InnovationAfrica » agricultural development

Knowledge and innovation for agricultural development

FSG — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:09:33 +0000

Every day, millions of rural people who depend on agriculture confront technical, economic, social, cultural, and traditional obstacles to improving their livelihoods. To cope with these obstacles, the rural poor draw on indigenous knowledge and innovate through local experimentation and adaptation. Indigenous knowledge alone, however, is not enough to deal with the complex problems facing the agricultural sector. Emerging issues such as high food prices, climate change, and demands for biofuels require complementary knowledge from formal agricultural research and development (R&D) and support from policies and other institutions. Formal and informal knowledge and innovation must therefore be linked to accelerate sustainable agricultural development.

Knowledge, defined as organized or processed information or data, is fundamental in the pursuit of innovation. For innovation to occur, knowledge must be created, accumulated, shared, and used. Innovations-new ideas, practices, or products that are successfully introduced into economic or social processes- can involve technologies, organizations, institutions, or policies. Innovation means putting ideas, knowledge, and technology to work in a manner that brings about a significant improvement in performance or product quality.

The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa

FSG — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:35:43 +0000

CALL FOR INPUT
The Agricultural Innovation in Africa (AIA) Project is inviting input on good practices for consideration for inclusion in the forthcoming study, The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa. The input can be in the form of references, written contributions (with proper citations), contracts or any other sources. All in contributions will be appropriately acknowledged in the final study. To facilitate the process, we have provided below a chapter outline for the study. Please indicate in which chapter your input should be considered for inclusion. Please forward all input and correspondence to: technovation@hks.harvard.edu.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

African agriculture is at the crossroads. Persistent food shortages are now being compounded by new threats arising from climate change. But Africa faces two major opportunities that can help transform its agriculture and use it as a force for economic growth. First, advances in science and technology worldwide offer African countries new tools needed to promote sustainable agriculture. Second, efforts to create regional markets will provide new incentives for agricultural production and trade. This is the focus of the Agricultural Innovation in Africa (AIA) project. The project seeks to disseminate policy-relevant information on how to align science and technology missions with regional agricultural development goals. It does so in the context of the larger agenda to promote regional economic integration and development.

The AIA project builds on the findings of the expert report Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology in Africa’s Development prepared by the High Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The panel’s main recommendations include the need for individual countries in central, eastern, western, northern and southern Africa to work together at the regional level to scale up the development of biotechnology. The upcoming study, The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa, is a continuation of that effort. As detailed in the chapter outline that follows, it positions the agriculture at the center of efforts to spur economic development in Africa. It outlines the policies and institutional changes needed to promote agricultural innovation.

1. AGRICULTURE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

The current global economic crisis, rising food prices and the threat of climate change have reinforced the urgency to find lasting solutions to Africa’s agricultural challenges. Africa is largely an agricultural economy with the majority of the population deriving their income from farming. Most policy interventions have focused on “food security”, a term that is used to cover key attributes of food such as sufficiency, reliability, quality, safety, timeliness and other aspects of food necessary for healthy and thriving populations. This chapter outlines the critical linkages between food security, agricultural development and economic growth and explains why Africa has lagged behind other countries in agricultural productivity. It argues that improving Africa’s agricultural performance will require deliberate policy efforts to bring higher technical education, especially in universities, to the service of agriculture and the economy. It focuses on how to improve the productivity of agricultural workers, most of whom are women, through technological innovation.

2. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT

The Green Revolution played a critical role in helping to overcome chronic food shortages Latin America and Asia. The Green Revolution was largely a result of the creation of new institutional arrangements aimed at using existing technology to improve agricultural productivity. African countries are faced with enormous technological challenges. But they also have access to a much larger pool of scientific and technical knowledge that was not available when the Green Revolution was launched. The aim of this chapter is to review major advances in science, technology and engineering and identify their potential for use in African agriculture. This exploration will also include an examination of local innovations as well as indigenous knowledge. It will cover fields such information and communications technology, genetics, ecology and geographical sciences. It will emphasize the convergence of these and other fields, and their implications for African agriculture.

3. ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE

Enabling infrastructure (covering public utilities, public works, transportation and research facilities) is essential for agricultural development. Infrastructure is defined here as facilities, structures, associated equipment, services, and institutional arrangements that facilitate the flow of agricultural goods, services and ideas. Infrastructure represents a foundational base for applying technical knowledge in sustainable development and relies heavily on civil engineering. The aim of this chapter is to outline the importance of providing an enabling infrastructure for agricultural development. Modern infrastructure facilities will need to reflect the growing concern over climate change. In this respect, the chapter will focus on ways to design “smart infrastructure” that takes advantage of advances in the engineering sciences as well as ecologically-sound systems design. Unlike other regions of the world, Africa’s poor infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to adopt new approaches in the design and implementation of infrastructure facilities.

4. AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

The use of emerging technology and indigenous knowledge to promote sustainable agriculture will require adjustments in existing institutions. New approaches will need to be adopted to promote close interactions between government, business, farmers, academia and civil society. The aim of this chapter is to identify novel agricultural innovation systems of relevance to Africa. It will examine the connections between agricultural innovation and wider economic policies. Agriculture is inherently a place-based activity and so the study will seek to outline strategies that reflect local needs and characteristics. Positioning sustainable agriculture as a knowledge-intensive sector will require fundamental reforms in existing learning institutions, especially universities and research institutes. Most specifically, key functions such as research, teaching, extension and commercialization need to be much more closely integrated.

5. HUMAN CAPACITY

Some of Africa’s most persistent agricultural challenges lie in the educational system. Much of the focus of the educational system is training young people to seek employment in urban areas. Much of the research is carried out in research institutions that do not teach while universities have limited access to research support. The aim of this chapter is identify new ways to enhance competence throughout the agricultural value chain. The chapter stresses the need to build the capacity of rural women who perform most agricultural tasks. The chapter will take pragmatic approach that emphasizes competence-building as a key way to advance social justice. Most of the strategies to strengthen the technical competence of African farmers will entail major reforms in existing universities and research institutions. In this respect, the proposals will need to be considered in the context of agricultural innovation systems.

6. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

The creation of agricultural enterprises represents one of the most effective ways to stimulate rural development. The chapter will review the efficacy of the policy tools used to promote agricultural enterprises. These include direct financing, matching grants, taxation policies, government or public procurement policies and rewards to recognize creativity and innovation. The chapter will draw on examples such as China’s mission-oriented “Spark Program” which helped to popularize modern technology in rural areas and has spread to more than 90 percent of the country’s counties. Inspired by such examples, this chapter will explore ways by which African countries could create incentives that stimulate entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector. The chapter will take into account new tools such as information and communication technologies and the extent to which they can be harnessed to promote entrepreneurship.

7. REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

African countries are increasingly focusing on promoting regional economic integration as a way to stimulate economic growth and expand local markets. Considerable progress has been made in expanding regional trade through regional bodies such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community (EAC). There six other such Regional Economic Communities (RECs) that have been recognized the African Union as building blocks for pan-African economic integration. So far regional cooperation in agriculture is in its infancy and major challenges lie ahead. This chapter will explore the prospects of using regional bodies as agents of agricultural innovation through measures such as regional specialization. The chapter will also explore ways to strengthen the role of the RECs in promoting common regulatory standards.

Full Text of The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa (340K PDF)

Taking on biotechnology the African way

FSG — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:11:55 +0000

Africa must be free to explore the potential of agricultural biotechnology without undue European influence, says Jennifer Thomson.

African Union leaders took an important step in acknowledging the potential of biotechnology to help agricultural development earlier this year when they endorsed the Freedom to Innovate plan. The plan emphasises the need for Africa to find a unified approach to agricultural biotechnology research and biosafety regulation.

But while the plan represents enthusiasm for biotechnology at the continent’s highest levels, Africa’s ability to effectively implement it on the ground remains to be seen. Much will rely on how national governments and their electorates perceive key technologies or products, such as genetically modified (GM) crops.

Many Africans — scientists, politicians and farmers alike — recognise the need to support any technology that will help feed the continent’s poor. But in Europe people often throw their hands up in horror at the idea of growing or consuming

GM crops.

Europe should not pontificate on what is good or bad for Africans — we can do this for ourselves.

Still, many African leaders unfortunately look to Europe for advice, as this is where our greatest export markets lie. When they see Europe turning its back on GM crops they can assume there must be something seriously wrong with them. What Europeans say matters on our continent — they should think carefully before speaking out against GM crops.

Notches on the GM belt

GM crops have already started to make a difference in securing food supplies and alleviating poverty across Africa. Engineering key crops to be insect or virus resistant has led to a decreased use of agrochemicals, increased yields and higher returns — for commercial farmers and smallholders alike.

Maize is one of the most important sources of calories for Africa’s poor, as well as being a key crop for cattle feed. But it is susceptible to damage from parasitic weeds like Striga, viruses such as the maize streak virus (MSV) and

pests — stem-boring insects cause significant yield losses of 15–40 per cent in Africa and can even result in total crop failure if conditions favour infestation.

Biotechnology can help insure against such losses. In South Africa, ongoing glasshouse trials for maize engineered to resist MSV have provided encouraging results for creating commercial varieties.

