Friday, December 3, 2010
Networks as a link between reserach and development observations from the fodder innovation project
1 Networking leads to opportunities for unusual partnerships between Research and Development. Cases from the Fodder Innovation Project
Elias Madzudzo
2. Abstract (149 words)
Agricultural systems in Africa are subject to changes that defy prediction. Such changes imply that attendant challenges and opportunities do not present a defined trajectory and do not implicate a defined architecture of actors to leverage coping strategies. The general argument in this paper is that such complexity requires a congruence of strategies and tacit knowledge embodied not only in science and technology bases but institutional and policy realms, a departure from earlier paradigms where the former were deemed the sole answer to challenges in agricultural systems. Specifically, the paper argues that an approach that facilitates the networking of diverse sets of actors leads to opportunities for unusual partnerships that, in turn, lead to better linkage of knowledge with action i.e. greater innovation capacity to navigate rapidly changing environments. The policy implication of this paper is that deliberate steps be taken to facilitate networking as key to organisational norms.
Keywords: development, innovation, networkyness, Nigeria, partnerships, technology.
Introduction (6971 words)
There is a consensus among stakeholders that a revitalized agrarian economy is a key turning point in economic and social development of Africa . In other words innovation i.e. continuous learning for improvements in product design and organizational culture (Mytelka and Smith, 2002), is a prerequisite for and a pathway to dynamic agricultural systems (Clark, 2002; ICSU, 2002). However there is also consensus that a disconnect exists between research or supply side products and the user or demand side actors’ expectations i.e. a weakened innovation capacity emerges (Clark, 2002, Hall, 2009). This weakened innovation capacity is a result of atomistic institutions or ways of working among components of agricultural innovation systems. This paper uses case studies from the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP II) to show that when actors are brought together in dialogue an emergent property is networkyness. The paper then goes on to argue that this networkyness leads to opportunities for optimal partnerships between research and development a process that leverages innovation capacity.
Admittedly there are successes emerging from the use of research, however, especially for developing countries, for each success story there are many missed opportunities and outright failures (ICSU,2002) or as Rukuni et al (1998:1073) put it, ‘…Africa’s farmer support systems are in serious disarray’. The reasons for these failures are several but two stand out: firstly, much knowledge remains untapped due to the failure of the research systems to encourage an awareness of systemic linkages and a regard for experimental learning in those whose experiences and behaviours will be central to any transition towards sustainable development (ICSU, 2002; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008, Manyong, 2005). Secondly, there is an inverse relationship between potentially valuable science and technology painstakingly produced and its use (Biggs and Clay, 1981; ICSU, 2002; Hall, 2009). The re-alignment of research and development priorities, which is the subject of this paper, is topical globally and locally (IITA, 2005; Hall et al, 2003). There are calls for ‘a new contract between science and society’ (ICSU, 2002) or the question that Rukuni et al (1998) pose, how African governments can ensure that this conundrum between development research and especially resource poor users is addressed, Hall et al (2003) highlight this in their critique of economic impact assessments for missing on, the institutional context of research and the social and economic consequences. Hall et al (ibid) conclude with a research challenge for evidence that shows how institutional learning leads to stakeholder driven ways of setting technical research priorities; action research based evidence from the FIP will try to address this challenge. In general, this paper examines the possibilities of leveraging synergies between the demand side and supply side actors within the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Specifically the paper focuses on how networkyness connects development back to the research system or as the World Bank (2006) puts it, embedding research into development through improved innovation capacity.
