34345 Innovation Support Funds for Farmer-led Research and Development W orldwide, millions of farmers1 controlled "Innovation Support Funds" are addressing livelihood Notes (ISFs) that would allow farmers to constraints and exploring new opportuni- invest in their own research, to hire ties by experimenting with unique external resource persons to support combinations of indigenous knowledge it, to access external information, and and new ideas from a variety of sources. to conduct cross visits. Here we Their local innovations include both explore the ISF concept and describe "hard" technologies, such as tools or how PROLINNOVA partners envisage KI pest-management techniques, and "soft" their operation. innovations, such as new ways of communication or marketing. These socio-institutional changes are generated Why such a fund? by groups rather than individuals. The strength of local innovation, i.e. In recent years, international apprecia- that it does not depend on outside tion for the potential of building on local intervention, is also part of its weak- http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm innovation has grown (e.g. Reij & ness. Interactions among farmer Waters-Bayer 2000). However, the current mechanisms for funding partici- patory R&D, such as research-exten- 1"Farmers" is a collective term that refers to sion-farmer councils or competitive grant all people who produce and/or harvest from schemes, are largely controlled by crops, animals and aquatic organisms. It includes peasant / family farmers, pastoralists government institutions. They favour and fisherfolk, among others. activities that involve farmers in the work 2In Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nepal, Niger, of researchers and extensionists rather SouthAfrica, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. than involving these in supporting farm- No. 85 ers' initiatives. Resource-poor farmers October 2005 far from the cities and research centres have difficulty accessing these bureau- IK Notes reports periodically on Indigenous Knowledge (IK) initiatives cratic structures and cannot genuinely in Sub-Saharan Africa and influence them. occassionally on such initiatives At a workshop in 2004, nine country outside the region. It is published by programmes1 involved in PROLINNOVA the Africa region's Knowledge and (Promoting Local Innovation in ecologi- Learning Center as part of an evolving K partnership between the cally-oriented agriculture and natural World Bank, communities, NGOs, resource management) considered how development institutions, and local innovation could be enhanced. The multilateral organizations. The views PROLINNOVA partners (national NGOs expressed in this article are those of World Bank the authors and should not be and government institutions of research, attributed to the World Bank Group or extension and education) saw a need for its partners in this initiative. A flexible funding mechanisms to support webpage on IK is available at farmer-led participatory R&D processes. //www.worldbank.org/afr/ik They developed the concept of locally 2 innovators in different areas and with R&D organisations Types of costs covered An ISF would make conditional can accelerate development and dissemination of improved grants available to innovating farmers or groups to cover technologies. It is often difficult for farmer innovators to costs for: gain relevant information or advice from scientists in ·risks of experimentation, e.g. compensation for unex- interpreting farmers' experimental results, because the pected reduction in yield from experimental plots or farmers cannot bring scientists to see local innovations in animals the field. Because of limitations in traditional communica- ·support by researchers or extensionists to local experi- tion processes, useful local innovations often cannot spread mentation and innovation processes and stimulate ideas among other farmers. ·access to information, including visiting other farmer More effective interaction among diverse actors in R&D innovators and research stations would allow them to explore the wider potential of innova- ·capacity building, particularly for resource-acquisition or tions and scale them up. Farmers could ensure that the income-generation activities to sustain the ISFs. interaction is effective if they could control the use of funds These expenses could be for analysing and improving a for these activities. Large-scale farms and strong farmer local innovation or for trying out new ideas chosen by cooperatives can invest their own funds to hire scientists, farmers. In specific cases, the ISF may provide venture and are often favoured partners of agro-industries. But capital to support development of local innovations into how can resource-poor farmers with low levels of formal marketable products. organisation gain access to funds to share and refine their own innovations? How can they attract resource persons Seed money for village funds. The ISF would also to support their efforts? catalyse establishment of village-level innovation funds. Government research and extension receive