Similarly, field trials in Kenya using a non-GM variety of maize resistant to the herbicide imazapyr — effective against Striga — have proven very successful.

Striga infests as much as 40 million hectares of smallholder farmland in sub-Saharan Africa, affecting the livelihoods of over 100 million people and causing annual crop losses estimated to be worth US$1 billion. The weed attacks crop roots and is almost impossible to remove through conventional weeding techniques.

Coating maize seeds in imazapyr, though, is an effective way of killing the weed without impacting the crop’s health. The Kenyan field trials have reported yield increases of 38–82 per cent compared with traditional varieties.

Commercial farmers planting insect-resistant GM maize in South Africa have also seen an increase in their yields. This has led to rising incomes — with net gains ranging from US$24 per hectare in dryland areas to US$143 in irrigated regions — despite the higher costs associated with using GM seeds.

Success on the small scale?

Could small-scale farmers also benefit from planting GM maize for home consumption? In theory, GM maize could help small-scale farmers ensure a steady food supply for themselves while simultaneously increasing yields and providing their families with a previously unavailable source of income.

But with such a large difference in price — GM seeds cost $83 per kilogram compared with $52 per kilogram for conventional seeds — the answer is probably no, unless the farmers already buy non-GM hybrid seeds from seed companies each year.

Still, only ten per cent of small-scale farmers currently use hybrid seeds across Africa as a whole, although the figure is much higher for some individual countries — 85 per cent in Kenya, 65 per cent in Zambia and 91 per cent in Zimbabwe.

Only time will tell if the benefits associated with higher yields overcome the higher cost of GM seeds for small-scale as well as commercial farmers.

In the case of cotton, the benefits of GM varieties to small-scale farmers are more obvious. Insect attack is one of the major constraints to cotton cultivation worldwide, with yield losses worth an estimated US$5 billion annually. Approximately 25 per cent of all insecticides used in agriculture are applied to cotton — more than any other crop. In some Central and West African countries, this figure can reach staggering levels — as high as 80 per cent.

UK scientists from the University of Reading have been weighing the economic costs and benefits of insect-resistant Bt cotton in South Africa for a number of years. Seeds for this crop were commercially released in 1997 and have since been extensively used in KwaZulu-Natal province where, by 2001, 90 per cent of all farmers were growing GM cotton.

Many of the traditional insecticides used here are highly toxic. By switching to GM cotton, small-scale farmers in the region have lowered risks to their own health and decreased the levels of chemical insecticides entering the local environment. Smallholder farmers in this region have also received a 77 per cent higher return on GM cotton.

An African action plan

The UK scientists found that, in general, the smaller the farm, the greater the benefits in terms of higher income received.

But, as the authors note, GM cotton is not a silver bullet that can solve poverty among these farmers overnight. Efforts must be made to improve soil conditions, road and rail infrastructure, and educate farmers to help them implement best agricultural practices.

Still, GM technology holds much promise for improving the lot of African small-scale and commercial farmers alike. The continent’s leaders should be applauded for their recognition of this potential in their endorsement of the Freedom to Innovate plan. But now they must be given the freedom to implement the plan without fear of undue criticism from European sceptics.

Jennifer Thomson is a professor of microbiology at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Source: SciDev.Net[ad#ga1]

Farmer innovation in Africa

FSG — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:06:01 +0000

by Chris Reij, Free University, Amsterdam

Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development (2001) summarizes the findings of two regional programmes in Africa that supported farmer innovators and their innovations in eight countries representing a wide range of agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In these programmes, a farmer was considered an innovator if he or she tried out something that was new in the village without having been asked to do so by outsiders. This means that farmers who tested new crop varieties or other technologies on their fields at the request of researchers were not innovators. It also implied that an innovation in one region may have been a common practice elsewhere.

The two programmes identified about 1000 farmer innovators and concluded that innovation is a fairly common phenomenon in regions where there is high population pressure on available natural resources. This is not surprising as farmers have to adapt to changes in rainfall, soils, demographics and markets, for example, in order to survive. Farmers with their ‘backs against the wall’ have no choice: innovate to improve their livelihoods, continue to live in poverty or leave the land and settle elsewhere.

Farmer innovators

Innovators were identified by extension agents or by field staff of NGOs as well as by researchers. They not only observed farmers who were doing things differently, but also asked villagers whether they knew of farmers who were achieving better results than others who were producing under similar conditions. In Tunisia, the partners created a special weekly programme on ‘agriculture and innovation’ for a regional radio station. Farmers responded positively to this programme and some submitted reports on their innovations to the radio station.