In this paper, it is assumed that development research is relational and context sensitive. It maximizes its potential from interfacing with other ideas, practices and developments within certain spaces and places (Hall and Dijkman, 2009). We explore and illustrate these arguments using the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP II) implemented in Nigeria. The FIP II, a sequel to FIP I, sought to build innovation capacity as a pathway to addressing livestock fodder challenges and opportunities in Nigeria. While ordinarily, fodder evokes images of germplasm and related technologies reminiscent of knowledge frontier research; indeed this was the focus and weakness of FIP I, this has not been the case with FIPII. Two key lessons emerged from FIPI experiences; firstly, that technologies for livestock fodder are available in Nigeria
This paper is organized as follows: the next section discusses innovation, networkyness, partnerships research and development in light of current theory and policy debates. The major argument is that research and development is always embedded in social, political and institutional contexts. An hypothesis that networkyness leads to opportunities for unusual partnerships between research and development through a diagnosis of innovation capacity in the Nigerian agricultural system is presented. Case studies from two FIPII sites are presented to illustrate the emergence of unusual partnerships as a result of strengthening links and networks. A synthesis of emerging lessons in the discussion and conclusion wrap up the argument.
Conceptual Framework
As African agricultural systems enter into global relationships; they have become linked to external dynamics e.g. dependence on external sources of technology, energy and external markets, at varying degrees of engagement (Long, 2000). Global linkages have not removed but in some cases accentuated economic and social heterogeneity in the rural agricultural systems. For instance, Nigeria Africa (Hall et al 2003; Klerkx, 2008). Instead we assume that there are organizational cultures e.g. atomistic behaviour that can be changed through networkyness leading to productive partnerships for innovation in R&D.
Innovation, as opposed to invention, encompasses improvements of a technical, institutional and political nature (Hall et al, 2003; Mytelka, 2000; OECD, 2000); innovation is an interactive and iterative process emergent from diverse sources of knowledge. Like wise agricultural innovation implies embedding technical knowledge in particular normative and policy contexts. The extent to which research is embedded in a context will determine its resonance with user interests and characteristics i.e. innovation capacity. Considering innovation capacity not only widens our perception of research success and failure; for instance valuing learning opportunities in seemingly ‘failed projects’, but repositions research foci to respond to the complex social and political environments of sub Saharan Africa (Long and Arce, 2000; Clark, 2002;). For instance IITA’s assessment of constraints in Nigeria
The innovation systems paradigm rejects the separation of between producers, e.g. scientists and consumers, e.g. farmers (Clark, 2002; Hall et al 2003, Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008). Instead innovation implies complexity, multiple actors including research and development, and co evolution of scientific, technological and social systems (Hall, 2008); an indictment of narratives that view rural innovation in terms of producers and consumers in some binary relationship as is the case with technology transfer models. These technology models are criticized for a linear vision or pipeline approach (Hall, 1993; Clark, 1994) and for ignoring barriers in the knowledge to action chain (Rolling, 2006, Sulaiman and Hall, 2006). As Clark (2002) notes; that in most developing country economic systems the scarce resource is to identify what is relevant and organize it in a productive way; naturally, this requires capacity to achieve interaction between agents. This interaction or networkyness enhances the innovation capacity of the system to identify, adapt and exploit new or modify old knowledge. Innovation capacity as an emergent property of the interactive process points to the importance of networkyness in fostering partnerships; the system of all actors involved in the production, diffusion and adoption of knowledge (Hall, 2006; Sumberg, 2005).
In this paper’s conception of innovation capacity, networks produce partnerships. The nature and pace of change is such that social and economic arrangements must adjust to changing agendas priorities, realities, and opportunities. Task accomplishment requires actors to network with others to optimise on comparative advantages there is need go beyond the usual partnerships to optimise on capacities. Yet as is illustrated in Table 1 below, in evolving innovation systems as are found in Africa habits and practices that promote system disconnectedness abound (Manyong, 2005). These ‘complementary shortfalls’ as Clark (2002) puts it, that negate the ‘the necessary linkages to ensure healthy technological development often do not exist and have to be fostered (2002:366 emphasis added). This fostering of unusual partnerships in systems comprising disconnected platforms, we hypothesise in this paper, is a product of networkyness that emerges in the search for innovation capacity.
