Ethiopian context. Joint activities started in 2006 with the joint formulation of a working agenda by the public and private stakeholders of the Ethiopian horticultural sector. Based on this agenda, projects were formulated and implemented. The management of the program has been carried out informally based on consensus and through regular consultations with stakeholders. This proved to be an effective way of operation. The Dutch contribution was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Netherlands Embassy. Given the progress

17

achieved and the number of new projects being lined-up, there was a need for a more formal working arrangement.

The WSSD partnership program provided a suitable framework. The structure included an executive formal decision-making body, the so-called Partnership Committee, and six partnership projects under the responsibility of the Partnership Committee.

Figure 4: Partnership Structure WSSD Partnership Program Ethiopia

* The Agriculture Counsellor (AC) is not independent of the EKN. Since the AC has an important role in the WSSD partnership and he usually has a different reporting line (to LNV instead of DGIS/DDE), this review considers the ACs nevertheless separately. The WSSD partnership in Ethiopia followed a different and later set-up compared to Tanzania, Uganda or Kenya. In Ethiopia, from the program start on, the responsibility for the program was with the EKN and in particular with the Agricultural Counselor. The EKN has entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ethiopian Horticulture Producer Export Association. The final financial and political end responsibility of the WSSD partnership program is however with DDE in The Hague.

B2.2 Role of the Partnership Committee

The Partnership Committee (PC) is the executive body of the partnership. It is responsible for the management of the partnership, approval, and guidance and monitoring of projects. It has also the task to identify links with other programs and projects. The organizational composition of the PC demonstrated a strong public sector representation. The PC composition read as follows:

• Chair: Ministry of Trade and Industry (as of Dec 2008 the PC will be chaired by a representative of the Ethiopian Horticulture Development Agency) (public)

• Ethiopian Horticulture Producers and Exporters Organization (private)

• Crop Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (public)

• College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jimma University (public)

• Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (public)

• Ministry of Trade and Industry (public)

• Agricultural Office, EKN (donor) The PC decided to jointly take responsibility for:

Partnership Committee

Project

E02

Project

E03

Project

E04

DGIS/ DDE

LNV

Counselor * EKN

LNV

Project

E05

Project

E01

Project

E06

18

• Identifying and initiating new priorities for actions in the partnership;

• Assessing and selecting received proposals on partnership projects;

• Monitoring of progress and evaluation of approved partnership projects;

• Liaising with relevant bodies and platforms on project, activities undertaken and lessons learned. The PC is understood as ‘consultative meeting’. The meetings followed the objective to solve problems for a better promotion of exports, what reflected the Ministry of Trade and Industry’s mission. The tripartite structure of the partnership was appreciated by the Ethiopian government. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented by the Ambassador of the EKN, was responsible for endorsement of the conclusions reached on the basis of consensus by the members of the PC, insofar they related to the transfer of public funds by the Netherlands Government.

B2.3 Partnership Account Unit

It was agreed that under the PC a separate Partnership Account Unit (PAU) was installed. This unit was located at the EHPEA. EHPEA acted to the EKN as the formal legal financial entity for the WSSD funds. The Unit worked as independent body within EHPEA under the direct command and instruction of the PC and should be fully accountable to the PC. It was rather challenging to come to this agreement; it is a unique situation in the Ethiopian context that in a public-private partnership the private sector had the ‘legal responsibility’ for the partnership budget. The tasks of the Partnership Account Unit included:

• Design under supervision of the chairman and secretariat of PC an administration, contracting, procurement, accounting and reporting systems in line with the legal and procedural requirements of the members of the partnership;

• Arrange for timely and proper contracting the required outside parties and consultants for approved projects;

• Ensure proper, timely and efficient disbursement of EKN funds as advised by the PC;

• Monitor and report disbursement against approved project plans;

• Submit a consolidated financial statement twice a year to the PC.12 At the time of the review EHPEA had human resource problems and there was no executive director managing the activities of EHPEA. In fact, the daily work was done by board members and supporting staff.

B2.4 Partnership Projects

In Ethiopia, no floriculture industry specific practical training program existed before the partnership started. Moreover, at the various levels of training institutes, it was only with limited technical and practical know-how of the floricultural sector that trainings were conducted. All stakeholders in the floriculture industry in Ethiopia emphasized the urgent need for the establishment of a sustainable, industry-led, practically oriented capacity-building facility as major prerequisite for the development of a profitable and sustainable development of the industry in Ethiopia. The strategy of the WSSD partnership program is to build capacity projects on a solid capacity building and training program.13 Figure 5 provides an overview on the capacity building strategy of the WSSD partnership program. As already mentioned in A3., the projects were partly follow-up projects. Since the project components were closely interlinked with each other, different funding sources were used.

12 Appendix 1 (Task of the different bodies of the partnership) of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership. 13 The major stakeholders of the sector have agreed upon a common approach and strategy to develop a capacity building program for the floriculture sector for the period 2007 – 2012. The training and capacity building program will be industry-driven, but will operate as a public-private sector partnership working within the guidelines outlined in the Sector Strategy Paper and the Ethiopian Vocational Training Policy. In the long-term the program and its facilities should become financially sustainable after initial donor support during the establishment and development phase

19

Figure 5: Capacity Building Strategy of the WSSD Partnership Program

Intension of the WSSD framework was that stakeholders collaboratively address one issue of the sector in setting up joint projects. In Ethiopia, not all projects were public-private in nature. There was no structure of working-groups included in the Ethiopian partnership program. The following example illustrates public-private interaction on project level: the coordination of the IPM project (E03) was done by the public sector; different public and private partners were involved. Collaborative action took place at the level of data collection and on expertise development. This form of interaction was not common before the partnership started. Partnerships can be clustered in terms of their strategic orientation. Partnerships take place at micro, meso and macro level. Micro partnerships are primarily project oriented and focus on a particular country or specific activity. They are rather transactional (in the sense of strongly linked to companies core activities) or philantropical. Meso partnerships aim to improve the sustainability of a certain sector or supply chain. Macro partnerships have broader objectives, define issues widely, address multiple interests and therefore also cover several countries or global activities (Kolk et al., 2008). The reviewed projects E01 and E03 aimed to contribute to improving the competitiveness of the Ethiopian export-oriented horticulture sector. They were meso in nature but started their operationalization on micro level (selected farms in selected areas).

B2.5 Internal Accountability Mechanism

PC level (horizontal accountability) The public sector was representated by several governmental organizations in the PC. Representatives of the private actors stated that in the PC it was listened effectively to the needs of the private sector. Decision-making was normally done by consensus. If no consensus could be established, the decision was postponed to the next meeting. The partnership worked ‘hands-on’: together the partners identified and prioritized issues, decided which partners were most suited to address the issue, agreed upon and formulated project activities and allocated required budget. The essence was that the partners pull resources, networks and expertise together and remained flexible as priorities and problems could change during course of time. In that sense the informal contacts and agreements demonstrated to be of high importance. The sector enjoyed support from the government what on the other hand generated a certain level of pressure on the players in the field. The governmental representatives involved in the PC had the pressure to deliver results to their Ministers who finally had to report to the Prime Minister. Internal pressure of vertical reporting was an important accountability mechanism of the PC.

Training and Capacity Building Program

E01: On-farm trainings on e.g. health safety or post-harvest management

E03: On-farm training on IPM

Other WSSD projects (E02, E04-E06)

Other projects focusing on CB, research and development (e.g. funded by NUFFIC or CBI)

20

PC- Donor (vertical accountability) In 2007, the EKN made an additional €15.000 for the functioning of the PC, secretariat and sounding board group available. The chairman of the PC together with the chairman of EHPEA had the mandate to make, in consultation with the EKN, proper arrangements of the installation and functioning of the PAU. This structure incorporated ownership by the Ethiopian partners. The Agricultural Counselor played a strong link to pull the strings between the PC and the donor by his presence in the PC and his strong supervisory role in the whole process. He wrote regular partnership progress reports; in this sense the Agricultural Counselor could be identified as the main problem owner of the program. PC – project partners (vertical accountability) In different committees and initiatives the same people are represented. This caused that one had to deal with the same organizations on program and project level. The PC members had a direct interest in the projects. It could be observed that almost all organizations were somehow involved in several projects. In some projects they had a less proactive role than in others. Project level (horizontal accountability) In how far the projects included joint decision-making between public and private actors, a share of resources and risks and finally a win-win situation is created has to be analyzed more in detail. In the two reviewed projects reporting was mainly done by Dutch experts involved in the projects in cooperation with the project partners. The progress reports of the projects formed the written material providing information on the projects. When it comes to governance structures, we had to reveal that the projects did not incorporated governance mechanisms in their design. Almost no project developed agreements on sanction mechanisms or clear procedures for decision-making. The final responsibility is with the focal organization and the consultant – there was hardly a share of risks included in the project design. It can be concluded, that in general, some projects were partnerships in involvement, but no partnership in ownership.

B2.6 Transparency

Transparency was a major weakness of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia. Weak transparency structures were identified on different levels: internal transparency on program and project level as well as external transparency towards the main beneficiaries. Internal transparency On PC level, one member claimed that he couldn’t follow track of the expenditures. He commented that there is a lack of a clear agenda for future actions and that a better monitoring system needs to be developed. A lack of information on expenditures was also mentioned at project level; one respondent of a public sector organization implementing a project criticized that he had no overview about the budget available. This perspective was not shared by the EKN. In the long run, a lack of transparency could become a threat for the functioning of the partnership. The weak transparency structures demonstrated a lack of trust of the partners. The fact that the private sector is administering the program funds was innovative and actors were not familiar with this arrangement. Moreover, a lack of trust between different governmental organizations could be revealed. Some respondents of public sector organizations aligned to MoARD were confident that in future, MoARD will have a stronger stake in the partnership through the new function of chairing the PC by the Horticulture Development Agency (instead of MoTI). External transparency The partnership set-up was rather complex and the fact that some project components received co-funding from different sources made the project level rather intransparent. The Agricultural Counselor was the only person who had an overview on the program as a whole. When it came to training issues also the training expert had a very good overview how the training projects were embedded in the WSSD

21

program. No project manager is appointed to the partnership. He/she could steer the different initiatives. From a positive perspective projects were brought together which usually would work side by side. When interviewing the beneficiaries of the reviewed projects (mainly farm managers), it became obvious that they were not informed about the background of the project they were involved in. Several other project partners (especially of the public sector) complained that they wish to have more information on the background of the WSSD program.

