All African Globelics Seminar, Tanzania 22 - 23 March 2012

1. Farmer Support Group: Making land work for rural people Ideas for new research projects on LICS in Africa:Agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa: implications for indicator developmentBrigid Letty1, Zanele Shezi2 & Maxwell Mudhara21Institute of Natural Resources 2 Farmer Support Group – University of KwaZulu-Natal All African Globelics Seminar, Tanzania 22 - 23 March 2012

2. Acknowledgements The authors thank IDRC and the UNU-MERIT project team: Martin Bell, Fred Gault, Michael Kahn, Mammo Muchie and Watu Wamae for their ongoing support and encouragement.

3. Introduction • This presentation draws on a study undertaken as part of an IDRC / UNU-Merit initiative looking at case studies of innovation processes (and implications for development of innovation indicators) in Mozambique, Rwanda and South Africa. • It considered two cases of collaborative innovation (participatory grassroots innovation) supported by members of the Prolinnova network (”promoting local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resource management” and its sub-programme called FAIR - “Farmer access to Innovation Resources” being implemented by UKZN - FSG. • Underlying premise: Insufficient recognition is given to ability of smallholder farmers to innovate and experiment - There is a need to influence policy related to R&D so that more resources are made available to support joint experimentation / innovation. • It draws strongly on unpublished work of Martin Bell that creates a framework for considering the two case studies.

4. What is grassroots innovation? • Participatory, farmer-focused and farmer-led modes of innovation development (technologies, organisation arrangements, etc) • They have significant involvement of the innovation users in the innovation process • Is believed to yield innovations that are more appropriate in risk-prone, heterogeneous environments, and which are adopted faster • They blur the distinction between research and extension (and the roles that different actors play – researchers, development practitioners, extension officers and smallholder farmers) • Farmers have a greater influence on centralised agricultural research – greater participation in experimentation and research – or even undertaking ‘informal’ experiments and research • Interest in this new approach because of • limitations of formal R&D systems (based on 1-way technology transfer approaches), • recognition of the value of the involvement of other actors – but especially farmers as innovators rather than just as recipients • and potential gains from linking these two systems

5. Current policy environment • Dept. of Science & Technology – National R&D Strategy, 2002. • Some reference to IK. • High level goals of systems of innovation – (1) quality of life and (2) growth and wealth creation. • Little reference to role of informal innovation in achieving goals. • Performance indicators, for example: • Human capital – Researchers / 1000 workers. • Technical progress – Patents. • Current R&D capacity – Publications, investment in R&D. • Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries – National Agricultural R&D Strategy, 2008. • Makes reference to farmers orgs, civil society & professional orgs as key stakeholders with roles including adaptive research. • Not clear whose role adaptive research is – but no reference to emerging farmers / smallholders – are they seen as suppliers of inputs, producers of outputs or simply users of the outputs?

6. Implications for policy • Policy needs to: • Recognise and encourage farmer experimentation and innovativeness – not only recipients of technology and knowledge. • Support grassroots innovation with human and financial resources. • Create an enabling environment.

7. Available info about grassroots innovation • A seeming lack of hard evidence to convince government to scale up and mainstream financial support • Within the sector, there is insufficient attention given to systematic collation of information about inputs, actors and impact of individual cases – and little effort to aggregate information across cases and countries • And no agreed framework for characterising grassroots innovation or its impacts or scale • So difficult to really know what the scale of the activity (and joint innovation versus farmer experimentation) is or the impact that it is having (is it a marginal activity being undertaken by individuals without institutional support, Ashby 2009a)

8. Formal (Conventional) Informal (‘Farmer first’) Participatory Empowering Functional Grassroots Not Measured Measured (Bell, unpublished)

9. Why the need for indicators? • Indicators describe innovation processes in terms of inputs, actors, process, outputs, impacts and consequences • Used in case studies, smaller surveys or national surveys – they provide internationally comparable data and allow for generalisable observations • They provide evidence to convince policy makers and assist decision-makers • But there are not indicators that can shed light on grassroots participatory innovation in the ‘informal economy’

10. Inadequacy of current agricultural indicators • A limited range of agricultural indicators currently used formally (a focus on inputs, formal R&D actors, limited outputs – especially ‘adoption’ by farmers, direct impacts (e.g. productivity levels, returns to R&D) • No appreciation of farmers (large or small-scale) as actors in the innovation system • Little information provided about different sources of knowledge involved, nor the flow of knowledge • Little attention to long-term impacts on livelihoods

11. Scope of the UNU-Merit case • Focus was on identifying and applying indicators for assessing grassroots innovation related to smallholder agriculture. • Focus of cases was on joint experimentation that had shown some level of application (going beyond R&D). • Two innovation processes in Potshini, KwaZulu-Natal were explored: • Development of a new potato planting method. • Diversification into a new crop and marketing arrangement.

