1.
THREE CHALLENGES FOR INNOVATORS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT JACQUELINE A. ASHBY International Potato Centre (CIP) Vice-president, ICIMOD Board of Governors MAY, 2009.

2.
Symposium objectives: <ul><li>Increase understanding of innovation systems </li></ul><ul><li>Promote policy dialogue for pro-poor innovation </li></ul>

3.
Innovation system concepts: <ul><li>Change from linear pipe-line R&D </li></ul><ul><li>New focus on multi-actor relationships </li></ul>

4.
Innovation is a learning process <ul><li>Cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Networks </li></ul><ul><li>Partnerships </li></ul>

5.
Innovation defined: Any new knowledge introduced into and utilized in an economic or social process

6.
Types of innovation: <ul><li>Product: e.g. a new crop variety </li></ul><ul><li>Process; e.g. a new system of raising livestock </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational; e.g. A new form of collective marketing </li></ul>

7.
An innovation system A set of interrelated agents, their interactions, and the Institutions that condition the generation,diffusion and utilization of knowledge and technology.

8.
Figure 2. Six domains of a national agricultural innovation system adapted from World Bank,2007 , Figure A.1. Demand Domain - End users of agricultural products Consumers Intermediary Domain Service providers with a coordination function NGOs Extension Development professionals Consultants Farmer associations Trade associations Donors Enterprise Domain Private sector Farmers Traders Input suppliers Companies and industries Transporters Supermarkets Research Domain National & international agricultural research organizations Universities and technical colleges Private industry NGOs Policy Domain Support Structure Banking and financial system Transport and marketing infrastructure Professional networks Education system

9.
Policy domain actors and linkages Research Domain actors and linkages Farmers and their organizations Consumers and their organizations Knowledge- sharing actors and linkages Figure 3. Diagram of a national agricultural innovation system.. Enterprise domain actors and linkages National agricultural research organizations Universities NGOs International research organizations Farmers & farmer organizations Traders Input suppliers Transporters Supermarkets Companies and industries – agro processing Farmers & farmer organizations NARI Decision makers Ministry Decision-makers Strategic development project decision makers Farmer organization leadership Political Decision makers Networks Universities Mass media Agricultural extension

10.
Institutions Laws, regulations, conventions, traditions, routines, and norms of society Institutions determine whether agents in an innovation system are able to generate, diffuse, and utilize knowledge.

11.
Policy <ul><li>Changes institutions or “the rules of the game” </li></ul><ul><li>Determines incentives and payoff from innovation to different actors. </li></ul>

12.
Power and politics <ul><li>Central to multi-actor relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Ignored in innovation systems analysis </li></ul><ul><li>But political leaders or ruling elites are key to the creation of institutions. </li></ul>

13.
Shortcomings <ul><li>Few practical strategies or solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow focus on </li></ul><ul><li>public sector and supply side. </li></ul>

14.
Unanswered question: <ul><li>What makes an innovation system pro-poor? </li></ul>

15.
Missing in innovation systems: <ul><li>Accountability to demand from the poor. </li></ul>

16.
What happened to “farmer first” research (FPR)? Early FPR demonstrated that setting objectives and sharing research responsibilities with farmers accelerates the innovation process leading to significant impact on adoption

17.
A missed opportunity <ul><li>Later FPR involved farmers in validating the supply of technology </li></ul><ul><li>Left farmers out of decisions that define research objectives and processes </li></ul><ul><li>Educated farmers to become informed consumers of supply-driven research products </li></ul><ul><li>Could not alter the established balance of power in national agricultural innovation systems </li></ul>

18.
Effective links between supply and demand are crucial for innovation: Supply side actors deliver products and services, such as research and extension. Demand-side actors articulate values and preferences and hold service providers accountable for meeting demand

19.
Four roles link demand and supply in innovation systems: Clients ( e.g. farmers and their organizations, agro enterprises, traders) Frontline professionals (on-farm researchers, extension agents, farmer group facilitators) Organizational providers (research institutes, universities, NGOs etc) Policymakers and politicians

20.
Weak relations on the demand-side: Frontline professionals focused on supply-side relationships with organizational providers, have difficulty in holding these accountable for relevant, pro-poor research. Thousands of farmer groups formed for FPR did not build the organization needed to make effective demand on R&D.