B2.7 External accountability

The specific political, economic and social context, in which a partnership operates as well as the culture of the participating organizations, have implications for how a partnership addresses issues of accountability (Caplan, 2005). In Ethiopia, the partnership program tried to tie-up with existing processes (such as the CoP development) and structures (e.g. the intention to conduct meetings of the Executive Committee of the French funded project and the PC at the same time). This idea to attach the program to an existing dialogue structure should simplify the establishment process of the program in the specific Ethiopian context where the government needs to be strongly involved in the process. Building upon existing processes should enable to have the commitment of the public sector for the program. The partnership managed to apply the ‘context specific rules’ without losing its specific characteristic of being an innovative approach for public-private interaction.

B3. Brokerage/Process Facilitation

Wageningen UR was involved from the start on in the partnership. The experts had the role to explore possibilities for capacity building projects. Moreover, later on, the experts were involved in supporting the projects by sharing experience, providing training and information. The involvement of Dutch experts who steered the projects (e.g. in the IPM project the consultants from Wageningen had once a week regular contact with the local project manager) was highly appreciated by the project partners. The Agricultural Counselor had a very important broker role in the process of transforming a commercial sector towards a sustainable cluster in Ethiopia. He was very active in communicating with all actors involved, problem and conflict solving, and steering the process. His presence and pro-active attitude to address the bottlenecks of the sector through continuous dialogue was illustrated by the following statement of a public servant involved in the project: “Geert is almost part of our department”. The partnership partners appreciate the very active facilitative role of the Agricultural Counselor on program and project level. The Ethiopian partners, especially the Governmental authorities, however, know that the program also followed Dutch interests. In this context some respondents mentioned that in future, it should be thought about a neutral process facilitator (e.g. a project manager).

22

[C] OUTPUT

C1. Partnership Project Results

The activities undertaken by the partners resulted in a variety of project outputs. One obvious output criterion is the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved. Table 5 lists a selected example of achievements in relation to the project goal. Table 5: Project goal-alignment Project Goal Achievements (selected

examples) E01 Facilitating EHPEA with an effective strategic planning tool

for the sustainable development of the Ethiopian floriculture sector

• Successful development of training methodology that enables the sector to comply with the CoP requirements on bronze level

• Training Unit created (1 external expert and 4 horticultural specialists)

• Development of local professional and independent auditing capacity

• Development of Management Information System for Sustainable Floriculture development

E03 Developing a comprehensive research and development plan for a systematic and responsible introduction of IPM

• IPM pilots on farms successful; growers are most satisfied

• Not yet hard data available, but farm managers indicate that IPM results in improved production (5-8% increase) and quality (stem length and thickness);

• Import permits for 3 beneficials for the research activities

Tangible results were important (“seeing is believing”). Pilot farms which applied IPM were convinced about the benefit and aimed to scaled up the use of IPM (e.g. ET Highlands). Along with tangible results the projects had some first results in creating public awareness. The IPM project organized a farm-day where the Minister for Agriculture was present and the participating farm managers presented their experience to the audience. This awareness creation event was perceived as important in order to convince more farms on the benefits of introducing IPM.

C1.1 Development of Training Component

The development of the training program aimed to achieve an optimal combination of theory, formal practical training and exposure to real-life conditions and on-the-job-learning. Training was provided via short courses delivered at a range of existing sites mainly within the industry (e.g. farms) and at close range to the existing production centers to facilitate easy access for the target group. Emphasis of all trainings provided was on practical skills training and the knowledge and understanding needed to meet the demands and standards of the sector and the international market place. Partly with the support of EKN-bilateral funds, a training coordinator was appointed to guide and oversee the implementation of the training program for the initial two years. The training coordinator liaised between EHPEA members, stakeholders and external training providers to ensure that people remain informed, needs are met and the project activities operated within the various relevant plans for capacity building and training. The training coordinator designed ‘on-farm’ training programs, i.e. short courses in specialist topics designed to be delivered on individual farm sites. Courses included various aspects of pesticide use, post harvest handling, supervision skills, basic crop production etc. As of June 2008, the farm training program estimated to have trained around 869 people on 68 farms in Ethiopia.14

14 The figure includes also training provided by CBI, PUM, Real IPM Kenya and WUR.

23

In order to facilitate delivery of all the components of the training program in the short and long term, the program set up a pool of local trainers. At the time of the review four trainers were hired and a fifth position was in the exploration.

The program developed a ‘training-of-trainer’ component which strengthened the capacity of young professional. The ‘training-of-trainer’ component included the participation of training programs at consortium and project partners in The Netherlands (e.g. at PTC+ and Flower Watch).

C2. Sustainability

By the time of the review, most project outputs were not yet quantifiable; but as soon as the first farms will comply to bronze level of the Code of Practice, it is assumed that the partnership will demonstrate first tangible results. At the time of the review it was planned that 10 farms will be successfully audited by end of February 2009. It had to be taken into account that most results are only partly achieved through the WSSD program; assistance (financial or and capacity) from different sources contributed to the overall-success. The projects demonstrated that there is a need for further external support. The implementation of the trainings was not yet financed by the participants (companies) on operational cost basis. At the time of the review the industry was in the process of consolidating its position. Financial problems made it difficult for some farms to come up with additional investments. Most farms were not yet financial secured enough to pay for capacity building. Cover costs for capacity building were and will (the next to coming years) dependent on donor funding (e.g. the training component estimated to require assistance until 2012). The training programs, however, are designed in a way that the companies could afford to pay for them in future. In general, the structure and strategy of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia to build the implementation of capacity building activities upon a solid training program is assumed to be sustainable; it closely interlinks activities such as the establishment of the code of conduct and IPM application on farms. A positive perspective for sustainability is that the Ethiopian Government is open to find solutions for bottlenecks in the sector.

The four local

trainers of the

program

24

[D] OUTCOME

D1. Contribution to Improved Market Access

Entry barriers in the international horticulture markets appear to be a major restricting factor. The strict demands in terms of quality, safety compliance and consistency implies that exporters need to have highly effective and efficient production and post-harvest systems in place from the beginning onwards (Joosten, 2007). What is the positive contribution of the WSSD partnership program to improved access of Ethiopian horticultural products to markets of Europe especially to the Netherlands? The capacity to innovate, and to ensure continuous improvement in product and process development is the key compatibility of competitive and self-sustaining sectors. In the following, it is analyzed how the capacity building activities of the WSSD partnership program contributed to upgrading of the horticulture sector. Process Upgrading The focus of the WSSD partnership program was on strengthening the capacity of organization’s structures and working mechanism, including the elaboration of management structures, processes, and procedures. New management techniques introduced by the Code of Practice and by the IPM project helped the farms to increase their management capacity for improving quality and consistency of their products. In this context, the approach of the post-harvest project15 was impressive. The project supported capacity building on farms by providing weekly feedback on the quality of flowers arriving in The Netherlands.

The project trained farm managers on how to introduce changes in post-harvest processes which should lead to better results in post-harvest handling and finally to higher prices of Ethiopian flowers. At the time of the review, the project was in its starting phase, and there was not yet evidence of higher prices for flowers or an increase in earning of the farms involved. The Dutch expert involved in the project had good experiences with this approach at other flower farms in upcoming markets. It can be assumed that the approach to increase the efficiency of internal processes through building up understanding on market access requirements and applying some basic post-harvest handling methods has the potential to improve the quality of the flowers arriving at the auction in Aalsmeer.

15 The project ‘Post Harvest Handling and Cool Chain Management of Cut flowers for Export’ was initiated by EHPEA and approved by the PC in March 2008. The project is relevant given the fact that many gains be achieved through improvement of the cool chain. Not only in terms of better prices, but also in terms of reputation. It allows for quick wins. Essential is the combination of skill development, cooperation along the chain and putting good monitoring and evaluation in place. It is executed by the Training Unit of EHPEA in cooperation with FlowerWatch in the Netherlands.

Checking the quality of flowers at the

auction in Aalsmeer

Not sufficient packaging quality of a flower shipment

from Ethiopia

25

Product Upgrading Farm managers involved in the development of a comprehensive research and development plan for a systematic and responsible introduction of IPM indicated that quality in production (5-8% increase) and quality (stem length and thickness) improved. At the time of the review, no hard data (such as percentage of sales coming from IPM products etc.) were yet available from the pilot farms, because the project was still in its testing phase. Farms involved in the IPM pilot group felt confident to expand the application of IPM to other greenhouses of their farms after October 2008. The IPM pilot group is rather small (n=3) and it will need some time to introduce IPM sector wide in Ethiopia. Functional Upgrading Before the WSSD partnership program started, trainings for employees were mainly done by the farms themselves. Through the WSSD partnership program, the need for capacity building activities for farm employees was addressed by on-farm training programs provided by the EHPEA’s training unit. The trainings are designed to give an effective response to the problem; by successful completion of the courses the workers received a certificate. In this regard, the training introduces a system that addresses the high fluctuation and worker migration rates by providing a) a proof of qualification to the individual worker and b) certainty that the worker is well trained to new employers. In the long-run, this contributes to a reliable steady pool of qualified workers in the sector. In general, EHPEA was now better able to provide services to its members, what enabled a more efficient division of tasks in the sector. Especially the Code of Practice increased value by changing the mix of activities conducted on different farm levels. In the long run, the compliance to the CoP compliance will stimulate a more strategic corporate social responsible behavior of the sector.

D2. Market Access Conditions addressed by the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia?

The ‘sky-rocketing’ result of the Ethiopian flower export industry is impressive. At the time of the review, hard economic data available do not cover the year 2008 (see A1). 2008 was the main year of implementation for the WSSD partnership program. Evidence for a correlation of a contribution of the WSSD partnership program with the improvement of Ethiopia’s flower export is not given for the second half of 2007, because by then the activities did not start the implementation phase. The interviewed farmers stated that they had not yet higher earnings related to WSSD projects. It is definitely too early to justify a relation between the outputs of the project and the better market position of Ethiopia. It can be assumed, however, that the ongoing activities as the implementation of the Code of Practice on farms, the research and pilot studies on IPM as well as the attitude of the industry and the Ethiopian government to apply stricter phytosanitary checks, will contributed towards a positive image of the Ethiopian sector. One respondent stated that by the end of 2008, inspection rates for floricultural products in The Netherlands were expected to be about 5% (have been about 30% before).