public The villagers would specify criteria for use of the funds resources ­ also through international donors ­ but are not granted through the ISF and explore ways to "revolve" the very accountable to farmers and are weak in responding to funds, i.e. replenish them to support the next round of smallholders' needs. In many countries, research and experimentation. This may be done by selling produce from extension services are being decentralised in an effort to the trials or accessing government funds for village or increase their relevance to farmers. An ISF would provide district development. Even when such village innovation a channel for a part of public R&D funds to be used to funds are operating on a revolving basis, the umbrella ISF support innovation processes led by farmers working would still provide grants for farmer-led research with together with researchers and extensionists of their choice. potentially wider relevance but with risks of failure for It offers one practical way to decentralise funding to the which the village funds cannot carry the costs. Local level where it can be applied most effectively. Placing accountability could be increased by requiring that experi- funds in the hands of the users would increase the account- menting farmers co-invest, in cash or kind, to be eligible for ability and relevance of R&D services (LBL 2002). grants through the ISF. The contours of an Innovation Support Fund Selection criteria and process. Selection criteria and ways of making the funds operational would be defined An ISF is not intended as an investment or credit fund. It locally, taking gender, age and socio-economic status into would be an institution managed by a civil-society account. In general, PROLINNOVA partners envisage that organisation (CSO) or organisations to support farmer-led funds would be granted to innovative community groups or research and communication. It would encourage farmers individual farmers who are part of a group or otherwise to experiment and innovate by covering certain risks and relate well to their community.Amajor criterion would be improving links with external sources of information. Not that the funds support local innovation processes that every local experiment will be a success. The grants made benefit resource-poor farmers. A good balance is needed available through ISFs should support exploration and between assessing the potential wider applicability and learning, also from failure. For direct investments to relevance of a proposed experiment and allowing enough increase production through proven technologies, e.g. flexibility to support creative ideas without knowing for buying a pump, other micro-finance services would have to sure what the results will be. be approached. Besides providing grants, the CSOs managing the ISFs would be facilitators in linking farmer Fund management. The mechanisms for fund manage- innovators with existing mechanisms to finance enterprise ment should allow transparency in procedures for applica- development and in ensuring that these become accessible tion, assessment and fund disbursement and involve for smallholders. 3 minimum paperwork, rapid decision-making, and participa- The country-level studies will be supported by a wider tion of local communities in reviewing the grant applications review of experiences with funds to promote community and assessing the outputs and impacts in their own terms. development, including alternative ways of funding re- search and extension, such as reversed funding of agricul- tural R&D (LBL 2002), Local Agricultural Research Establishing funds to support local innovation Committees (Ashby et al 2000), the Indian National Innovation Foundation (www.nifindia.org/ There is a danger that an ISF becomes a bureaucratic NIF_Update.pdf), self-financing Farmer Field Schools institution. It is therefore important that organisations (Gallagher 2001) and various examples of local initiative genuinely committed to empowering farming communities funds and decentralised competitive grant systems. This take the lead in establishing an ISF and moving towards review will produce guidelines for designing and operating increasingly decentralised funding for local innovation. It is an ISF and summarise critical issues and lessons learnt. advisable to start below national level, e.g. in a district, and work with men and women already known as farmer Pilot ISFs. Based on the results of these studies, each innovators and with local CSOs that have recognised them, country will set up a pilot ISF in the way it deems most in order to develop the structure and criteria for using the appropriate. The National Steering Committee (NSC) fund. Experience gained in these districts could then be composed of people from governmental and non-govern- shared with other ones, where similar funds could be mental organisations will guide the process of testing and started. scaling up district- and village-level funds to enhance local innovation. A CSO member of the NSC will manage the Country-specific design. Efforts to establish ISFs will piloting of the ISF, open an account