Networks provide a window for the emergence of partnerships, and this is the point we are making in this paper, that are critical for the development of innovation capacity. Implied in our argument is that these partnerships are not solely or always associated with frontier research but also with incremental, mundane problem solving that farmers and research organisations make to address challenges.
Nigerian Agricultural Innovation System Competency:
This section presents a diagnosis of the Nigerian innovation system conducted at the beginning of FIP II in 2008. Since local innovation systems are embedded in wider innovation contexts it suffices here to present generalised assessment of the configuration of the innovation system in rural Nigeria. More detailed diagnoses are presented as part of the cases studies below. The Nigerian rural landscape like most rural areas in Africa is characterized by several institutions and organisations, what Metcalfe and Ramlogan (2008) call, ‘innovation ecologies’ that, putatively, aim at rural development. The litany includes different government ministries, various units of the NARS, including small enterprise development, agriculture and extension, local government authorities, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), finance institutions, agricultural input suppliers. While the existence of these innovation ecologies is evident can we assume the same for the system making connections? The historical overview below shows that system making connections between components that ensure that flow of information and facilitate learning are weak (Adeoti and Olubamiwa, 2009). This disconnect creates bases for practices that negate the emergent aspects of innovation capacity.
Current habits and practices found among the ecologies in the Nigerian agricultural landscape are best understood by reference to traditional roles that rural areas have historically played in the economy. Rural areas in both and colonial and postcolonial eras have been sources of particular raw materials. For instance in Nigeria
The focus on specific crops in these rural areas led to the development of mono cropping regimes in response to the dictates of the market. Farmers put emphasis on these crops in response to the state that also intensified its investment into specialized research and extension in these sectors. For example the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) was established specifically to explore means of ensuring that the country maximized on its comparative advantage as raw material provider in the value chain; no commitment to building innovation capacity. The same was the case for the other export crops (Adeoti and Olubamiwa, 2008). As a consequence sector based clusters with unidirectional relationships were established that encouraged specific research and training organisations to focus on their traditional atomised roles. Important to note here is the fact that no effort innovatively promoted diversification into other forms of livelihood log the commodity value chain.
From the above, two broad sectors characterized the rural innovation landscape; an export agriculture sector and a subsistence agriculture sector. Each developed habits and practices that impinge on present day innovation dynamics. These habits and practices of partnerships, coordination and mutual learning among actors in Nigeria
Table 1. Innovation systems in perspective: Institutional behaviour across sectors
Attribute | Export agriculture sector | Subsistence agriculture sector |
Product | Sector specific | Mixed |
Research and Extension | Formal and commodity sector specific | Non existent later donor bank supported |
Markets | Formal urban and international | Local and informal |
Linkages/ Connectedness | Within sector | None/ad hoc incomplete |
Gender | Masculine | Feminine |
Relationship with government | Strong Unidirectional | Weak informal paternalistic |
Learning | Sector loop | Technology transfer |
Finance | Producer support formal | Informal exploitative |
Ease of entry | Conditional | Open |
Trajectory | Orchestrated | |
Diversity of approach | Mono-cropping | Opportunistic |
Decision making | Corporate | Private/ individualistic |
Risk | Diffused across sector | Household/ individual level |
Source: Field Data
Table 1 presents a generalised background to institutional practice in the Nigerian sector. Colonial and post colonial strategies focussed on cash cropping with little regard to enhancing the innovation capacity in the rural sector. Subsistence farming including goat farming was not among the priority commodities that the government had interests in. As a result the institutions around the production, marketing of commodities from this sector have largely been based on individual farmer initiatives. There is minimum or no interaction with other actors to facilitate collective reading and response to opportunity sets.
Agricultural research platforms thus configured promoted and made disconnectedness normal. As Omobolanle (2008) observes, the rural livelihoods pathways reflected contours of the actor configurations presented above. Colonial and post colonial strategies focussed on cash cropping with little regard to enhancing the innovation capacity in the agricultural sector. There is minimum or no interaction with other actors to facilitate appropriate reading and response to opportunity sets. The rural landscape at present reflects this original bias towards commodity exports.