Quality check by Farm Manager

26

D3. Governance - Facilitating Policy Reform

Upgrading not only reflects the capacity to improve process and product quality but also to be proactive in setting rules. The capability for dialogue in a sector is of high importance. Governments that listen to the private sector are more likely to design credible and workable reforms, while entrepreneurs who understand what their government is trying to achieve with a program or reforms are more likely to accept and support them. Partnerships aiming to improve the competitiveness of a sector can both clarify the incentives and build the capacity of governments to implement reforms. Dialogue with entrepreneurs not only helps to reveal governments the likely micro-foundations for growth; it creates a sense of local ownership which makes policies more likely to succeed in practice (Herzberg and Wright, 2005). The WSSD partnership program worked towards facilitating, accelerating or bringing focus to policy reforms.16

The strategy to include a Partnership Committee as dialogue forum means also to strengthen organization’s capacity to manage relationships with other organizations. When EHPEA started in 2002 with five individuals, the association was ‘walking against walls’. The idea to promote the industry was difficult to operationalize because of the government’s attitude towards the sector. One outcome of the WSSD partnership program was that the consultative mechanism inherent in the partnership design created a ‘window of opportunity’ for the industry in policy related decision-making processes. One example was the import permits for 3 beneficials for research activities in the context of the IPM project. The process of setting up a legal framework for the commercial use of biological agents, however, demonstrated to be rather slow and cumbersome. The existence of such a legal framework, however, is a

prerequisite to upscaling IPM on farms.

D4. Spin-off on Social and Economic Development

The horticulture sector is one of the most labor intensive subsectors of the country. It is assumed that improving the competitiveness of the sector will have a spin-off effect on local, regional and national socio-economic development. The contribution of the partnership program to social and economic development is measured by focusing on the positive influence of the projects on contributing to achieving the MDGs. Since this is very difficult to measure, the review made an attempt to identify direct and indirect contribution to MDGs.17 It did not only ask for objective criteria, but also for the impression of the participants. In this regard, this exercise can only assess the potential impact of the projects – it provides statements based on the impression of participants and the reviewers. The results of this exercise are summarized in Table 6. Table 6: Project Contribution to MDGs Project MD-Goal to contribute to …. Impact E01 (only WSSD component)

#8: strengthening local capacity through: � Trainings for graduated horticultural specialists in NL by experts � Developed training methodology as framework for local capacity building � Technical innovation introduced ( management information system

(MONQI))

#7: reducing environmental impact through: Courses on Farm Environment Risk Assessment #6: providing health education on HIV/AIDS Course on HIV/AIDS Awareness and Basic First Aid #1: CoP is forcing farmers to improve working conditions for employees

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

16 Policy reform can include new legislation, the amendment or repeal of existing legislation, removing or simplifying regulations and controls, standardizing procedures across different jurisdictions, and setting up new institutions. 17 Recent reports have tried to come up with some criteria for assessing in more detail the contribution of the private sector to the MDGs. A Dutch study provided a more detailed, quantitative measurement of impact, applied to six multinationals (NCDO, 2006). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2004) also aims to link the core activities of businesses to the MDGs. Although the partnership under review originated from the WSSD conference, similar links with the MDGs can also be deducted from the partnership under review. The WSSD conference is strongly related to the MDGs which are at the heart of Dutch development policy nowadays. Combining these three goal specifications leads to list of goals that was used by the review team to check the direct as well as an indirect impact of the partnership projects on the various dimensions of development.

27

E03 #7: IPM reduces the use of chemicals and therewith the impact of greenhouse horticulture on the environment #8: strengthening local capacity through: IPM training and research

(assumed) Direct Direct

The exercise on possible contribution to MDGs revealed that the projects already had a direct positive influence on strengthening local capacity building. The trainings provided by the program supported individual and organizational capacity building directly. The training program and its activities within both reviewed projects had the potential to improve economic positions and to create local capacity (MDG 8).

The strength of the partnership program was to involve Dutch knowledge network in the project design. Learning and training facilitated knowledge exchange and technology transfer. This could be assessed as a direct contribution to MDG 8. Some farm managers responded that they had not yet started sufficiently to build up health of educative support systems for their employees. The WSSD supported training program included basic first aid courses which focused also on awareness rising on HIV/AIDS. The farm managers involved in the projects realized that corporate social responsibility is an important element for success18. The Code of Practice is a first step in this direction. In future, however, the bronze level of the Code of Practice will be not enough; in order to make a real contribution towards social development, the farms need to develop more CSR practices. In this context they understood that there is a need for closer cooperation with the public sector. When speaking about quality standards for the European market, ensuring environmental sustainability becomes more important. Ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG7) has been an intended objective of both reviewed projects (e.g. training courses on integrated pest-management). The impact of the activities could not yet be measured but in the long run a direct positive effect on sustainable development is assumed. Overall, the WSSD partnership program involved the private sector and aimed to contribute to MDG 1 by stimulating sustainable agricultural production which provided decent work and secured jobs in the Ethiopian horticulture sector. In the long run, an indirect effect on job security is assumed when the industry will receive higher benefits through improved quality. The implementation of the Code of Pratice

18 One visited farm employs 10 handicapped workers (out of 98 workers in total). The farm manager is proud of providing these opportunities to the workers in cooperation with an organization for deaf people.

Post-harvest process at the pack house

28

forced the farmers to invest in more decent working conditions. The WSSD contribution on training and auditing had an indirect positive impact on improved working conditions.

[E] EFFICIENCY

“Partnership efficiency is the ability to make good use of members’ financial resources, non-financial resources and time” (Caplan et al., 2007). Assessing the efficiency of a partnership is primarily based on the cost (actual or opportunity costs) of achieving results. However, since the achievement of results is also affected by the external environment in which the partnership operates, efficiency can also be viewed in terms of the partnership’s capacity to influence positively and strategically those external factors that affect its ability to perform (Caplan et al., 2007).

E1. Cost-Benefit Ratio

Efficiency represents the ratio of benefits to costs: an increase in efficiency therefore involves increasing benefits relative to costs. It can be assumed that costs are often far easier to itemize and measure than benefits – particularly less tangible benefits like increasing choice and independence, or improving the quality of life. However, some costs are more apparent than others: a comprehensive audit would need to include costs such as the development of compatible information management between partners, or investments in joint training (Glendinning, 2002). The review demonstrated that a conclusive cost-benefit analysis of the partnerships is not yet completely feasible because not all partners (including the Embassy) have kept systematic track of the (additional) cost dedicated to the partnership. Table 7 compares transaction costs and benefits of the organizations involved. Table 7: Cost-Benefit Comparison Transaction Costs Benefits Public sector organizations (incl. ministries, research institutions)

The participation in projects was judged as moderate, since the projects are in line with the core-business of the governmental organizations. The PC members stated that their transaction costs were moderate.

Some capacity building activities for the Ethiopian public sector took place (e.g. training and study trips; joint exercise with Alterra on pesticide law, and technical assistance by Wageningen UR). In general, ‘public’ respondents would appreciate to see more direct benefits for their organization.

EHPEA The coordination of the program required additional work of EHPEA. The lack of an Executive Director forced the board members to be more involved in the operationalization of the program. Especially the training expert is very much involved in the WSSD program.

The partnership project provided benefits for EHPEA such as:

• institutional strengthening through building up a sustainable training unit

• broaden the own network

• development of a sustainable business model (training program)

• improved lobbying position

Farms The project implementation was rather risky (e.g. IPM) and cost intensive (e.g. improve facilities and capacity to comply to CoP standards) for farms.

Participating farms were the main beneficiaries of the partnership through:

• a certain level of legal security through the CoP

• improved reputation

• improved quality of products

• and expected higher earnings for their products

Dutch Government (EKN, DGIS and LNV)

The transaction costs for the Dutch government were relatively moderate in the start-up. By including the program to the EKN strategy, synergies to other programs and projects were identified. The Agricultural Counselor was and is involved in the operationalization of

The Dutch government and especially the EKN benefited through:

• contribution effectively to poverty reduction and sustainable development

• strengthen the Dutch position as most important donor in the floricultural sector

• broaden the scope for policy influence

29

the program. • secure the interest of Dutch investors in the Ethiopian horticulture sector

• strengthen linkages between Dutch expert network in horticulture and Ethiopian actors.

Total Budget In 2006, when the Agricultural Counselor started to explore the partnership a budget of 30.000€ was available. In 2007, the total maximum amount of funds for co-financing projects from the Netherlands WSSD facility for the period 2007-2009 of €1 million was added. The implementing organizations had to ensure a contribution (cash/inkind) of at least 25%. This means that the Government of the Netherlands funding never exceeds 75% of the total project costs. Project components received partly contributions (financial and technical assistance) by CBI Netherland, ILO Decent Work Programme or NUFFIC. There was also a Swedish contribution to the development of the training team which will end by December 2008. The synergy of different project components allowed for a broader impact. One bottleneck of the Ethiopian partnership program, however, was its low level of financial transparency.

E2. WSSD Budget as “Seed Money”

The budget of 1 million Euro of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia was ideally seen as “seed money”. The industry is still under development and the farmers have high investment costs at this stage. Additional resources are still needed to enable the projects to achieve their objectives. Assistance for the training team to upscale their activities to prepare the whole sector to comply to the CoP bronze level was estimated be required until 2012. The question if and when farms could contribute fees for the trainings is difficult to judge: it could be argued that if the farmers have to start paying fees, this would create a stronger sense of ownership and shared responsibility. In contrast, it could be stated that there is a need for the sector to become sustainable and therefore there is the need to enable training to all farms so that they are able to reach the requirements for the Code of Practice. The EKN incorporated PPPs in its strategy19 and is planning to support PPPs also in future.

E3. Reflecting on the Efficiency of the Partnership Process

The process of setting up the partnership was efficient in the Ethiopian case; the partnership program was developed in a short time frame with no high transaction costs involved. Factors which contributed to the efficient partnership exploration and building process included:



• Good facilitation process by Dutch experts;


• Build upon existing projects.

