how poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options erik millstone spru...

29
How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU [email protected] STEPS http://steps-centre.org/

Upload: miles-norris

Post on 22-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

How poor farmers can participate in choosing

technology development options

Erik MillstoneSPRU

[email protected]

STEPS http://steps-centre.org/

Page 2: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

Field Site

Sakai, Mbooni East – Low Potential

Page 9: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

Typology of Pathways

Low Maize High Maize

Low-ExternalInput

High-ExternalInput

Page 11: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

• 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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

• 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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

Multicriteria Mapping (MCM): The Interview Process

Page 25: How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

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 Erik Millstone SPRU e.p.millstone@sussex.ac.uk STEPS

Sakai farmer performance rankings show a preference for local maize, not new maize