Promoting Local Innovation: Enhancing IK Dynamics and Links with Scientific Knowledge L ocal innovation refers to the dynam- These efforts generally failed to im- ics of IK ­ the knowledge that grows prove the farming and livelihood sys- NotesKI within a social group, incorporating learn- tems of the poor. Most of the intro- ing from own experience over generations duced technologies were inappropriate but also knowledge gained from other for rainfed farming under marginal con- sources and fully internalised within local ditions such as dry or mountainous ar- ways of thinking and doing. Local innova- eas. In such settings, the key ingredi- tion is the process through which individu- ents for sustainable resource manage- als or groups discover or develop new and ment are not external inputs but rather better ways of managing resources ­ build- the farmers' knowledge and manage- ing on and expanding the boundaries of ment capacities and their skilful ma- their IK. nipulation of the locally available re- Local innovation through informal ex- sources. Most rural development ef- perimentation has always been happening, forts have failed to mobilise and en- but only recently has increased attention hance these "internal inputs". The http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm been given to identifying and document- dominant approach to research and ex- ing the innovations and the innovation tension still follows the pattern of processes. But documenting local innova- "transfer-of-technology", based on the tion is not enough. In rural development, assumption that knowledge is created the challenge is to move beyond the exist- by scientists, to be packaged and ing innovations farmers1have developed, spread by extension and to be adopted using their IK and creativity, and to de- by farmers. This approach denies and velop these ideas further in joint experi- often suppresses local initiatives. mentation, integrating relevant informa- Some alternative approaches to agri- No. 76 tion and ideas from elsewhere. January 2005 IK Notes reports periodically on 1 "Farmers" is used here as a collective term Indigenous Knowledge (IK) initiatives to refer to all people who produce and/or in Sub-Saharan Africa and occasionally harvest from plants, animals and aquatic on such initiatives outside the Region. organisms. It includes peasant / family It is published by the Africa Region's farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and Knowledge and Learning Center as artisanal fisherfolk, among others. part of an evolving IK partnership between the World Bank, communi- ties, NGOs, development institutions and multilateral organizations. The Why is it important to recognise local views expressed in this article are innovation? those of the authors and should not be World Bank attributed to the World Bank Group In the past, rural development efforts or its partners in this initiative. A usually focused on technical interventions webpage on IK is available at // www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/ relying on the use of external inputs. default.htm 2 cultural research and development (R&D) have been capital- · strengthening the process, often through improving local ising on the knowledge, creativity and management capaci- organisation and linkages with other actors in R&D, so that ties of local people, and linking IK and external knowledge in the PTD process will continue. joint exploration and experimentation (e.g. Gupta 2000, Reij and Waters-Bayer 2001). They commence by identifying As innovation in agriculture and NRM goes far beyond what farmers are already doing in their own development "hard" technologies to "soft" innovations such as new ways of and experimentation efforts, and promote action learning by gaining access to or regulating use of natural resources or farmers and supporting agencies to develop the local innova- new ways of farmer organisation (e.g. for marketing), the tions and complementary techniques further. term Participatory Innovation Development (PID) is increas- Identifying local innovations is a first step toward changing ingly being used instead of PTD to embrace this broader un- the way development workers regard farmers and interact derstanding of the approach. with them. They start to see farmers as partners with some- The local-innovation approach to PID starts with looking at thing to offer, not just to receive. A positive approach that what farmers are already trying, in their own efforts to solve starts from (but is not confined to) local ideas, that focuses problems or grasp opportunities they have already identi- on local people's strengths and explores the particular oppor- fied. The joint situation analysis by community members and tunities open to them, rather than dwelling on their weak- outsiders is based on these concrete examples. Local innova- nesses and problems, is key to stimulating local innovation tions become foci for community groups to examine opportu- processes. nities, to plan joint experiments to explore the ideas further The purpose of identifying local innovation is not primarily and to evaluate the results together. This process, around to disseminate them in a transfer-of-technology mode of ex- concrete joint activities, helps to strengthen community tension ­ picking out what seem to be the "best", most organisation for development. widely applicable technologies. Such an approach is not For researchers, as for development agents, learning to suited for the highly diverse environments in which many recognise local innovation and informal experimentation by smallholder farmers live. A local innovation is developed to farmers is an important step towards engaging in truly par- fit a particular biophysical and socio-economic setting and ticipatory R&D. It starts off the collaboration on a com- usually cannot be transferred "as is" to other settings. How- pletely different footing than approaches that start with in- ever, the documentation and sharing of local innovations can troducing external technologies for farmers to test. From the provide ideas and inspiration for others to try out and adapt outset, value is given to local people's knowledge and cre- new ideas to their own setting. ativity. Farmers are recognised as partners in R&D. As useful as PID may be in agricultural research, it is pri- marily an approach to development. Most of the PID that is Entry points to Participatory Innovation Development happening today is being done by farmers and development agents without involvement of formal researchers. This Local innovations offer entry points for linking IK and scien- should be encouraged, as it will not be possible for formal tific knowledge in community-led Participatory Innovation researchers to work together with the millions of farmers in Development (PID). This is a more comprehensive term than remote, marginal and highly diverse areas throughout the Participatory Technology Development (PTD), an approach world. In such areas, local experimentation is necessary to that NGOs have long promoted. Basically, the activities in- see if new ideas ­ whether from other farmers or from formal volved in PTD are: research ­ can fit the local setting. Moreover, since condi- · getting started (getting to know each other); tions are constantly changing, all farming communities need · joint analysis of the situation ­ problems and opportunities; to be able to adjust to these changes. Therefore, farmer in- · looking for ways to try to improve the local situation; novation must be a never-ending process. PID strengthens · trying them out in community-led