19 The EKN developed a PPP in the oilseed sector. The governance structure should facilitate support from the stakeholder, effective and efficient decision-making and transparent action. The Oilseeds PPP consists of three bodies: (i) the Partnership Committee which acts as the executive, decision-making body of the partnership; (ii) the Taskforce, which is the daily working body of the PPP and (iii) the Partnership Management Unit which forms the daily secretariat; it administers, accounts, and monitors the PPP projects.

30

E4. Critical Success Factors

Assessing the efficiency of partnerships implies considering strategic indicators. The review demonstrated that the following factors are critical for the partnership success in Ethiopia (see a full list of critical success factors and their scores in appendix 3): Good leadership. The facilitation role of the Agricultural Counselor and the Dutch experts was of high importance for the partnership process. Mutual respect and look at each other as equal partners. In the specific Ethiopian case it seemed to be of high priority to respect the partner and consider the other partner as equal. Multi-benefit objective. Identifying the benefit for the own organization and recognize the benefit for the partner was mentioned as being instrumental for the partnership in Ethiopia. Take time in particular in the start-up phase. Some respondents mentioned that it is important to allow time for setting up such a partnership. The partners need to build up respect for each other. Commitment. Willingness and commitment of the Ethiopian government to actively participate in the partnership was of high importance for the success of the partnership.

31

[F] EFFECTIVENESS

What was the partnership’s added value? The search after the added-value of partnership seeks to confirm and articulate that the partnership as a whole yields more than what would have resulted from the partners operating independently.

F.1 Was the Partnership Necessary?

In Ethiopia, export-oriented horticulture – in particular floriculture – had a huge growth potential during the last years. A young sector with growth potential provides opportunities for investors even without having any experience in horticultural production. It is estimated that five years are a realistic time frame to establish an industry. It is expected that by that time some farms will be financial secured, and some will not be able to survive. The WSSD partnership program aimed to support the sector with specific projects to become self-sustainable. Strategic capacity building support for the sector was highly required in order to avoid the development of a hit-and-run sector. The Ethiopian government demonstrated its commitment for building an enabling environment for the export-oriented horticulture sector. The Prime Minister portrait his commitment to the sector. This situation opened an opportunity to involve the private sector stronger in political decision-making processes. The WSSD partnership entered at the right time the scene in Ethiopia. There was a need to apply an instrument which has the capacity to facilitate public-private dialogue and strengthen capacity of the sector to become sustainable.

F2. Value-Added

As partnerships are dynamic and many are experimental, it remains difficult to specify value-added indicators a priori. However, evidence of value added, whether aspired or identified after the fact may include: qualitative or quantitative synergistic outcomes of the program itself, linkages with other programs and actors, enhanced capacity and influence of individual partners, and other multiplier effects such as program extension and replication (Brinkerhoff, 2002).

F2.1 Integrated Capacity Building Strategy for the Sector

The WSSD partnership program strategy to support a training and capacity building program as step towards further project activities was valuable. The program supported to build up an integrated industry driven strategy for a sector which has to be implemented in cooperation of public and private sector. Especially the Code of Practice was a milestone for the sector to comply with international standards what finally can contribute to the sectors competitiveness. The partnership program brought in Dutch interests and expertise. Dutch training and research institutions were involved in the partnership program by providing new technologies to the export-oriented horticulture sector in Ethiopia. The cooperation of Dutch and Ethiopian actors resulted in:

• Improved post-harvest handling methods based on a direct feedback loop with the market;

• Introduction of IPM research and pilot studies in Ethiopian rose sector;

• Implementation of a tailor-made Code of Conduct for the Ethiopian context.

32

At the stage of the review, the WSSD partnership program supported the sector to build up capacity to innovate, and to ensure continuous improvement in product and process development. The added value of the program was to focus on process, product and functional upgrading of the sector. This played a vital role in supporting the sector towards becoming sustainable.

F2.2 Window of Opportunity for the Private Sector

The Ethiopian government recognized the important role of business for benefiting the whole country. Once a month, an export meeting of private sector and the Prime minister took place, but, in general, the government consulted the horticulture industry only when it was necessary – hardly any real cooperation existed. In general, 80 % of interaction between public and private sector is informal.

Due to the country’s history of hierarchical and non-participatory government only slowly the public sector realizes its role to serve the private sector. One example for this new “way of thinking” is the fact that the government signed the MoU which implies that the partnership budget was managed by EHPEA. Trusting the other sector on money issues was something completely new and challenging in Ethiopia. Some partnership members of the public sector mentioned that the close cooperation with the private sector in the WSSD partnership program showed them to choose a proactive way rather than enforcing rules and laws. Also the collaborative work at project level facilitated a two-way learning process for the individuals involved. It enriched the understanding that a partnership is not only enabling material support but knowledge exchange and learning from each other. In general, the WSSD partnership was successful because the Ethiopian government ‘opened the sector’ for collaboration. The partnership created a window of opportunity for the private sector to act in a pro-active way by implementing voluntary, industry-driven standards for the sector. Partnering, where resources and risks are shared is, however, a new concept for public and private actors in the horticulture sector.

High quality rose Ideal packing for the transport

33

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 A unique Partnership Approach for the Ethiopian Horticultural Sector

In Ethiopia, the export-oriented horticulture – in particular floriculture – had a huge growth potential during the last years. The WSSD partnership program aimed to support the sector with specific capacity building projects to become self-sustainable. By developing an integrated capacity and training approach, the partnership managed to provided successful capacity building on individual and organizational level. Especially the implementation of the Code of Practice is a first step for the sector to comply with international standards. The WSSD partnership program involved Dutch training and research institutions which developed together with Ethiopian partners new technologies and methods adapted to the particular Ethiopian context. The WSSD partnership entered at the right time the scene in Ethiopia. There was a need to apply an instrument which had the capacity to facilitate public-private dialogue and strengthen capacity of the sector to become sustainable. The process of setting up the partnership was efficient; the partnership program was developed in Ethiopia in a short time frame with no high transaction costs. Factors which contributed to the efficient partnership exploration and building process included:



• Good facilitating process of Dutch experts;


• Build upon existing projects. At the time of the review, the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia only entered the implementation phase and still has a long way to go. The program focused mainly on the flowers and not on fruits and vegetables subsector. It supported the flower subsector with capacity building to innovate, and to ensure continuous improvement in product and process development. The added value of the program to focus on process, product and functional upgrading of the sector played and will play a vital role in supporting the sector’s sustainability. The consultative mechanism included in the partnership design demonstrated to be an effective way to create a ‘window of opportunity’ for the private sector. The Ethiopian government recognized the important role of business for benefiting the sector and the whole country. Together the public and private sector address in concrete projects important challenges in the sector. The collaborative work at project level facilitated a two-way learning process for the individuals involved. It enriched the understanding that a partnership is not only enabling material support but knowledge exchange and learning from each other. Overall, it can be concluded that the partnership in Ethiopia was effective. The approach was integrated in the country strategy as well as in the strategy of the EKN. This facilitates a broad approach trying to find synergies with other funds. On the one hand, this bears the risk that the partnership is only seen as an additional funding option. On the other hand, it showed that the specific focus of the partnership (directed to build up capacity of the flower farms in order to be sustainable) built cohesion for the sector. The partnership still has a long way to go: in future, much effort will be necessary (a) for the sector to be able to comply in an appropriate way to international standards (b) for EHPEA to have developed the required capacity to facilitate the sector in their continuous process of sustainable development and (c) for the institutional environment to have developed professional services to stimulate the sustainable development of the sector. In months to come, the partnership might have to demonstrate its responsiveness; from 2009 on, the PC will be lead by the newly established Horticulture Development Agency. Since the partnership lacks transparency (especially financial transparency) on different levels, it could be assumed that the Agency might pursue a more important role for the government.

34

4.2 Comparative Perspective: Lessons Learned for the Ethiopian WSSD Partnership

The review of the partnership in Ethiopia is part of an assignment by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Security in The Hague to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the WSSD public-private partnership program in East Africa. The synthesis report20 compares the degrees of effectiveness of the partnerships in Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia (and to a lesser extent in Zambia and Uganda) and identified explanatory factors for the marginal differences in degree of effectiveness. Some selected lessons learned of the synthesis report for the Ethiopian case are:

• Compared to Tanzania (and Kenya), the partnership approach in Ethiopia is integrated in the country strategy and in the strategy of the EKN. This facilitates a broad approach identifying synergies with other funds and programs.

• At the time of the review, the Ethiopian program was directed to build up capacity of the flower farms in order to be sustainable. The partnership followed an integrated capacity building approach. The partnerships in Tanzania and Kenya identified several different bottlenecks such as in Tanzanian the promotion of the sector. In Uganda and Kenya, for instance, the activities focused more on smallholder integration and research.

• In all partnership cases, the EKNs had an active role in administer the partnerships. The importance of having a program manager as link between projects, PC and donor was successfully underlined by the experiences of the Tanzanian case, where the program management was successfully done by the Tanzanian Horticulture Association. Compared to the Ethiopian and the Kenyan case, this developed a high level of transparency on program and project level.

• In Ethiopia and Kenya some new project proposals were discussed, whereas in Tanzania the project selection process was rather limited on the partnership start-up phase in 2005.

• Regarding the projects, it has to been assessed that most partners involved are not yet ready and/or willing to carry the costs for the projects themselves. For instance, the financial contribution for the training centers in Tanzania and Ethiopia are crucial; the private sector was reluctant to finance the initiative at the time of the review. In Kenya, however, the private sector demonstrated commitment to follow-up investments for projects under their lead (K01 and K03).

• The partnerships in Kenya and Ethiopia involved more pro-actively Dutch expertise in their projects compared to the Tanzanian case. The Tanzanian partnership sourced consultants also outside of the Dutch network.

4.3 Recommendations for the WSSD Partnership in Ethiopia

Keep the momentum of what has been started. The consultative process and partnership set up demonstrated to be appreciated in the Ethiopian context. The partnership is effective and it is important to keep the momentum and go on with the process and create a success story. Ensure more transparency. Transparency was one major weakness of the WSSD partnership program in Ethiopia. Weak transparency structures were identified on different levels: internal transparency on program and project level as well as external transparency towards the main beneficiaries. The lack of transparency (especially financial transparency) on different level might be a threat in future: it could be assumed that it was difficult to build up trust.