21.
Scaling up farmer organization was neglected: Fragmentation, duplication and proliferation of methodologies Absence of a consistent set of professionally-monitored, easily replicable quality standards for group formation.

22.
Lessons from micro-finance <ul><li>Microfinance revolution has had: </li></ul><ul><li>A major impact on poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Brought new financial services to the rural poor </li></ul><ul><li>Empowered rural people through collective action </li></ul>

23.
What made micro-finance innovations succeed? Easily replicable procedures and standards Built large scale service delivery by strengthening social capital of the poor (group savings and loans) Mobilized high-level policy support thru dialogue with policy makers

24.
Challenge 1 for innovators. Develop accountability to the poor in national agricultural innovation systems. Focus on expression of demand thru producer organizations to enable the transition from “voice” to political power.

25.
Study of innovation in farmer groups <ul><li>Three countries </li></ul><ul><li>Forty groups </li></ul><ul><li>Five group formation strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Farmer field schools </li></ul><ul><li>Farmer research committees </li></ul><ul><li>Agro-enterprise groups </li></ul><ul><li>Savings and loan groups </li></ul><ul><li>Watershed management groups </li></ul>

26.
Demand of groups: All groups demonstrated a grass-roots drive to acquire a combination of five skill sets All groups were trying to build new capabilities in five skill sets, irrespective of country, initial purpose or current primary activity, often without external assistance.

27.
Sustainable entrepreneurship <ul><li>Five skill sets combined: </li></ul><ul><li>Group organization </li></ul><ul><li>Financial (saving and loan) </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Technology innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Natural resource conservation </li></ul>

28.
Challenge 2 for innovators. Coordinate across sectors to build sustainable entrepreneurship in farmer organizations Commit to a set of professionally-monitored, easily replicable quality standards for group formation.

29.
Demand linked with policy change: Policy change = demand – contestation When unmet, legitimate demands give rise to opposition that threatens the political status quo and stimulates policy change .

30.
Example: Small dairy project, Kenya. Problem: more than 1000 small producers sell crude milk in the cities. An important source of income for the poor. Large farmers oppose these sales that undercut their price. Public health officials and large farmers accuse crude milk sold by the poor of causing illness among consumers.

31.
Pro-policy change alliances develop: Research shows small producers of crude milk can be trained in health measures at low cost. Consumers contest the pros and cons of crude milk in the mass media A Policy Forum brings all major actors to a public debate over the evidence.

32.
Policy change results: Large farmers abandon attacking small producers of crude milk. A bill passes in Parliament and as a result, certification of crude milk producers is established.

33.
Five findings of research on policy change. 1. Just communicating results and evidence to policy decision-makers is not enough 2. There must be political demand for change on an important issue and you must offer an attractive solution 3. Proactive champions are required to get the message across

34.
Five findings of research on policy change. 4. Frontline professionals need sustained relations with policy makers. 5. Beneficiary groups must testify and demonstrate that proposed solutions to the problem actually work.

35.
Challenge 3 for innovators. Develop and sustain relationships with policymakers. Strengthen the capacity of the poor to organize & contest unmet demands for innovation collectively.

36.
Conclusions: three challenges

37.
Challenge 1 for innovators. Develop accountability to the poor in national agricultural innovation systems. Focus on expression of demand thru producer organizations to enable the transition from “voice” to political power.

38.
Challenge 2 for innovators. Coordinate across sectors to build sustainable entrepreneurship in farmer organizations Commit to a set of professionally-monitored, easily replicable quality standards for group formation.

39.
Challenge 3 for innovators. Develop and sustain relationships with policymakers. Strengthen the capacity of the poor to organize & contest unmet demands collectively.

40.
Opportunities for innovation from an innovation systems perspective? Develop explicit policy change initiatives in networks, professional associations etc. Form active coalitions with other key actors for policy change Develop organizational and advocacy capabilities with farmer organizations

41.
Thank you.