and establish a gover- take different forms in different countries. Each one needs nance structure involving farmer organisations and other to identify the most favourable institutional setting and link relevant CSOs. Where organisations representing with existing structures where useful. By exchanging smallholders are still weak, the fund will initially be gov- experiences, the country programmes will learn from each erned by NGOs that can voice farmers' interests while other. building their capacities to organise and speak for them- selves. Farmer innovators will initially become aware of the Although details may differ between them, all country ISF and gain access to it through their collaboration with programmes will test the same assumptions when estab- NGOs, researchers or extensionists engaged in participa- lishing their ISFs: tory innovation development. ·Financing mechanisms for local innovation are effective if owned and managed by farmer innovators, their Action learning. Together with the local stakeholders, the organisations and supporting CSOs; CSO setting up the ISF will develop a system for action ·Local innovation can be enhanced by allowing farmer learning through participatory monitoring and evaluation of innovators to access funds directly to finance locally the fund's operation, outputs, outcomes and impacts. Inter- mandated research, hire support from external resource country learning will be made possible through moderated persons, link up with other innovators and share their electronic conferences and a face-to-face meeting toward findings more widely. the end of the pilot phase. Preparatory studies. In view of their innovative charac- ter and the many methodological, institutional, legal and Recognising the achievements of local innovators financial aspects that need consideration, the ISFs should be developed step-by-step in order to identify appropriate The work with farmer innovators will include joint delibera- mechanisms and conditions for effective operation. Experi- tion about how their achievements can best be recognised. ences with similar initiatives and the legal and institutional As the local research is funded from public sources, the framework will need to be studied in each country, so that results must be freely available to the public, but in ways an ISF can be designed to suit the local context. These that ensure that the farmers who developed the new ideas studies will help identify the appropriate institutional set-up, are given due recognition and retain the benefits from their mobilise the commitment of relevant institutions, and assess work. the longer-term feasibility of the ISF, including future If local development processes are to be enhanced, sources of funding. innovation should not be defined in narrow terms of 4 classical patent law. The recombination of known materials promoting local innovation. From the outset, the country and information in ways that are new for the area would programmes will seek ways to generate resources for their qualify as "local innovation". The point is not to support ISFs. This will involve policy dialogue to make decision- only ideas that are new in a global sense but rather to makers in national and international organisations realise promote development by stimulating local creativity. how these locally-controlled funds support change pro- cesses that improve the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers. Sustaining the innovation funds During the pilot phase, the ISF will depend on funds from References: donor organisations. Because it supports innovation that does not necessarily bring commercial returns, the support Ashby JA, Braun AR, Gracia T, Guerrero MP, is as a grant. To be sustainable, the ISF will need to be Hernandez LA, Quiros CA & Roa JA. 2000. Investing in replenished regularly, e.g. through: farmers as researchers: experiences with Local Agri- ·national government R&D funds cultural Research Committees in Latin America. Cali: ·other public funding, e.g. from poverty-reduction or food- CIAT. security programmes Gallagher K. 2001. Self-financed field schools: helping ·international donors and embassies farmers go back to school in IPM/IPPM. Draft. ·provision of services in kind LBL. 2002. Innovative approaches to financing extension ·community-based organisations. for agriculture and natural resource management. Landwirtschaftliche Beratungszentrale Lindau. The vision is that a portion of regular R&D funds will be Reij CP & Waters-Bayer A (eds). 2001. Farmer inno- channelled through ISFs rather than the existing formal vation in Africa. London: Earthscan. system. This will require making close contacts with R&D funding sources and showing the effectiveness of ISFs in This IK Note was prepared byAnn Water-Bayer, Laurens van Veldhuizen, Mariana Wongtschowski and Scott Killough, based on discussion at the International PROLINNOVAWorkshop inYirgalem, Ethiopia, in March 2004 (see www.prolinnova.net).Thomas Becker,Ann Braun, Henri Hocde, KomaYang Saing, Monique Salomon, Ueli Scheuermeier, BernardTriomphe and ReinhardWoytek helped develop the concept further.