20 Pfisterer, S., De Boer, D., Mudde, H., Van Dijk, M.P., Van Tulder, R. 2009. The Effectiveness of Public

Private Partnerships in East African Horticulture. Review of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

Public-Private Partnership Programme in Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia (and Zambia and Uganda). ECSAD: The

Hague.

35

Assess potential for fruits and vegetables. So far, the main activities of the partnership are concentrating on floriculture. The potential of fruits and vegetables needs to be assessed in order to identify potential intervention possibilities for public-private activities. Branding of the partnership. The partnership program involves directly and indirectly many people in Ethiopia and The Netherlands. It is successful and has a lot of potential. Therefore, it could be thought about more pro-active awareness creation by participating farmers and civil servants. They are an important stakeholder in the WSSD partnership program. Assign a partnership program manager. The partnership demonstrated was depended on process facilitation by Dutch consultants (on project level) and the Agricultural Counselor (program level). Explore the possibilities to involve a local program manger (maybe at EHPEA) in order create more ownership and transparency.

36

5. REFERENCES

BPD (2006). Spectrums of Engagement: Three ways of analysing partnerships. London: BPD (unpublished

document) Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2002). Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a proposed

framework, in: Evaluation and Programm Planning, issue 25 (2002), pp. 215-231. Caplan, K.. (2003). The Purist’s Partnership: Debunking the Terminology of Partnerships. London: Building

Partnerships for Development (Practitioner Note Series). Available from: http://www.bpdws.org/bpd/web/d/doc_86.pdf

Caplan, K. (2005). Partnership Accountability – Unpacking the Concept. London: Building Partnerships for Development (Practitioner Note Series).

Caplan, K. et al. (2007), Assessing Partnership Performance: Understanding the Drivers for Success. London: Building Partnerships for Development.

CBI (2007). Market Survey: The Cut Flower and Foliage Market in the EU. Rotterdam: CBI http://www.ibce.org.bo/Documentos/market_flower.pdf

De Boer, D., Pfisterer, S. (2006). Comparative Analysis of Public-Private Partnerships in Germany, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom. Cooperation between Government and Private Sector to Stimulating Sustainable Development. Maastricht: ECSAD. (unpublished document) De Jager, A. et al (2007). Partnership for Market Access; towards a sustainable market-oriented horticultural sector in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Assessment of the WSSD horticultural partnership process in East Africa August 2004 – December 2006. Draft report for internal reflection. Wageningen. ECSAD (2006a). Interview result in preparation of stakeholder dialogue between government and firms. Rotterdam:

ECSAD (unpublished document). ECSAD (2006b). Partnerships for Development in Practice; Two cases and lessons learned: Nutreco and Vitens,

Rotterdam: ECSAD (unpublished document). Glendinning, C. (2002). Partnerships between health and social services: developing a framework for

evaluation, in: Policy & Politics, Vol 30 (1), pp. 115-127. Herzberg, B., Wright, A. (2005). Competitiveness Partnerships – Building and Maintaining Public-Private

Dialogue to Improve the Investment Climate. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. No. 3683. Joosten, F. (2007). Development Strategy for the Export-oriented Horticulture in Ethiopia. Wageningen UR.

http://library.wur.nl/way/bestanden/clc/1891396.pdf Kolk, A.., Van Tulder, R. & E. Kostwinder (2008). ‘Business and partnerships for development’, in:

European Management Journal, 26 (4), 262-273. Kostwinder, E. and R. van Tulder (2006). DGIS and Public-Private Partnerships – First Evaluation of the

Call for Ideas 2003/2004, Rotterdam: ECSAD. Lanning, J. (2003). Identification mission Tanzania. Report for CBI. Ministry of Development Cooperation (2004). Richtlijn interne beoordeling publiek-private partnerschappen in het

kader van duurzame daadkracht. The Hague: DGIS. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003). Aan elkaar verplicht: Ontwikkelingssamenwerking op weg naar 2015. The Hague:

SDU. Mitiambo, P.M. (2008). Value Chain Analysis for the Flower Industry in Kenya and Tanzania. Unpublished Paper.

Arusha/Maastricht: ESAMI/MSM. NCDO (2006). Measuring the contribution of the private sector to the achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Version II. Amsterdam: National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development.

Nyambo, B., Verschoor, B. (2005). Partnership for Market access: towards a sustainable market-oriented horticultural sector in Tanzania. The export horticulture in Tanzania. Wageningen UR Positon Paper. OECD (2006). Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Partnerships, Workshop, Paris: 12 September 2006,

ENV/EPOC(2006)15. Rochlin, S., Zadek, S., Forstater, M. (2008). Governing Collaboration. Making Partnerships Accountable for

Delivering Development. London: AccountAbilty. SLE – Centre for Advanced Training in Rural Development (2008). Market-driven development and poverty

reduction: A value chain analysis of fresh vegetables in Kenya and Tanzania. Nairobi/Berlin: SLE Spielman, D.J., Hartwich, J. and Grebmer, K. von (2007). Sharing Science, Building Bridges, and Enhancing

Impact Public–Private Partnerships in the CGIAR, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00708. Tennyson, R. (2003). The partnering toolbook, The International Business Leaders Forum: London.

37

Thomson, A.M., Perry, J.L. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box, in: Public Administration Review, December 2006, Special Issue.

Van Dijk, M.P. (2008). The Impact of Decentralization on Poverty in Tanzania. Crawford, G., Hartman, C. (Eds.). Decentralisation in Africa: A Pathway out of Poverty and Conflict?. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Van Dijk, M.P. (2007). Urban-Rural Dynamics and Entrepreneurial Activities in Tanzania. Bass, H.-H., et al. (Eds.). Economic Systems in a Changing World Economy. Berlin: LIT.

Van Tulder, R., Muller, A. and De Boer, D. (2004). Partnerships, Power And Equity In Global Commodity Chains: Position paper on cooperation between companies and NGOs in stimulating sustainable development, Amsterdam: ECSAD.

Van Tulder, R., Van der Zwart, A. (2006). International Business-Society Management: linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, London: Routledge.

Van Tulder, R., Kostwinder, E. (2007). From Idea to Partnership. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Development Partnerships – Analytical Framework. (unpublished document).

Van Tulder, R., Pfisterer, S. 2008. From Idea to Partnership: Reviewing the Effectiveness of Development Partnerships in Zambia, Columbia and Ghana. Findings from a Review of six Partnerships from a “Call for Ideas” by DGIS. DGIS, The Hague (unpublished document).

Van Wijk, F., Danse, M., Van Tulder, R. (2008). Making Retail Supply Chains Sustainable. Upgrading opportunities for developing country suppliers under voluntary quality standards. Report prepared in the context of Innovatief Project ‘Economy Light Laurus: Duurzaam in Retail’. Rotterdam.

Warner, M. (2001). Measuring the ‘Added Value’ of Tri-Sector Partnerships. Working Paper No.14. London: Business Partners for Development. Natural Resource Cluster.

Warner, M., Sullivan, R. (2004). Putting partnerships to work. Strategic alliances for development between government, the private sector and civil society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Wijnands, J. (2005). Sustainable International Networks in the Flower Industry. Bridging Empirical Findings and Theoretical Approaches. Scripta Horticulturae Nr. 2. International Society for Horticultural Science.

38

Documents WSSD Partnership Program Ethiopia

Document Title Author Date

General Documents

MoU for the Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership MOAED,

MOTI, EKN,

EHPEA

Suggestions for agenda for the Intended Ethiopian-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership

Ethiopia-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership. Update Activities July-December 2007 Westenbrink,

de Jager

January

2008

Floriculture Development in Ethiopia. Water availability and environmental impacts. EKN and LNV September

2004

RNE Strategy: Management Summary and Decision-Points EKN 2008

Ethiopian-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership in full swing. Overview June 2008. EKN June 2008

Ethiopian-Netherlands Horticulture Partnership. Mission Report. Strategy Development Floriculture Capacity

Development.

Glenn

Humphries

(NZTT

Zambia); Peter

van Oene (PTC)

and Andre de

Jager (LEI)

October

2006

PC

Draft Minutes First PC Meeting EKN January

2008

Minutes Second PC Meeting EKN March

2008

Draft Minutes Third PC Meeting EKN July 2008

Draft Minutes Fourth PC Meeting EKN July 2008

E01

Project information: Code of Practice for Sustainable Flower Production EHPEA June 2007

Project information: Code of Practice for Sustainable Flower Production EHPEA, Lei,

Alterra

June 2007

39

Code of Practice for the Ethiopian Floriculture Sector Manse, M. (LEI) ?

Ethiopian Code of Practice for Sustainable flower cultivation. Project planning July 2008 – December 2009 EHPEA, LEI June 2008

Code of Practice for Sustainable Flower Production. Stakeholder Agreements EHPEA June 2007

MoU for activities leading to the implementation of the Code of Practice for Sustainable Flower Production EHPEA June 2007

Development of the EHPEA Code of Practice. Results of fieldwork conducted during September-Dec 2006 M. Danse et al

(LEI)

February

2007

Draft Ethiopian Code of Practice for sustainable flower cultivation EHPEA, LEI,

Alterrra and

WUR

June 2007

E02

Project information: Phytosanitary services in the Ethiopian export-oriented horticulture Crop Protection

Department

Ethiopia, LEI

June 2007

Pesticide registration and post registration in Ethiopia. Draft version proposal for joint collaborative project on pesticide

risk reduction in Ethiopia

Alterra,

APHRD, FAO,

Kemi

September

2008

E03

Project information: research and development plan for the introduction of integrated pest management in the Ethiopian

rose sector

EHPEA, Plant

Protection

Department

June 2007

A research and development plan for the introduction of Integrated Pest Management in the Ethiopian rose sector WUR October

2008

On-farm evaluation of Integrated Pest Management of red spider mite in cut roses in Ethiopia. 2nd Report to the ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development

E. Belder; A.

Ellings (WUR)

September

2008

IPM in Ethiopian horticulture: the first step. On-farm evaluation of Integrated Pest Management of red spider mite in cut

roses in Ethiopia. Report to the ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

E. Belder; A.

Ellings (WUR)

