how poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options
DESCRIPTION
How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options. Erik Millstone SPRU [email protected] STEPS http://steps-centre.org/. The STEPS Centre. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
How poor farmers can participate in choosing
technology development options
Erik MillstoneSPRU
STEPS http://steps-centre.org/
![Page 2: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The STEPS Centre• Core concern: Identifying and building pathways to
‘poverty reduction’ in combination with ‘sustainability’• Research themes: dynamics, governance, designs• Normative benchmarks: Direction, Diversity and
Distribution• Domains: agriculture & food, health & disease, water &
sanitation and energy• An interdisciplinary approach: social and natural sciences,
development studies and science and technology studies, assuming complexity, indeterminacy and non-linearity.
![Page 3: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Food Insecurity in ASAL Areas
• Nevertheless, some 3.8 million people remain food insecure, particularly in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL), since only limited harvests have occurred
Source: FEWS Net after ALRMP and KFSSG (Jan 2010)
![Page 4: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
We are using maize as a ‘window’ though which to analyse the dynamics of
environmental, social and technical changein ‘innovation systems’ in Kenya
![Page 5: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Since 2008, the BMGF has invested ~$100m in:
• Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa project DTMA
• Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA).
![Page 6: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The BMGF’s Guidelines to Applicants and tells proposers to indicate:
“Who are the target beneficiaries of your work and how does your approach specifically serve their documented needs? and ‘How have you consulted with your target beneficiaries and assessed their needs?”
![Page 7: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Phase I Research – 2007-9• Literature review – Kenya’s agricultural
history; environmental change; resilience; maize R&D/innovation
• Key informant interviews (science institutions, MoA, farmers’ organisations, seed companies, NGOs, donors, others)
• Field study– Sakai, Mbooni East District, Eastern
Province – ‘low potential’ zone (participants from 5 villages); seed selector interviews; feedback meeting.
![Page 8: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Field Site
Sakai, Mbooni East – Low Potential
![Page 9: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Phase II: Exploring Pathways in and out of Maize
• Phase 1 fieldwork identified a set of 9 core pathways in the Sakai Valley, generating from:
1. Reliance on internal/external inputs including local vs. certified seed (OPVs, hybrids, etc.) and their sources (informal vs. formal channels)
2. Reliance on maize as key crop
3. Diversification out of maize other key crops (‘orphan’ dryland staple crops, horticulture)
![Page 10: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Typology of Pathways
Low Maize High Maize
Low-ExternalInput
High-ExternalInput
![Page 11: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Typology of PathwaysLow Maize High Maize
Low-ExternalInput
High-ExternalInput
1 – Alternative dryland staples for subsistence
2 – Alternative dryland staples for market
3 – local improvement of local maize
5 – Assisted seed multiplication of maize
4 – Assisted seed multiplication of alternative dryland staples
6 – Individual high-value crop commercialization
7 – Group-based high-value crop commercialization
8 – Commercial delivery of new DT maize varieties
9 – Public delivery of new DT maize varieties
See Briefing Paper 3 for details
![Page 12: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Low Maize + Low External Input
Pathway 1 – Alternative staples for subsistence• Farmers diversify away from maize to alternative dryland staples • These crops are increasingly grown alongside maize on the farm and
are used mainly for household consumption. • Local varieties are grown with minimal or no external inputs
Pathway 2 – Alternative staples for market• Farmers diversify away from maize to alternative dryland staples • Maize is increasingly purchased for consumption with the proceeds
from the sale of alternative crops. • Local varieties are grown with minimal or no external inputs
![Page 13: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
High Maize + Low External Input
Pathway 3 – Local improvement of local maize seed
• More farmers learn to select and multiply local varieties of maize seed for local use (planting on the local farm or sale/exchange with other farmers)
• Local varieties of maize are used with minimal or no external inputs (certified seeds, chemical fertilizers, etc)
![Page 14: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Low/High Maize + Low External Input + Assisted Multiplication
Pathway 4 – Assisted seed multiplication (alternative crops) • Farmers are assisted in multiplying seeds of available improved
varieties of alternative dryland staples• These seeds are used for planting on the local farm or for
sale/exchange with other farmers. • Varieties are provided to farmers and assistance is given in seed
multiplication, farming techniques, etc.