In general Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria
Table2: Constraints to Effectiveness of Agricultural Policy in Nigeria
Policy Instability | High turnover in agricultural policies because of political instability, with many policies formulated and scrapped in rapid succession. |
Inconsistency in Policies | No systems approach to policy formulation each problem viewed in isolation; Government agricultural policies and industrial programs mutually antagonistic e.g. conflict between government's domestic food production policy and its cheap food import policy. |
Narrow Base of Policy Formulation | Actors at the grassroots alienated from policy formulation; policies lack grassroots support. |
Poor Implementation of Policies | Little attention paid to the efficient implementation of policies; red tape, corruption. |
Weak Institutional Framework for Policy Coordination | Inadequate institutional arrangements for policy and program coordination often leading to duplication of effort in resource use among units of the same government. |
Source: Compiled from Manyong et al (2005)
Table 2 caricatures the barriers to innovation capacity in the agricultural sector of Nigeria
This far, the discussion has raised several analytical dimensions that we will now illustrate empirically in the cases studies that follow the brief introduction to the FIP II.
The Fodder Innovation Project (FIP II) Context
The FIPII comprises three experiments that examine the set of actor relationships or architectures required to address particular innovation capacity challenges in the livestock economy in Nigeria Nigeria
A variety of encounters between the research team and the KPOs was designed to help interpret share the idea of innovation system and notion of innovation capacity as resulting from networking linkages and ways of working that make these arrangements to function. These encounters also led to adaptive refocusing of the FIPII action plans based on experiences in the field. KPOs were not given blue prints of how to set up innovation networks, instead project staff coached partners in the development of work plans to help introduce and operationalise these perspectives on innovation and capacity. After that, it was largely to KPOs to implement plans as they best saw. The project continued to interact with KPOs providing advice where it was required over a period of about two years. However, activities continued to take a momentum of their own, shaped by the nature of the KPOs and their larger scope of work, in which they engaged. The experiences from KPO activity are the bases of the case studies that follow.
Case studies of unusual partnerships between research and development
The following two case studies show that networkyness within an innovation system; i.e. the establishment and strengthening of system making connections, leads to institutional change which begets innovation capacity. Here institution refers to the practices of actors dealing with research and development (Hall et al, 2003). Changes in behaviour are illustrated by partnerships between actors towards execution of tasks. The case studies presented here are a continuum of partnership contexts. On one end, the JDPC case, we focus on an actor involved in the production and transfer of animal health technologies to actors involved in the transfer and use of knowledge in the SG2000 case. We show that organisational cultures underwent a transformation because networkyness that resonated with a particular institutional context and flexible enough to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities developed. We also use the evidence to further argue that once networks are in place the impact is not restricted to particular spatial and temporal project contexts but spreads beyond the point of intervention (see also Hall et al, 2007:32). First, we look at the JDPC initiatives.
The experiment in southwest Nigeria focused on intensification of goat production as a pathway out of poverty for those households whose livelihoods are linked to livestock. The initial situation analysis of livestock, fodder and fodder innovation development showed that households rear small ruminants at a subsistence level. This specialisation and scale is partly due agro ecological conditions of this humid zone and more importantly the institutional history of the agricultural sector in the country stated in the background section above. As a result, in setting out technical and institutional objectives, JDPC chose to focus on “transition from subsistence level goat farming to semi-commercial market-driven enterprise”. Especially on the institutional dimension, analyses showed that goat production in the south west is a reflection of how policy and institutional dynamics have shaped the rural innovation capacity landscape. Key institutions are the state, the private sector and civil society operating in an atomistic manner. This multifaceted nature of the limiting factors to goat production was couched in the key question, “how to strengthen the capacity and coordination of existing and potential networks and mechanisms to support the transition of goat farming from a subsistence level to semi-commercial market driven enterprise.” Below, is a case study of the initiatives undertaken to build a network that would enhance information flow.