May 2008

A research and development plan for the introduction of Integrated Pest Management in the Ethiopian rose sector. Trip

Report September 2007

E. Belder; A.

Ellings (WUR)

October

2007


Report March 2008

E. Belder; A.

Ellings (WUR)

March

2008


Report April 2008

E. Belder

(WUR)

April 2008

40


Report June 2008

Anne Elings

(WUR)

July 2008


Report October 2008

Anne Elings

(WUR)

October

2008

E04

Project information: Support to the development of the Ethiopian Fruits and Vegetables Sector MARD,

EHPEA, LEI

June 2007

Draft 2 Mission report: Identification of opportunities and setting agenda of activities in the Ethiopian Fruits and

Vegetables Sector

LEI February

2007

E05

Project Information: Market Information service EHPEA, LEI June 2007

E06

Project information: Decision support system for the selection of feasible locations for horticulture and floriculture

enterprises in Ethiopia

WUR, EIAR, June 2007

41

42

6. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Program WSSD partnership review mission Ethiopia

(October 27th – November 1st, 2008)

Monday, October 27, 2008

9.00-10.00 am H.E. Alphons Hennekes, Ambassador EKN Addis Ababa

10.00-11.00 am Geert Westenbrink, Agricultural Counselor EKN Addis Ababa

11.00-12.00 am Joep van den Broek, Project Officer Agriculture, EKN Addis Ababa

12.30-1.30 pm Hans Doctor, Head of Development Cooperation;

Pim de Keizer

Hans Poley, First Secretary Economic Affairs, EKN Addis Ababa

2.00- 6.30 pm Farm Visit: Emebet Tesfaye, Farm Manager, ET Highland Flora PLC,

7.00 – 9.00 pm Dr. Glenn Humphreys, Head Training Unit, EHPEA

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

9.00-11.00 am Farm Visit: Ethio Agriceft

11.00-01.00 pm Farm Visit: Fiory

01.00-2.00 pm EPHEA Trainers

3.00-4.00 pm Farm Visit: J.J. Kotari & Co., (Eth.) Ltd, Mehta Mukesh, General Manager

4.00-5.00 pm Farm Visit: Giant Fresia

7.30-9.30pm Geert Westenbrink and Joep van den Broek, EKN Addis Ababa

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

08.00-08.30 am H.E. Fantaye Biftu (Special Advisor to the Minister of Trade and Industry)

9.00-11.00 am Yerus Work Yilma, Coordinator IPM, Plant and Health Regulatory Department

(MoAR)

2.00-3.00 pm Dr. Adefris Teklewold, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

04.00-05.00 pm Heilesalassie Tekie, Director-General Ethiopian Horticultural Development

Agency

5.30-6.30 pm Solomon Sebhatum, Board Vice Chairman EHPEA

6.30 – 7.30 pm Jeroen van der Hulst, Managing Director, FlowerWatch

Thursday, October 30, 2008

8.30-9.30 am Fikre Markos, Deputy Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Regulatory

Department (MoARD)

11.00-12.30 am Shumet Chanie, National Project Coordinator, ILO

Zerihun Gezaheyne, Head Occupational Safety, Health + Working Environment

Department, MoSA

Dr. Glenn Humphreys, Head Training Unit, EHPEA14.

2.00-3.00 pm Ian Chesterman, Horticulture Sector Manager, Agribusiness and Trade

Expansion Programme, USAID Contractor

03.00-03.30 pm Hans Poley, First Secretary Economic Affairs, EKN Addis Ababa

4.00-5.30pm Mohammed Hassewa, ECPB Agroprocessing, GTZ

Friday, October 31, 2008

8.30-09.00 am Debriefing with H.E. Alphons Hennekes, Ambassador EKN Addis Ababa

09.30-10.30 am Marc Steen, National Portfolio Coordinator, Head of Value Chain Development,

SNV

Yohannes Agonafir, Value Chain Development, SNV

11.00-12.00 am Dhuguma Adugna, Dean College of Agriculture &Veterinary Medicine, Jimma

University

12.00-01.30 pm Discussion on preliminary findings and recommendations with

Partnership Committee members and representatives of the EKN

2.00-4.00 pm Briefing macro-economics Albert de Groot, Director Macro & Sector Policies

43

Division, ECORYS-NEI Macro & Sector Policies

Saturday November 1st, 2008

03.00-05.00 pm Marc Driessen, General Manager, Maranque Plants PLC

44

Appendix 2: List of Partners 21 Partner /stakeholder

Partner background Role in the partnership Partner motivation and objectives

Partnership Committee

Ethiopian Horticulture Producers and Exporters Association (EHPEA)

EHPEA was created in 2002 to provide a forum for exporters of cut flowers. It encompasses the whole horticulture sector namely vegetables, fruits and flowers. Currently EHPEA has 83 members and the number is increasing from time to time. Members are required to be duly registered or licensed and actively engaged as producer exporters of horticultural (flowers and other ornamental plants, fruits, vegetable, herbs, etc ) products in Ethiopia. The mission of EHPEA is to achieve and safeguard the sustainable competitive position of the Ethiopian Export Horticulture sector within the global market.

• Hosting of the PAU

• PC member

• EHPEA training unit

• Improving the competitive position of the Ethiopian flower sector

• Improving the cooperation between the associations members

• Improving the cooperation between the Association and stakeholders

• Expanding the size and scope of the sector and to build capacity in the sector.

• Lobbying the government and other concerned stakeholders regarding policy, regulatory and other issues

• Ensuring product quality to meet international standards

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD)

Promotion of agricultural development and issues of plant regulation on the use of agrochemicals are under the Ministry. The Crop Protection Department has the mandate to deliver phytosanitary services of regulation and control of the import and export of planting material; and produce. The Phytosanitary Service carries out inspections of seeds, seedlings and other imported plant materials and pre-shipment inspections of fresh produce.

• Member in E01 and E03 • Enhancing own efficiency

• Employment creation

• Improving sector competitiveness

Ethiopian Horticulture Development Agency

In June 2008, the Ethiopian Horticulture Development Agency is established as an autonomous Federal Government Agency accountable to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Agency has the objective (1) to ensure the fast and sustainable growth of horticulture production and productivity; (2) to facilitate the export of diversified horticulture products which meet internal food safety standards; and (3) to coordinate the development of supporting services.

• Member of the partnership as of 2009 (PC chair)

• Facilitating the export of diversified horticulture products

• FDI



21 Partly referring to Joosten, F. (2007). Development Strategy for the Export-Oriented Horticulture in Ethiopia. Wageningen UR.

45

• Coordinating development of supporting services

Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI)

The Ministry has the mandate on trade development. Promotion of foreign investment and exports has become a priority areas of the Government, which implies close consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office on this. The Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency has become a department under MoTI. The services include training to exporters, enabling conducive export procedures, information sharing and networking, market studies, and facilitating participation in international trade fairs.

• Chairing the PC • Enhancing own efficiency

• FDI



• Facilitating the export of diversified horticulture products

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EIAR)

The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute is a federal research institute. It has the technical task to develop and test technology and make it available to end-users.

• PC member • Enhancing own efficiency


• Providing services

Jimma University The College of Agriculture of Jimma University offers the only formal horticulture education in the country. The College launched a B.Sc degree and a diploma program in horticulture recently. Relationships with horticulture training and/or education institutions in other countries as well as collaboration with existing growers are yet to be established.

• PC member • Providing services

• Building up a good curriculum

Project Partners Wageningen UR Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) provides education

and generates knowledge in the field of life sciences and natural resources. Wageningen UR aims to make a real contribution to our quality of life. Wageningen UR is a collaboration between Wageningen University, Van Hall Larenstein School of Higher Professional Education and the specialised former research institutes (DLO) from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture.

• Involvement in sector analysis

• Expert and facilitator role in projects


• Extending network

Ethiopian Investment Authority (EIA)

EIA is a parastatal company under the responsibility and coordination of the MoTI. It serves a one-stop window for investors and has played a role in facilitating foreign investment in the horticulture sector. Aiming to promote investment, the main services to be provided by EIA are provision of information, screening and approval of investment plans, and issuing of investment permits.

• Involvement in project • Enhancing own efficiency



Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

The task of the agency is to protect the human welfare and protect, develop and utilize natural resources, of which humans depend for survival, in a sustainable manner.

• --- • Enhancing own efficiency



46

47

Appendix 3: List of Critical Success Factors and their Average Score 22

Average score

Partnership Building Take time in particular in the start-up phase 4,4 Involve all primary stakeholders 4,1 Keep the momentum 4,3 Thorough and realistic cost/benefit assessment 4 Appropriate risk allocation 3,9 A focus on important needs that can be best fulfilled through partnerships 3,6 a clear vision of the objectives 4,1 result-oriented and appropriate detailed plan for achieving the goals 4,1 commitment to core organizational competencies 3,9 Flexibility 4,1 Project technical feasible 4,3 multi-benefit objective 4,4 technology transfer 4,4 involvement of broker/ process facilitator 3,9 learning from other partnerships 4,4 proven financial capacity of partners 3,5 early involvement of local communities 3,6 Partner commitments Clarity of roles, responsibilities, goals and ground rules 4,1 Commitment of core organizational competencies 3,9 sufficient and appropriate human and financial resources committed from all partners 3,8 application of same professional rigor and discipline focused on achieving targets and deliverables 3,9 Partner relation good leadership 4,6 clear understanding of mutual benefits (win-win) 4,4 effective relationships and communication build on trust in the function of partnerships 4,1 respect for differences in drivers, approach, competence, timeframes and objectives 4,5 focus on achieving mutual benefit (complementarily of roles) 4,1 Partnership Governance Shared authority 4 regular informal gatherings 4 clear communication, shared planning and decision making 4,3 clear and enforceable lines of accountability 3,9 Measurement accurate and appropriate indicators to be used to evaluate 3,8 constant and effective monitoring, measuring and learning 4 External Factors (not listed because 3 of 8 respondents did not ranked these factors) favourable legal framework 4 available financial market 2,9* political support 3* sound economic policy 3,1* stable macro-economic environment 3,1*

22 This list was filled in by 8 respondents met in Ethiopia. They were asked to rank the items on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Based on their ranks an average rank per item was built. * = 2 or more respondents did not rank the item.