participatory experi- this process. mentation; · jointly analysing and sharing the results; and 3 The Role of NGOs in promoting PID and separate from government agencies. Now, they have recognised the need to bring about institutional and policy Many development-support NGOs have, for a long time, change so that PID is integrated into the regular work of recognised the potential of building on IK and local inno- government agencies. Some of these NGOs therefore took vation, combining this with relevant external knowledge, the initiative to establish PROLINNOVA, a global platform to so that farmers can improve their livelihoods in a sustain- promote local innovation in ecologically-oriented agricul- able way. They realise that, to be able to link IK and scien- ture and natural resource management (NRM). tific knowledge systems, the farmers and NGOs engaged in PID in the field need to work more closely together The PROLINNOVA initiative with government agencies of agricultural research, exten- Four years ago, when NGOs from the North and South were sion and education. preparing for the Global Forum on Agricultural Research in Development-support NGOs are in a good position to Dresden, Germany, they developed the idea of PROLINNOVA bring together different stakeholder groups in PID. They to forge multi-stakeholder partnerships in agroecological have normally established good working relationships with R&D. Since then, the initiative has grown in a decentralised individuals and groups of farmers, and are actively way. NGOs in Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda (Agri-Service strengthening farmer organisations. It is not always so easy Ethiopia, Ecumenical Association for Sustainable Agriculture to establish good relations with government organisations, and Rural Development, and Environmental Alert, respec- which often regard NGOs with some reserve. On the other tively) have facilitated the building of R&D partnerships hand, because of dwindling funds and growing pressures around promoting local innovation in each of these coun- toward decentralisation and local governance, many agri- tries. Support for their work was provided by the Interna- cultural R&D institutions are now seeking partnership tional Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), which is with NGOs in order to be able to carry out their work. supporting a similar process in Niger. The NGOs that are practising and advocating PID have In each country, local NGOs have brought together govern- grasped this opportunity to step into the national and in- mental and non-governmental agencies involved in agricul- ternational arenas of agricultural R&D and to try to facili- tural and NRM research, development and education. Multi- tate the building of balanced partnerships of farmers, de- stakeholder steering groups collected local experiences in velopment agents, scientists, educators and other actors in recognising farmer innovation and informal experimentation R&D ­ starting with recognition of the knowledge and cre- and in doing PID. The groups convened workshops to analyse ativity of farmers. These NGOs are encouraging processes in-country experience and developed national action plans to of site-specific development in which farmers take the improve and scale up participatory approaches to farmer-led lead. While building up the capacities of weaker stake- R&D. NGOs in several other countries ­ Cambodia, Nepal, holder groups ­ especially women and poorer farmers ­ South Africa, Sudan and Tanzania ­ have recently developed and gradually empowering them to become equal partners proposals to facilitate participatory design of PROLINNOVA with formal researchers and development agents, the programmes in a similar way. Together, they succeeded in NGOs keep watch that the R&D activities focus on the con- gaining support from the Netherlands Directorate General cerns of the weaker groups. The examples of PID on the for International Cooperation (DGIS) to realise their plans. ground also provide the basis for policy dialogue aimed at The country plans differ, depending on the self-identified creating more space within institutions and government strengths and weaknesses in engaging the dynamics of IK in policies for this approach. PID and in scaling up the approach. However, they have some Many NGOs now give high priority to forging closer elements in common: links with government agencies so as to stimulate the · making an inventory of initiatives in promoting local inno- changes in attitude and behaviour needed to promote local vation and of the organisations involved; innovation, to capitalise on potential synergies and to · building capacity to identify and document local innova- scale up participatory approaches to R&D. This marks a tions and innovation processes and to engage in PID; fundamental shift in the work of many development-sup- · implementing PID on the ground; port NGOs. In the past, they tended to operate parallel to 4 · participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint activi- References: ties, outcomes and impacts; · facilitating multi-stakeholder platforms for learning Gupta AK. 2000. Grassroots innovations for survival. through joint analysis of on-the-ground experiences; and ILEIA Newsletter 16 (2): 5­6. · raising awareness and engaging in policy dialogue to cre- Reij C & Waters-Bayer A (eds). 2001. Farmer innovation ate favourable environments for this approach. in Africa: a source of inspiration for agricultural develop- ment. London: Earthscan. In collaboration with existing electronic networks and databases serving groups with similar interests, including the World Bank's "IK for Development" Programme, PROLINNOVA is building platforms for discussion of con- cepts and experiences in promoting local innovation. To overcome the digital divide, printed brochures, posters, books and circulars are being disseminated, and links with other media, such as radio, are being made. An exciting new prospect being explored is the use of participatory video to give local innovators an opportunity to document their innovations from their own perspective, to share their ideas with other communities and to influence policymakers. The country-level programmes function autonomously but seek inspiration and strength from each other. They are supported by an international team composed of four organisations: the International Institute for Rural Recon- struction, ETC Ecoculture, the Centre for International Cooperation (Free University of Amsterdam) and the Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension (LBL). Their roles in- clude international coordination, capacity building, meth- odological support, advocacy, web-based knowledge man- agement, documentation, editing and publishing and en- couraging mutual learning through analysis of experiences. PROLINNOVA remains open to grow beyond the nine coun- tries currently involved ­ to reinforce other, similar initia- tives to promote local innovation and integrate this ap- proach into agricultural and natural resources manage- ment research, extension and education. This article was written by Ann Waters-Bayer and Laurens van Veldhuizen in consultation with members of the International Support Team for PROLINNOVA: the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in the Philippines, the Swiss Cen- tre for Agricultural Extension (LBL), the Centre for International Cooperation of the Free University of Amsterdam and ETC Ecoculture in the Netherlands. For more information on PROLINNOVA, see the website: www.prolinnova.net Contact: ann.waters-bayer@etcnl.nl or prolinnova@etcnl.nl