Networkyness leads to client oriented technical support
JDPC invited the Nigerian Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) to be part of the network addressing transition from subsistence to commercial production of goats in Ikire the FIP II site. To bring out our point of how this encounter led to unusual partnerships we briefly caricature the NVRI as an actor in this network. The NVRI is part of the NARS with a research and development mandate in all aspects of animal health including vaccine production and extension for livestock farmers. Staff in the NVRI is subject to the intercalary tensions of being a research and at the same time a public service bureaucracy. In civil service politics, the latter role is more dominant than the former; the metrics for performance tilt in favour of one’s conduct as a bureaucrat than researcher. Such incentive dynamics promote resource allocation mechanisms that resonate with professional expediency than research per se. As a result, this limits the scope for responding to demands for research, we illustrate this further below.
Veterinarians find practice in the rural areas challenging because, among other reasons, quacks have infiltrated the profession. Rural veterinary quackery is an institution embedded in a disconnected system characterised by poor state service delivery in general. Specifically, the system dysfunction is a nexus of weak monitoring procedures, contradictory import policy, porous borders that facilitate movement of contraband drugs, and generalised poverty in the farming population. In this context, quack veterinarians compete against the formal sector veterinarians. Buoyed by the systemic paralysis outlined above quacks naturally emerge winners. The result is that the veterinary officers shy away from any practice that promotes quackery by limiting access to their intellectual property. For instance, veterinarians remove labels on the containers or repackage the chemicals into different containers. Fear that once such knowledge is openly accessible quacks will free ride on it prompts such action (see also Peck, 2006). Therefore veterinarians frown upon initiatives that seek to capacitate non professionals in any aspect of animal health as a veterinarian respondent said, ‘if you give them an inch they will take a mile’.
The context presented above shows that there are habits and practices that negate trust building between the research organisation and the users of the technologies leading to weak innovation capacity in the animal health domain. With limited incentives for research, the veterinarians’ response capacity to address research demands from within and from outside the organisation is limited. In other words such a gap implies that users are denied access to research that they can put into use; an impediment to innovation. The corollary of this gap is that, the context between the veterinarians and the quacks costs other actors access to useful information and skills. Anyone outside the professional circles is deemed a potential quack bent on usurping the market away from them. In short, linkages have deadlocked between the veterinarians and the other actors. The capacity of the actors to engage technology development has been severely limited. Below we show that the situation reversed through networking which created opportunities for unusual partnerships.
JDPC invited the NVRI to be part of the FIP network and to participate in the stakeholder meetings. Local government extension workers, FIP Research team, farmers and marketers were also present. The mere presence of other official actors made it appear normal for officials to interact with farmers. Through JDPC’s steering, emphasis was laid at the prospects of transforming the orientation of goat production among the villagers and that all those present were necessary in effecting this transition. Each of the players presented the skills and resources that they could provide. The NVRI representative also mentioned that they were mandated to ensure animal health and particularly these days of increased zoonoses to practice strict animal disease surveillance. The farmers used the platform to raise veterinary challenges they experienced as goat producers which the NVRI provided answers. In the process it turned out that other players like the goat marketers had tacit knowledge about goat health for instance the herbs to use in times of illness and breeds that are susceptible to illnesses. Farmers on their own shared their own experiences, their experiences with traditional medicine. Far from the being the scheming farmers seeking to extract technical knowledge in order to avoid professional practice they were willing to have the ‘doctor’ as the farmers would say take the lead but it was also clear that they would triangulate with other knowledge sources.