48

government involvement by providing guarantees 3,6* Understanding the needs of local partner and beneficiaries 4

Appendix 4: Factsheet E01

CODE OF PRACTICE

GENERAL INFORMATION

Purpose The implementation of the Ethiopian Code of Practice requires a dedicated and well-planned effort of all parties involved. Purpose of the project is to facilitate EHPEA with an effective strategic planning tool for the sustainable development of the Ethiopian floriculture sector

Lead Organization EHPEA Partners WUR, MoTI, MOARD, Alterra Time June 2007-Dec 2009 Budget Total costs of € 295.044 of which WSSD

contribution: € 82044 (for 2007)

PARTNERSHIP BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The Code of Practice project initiated in the summer of 2006 as a follow up to formulation of the strategic development plan for EHPEA. In this plan one of the topics identified as sector need to improve its sustainable development, was to enable the sector to comply to international sustainability standards. The compliance to environmental and social standards is a precondition for Ethiopian flower farms to obtain their licence to operate and to sell at the international market. The EHEPA Code of Practice document sets out a framework for sustainable practices on flower farms in Ethiopia. It defines essential elements for the development of best-practices within the sector in order to compete at international market level. It also defines the minimum requirements acceptable to the leading market segments for the Ethiopian flower sector. The general objective of this project is to facilitate EHPEA with an effective strategic planning tool for the sustainable development of the Ethiopian floriculture sector. It is aimed to improve the image and actual performance of the Ethiopian floriculture sector on social corporate responsibility, by developing a multistakeholder initiative around the improvement of the sustainable performance. The EHPEA Code of Practice provides a mechanism that enables the Ethiopian floriculture sector to achieve the highest performance standards in order to obtain and safeguard its continuous improvement and sustainable development by ensuring:

• Long term economic viability of the sector

• Sustainable and safe development and skills enhancement of labour force

• Continuous and responsible management of the environment

• Active contribution to the community in which they operate. The EHPEA has launched its code of practice on June 29, 2007 in the presence of over 20 stakeholders. The code encompasses three levels: bronze, silver and gold. The bronze level includes all the relevant legal requirements and basis for good agricultural practices and is obligatory for all members of EHPEA. Silver and gold are voluntary standards at a higher level and are in line p with market labels.

49

The code is developed during a 9 month process in which stakeholders from the government and civil society actively participated. All stakeholders have committed to assist EHPEA in the successful implementation of the code. During the launching ceremony MoUs were signed to that effect between EHPEA and the Ministry of Health, State Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs and Agriculture and Rural Development, representatives of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Director General of the Ethiopian Environmental Protection Agency. Also the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions, ILO and the Forum for Environment, on behalf of a consortium of Civil Organisations, signed MoU’s with EHPEA on the implementation of the code. A guided implementation process started on 18 pilot farms and these farms will be ready for auditing in the second half of 2008. The activities will be focused, among others, on joined efforts to:

• Strengthening the managerial capacity of farm managers and EHPEA

• Strengthening the technical capacity of farm managers

• Improving water management

• Improving pesticides and fertilizer use

• Introduction of alternative pest control methods

• Improving waste management.

PARTNERS INVOLVED

Partner Partner description and objectives Contribution to project/ role in the project

Ethiopian Horticulture Producers and Exporters Association (EHPEA)

Promote and safeguard the sustainable competitive position of the Ethiopian horticultural and floricultural sector within the global market

• Lead organization

• Facilitate the development of the work plans related to the CoP and of progress being made by the farmers in the achievement of compliance

• Organize capacity building activities and training related to CoP practices

MoARD

Government Ministry that is responsible for the facilitation of development of the Horticulture Sector in Ethiopia and with particular relevance to the CoP, responsibility for all aspects of pesticide registration.

• Signed the MoU where the following contribution (amongst others) was determined:

• Make available documentation and data related to the Registration of Pesticides

• Liaise with EHPEA and the external capacity builders and auditors to ensure that there is mutual understanding of the requirements of the Law of Ethiopia

• Work with EHPEA and other stakeholders to ensure that there pesticide products used by the sector are all formally registered.

MOTI

Government Ministry with the particular responsibility for facilitation of development and all aspects of the smooth operation of the Floriculture Sector in Ethiopia


• Make available documents relevant to the Legislation in the fields of Trade and Industry

• Create an enabling environment for local and international input suppliers

• Ensure that new investment is only on sites and land shown in the Environmental Impact Assessment to be suitable for floricultural activities

• Promote the standards of the CoP both within Ethiopia and in the international setting

50

MOLSA

Government Ministry with the responsibility to formulate Laws, Directives and Policies and to monitor their implementation with a view to setting standards for all aspects of the employment and protection of labor rights in Ethiopia


• Make available documents relevant in the field of employment and occupational health and safety

• Provide briefings to labor officers who are to conduct worker awareness training and assist with the monitoring and verification of the audit process

• Provide technical support, advice to owners, managers and trainers who are working towards improving conditions at work as well as in topics pertinent to compliance with Country Labor Legislation.

• Assist with the development of outline standard policies and procedures pertinent to the implementation to the Human Resource section of the CoP

Wageningen UR

Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) provides education and generates knowledge in the field of life sciences and natural resources. Wageningen UR aims to make a real contribution to our quality of life. Wageningen UR is a collaboration between Wageningen University, Van Hall Larenstein School of Higher Professional Education and the specialised former research institutes (DLO) from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture.

• Creating access to external experts and knowledge on sustainability, standards and market and sustainability trends in the sector

• Provide an management information system (MONQI)

51

PARTNERSHIP PROCESS

ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

The concrete results of the PPP in relation to the objectives are:

Objective

Activity

Output

(stand: October 2008)

Install a local training team within the organizational structure of EHPEA

EHPEA training team formed (4 young Ethiopian professionals)

Develop a train the trainer program to enable the training team to facilitate training and technical support to Ethiopian flower farmers so they can comply to the CoP requirements at bronze level

Training expert developed methodology to be used on farms

Develop training modules on work safety, pesticides storage, safe pesticides use, labor rights, environmental risk assessment, record keeping

Training modules developed

Implementation of CoP

Apply these training modules to the workers and management team of the 18 farms of the pilot group, and handed out certificates to the workers whom passed these trainings in a successful way

Pilot group of 18 flower farms was created were trainings take place


• June 2006: EHPEA initiated the CoP development


• WSSD contribution started June 2007: Implementation of CoP on farms

• Local training team established

• October 2008: first farms ready for auditing

Partnership Ending/Renegotiation

• Project is still running until December 2009


• Oct 06 – June 07: Development of CoP

• June 07: Launch of CoP and signing of MoUs with 4 Ministries, ILO and NGos

52

Develop basic design of a computer based management information system for Ethiopian flower farms to be able to comply to the EHPEA CoP at bronze level

Basic computer based management information system is developed that enables the farm manager to collect data on the CoP requirements at bronze level

Develop a tender procedure to enable EHPEA to select professional support that will train Ethiopian professionals and enable them to develop an internationally accredited auditing capacity

In February 2008, EHPEA selected an entity for auditing; 4 pre audits were conducted

Facilitate an active dialogue between stakeholders Workshops were facilitated

Development of joint training programs with MOLSA and ILO on occupational health and labor conditions

Define an investment plan to develop in Ethiopia a sustainable solution for hazardous waste management

Proposal for expert mission developed

Ongoing activities EHPEA has a technical training team in place that is able to provide training and technical assistance to the Ethiopian floriculture sector that enables them to comply with the CoP at bronze level

• Finalize the internal audit training activities within the pilot group

• Define a guideline on the training and implementation methodology

• Develop and apply training materials on community relations management, sustainable waste management, and strategic sustainable chain management

• Develop and implement a strategy to enable all Ethiopian flower farmers to comply to the CoP bronze level requirements.

EHPEA and selected audit company work close together with local public and civil society entities to improve the enabling environment for the floriculture sector

• Mutual agreement on the contribution of MoARD, EPA, MOLSA and Ministry of Trade in facilitating the capacity of auditors to interpret the CoP requirements

• Facilitate the cooperation between the farms, EHPEA and auditing entity and the relevant Ministries and CSO

• Training of Ethiopian auditors in understanding and interpreting the CoP requirements, relevant Ethiopian labor and environmental legislation

• Training of farm managers on internal audit practices

• Facilitate negotiation between the auditing entity and the representatives of relevant international voluntary standards and reduce double audit activities and expenses for the Ethiopian floriculture sector

• Identify opportunities for cooperation agreements with third party auditing entities to enable farms to be audited efficiently on CoP and other relevant voluntary standards

The floriculture sector counts with up to date and reliable data and is able to measure its performance on sustainability issues and uses this information to plan and implement internal

• Finalize and introduce at farm level a computer based monitoring system that enables the registration of data required by CoP at bronze level, based on the results of the introduction of the prototype

• Training of local staff to maintain the system

53

improvements and to communicate with external stakeholders

independently

• Development of communication tools that enable benchmark activities at farm and sector level

• Facilitate EHPEA with effective internal and external communication tools to communicate about the sustainable performance of the sector

• Define a sustainable practice to safeguard the maintenance of the established monitoring system

EHPEA together with the other primary stakeholders have defined the silver and gold level requirements, as well as an implementation plan

• Evaluation of the implementation of the bronze level requirements, including a constructive dialogue with multi stakeholders on the eventual required adjustments for the further development of CoP

• Develop an up date of the place and functioning of market labels and specific approaches addressing issues relevant for the Ethiopian context

• Facilitate EHPEA and its members to develop a strategy on social corporate responsibility and the further development of the CoP Silver and Gold level

• Facilitate the multistakeholder dialogue to create a common understanding and overall support for the EHPEA CSR strategic plan

54

THROUGHPUT Partnership characteristics, dynamism and design.

• WUR/LEI supported EHPEA since 2006 in developing the CoP. WSSD started supporting the project in June 2007.

