+ Agricultural Innovation Systems for Improved Risk Management Saravanan Raj Ghana Risk Management Training Accra 5th Feb, 2014 Agricultural Risk Management Team Agriculture and Environmental Services Department The World Bank
Innovation Systems Innovation Agricultural Innovations Systems 2
INSTITUTION PEOPLE ENTERPRISE INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY; R&D AIS
Source: W. M. Rivera, G. Alex, J. Hanson, and R. Birner, Enabling agriculture: The evolution and promise of agricultural knowledge frameworks, in Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, AIAEE 22nd annual conference, Clearwater, Florida, USA, May, 14 19, 2006, available at http://www.aiaee.org/2006/index.html
Features Client driven AIS Decentralized technology development & facilitation Devolution to farmers of major responsibility for adaptive testing & sharing Accountability sharing
AIS Case Studies
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Tripura, India Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Tripura are leading states in SRI, Tripura leading in North East India. Area under SRI: 35 % of total rice area (2011-12); 6.1 % of total rice area (2006-07) 165 % increase in yield by SRI
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 SRI Non-SRI 1000 500 0 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Status of rice productivity (kg/ha) in SRI and Non-SRI rice
MoA KVK PRIs DRR ICAR DoA SHGs Media Farmers SARS Weak relationship Fair relationship Suchiradipta and Saravanan,2013 Strong relationship Stakeholder involvement in AIS in SRI in Tripura
Important elements in the AIS People/Organizations Public extension mechanism Decentralized administrative units at grassroots Farmers Policies Perspective plan National Food Security mission (NFSM) Macro Management in Agriculture (MMA) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA)
Fodder Innovation Project Enhancing livelihood of poor livestock keepers through increasing use of fodder
Country: India and Nigeria Implemented by: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Funded by: Department for International Development (DFID) Major partners: UNU-MERIT, CRISP, IITA, ICRISAT Implementation: Ist phase: 2003-2006 2 nd phase: 2007-2010 (Reddy et al., 2013)
Project description Features Phase 1 Phase 2 Fodder scarcity defined as Approach Rationale Technical and information scarcity on fodder Transfer of Technology approach Participatory selection of fodder option for better dissemination Lack of capacity of livestock system to innovate and not scarcity of technology Innovation Systems approach Facilitating creation of networks and new working relationship to tackle fodder scarcity Project management role Lessons learnt Implementing and monitoring pre-determined action plan Cooperation of all the actors in livestock sector, rather than technology transfer, would determine success Flexible to accommodate evolving activities, providing enabling environment
Joint Learning in and about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA)
Salient findings from phase 2 Key Partner Organizations (KPOs) decided, planned and implemented activities to increase innovative capacities Innovation coordinators played key role in building network of relevant agencies Innovation capacity building requires four key roles to be played Leadership role Project management role Role of Innovation coach Research Collaboration and mutual accountability among partners is important for innovation projects Continuous engagement and interaction through free flow of communication among partners is important for building innovation capacity in the system (Reddy et al., 2013)
Countries: Kenya, South Africa and Benin Funded by: European Union under FP7 scheme Partners: Four EU-based consortium and three Africa-based consortium Innovation system cases identified through inventory Criteria for inclusion Small-holder and other resource poor rural stakeholder At least three different kind of stakeholder involvement Three years of experience over the initial years of innovation (Triomphe et al., 2012)
Project description Features Description Inventory cases Number of cases documented Approach Rationale Lessons learnt Diversity of stakeholders, Interaction among stakeholders, Innovation triggers, innovation time frame, innovation dimensions Benin 28; Kenya 18; South Africa - 11 Innovation Systems approach Assess a broad diversity of multi-stakeholder agricultural innovation processes involving stakeholders Longer timelines help better understand innovation dynamics; ambiguous yet strategic link exists between innovation and externally funded projects in developing countries
Salient findings Market led innovation is most critical for the smallholders Institutional and technological innovations most actively shape innovation in a system Farmers receive skills, capabilities and support to pursue innovation well beyond the spectrum of research and extension Interwoven dimension of innovation exists in the systems which change with time and as the innovation process unfolds
Potato Innovation System in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda
Countries: Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda Stakeholders: National and local government organizations, NGOs, private companies, farmer organizations and media System interaction and type of intervention needed differs with the country Participatory workshop and snowball sampling was used to identify stakeholders (Ortiz et al., 2013)
System description Features Components Bolivia Ethiopia Peru Uganda 31 14 30 22 Role of farmer organizations Important Important Limited Important Role of national government organization Minimal Major presence in research, extension and input marketing Minimal Important in promoting private advisory service Role of local government organization Important in Weak coordination and promotion of potato production Important in Weak coordination and promotion of potato production
System description Features Bolivia Ethiopia Peru Uganda Role of international agricultural research organizations CIP as innovation broker; CIAT and AHI promoting value chain for local crops CIP as innovation broker; CIAT and AHI promoting value chain for local crops CIP as innovation broker; CIAT and AHI promoting value chain for local crops CIP as innovation broker; CIAT and AHI promoting value chain for local crops Role of NGOs Major Minor Major Major Role of Major private sector Minor Major Minor Role of media Limited Limited Limited Limited
Salient findings Promoting interaction or coordination among stakeholders was seen as important by different organizations Poor linkages among the institutions in the potato innovation system was one of the hindrances to information and technology access Limited coordination reduced the access of farmers to essential information and production inputs Large number of components in the innovation system, without quality interactions, leads to anarchy
North-West Crop Diversification Project
Country: Bangladesh Duration: 2002-2008 Stakeholders: Implementers: Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Department of Agricultural Marketing (DAM) and Local Government Engineering Development (LGED), Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), and Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank (RAKUB) Funded by: Asian Development Bank (ADB) Facilitators: NGOs (4 nos.) Review of literature, observstion and Key Informant Interview was used to identify stakeholders and collect data
Project description Features Description Approach Systems approach Rationale Project management role Lessons learnt Enhance the capacity of smallholders for the production of High Value Crops (HVCs) in 16 northwest districts of Bangladesh Facilitation Reformed public extension system can foster innovation among stakeholders (ADB, 2014)
Salient findings Agricultural extension should employ system thinking and integrate d way, competence-based and experiential learning for enhancing abilities of individuals Socio-technical configurations of innovation processes helps in assessing and understanding stakeholders in innovation systems Challenges: Lack of preliminary stakeholder and need analysis Geographical selection based on ease of access, administrative monitoring and organizational familiarity Closed process of stakeholder selection Lack of unanimity in understanding the project objectives Lack of participation of stakeholders
Thank you