Tools, Principles or Policies?

"...future programmes focusing on innovation capacity development will need to have much broader goals than today's often subsector- or problem-oriented projects. More use will need to be made of formative reviews and dialogues with donors and other stakeholders to determine the desirability of different, broader sets of action."

This article explores a growing trend in the field of agricultural development: thinking in terms of innovation systems rather than just focusing on research. To illustrate this change, the authors describe the Fodder Innovation Project (FIP), which is being carried out by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the United Nations University (UNU-MERIT), Maastricht, the Netherlands. The purpose of FIP is to explore whether the long-standing problem of fodder scarcity in India and Nigeria could be tackled by focusing on innovation capacity development rather than technology development. (Per Wikipedia: "In agriculture, fodder or animal feed is any foodstuff that is used specifically to feed domesticated livestock...").

In general, "an innovation system is made up of the individuals and organisations that demand and supply knowledge and technologies, as well as the policies and mechanisms that affect the way different agents interact to share, access and exchange knowledge."

A starting point for FIP - and any practitioners working from an innovation system perspective - is how we understand innovation capacity. First, the authors explain, it includes not just technological artefacts (or the expertise and information within research organisations that are required to produce them) but - beyond that - the process through which research-based knowledge and context-specific knowledge are combined for the development of solutions that actually work in a certain context. Second, "innovation capacity includes a system or network of multiple nodes of expertise. Users of new products and services, such as farmers and consumers, are prominent nodes in their own right. These systems are often informal, adaptive and transient, and are characterised by the context in which they emerge..."

As the authors explain, key elements in the FIP project, which is being played out in 5 research sites, include the following:

• Careful selection of partners to act as nodal catalysts for network strengthening.
• A diagnosis of existing patterns of innovation capacity, which was used to help develop action plans as well as form a baseline to track progress.
• The use of an action research approach to help cope with the uncertainty of the process of network strengthening.
• The provision of innovation mentoring or coaching to partners to help them make sense of how project activities were developing and to help redefine action plans.
• The establishment of an innovation policy working group in each of the 2 countries to help bridge the gap with policy-making processes.
  

Although the project is still in its early stages, lessons are emerging. The authors detail a few:

• Strengthening the connections revealed through the mapping of existing patterns of linkages among livestock-related actors requires "collaboration in action, rather than just the formation of new committees to talk about collective action....For example, the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) - FIP's partner in Rajasthan, India - began by asking people involved with various aspects of livestock how they could work together. But this only progressed beyond discussion when public and private sector veterinary services and dairies were invited to a 'cattle health camp' in some of the villages where FES was working. The success of the camp - largely due to effective on-the-spot collaboration among the various agencies concerned with livestock - has now led livestock keepers to demand other services, including access to new fodder grasses for rehabilitating degraded land. This, in turn, has drawn in a wider set of people who are planning new activities together."
• "...[D]ealing with fodder scarcity doesn't necessarily mean starting with fodder itself or fodder technology. In Kano, Nigeria, for example, the project is helping farmers to form cooperatives and to get access to credit, and this is providing the incentive to invest in fodder seed."
• Getting people - be they in government agencies, research institutes, dairy cooperatives, or other private sector organisations - to work collectively and pool their knowledge and expertise requires champions, or "innovation brokers", within partner organisations to build interest and encourage effective networking. Facilitating and negotiating successfully has been found to involve navigating the agendas and idiosyncrasies of different organisations and individuals, and brokering new working relationships among unfamiliar partners.
• "...[T]here is no single way to approach facilitating capacity for innovation. Each situation is unique. It is not about working with a fixed set of players, but having the ability to respond to the needs and challenges that emerge." Some of the most interesting fodder developments are reportedly occurring outside the defined area of research; the authors illustrate this point with an example from the Puducherry, India, site.
• "The project predicts that as capacity for change is strengthened, and livestock production systems are upgraded, there will be an increased demand for knowledge, including from livestock research organisations."

FIP has developed some generic principles that others can use to help facilitate capacity development (both, they say, must be adhered to):

1. "Focusing on strengthening innovation capacity is not a quick fix. It is often messy, unpredictable and iterative...And of course it is highly context specific."
2. Rural innovation systems span rural activities as well as policy processes: "the best results are achieved if agricultural research and general development activities are well integrated. This...requires fundamental changes in policy (such as the merger of agricultural research councils and rural development ministries) in order to introduce a well embedded and more responsive role for research, rather than new tools for collective action (such as innovation or multi-stakeholder platforms)..."