• EHPEA is responsible for implementation of the project. The Training Unit has the lead

• Study groups of farmers have been established to facilitate the dissemination of good practice

• Establishment of three committees: Code Management Committee; Stakeholder Committee; Implementation Support Committee (incl. EHPEA Training Coordinator)

• MoUs signed with 4 ministries, NGOs and IOs

• Very strong and contestant support of WUR/LEI

OUTPUT Partnership objectives, sustainability and deliverables

• Successful development of training methodology that enables the sector to comply with the CoP requirements on bronze level

• Training Unit created (1 external expert and 4 graduated horticultural specialists)

• Development of local professional and independent auditing capacity

• Development of Management Information System for Sustainable Floriculture development

• Sustainability: CoP is specifically designed for the Ethiopian context. It complies with Ethiopian law. For complying with standards the farms need ongoing training – can not be financed by EHPEA yet. No financial scheme developed that farmers can pay themselves for trainings.

OUTCOME Impact: direct and indirect contribution of partnership to MDGs.

• Direct: #8: strengthened local capacity through: � Trainings for graduated horticultural

specialists in NL by experts � Developed training methodology as

framework for local capacity building

� Technical innovation introduced ( management information system (MONQI))

Direct #6: awareness raising strategies by the flower farmers for the HIV/AIDS problematic (e.g. radio) Indirect #7: reducing environmental impact through training

EFFICIENCY

Costs-Benefit: Critical success factors and lessons learned during process. • WSSD Budget included expenses for:

• Development activities for external audit entity; development record keeping system at bronze and silver level; waste management training; LEI support; Part training team expenses for 2009; MPS local advisor involvement in the introduction of the record keeping system

• Work in cluster groups makes a comparison possible

• Delays in getting approved the budget for the period 2008 – 2009 delayed contract signing with auditing entity

• Commitment and engagement of Training Professional as well as Agricultural Counselor

EFFECTIVENESS

Added value: of partnership to the participants and to the MDGs • Compliance with the CoP requirements will enable the farms at individual

level to improve its compliance with local legislation and international market requirements.

• EHPEA requires further support to finalize the creation of a framework for strategic planning for the sector

• Good facilitation of the sector to comply to the CoP, have constructive dialogue and establish cooperation agreements with relevant stakeholders and actively contribute to the improvement of the enabling environment for sector to continuously improve its sustainable development.

• The CoP is developed specifically for the Ethiopian context and characteristics. A special quality of the code is that it includes all the basic legal Ethiopian social and environmental requirements the sector has to comply with. To ensure that there is common understanding and agreement on the interpretation of the legal requirement consultation and cooperation is required with the concerned ministries.

INPUT Goals, motives and resources of individual partners

• Initiative responds to a request to the EHPEA members to develop a sector broad tool to respond in an effective way to the growing demand by various stakeholders for corporate social responsible farm management

• Objective of the project: to facilitate EHPEA with an effective planning, monitoring and evaluation methodology for the sustainable development of the Ethiopian floriculture sector.

• Civic actors: enhanced responsibility between farms and local community

55

Appendix 5: Factsheet E03

A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN THE ETHIOPIAN ROSE SECTOR

GENERAL INFORMATION

Purpose Development of a comprehensive research and development plan for a systematic and responsible introduction of IPM

Lead Organization EHPEA and MoARD (Plant Protection Department) Partners EHPEA, Crop Protection Department; Ethiopian

Institute of Agricultural Research; Jimma University. Time June 2007 – December 2009 Budget 283.550€ (WSSD request: around 60%; partners

contribution around 40%)

PARTNERSHIP BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Ethiopian export horticulture is developing at a high speed. Concerns are growing regarding labor conditions at the farm, the environmental impact, and human health due to the use of pesticides and fertilizers. This has triggered the development of a Code of Conduct. The heavy use of pesticides has a number of specific negative consequences, which has led to the agreement by all parties involved to introduce alternative pest control strategies. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) brings together various control strategies, improves the quality and quantity of rose production, and its economics, and can therefore contribute greatly to realizing the Code of Conduct, and therewith to the competitiveness of the Ethiopian horticultural sector. It also improves the sector’s safety and image, and reduce resistance development against pesticides.

The problem to be addressed is the introduction and implementation of Integrated Pest Management in the Ethiopian Rose Sector, in terms of research and development. IPM is a holistic approach to pest control, supported by solide science, strongly dependent on an environment that enables the change in thinking and technology application, and relying on good communication and exchange of knowledge. The project addresses the four main subjects that are closely intertwined, the enabling environment, research, knowledge exchange, and communication.

As a result of the project growers will have an improved capability to produce crops in a way that is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Government will have tested an approach to participatory research and development for sustainable agriculture which may provide a model for future programs and projects.

PARTNERS INVOLVED

Partner Partner description and objectives Contribution to project/ role in the project

EHPEA

Promote and safeguard the sustainable competitive position of the Ethiopian horticultural and floricultural sector within the global market

Coordination in collaboration with MoARD, organization of and contracting growers, publicity, initiator of (policy) dialogue, developing training for floriculture sector on IPM

MoARD/Plant Protection Department

Government Ministry that is responsible for the facilitation of development of the Horticulture Sector in Ethiopia and with particular relevance to the CoP, responsibility for all aspects of pesticide registration.

Project coordination (supplies coordinator), Regulator framework, Knowledge building and extension

EIAR

The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute is a federal research institute which acts as an apex body for the National Agricultural Research Institute. It has the technical task to develop and test technology and make it available to end-users.

On-farm research Applied research Involvement in fundamental research

Jimma university

The College of Agriculture of Jimma University offers the only formal horticulture education in the country. The College launched a B.Sc degree and a diploma program in horticulture

On-farm research, Involvement in applied research Fundamental research Developing training for horticulture students on

56

recently. Relationships with horticulture training and/or education institutions in other countries as well as collaboration with existing growers are yet to be established.

IPM

PARTNERSHIP PROCESS


• 2006: base line study

• Jan 2007: mission to identify risk factors; inception of a collaborative IPM network; identification of interested farms


• November 2007: on-farm trials at 2 selected farms

• Target: 70 farms by the end of the project

Partnership

Ending/Renegotiation

• Project end in

December 2009


• March 2007: Project start in one compartment at Lafto Roses

57

ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

The concrete results of the PPP in relation to the objectives are:

Objective Activity Output (stand: October 2008)

Formal and informal Research and development: Priority setting based on the problems and grower’s needs.

• Set up research plans for on farm trials that specify the methods to determine parameters that describe the interactions between pests and beneficial

• Base line study on the impact on IPM at the farm level

• Student training at three levels: practical training in on-farm trials; MSc research and PhD research

• 6 on farm trials

• Facilities at farms that are required to properly conduct the on-farm trials

• Plan for IPM research facilities at EIAR and at University of Jimma

Knowledge exchange: Study groups and group work which stimulate individual and collective reflection on measurement, and experimentation with new methods and the acceptance of new norms of appropriate behavior

• Establishment of growers’ study groups

• Training for growers, researchers, students and extensionists in general IPM issues and agroecological observations as well as in major pests

• Training growers and other stakeholders in monitoring and record keeping of pests and biological control agents

• Create project-wide knowledge and consensus on strategy, agenda, activities, results etc.

• Exchange of knowledge, ideas and success stories between project partners and the broader audience.

Enabling environment: Conducive legal framework with regard to pesticide registration and import of beneficial insects is realized Technology development (informal research study) is linked formal research and training of the future generations

• Establishment of an IPM alliance, to establish synergy, shared experiences and exchange information.

• Set up a legal framework for import of proven beneficials

• Institutional linkages and partnerships including the transformation of the institutional culture to allow a better accommodation of issues relevant at grower’s level

• Mid 2007: import permits for 3 beneficials for the research activities were granted

• Increased public awareness on IPM and the Ethiopian flower industry, and continued support by governmental bodies (field day at which the State Minister for Agriculture was present)

58

THROUGHPUT Partnership characteristics, dynamism and design.

• Establishment of a Steering Committee which is led by MoARD

• Appointment of a project coordinator (?)

• Learning by doing approach: intensive observations, feedback loops between the formal research and informal research system

• Strong and contestant support of WUR/LEI

OUTPUT Partnership objectives, sustainability and deliverables

• Not yet hard data from farms available, but farm managers indicate that IPM results in production (5-8% increase) and quality (stem length and thickness) increase;

• Growers response is most satisfying

• At the moment: process of upscaling the on-farm trials in terms of acreage per farm, number of farms …

• Importing beneficiaries on a commercial scale will be considered after a scientific report has been submitted to MoARD at the end of 2008

• Sustainability: careful monitoring and intensive communication is essential to take the farm through the transition phase from chemical to integrated pest management

• Capacity building at EIAR is an important project component

OUTCOME Impact: direct and indirect contribution of partnership to competitiveness and MDGs.

• Assumed direct impact on #7: IPM reduces the use of chemicals and therewith the impact of greenhouse horticulture on the environment Enables indirectly access of Ethiopian products on the world market Improved production and quality led to higher prices per stem Awareness rising : expected to lead to a better image of the sector & worker’s health

EFFICIENCY

Costs-Benefit: Critical success factors and lessons learned during process. 3 out of 5 farms of the first cohort were not able to successful in finalizing the project (due to management problems; non compatible residues) Effective corrective measures; strong and continuously cooperation with WUR Lessons learnt:

• Good communication is very important

• Continuity in persons involved maintains project progress

• Maintain a lucid agenda and process and be flexible with regards to necessary shifts

• Organize maximum support for the project coordinator

• Commitment at the highest possible level is very helpful

• Organize the scientific collaboration between partners

• full commitment of farm owner, manager, assistants and scouts is crucial, in all possible manners

• training and knowledge acquisition, from scout to farm manager, is required

• a MoU between grower and supplier of beneficials is required to deal with e.g.

EFFECTIVENESS

Added value: of partnership to the participants and to the MDGs • Relevance: project directly addresses the need, as expressed by the Ethiopian

rose sector and society, to build a more sustainable rose production system in which pesticide use is replaced by integrated pest management, which at the same time increases the global competitiveness of the Ethiopian rose sector.

• Markets increasingly demand certified product with low chemical residues

• IPM as integral part of the CoP

• First time that a public-private agenda setting on pesticides happened in Ethiopia

INPUT Goals, motives and resources of individual partners

• Development problem: no safe use of chemicals on farms (can result in health problem of workers; weak plant development)

• Rose growers in Ethiopia see an urgent need for implementation of IPM (33 of 35 interviewed flower farmers mentioned spider mite as the main pest problem)

• Create a competitive market advantage

• Growers: supply of greenhouse, staff, risk of crop failure; willingness of the framers to cooperate is required

59