Farmers improved technologies in areas such as soil and water conservation, water harvesting, soil fertility management and agroforestry and tested new crops and new crop varieties in their farming systems. Not all of the innovations were technical in nature; some farmers also defined new rules for the management of a community resource, such as water for irrigation. The improved traditional planting pits used in the Sahel to rehabilitate seriously degraded land are a well-known example of farmer innovation in the early 1980s.

Farmers drew upon many sources of inspiration for their innovations. Many picked up ideas while working elsewhere, and upon return, tried the new techniques on their own fields. In other cases they experimented with ideas gleaned from extension agents, study visits to research stations or from projects in other regions. However, some were as a result of their own creativity.

Most innovators were fairly old and experienced but some were young. In Cameroon, a small network of 15 innovators had four members aged 23-32 years. These were young men who, after losing their jobs in urban centres during the economic crisis in Cameroon in the 1990s, returned to their home villages and took up farming. Most innovators were illiterate, but the ability to be innovative was not related to the level of formal education. Most were men, but an increase in the number of female innovators was noted when women were involved in the identification process. Most of the innovators had strong personalities and were capable of withstanding considerable social pressure. Tensue Gebremedhin, a widow in Tigray, Ethiopia, started to plough with an ox and a donkey and by doing so broke two taboos: a woman behind a plough with a donkey in front of it.

In East Africa, 33% of innovators identified were women and their innovations in land husbandry did not differ from those of men. In Tanzania, for example, Mrs Grace Bura built up barriers with earth and brush to block gullies, and Mrs Martha Mwaso reclaimed large sections of riverbed through labour-intensive efforts. In Kenya, Mrs Kalekye excavated large quantities of earth to reclaim gullies for agricultural production.

All innovators increased their production and income, and were considered to be better off because of their innovations. Data from Tanzania and from Burkina Faso show that many innovators who were resource-poor 10-20 years ago are now resource-rich. By investing in land rehabilitation, innovators in Burkina Faso systematically expanded their resource base and produced sufficient food to feed their families even in drought years. Not only did they build up their assets, but they also became less vulnerable to drought.

Chains of innovation

Some innovations triggered others. Innovators in Babanki, Cameroon, for example, contributed to a significant increase in the production of nightshade (Solanum nigrum) as a result of improved soil fertility management and the construction of a network of irrigation canals. A farmer then devised a simple, low-cost harvesting tool to cut leaves quickly and efficiently without damaging the plants. Improving the marketing channels was their next project.

Farmer innovation and formal research

Both regional programmes emphasized that farmer innovations are not necessarily perfect. They can be improved and it is essential to build partnerships between researchers and innovators for joint experimentation based on agendas set by the farmers. The case of innovators in Cameroon who expressed their problems and their priorities clearly, and were accepted by researchers, is a good example. In Tunisia the programme of experimentation was more researcher-driven, but responded adequately to farmers’ priorities. Working with farmer innovators requires a change in attitudes for many researchers. They need to communicate with farmers as equals and should be willing and able to listen to and learn from farmers.

Innovation and extension

Top-down approaches to extension have failed to produce tangible results. It is still too often assumed that there are sufficient, readily available technologies that can be transferred to farmers. More participatory approaches to extension have not yet been mainstreamed. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and reported that farmers are keen to learn from fellow farmers, and that they often more readily accept innovations observed on the fields of other farmers working under similar conditions than messages transmitted by extension agents. When farmers from Niger went on a study tour to Burkina Faso in 1989, they were impressed by the improved traditional planting pits used to rehabilitate degraded land. Some applied this technique on their return.. The results were surprisingly good, even in 1990, which was a drought year. This success led to the accelerated dissemination of this technique and, by 1992, the emergence of a farmers’ land market with farmers actively buying and selling degraded land.

Building on farmer innovation implies a fundamental change in the roles of extension agents from transmitters of technical messages to facilitators of knowledge exchange between farmers and other farmers and between farmers and extension officers themselves.

Recent initiatives

The number of initiatives to promote farmer experimentation and innovation seems to be increasing. In March 2004 CTA and IFAD organized a regional workshop in West Africa on farmer innovation and extension. IFAD subsequently launched an Innovation Mainstreaming Initiative and ICRAF and partners developed a proposal to promote farmer experimentation and innovation in the Sahel. The creativity of farmers in Africa and other ACP regions remains a major untapped resource that can be used to realize the promise and potential of ACP agricultural and rural development. The challenge is for policymakers, researchers and extensionists to embrace farmer innovation as a valuable tool for transforming ACP agriculture.

Dr Chris Reij is Fellow of the International Cooperation Centre of the Free University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

References How to Swim release

Chris Reij and Ann Waters-Bayer (eds) (2001) Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development, Earthscan, London.
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/asp/bookdetails.asp’key=3489