Farmers used the networking opportunity to report about their goats suffering from a ruminant flu which they called ‘catarrh’. The NVRI officer indicated that the cited problem was Peste des Petits Ruminants commonly called PPR which is endemic to the area. A vaccine had been developed by the NVRI but there was a ‘vaccine break’ in this part of the country. This meant that there was no program to supply the vaccine in the area from the head office where stocks are kept. The head office argued that there was no demand for the technology except from the universities. The universities had their own means of sourcing the vaccine. Farmers argued that first they were unaware of the existence of the NVRI, and secondly that they were the custodians of the protection against ‘catarrh’ and lastly that they wanted the NVRI to provide the PPR vaccine because it was necessary if they were going into commercial production. Later the NVRI officer was able to contact his head office and consignment of the vaccine arrived in the area for public use, the first in two years. Other goat producers not directly related to FIPII also benefited from the availability of the vaccine.
JDPC coordinated animal husbandry upgrading by networking the farmers the marketers as well as the extension workers from state Agricultural Development Programme (ADP). For instance, farmers experimented with goat confinement as opposed to free ranging. For confinement to be successful there was also a need to upgrade disease monitoring and control systems within the farmers. Yet, extension delivery was arrested by the paralysis in government institutions and proliferation of quackery and contraband medicines. A remaining option was to train the farmers in primary animal health care and disease management. JDPC consulted the NVRI and invited them to facilitate in the training of the farmers. Based on previous interactions NVRI used this event as an opportunity to fulfil its mandate viz, firstly to weaken the grip of the quacks from the grass roots by empowering the farmers by connecting them in the research to action chain and secondly to control disease prevalence through heightened awareness among farmers. The NVRI became the focal point of the farmer training; a change from the apprehension it displayed in the early days about dealing with farmers.
Farmers reported that the rates of growth among the goats were not commensurate with the quantities of feed consumed by the animals. However, from observations and interviews with the farmers the NVRI officer felt that the problem lay in compromised nutrient uptake due to parasites in the alimentary canal. He recommended that the farmers embark on a de-worming regime urgently to reduce parasite pressure in the animals. NVRI was present at the de-worming camp organised in the village. An unexpected outcome was that the camp attracted even more farmers than those participating in the FIPII. This was a positive case of free riding for NVRI because diseases control coverage was extending beyond the boundaries of the experimental site. Through networking the NVRI was able to out scale its technologies. Another unusual outcome of networking is discussed in the next paragraph.
This episode illustrates two points; as development progresses it will require research but the policy environment might fall short in providing solutions. Leading from this, and this is the second point, networking can provide partnerships between research and development to address such demand derived research questions. Another unexpected outcome involves NVRI and JDPC collaborating in research. NVRI found a reliable partner to do research with and JDPC benefited from participating in research and also enhancing disease surveillance on its farm. NVRI coordinates an ILRI research on African Swine Fever (ASF) surveillance project (ILRI n.d.). Through networking opportunities for partnerships that integrate development entrepreneurial and research agendas have emerged and gone beyond goat farming.
Better networks timely vaccination in Kano
In 2009, there was an outbreak of PPR in Rogo local government area. At the same time, the local government had given women loans to start goat raising projects. This meant that the PPR would scuttle the local authority’s efforts, especially with the understaffed animal health departments (ILRI, 2008). The local government chairperson summoned all the state animal health specialists to attend to the outbreak. He directed that all the animals be vaccinated and affected animals treated in a week. The SG2000 coordinator proposed to him that to expedite vaccination programme they need to include the para veterinarians in the village as well. Initially the local government head was apprehensive that the para veterinarians would not do the job well since they are not directly under his control. The coordinator suggested that the head meets the para veterinarians before their engagement. Each of the para veterinarians had to bring certificates to prove his or her qualifications as animal health practitioner. This was also a strategy to make sure that the quake veterinarians do not infiltrate the group In the end the vaccination camp comprised 10 para veterinarians and seven local government and state government animal health specialists.
The out come of this partnership was timely vaccination that reduced mortality in the local head. The timeliness in conducting the vaccination camp reduced by about 70% the time local government veterinarians would have taken vaccinate the entire local government herd. In addition, the partnership saved the vaccine from spoilage in this area where refrigeration is not readily available due to erratic electricity supplies. This partnership has demonstrated the value of networks and partnerships to local government authorities.
