CHAPTER 7. ENHANCING FORAGE SEED PRODUCTION IN SMALLHOLDER
7.2 Enhancing competitiveness of forage seed business
7.2.3 Innovation platform approach
From FGDs that were conducted in the study area, it was revealed that there were innovation platforms (IPs) developed at ward level and about 50.0 % of the farmers were members of the IPs.
The innovation platforms have committees composed of chairperson, secretary, treasurer and two to three committee members. The purpose of the committee is to facilitate meetings of stakeholders, attend meetings and other fora at district and provincial levels, communicate any information to members and give feedback following any meetings. The innovation platform committee members have also managed to negotiate with service providers, including sourcing for prices at field days and sourcing markets for forages and seed. The innovation platforms have also collectively managed to discuss with a seed company for contracts during the 2016-17 growing season to produce lablab forage seed. Actors who have been active in these forage seed production discussions include NGOs, local extension personnel, seed companies, crop input suppliers and local agro dealers.
It is believed that most African economies are agriculture based and this is no exception for Zimbabwe, thus to ensure economic growth and sustained food security, there is need to promote conduct development focused research in order to commercialise agriculture in smallholders.
However smallholder farmers find it difficult to fully participate in markets due to a number of reasons. These include limited knowledge and information on market requirements on quantity and quality, farmer perception that one cannot just participate in markets (inferiority complex), transaction costs that are beyond the reach of smallholder farmers. Interventions to overcome these complex challenges are not straight forward. Various strategies need to be formulated which are intertwined and at different levels (farmer level or institutional level) and may include aspects such as infrastructure (roads, communication network and markets), capacity development of the service providers, creating a conducive environment that meet farmers’ needs. Innovation platforms aim to bring together actors along the value chain to communicate issues and have a sense of accountability and transparency and respect of other stakeholders along the value chain.
It should be noted that innovation platforms are not homogeneous in nature. Pumuk, Bulte and Adekunle, (2014) revealed in their study that there is variation on success rate of innovation platforms even at local level. This is also evident by the fact that innovation platforms cover a wide range of actors who have different views and aspirations and at different levels of engagement, that is, from policy level to farmer operational level. Thus success of innovation platforms depend on objectives for discussion, participants involved and prior knowledge the participants have on the subject matter, among others. In the life cycle of the innovation platform (Figure 7.3), that is, from formation to redesign of interventions, differences in rate of adoption and understanding of the importance of innovation platforms can result (Mango, 2012).
Figure 7.3. Innovation platform life cycle - structure of assessment, analysis, M and E, feedback and adjustment (adapted from Mango, 2012)
International agricultural institutions have been instrumental in the promotion and formation of IPs in the study sites, which were not known before then in the area. Most innovation platforms have been initiated by development organisations (van Rooyen and Homann, 2009) rather than the stakeholders themselves as this is a new approach to participative development and the process (Figure 7.4) needs a facilitation team to kick start the process and ensure its sustainability even after the life of a project. Extension personnel and development partners were initially trained on the IPs, what they aspire to achieve, who is involved, how they function. This was followed by consultative meetings in the study sites to introduce innovation platforms and let the farmers and stakeholders known what it involves.
the value chain. Also new and innovative ideas are developed in the innovation platforms that will benefit all stakeholders, besides sharing skills, information and resources (Schut, Rodenburg, Klerkx, van Ast and Bastiaans, 2014).
However, not all successes of value chains are a result of innovation platforms in smallholders (Markelova, Meinzen-Dick, Hellin, Dohrn, 2009). Some challenges have been observed in innovation platforms. Besides unlocking pathways for smallholder inclusion in value chains, innovation platforms have revealed group dynamics, some of which do not have coherent and positive relationships among the participants. Tensions, serious conflicts and lack of transparency have jeopardised the sustainability of these innovation platforms (Mahiya, 2016). To reduce failures in innovations platforms, training and capacity building is necessary as the initial phase in the process. This helps facilitators to fully understand the concepts involved and how to deal with a diverse of people and organisational cultures. The process also helps to build trust and create a conducive environment for information exchange. Innovation platforms should also not follow the top-down approach, like the design of most extension programs which follow a linear process and result in one size fits all recommendations. It should be participatory in nature and include all stakeholders in one meeting where everyone has an equal chance of participating and contributing to the discussions. Farmer organisations should be applauded for playing an important role in mentoring farmers to engage with stakeholders along value chains without the use of innovation platforms.