Innovation systems perspective for sustainable commercialization of smallholder agriculture
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•1,052 views
Presented by Ranjitha Puskur, Tesfaye Lemma, Berhanu Gebremedhin and Dirk Hoekstra at the IFPRI-EIAR-IPMS Symposium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24 September 2007.
![Overview of the presentation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to Innovation systems perspective for sustainable commercialization of smallholder agriculture
Similar to Innovation systems perspective for sustainable commercialization of smallholder agriculture (20)
More from ILRI
More from ILRI (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Innovation systems perspective for sustainable commercialization of smallholder agriculture
- 1. Innovation Systems Perspective for sustainable commercialization of smallholder agriculture Ranjitha Puskur, Tesfaye Lemma, Berhanu Gebremedhin, Dirk Hoekstra IFPRI, EIAR, IPMS Symposium 24 September 2007 Addis Ababa
- 7. Era of Knowledge economies Knowledge Technology Skills Innovation Growth
- 24. IPMS approach
- 31. Fruit & veg innovation in Ada’a Increase Decrease No change Don’t know Yield 72.72 13.64 13.64 Productivity 72.72 13.64 13.64 Profitability 72.72 13.64 13.64 Market share 59.09 22.73 18.18 Benefit of the poor 50 50 Gender Equality 54.55 45.45 Diversification 59.09 18.18 13.63 Employment 59.09 40.91 Product differentiation 54.55 45.45 Retention of remunerative markets/buyers 31.81 27.28 40.91
- 39. Structure Other Woredas NALC PAs in PLWs WALC RALC Other PAs in PLWs Learning Scaling out IPMS RDO Secretary Chair Chair
- 48. Obstacles to innovation Obstacles Proportion of Households Not Relevant Slightly significant Moderately significant Very significant A. High cost of the innovation 27.28 22.73 18.18 31.81 B. Lack of financing 9.09 27.28 54.54 9.09 C. Lack of skills 9.09 18.18 63.64 9.09 D. Lack of information on technology itself 0 40.91 40.91 18.18 E. Legislation/legal restriction/administrative procedures affecting the innovation 18.18 59.09 22.73 0 F. Weak customer demand 22.73 63.64 13.63 0
- 49. Importance of government programs Support Programs Importance (% of households) Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Finance/Credit 22.73 22.73 13.63 40.91 Training 0 0 31.81 68.19 Technical support/advice 0 0 68.19 31.81 Market information &support 0 0 63.64 36.36 Infrastructure support 0 13.64 54.55 31.81 Loans & grants 0 27.28 68.63 9.09 Farm machinery 0 9.09 40.91 50
Editor's Notes
- The actors have varying, and even conflicting, views on ends, means, opportunities and constraints. For the set of actors to acquire emergent properties, shared learning, joint-decision making, and processes management are required. There are multiple sources of knowledge and information (Biggs, 1989); formal research is just one of many sources. Farming populations have context specific, practical (tacit) knowledge; scientists have generic/explicit knowledge; entrepreneurs have better understanding of how market operates; and so do other actors like administrators, entrepreneurs, etc. Engle (1997) succinctly summarized the issue as follows: “Each participant holds certain clues to understanding and solving the ‘farming puzzle’.” Each actor is both the source and seeker of knowledge and information. To be successful and competent, smallholder farmers cannot rely solely on either their indigenous knowledge and experience or knowledge and information originated from formal research. They have to make deliberate effort and engage in communication with others to access information and associated technologies, whether locally or externally generated. Knowledge and information including marketing information, technology updates, policy signals, and climate/weather summaries are vital for rural commercialisation. Mutual adjustments and coordination through standardization of norms are probably more relevant to agricultural innovation. Mutual adjustment mechanism gives actors enough room to influence operations by actively participating in decisions, whereas standardization of norms facilitates coordination by means of a shared ‘ideology’ (Engel, 1997) – we prefer to call this an increasing awareness by actors of their interdependence (financially, technically, politically, etc) and growing appreciation among actors of the possibility of achieving much more through collective action than what would have been achieved through individual efforts. in ISP the policymaking process itself is seen as a non-linear and the policymakers are among core actors in the systems.
- Similar concerns were echoed by the extension functionaries. Even though they are gathering rich experiences, they have doubts about the continuity of this result. According to them even though they have learned about the different technological and institutional innovations, the continuous use of this approach depends on the broader policy framework of the government and also adequacy of resources which are required for capacity building and creating linkage