We also want to show that this case study is also an example of evidence based institutional change. For instance, what started as a specific activity at project level involving FIP led to system level upgrading as habits changed on the part of the local government. For example when the local government head saw the value of collaborating with the para veterinary officers he committed himself to invite them in cases where the local government wanted to attend to an animal health issue urgently. According to the SG2000 coordinator who brokered the partnership, the local government head, though initially apprehensive resolved to budget for similar networks with the para veterinarians. He was considering using the para veterinarians in the annual CBPP vaccination.
An additional benefit of the network created in the FIP is the rapid movement of information on animal health. The para veterinarians used in the PPR vaccination were quick to alert the authorities of what appeared to be signs of avian flu. The Ministry of Agriculture sent specialists who diagnosed it as chronic respiratory diseases among poultry.
To sum it up, working together the animal health stakeholder formed an unusual partnership that leveraged their reach and resources and this networkyness helped them avert a crisis. The successful collaboration helped resource poor small goat owners survive because of the synergistic collaborative efforts between the players. In the next example, we take this aspect of synergy and unusual partnerships further.
Implications for R&D
The case has shown how a new a way of interaction with partners has allowed the local government to consider new ways of operating vis a vis the para-veterinarians. The subtle institutional context in which technology is introduced matters. Networkyness facilitated a novel combinations resources and expertise leading to better delivery of research and technology. Networkyness improves response capacity; actors are working together then able to respond to emerging challenges.
3. Discussion
This paper argues that networkyness leads to opportunities for unusual partnerships between research and development. The case studies show that networking leverages response capacity. Actors are working together on fodder issues in a way as individual actors they would not been able to. For instance when JDPC is stuck at the policy level because there is no policy that facilitates response to development derived programmes an opportunity emerges from a partnership with the NVRI. These partnerships are desirable because they are a turning point in habits and practices emergent of perverse incentive mechanisms typical of insular cultures.
Without networking, resources and expertise held by each of the actors is put to limited use because of the inward looking institutions that shape their habits and practices. For instance it has been shown that the effort and resources invested in research are not justified by matched demand or use. This has reinforced disenchantment with the technology transfer paradigm whose linear view on innovation is now challenged. Given such a background the absence of system making connections is glaring. This paper used examples from experiments done in Nigeria
While Nigeria has well established research actors in the agricultural sector in general they have not been able to invigorate innovation in the sector, for example the under development of the cocoa value chain, and the mass exodus of young people out of agriculture, an indictment of current research and development impacts born out of a compartmentalisation culture. For the rest of this section we give a synthesis of emerging lessons as well as challenges that may inform and refine policy.
Firstly, networkyness allows for actors to be aware of other actors in the field. Networkyness is remedial, it corrects and improves instances where innovation capacity is lacking. In the first case study the NVRI realised that it was not the only organisation interacting with the farmers in the stakeholder meetings. It was also an opportunity for the farmers to meet bona fide veterinarians; the interaction generated social capital that could be used against quacks. In the second case the local government’s awareness of the capabilities of the para veterinarians enhanced its capacity to deal with emerging animal disease with positive outcomes for the poor. Capability to learn and build new competencies depends on how the parts fit together and the strengths of the connections ‘goodness of fit’, which networkyness seems to provide in the cases presented here. However, a caveat to these observations is the fact that these relationships require time and other attendant incentives to compensate for seemingly opportunity costs especially in the early stages.