12. The South African context • According to Vink & van Rooyen, 2009: • 1.25 million smallholder households (64% have <0.25ha each). • 46,400 commercial farmers. • 35,000 ‘emerging commercial’ farmers in communal areas • What defines smallholder agriculture in SA? • Poorly supported by capital • Complex farming systems, Largely rainfed, Marginal agricultural land • Weak links with supporting knowledge institutions, credit facilities and input/output markets • Since 1994 research has refocused to provide support to smallholders. Yet smallholder production has continued to decline. • Why is it important? It makes a contribution to livelihoods (together with social grants!) – food security and poverty reduction

13. Study location Potshini village (25km from Bergville)

16. The FAIR enabling environment • SivusimpiloOkhahlamba Farmers Forum • Sharing of ideas / innovations (funded and unfunded) • Stimulating innovative behaviour • Local innovation support fund (Hlahlindlela Trust) • Community level structure with subcommittees that screen applications against criteria, monitor innovation processes. • Provides access to resources (inputs, human capital, new ideas). • Funds reduce risk of experimenting with new ideas. • But fairly limited requests for support – people are unfamiliar with this approach. As Thabanesaid, ‘those who are applying are those who have their own ideas about ways to solve problems they are facing – such as birds eating crops in winter’

17. Potato planting method • ThabaneMadondo, a smallholder in Potshini was introduced to a new idea about how to plant potatoes by a visiting pastor. • The new method involved placing the seed potatoes on the soil surface under a layer of mulch rather than planting and later ridging them. • Thabane saw the potential labour saving benefits and the impact it could have on home garden production, often by elderly women, and decided to experiment with it. • After a season of experimentation, he approached FSG for support and a proposal for support was submitted to Prolinnova. • Joint experimentation focused on different materials for mulching, different planting times and different mulch depths.

19. Potato case cont. • Madondo’sexperience with experimentation and previous work with researchers provided an enabling environment. • Outcomes: While the team found that the method did reduce labour requirements, there were poor germination rates and reduced yield – and Madondo continued to experiment. • The concept was picked up by other innovators (Especially smallholder Mr Mbhele who tried it with other crops). • The provincial DoA also experimented (Cedaratrial).

20. Cherry pepper case • A group of smallholders (the Walani Group) were seeking to diversify into a new crop with better market opportunities than their commonly grown commodities. • Discussions about diversification had taken place within meetings of their local farmers forum and FAIR had supported a trip to the municipal market to stimulate thinking about new crops. • One of the forum members had identified an opportunity to supply cherry peppers (Capsicumsp) to a neighbouring commercial farmer with access to a processing facility. • Thus the Walani group decided to experiment with the new product and to develop of a new marketing arrangement. • A proposal for support was submitted to FAIR and FSG played a key role in facilitating the process.

22. Cherry pepper case cont. • This also led to a new relationship between the smallholders and the neighbouring commercial farmer - Previously it had been one of conflict or an employer-employee arrangement. • The farmers successfully produced their first crop and decided to expand their production the following season without support from FAIR. • The group members were also motivated to keep working together – they’re ‘seeing the bright side of agriculture’. • Some farmers grew their own seedlings from harvested seed and are growing peppers in their home gardens to supply to the factory. • There has been uptake by other farmer groups.

23. Potential innovation indicators • Indicators to measure impact on livelihoods & wellbeing: • Increase in income generated. • Reduction in labour. • Increased food security. • Improved diet. • Indicators to quantify scale of activity (the extent to which it is happening): • Returns versus expenditure on stimulating / supporting informal innovation. • Number of joint experimentation processes supported.

24. Indicators quantified – potato planting • Labour saving potential: • Comparison of labour requirements for conventional versus mulching practice. • 72% reduction in labour. • But also a 27% reduction in yield. • In monetary terms – for an area of 8 x 6m, a loss of 51kg (R179) would almost be compensated for by saving in labour cost (R176). • And when labour is simply not available then this is an acceptable compromise. • Yield alone is thus not a good measure for comparisons.

25. Indicators quantified – cherry peppers • Income generating potential: • R30,000 per hectare for cherry peppers versus • R13,436 /ha for cabbages (Combud 2009/10) or • R2,175/ha for maize (Combud 2007/2008). • Social benefits • Improved relationships. • Improved capacity to work together. • Improved capacity to experiment.

26. Initial conclusions • Case study has built some understanding of how the concept of innovation systems relates to grassroots innovation. • Need to distinguish between local innovation and joint innovation processes (both contribute to grassroots innovation). • Links between formal and informal players (stimulating innovativeness create a ‘pull’ on formal R&D systems). • Some exploration of indicators for measuring impact. • Some exploration of support required for grassroots innovation. • Inputs to the innovation process are wider than initially understood (including institutional and organisational inputs) – and activities downstream to R&D that are critical for uptake of the innovation

27. From case studies to policy analysis • We still cannot really argue for scaling up this approach: but it certainly seems to deserve more attention… • Some of the benefits have been illustrated - including economic and social (including empowerment) • We need a more systematic analysis to determine whether scaling up of resource allocation is deserved and where it should be focused • For the analysis we need a common framework with relevant indicators….

28. Some implications for indicator development? • We need to decide on the entity on which to focus: Not a firm, so maybe a farm, or a village? • We need ‘outward focused’ indicators aimed at influencing policy rather than satisfying the funder • We need to be able to describe network links to knowledge sources • What sources of knowledge contributed? • What was the knowledge flow direction? • What is the link with formal R&D? • To what extent is the process user-pulled or driven? • In terms of impacts, we should consider both functional benefits (better adapted and adopted innovations) and empowerment (social) benefits (e.g. intensified innovative activity)

29. Future research: Next steps for developing relevant indicators We need an endogenous process of creating and developing relevant indicators (Bell, unpublished)

30. The first step • Undertake case studies or smaller surveys: • Need indicator development as part of case study and survey analysis (consistency allows comparison and aggregation) – and in line with other innovation indicator work • Consider pre-R&D conditions and post R&D activities that are key for uptake and adoption • Consider how to deal with the issue of longer term impacts – especially the empowerment related ones? • Consider how one could identify innovation processes that are not embedded within projects? Especially farmer only innovation…. • This will inform larger surveys which will in turn allow for development of frameworks for large national surveys