Pathway 5 – Assisted seed multiplication (maize)• Farmers are assisted in multiplying seeds of available improved, open-
pollinated, drought-tolerant /drought-escaping maize.• These seeds are used for planting on the local farm or are used for
sale/exchange with other farmers. • Varieties are provided to farmers and assistance is given in seed
multiplication, farming techniques, setting up cereal banks, etc
![Page 15: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Low Maize + High External InputPathway 6 – Individual high-value crop commercialization
• Farmers diversify into high-value/high-risk horticultural crops such as tomatoes, onions and fruit trees
• Maize is gradually replaced on the farm by these high-value crops
• Maize is increasingly purchased for consumption with the proceeds from the sale of high-value crops
• Crops are grown with external inputs (certified seeds, chemical fertilizers, etc)
• Crops require access to a water source and/or water storage techniques
Pathway 7 – Group-based high-value crop commercialization
• Farmers form groups to diversify into high-value/high-risk horticultural crops
• Maize is gradually replaced on the farm by the high-value crops
• Maize is increasingly purchased for consumption with the proceeds from the sale of high-value crops
• Crops are grown with external inputs (certified seeds, chemical fertilizers, etc)
• Crops require access to a water source and/or water storage techniques
![Page 16: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
High Maize + High External Input
Pathway 8 – Commercial delivery of new maize varieties = DTMA & WEMA• Farmers purchase new hybrid maize seed varieties, such as drought-tolerant
hybrid maize from commercial dealers, such as private agro-dealers and stockists
• Maize is grown on the farm for local consumption and/or sale
• These crops are grown with external inputs (certified seeds, chemical
• fertilizers, etc)
Pathway 9 – Public delivery of new maize varieties
• Farmers purchase new hybrid maize seed varieties such as drought-tolerant hybrid maize from public delivery mechanisms.
• Maize is grown on the farm for local consumption and/or sale.
• These crops are grown with external inputs (certified seeds, chemical fertilizers, etc.).
![Page 17: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• Those 9 pathways served as a starting point to open up discussions with farmers, scientists and policy makers on:
1. Range of pathways – analysing pathways in and out of maize;
2. Discussion about relevant criteria for choosing one pathway over another in such a way as to factor in the cross-scale dynamics and constraints; and
3. Critical examination of alternative visions of the future and institutional arrangements needed to support them
![Page 18: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Phase III: Multicriteria Mapping (MCM): The Interview Process
2. Develop a set of criteria
5. Reflect on outcome
1. Discuss pathways
3. Score pathways under each criterion;
optimistic & pessimistic scores to
reflect uncertainty
4. Assign weight to
each criterion
![Page 19: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• What we did– 23 interviews conducted in November 2009 – Some individual, Some in groups– Nairobi-based informants and Sakai Farmers
• Conducting the MCM interviews – Nine pathways evaluated discussing agricultural
pathways ‘in and out of maize’ – 147 different and unique criteria defined by informants
to evaluate the pathways• Analysing the MCM data
– Identify groups of informants– Identify groups of criteria– Evaluate pathway performance rankings– Analyse the qualitative information provided in the
assessments
Multicriteria Mapping (MCM) Overview
![Page 20: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Groups of informants1. Sakai Farmers (11 interviews)
a) Genderb) Income level
2. Nairobi-based Informants (12 interviews)a) Public sector officialsb) Commercially oriented c) Science and technology institutesd) Biotechnology focus
![Page 21: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Sets of criteria: Macro and Micro Issues
• Economic and Market Issues 71 criteria– Resource costs 23 criteria– Availability and access to resources 30 criteria– Market aspects 18 criteria
• Stress Tolerance Issues 43 criteria– Water use 17 criteria– Pests and disease resistance 14 criteria– Suitability of crop to agro-ecological conditions 12 criteria
• Social, Political & Cultural Issues 33 criteria– Knowledge and skills 14 criteria– Social and cultural 9 criteria– Food security 10 criteria
![Page 22: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Evaluating pathway ‘performance rankings’• Performance rankings are literal ‘maps’ of pathway scores • Averaged across groups of stakeholder & sets of criteria
(issues)• High end of range indicates average optimistic scores• Low end of range indicates average pessimistic scores• Length of range (or bar) indicates uncertainty & ambiguity
expressed– Uncertainty is expressed by individuals in a stakeholder
group– Ambiguity is the result of disagreement between
stakeholders
![Page 23: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Qualitative analysis of the pathway evaluations
• Used to identify groups of stakeholders with shared points of view
• Used to group criteria according to shared themes
• Clarifies the reasons for convergence and divergence in the pathways performance rankings
![Page 24: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Multicriteria Mapping (MCM): The Interview Process
![Page 25: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Performance rankings for low and high income Sakai farmers against a set of economic and market criteria show different perceptions of barriers based on income level
![Page 26: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Performance rankings for different groups of stakeholders shows a surprising amount of optimism about alternative dryland staple crops, especially under a set of stress tolerance criteria
![Page 27: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Pathways in maize: Living in parallel worlds?Performance rankings for different groups of Nairobi-based informants show
assisted seed pathways are ‘consistent’ performers
![Page 28: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Pathways in maize: Performance rankings for groups of Nairobi-based informants show a variety
of high performing pathways, but rarely high maize options
![Page 29: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070400/56813584550346895d9ce33a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Sakai farmer performance rankings show a preference for local maize, not new maize