Second, networkyness articulates research and development. In the JDPC case collaboration between actors led to stakeholder dialogue especially between JDPC and NVRI. This partnership facilitated the provision of the PPR vaccine in the area. Supply had been discontinued in the last two years because it was assumed there was not enough demand. In another instance on one hand JDPC established a pig farm in line with its community development and training objectives. NVRI on the other hand was involved ASF assays that required a litter whose case histories could easily be established. Through the networking in FIP II these actors were able to dialogue and effect a strategic partnership. In the SG2000 case the local authority learnt how to optimally use the technical knowledge of the para veterinarians. In sum networkyness leads to institutional change making leveraging greater developmental impact,
Thirdly, these unusual partnerships are not limited to project evaluation spatial and time frames or donor funding cycles. In the first case the partnership between the actors was not limited to goat farming but extended to ASF surveillance which was not in the original plan. In the second case partnerships heightened animal disease awareness and reporting.
Fourthly, Networkyness with policy backing is essential
An aspect of both cases is the scale at which they happened. In both cases it was the initiative and intuition of actors. If these partnerships are to be out scaled they need to be supported by an enabling policy environment. As an institutional change process to depend on the predilections of certain actors may lead to sustainability uncertainties especially where power of certain institutions is implicated in the change process.
4. Conclusion
The case studies presented above show that building networks leads to productive partnerships among actors. These partnerships are productive in that they address the challenge especially in developing countries of a mismatch between research identification procedures and development priorities; articulation of research and point of use. Networkyness provides opportunities for dialogue between research and development actors and to explore possible synergies. Inevitably the process of network building and partnership will necessarily be long and slow because it is about changing habits and practices of engagement that have been nurtured under a different, if not perverse, incentive dynamics. At the same time networkyness and the ensuing partnerships are context sensitive and cannot be speeded up by regimentation or use blue prints.
References
Adeoti, J. and Olubamiwa, O. (2009) Towards an Innovation system in the traditional sector: the case of the Nigerian cocoa industry Science and Public Policy 36, 1
Arce, A. and Long, N. (2000) Reconfiguring modernity and development from an anthropological perspective in Arce, A. and Long, N. (eds) Anthropology, Development and Modernities. London
Hall, A; Sulaiman R.V.; Clark, N and Yoganand, B. (2003) From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research Agricultural Systems 78:213-241
Hall, A. (2006) Public Private Sector Partnerships In An Agricultural System Of Innovation: Concepts And Challenges #2006-002 Working Paper Series
Hall, A. and Dijkman, J. (2009) Will a time of plenty for agricultural research help to feed the world? Link News Bulletin Nov-Dec. www.innovationstudies.org
ICSU (International Council for Science Initiative) (2002) Part 1: Consensus Report of the Mexico City Synthesis Conference, Paris
IITA (2005) Bridging the Communication Gap between Scientists and Farmers in Katsina State of Nigeria Ibadan
International Livestock Research Institute (2008) The Animal Health Surveillance
System and Avian Influenza in Nigeria : Early Detection, Reporting and Surveillance – Avian Influenza in Africa (EDRS Project) Nairobi
Klerkx, L and Leeuwis, C (2008) Balancing multiple interests: Embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural innovation infrastructure Technovation 28, 364-378.
Long, N. (2000) Exploring local/global transformations, in Arce, A. and Long, N. (eds).
Manyong, V.M., A. Ikpi, J.K. Olayemi, S.A. Yusuf, B.T. Omonona, V. Okoruwa, and. F.S. Idachaba. (2005) Agriculture in Nigeria : identifying opportunities for increased commercialisation and investment International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan
Mytelka, L. (2000) Local Systems of innovation in a globalised world economy Industry and Innovation 7, 1 15-32
Mytelka, L.K. and Smith,K. (2002) Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and coevolving process. Research Policy 31, 1467-1479.
OECD, (2000) Knowledge Management in the Learning Society, OECD Paris
Rukuni, M; Blackie, M.J. and Eicher,C.K (1998) Crafting Smallholder –Driven Agricultural Research Systems in Southern Africa World Development 26, 6. 1073-1087
World Bank (2006) Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of Research systems Economic Sector Work Report. The World Bank Washington D.C.
International Council for Science (2002) Science and Technology for Sustainable
Development. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 9:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
