Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-ndqjc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T12:14:58.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identification and prioritization of farmers' innovations in northern Ghana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2014

Justice A. Tambo*
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Tobias Wünscher
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
*
*Corresponding author: jatambo@uni-bonn.de

Abstract

Farmers are innovators and experimenters and not just adopters of introduced technologies. The innovations developed by farmers could complement the highly promoted externally driven technologies in addressing the numerous challenges facing agriculture. The aim of this paper was to identify outstanding innovations developed by smallholder farmers in northern Ghana, and prioritize the high potential ones for further scientific validation or dissemination. Using an innovation contest that rewards farmers' creativity, we identified 29 promising innovations. Additionally, 19 innovations were scouted through a household survey. The innovations are largely extensive modifications of existing practices or combinations of different known practices in unique ways to save costs or to address crop and livestock production constraints. While some of the identified innovations can be recommended or disseminated to other farmers, most of them may require further validation or research. However, validating all of these innovations will be very expensive and time-consuming. We propose the multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDM) as a simple method to prioritize farmers' innovations. Using this method, we find that among the most promising innovations are those involving the control of weeds, pests and diseases using plant residues and extracts, and the treatment of livestock diseases using ethnoveterinary medicines. We briefly explain the six most highly ranked innovations. This case study from northern Ghana provides further proof that smallholder farmers develop diverse and spectacular innovations to address the myriad challenges they face, and these need to be recognized and promoted. We also conclude that contest and MCDM are useful methods that can be applied in unearthing and prioritizing farmer innovations, respectively.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Waters-Bayer, A. and Bayer, W. 2009. Enhancing local innovation to improve water productivity in crop–livestock systems. The Rangeland Journal 31:231235.Google Scholar
2 World Bank. 2011. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Source Book. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3 Hall, A., Mytelka, L., and Oyeyinka, B. 2006. Concepts and guidelines for Diagnostic Assessments of Agricultural Innovation Capacity. UNU-MERIT Working Paper 2006–017. United Nations University, Maastricht.Google Scholar
4 Biggs, S.D. 1981. Sources of innovation in agricultural technology. World Development 9:321336.Google Scholar
5 Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wongtschowski, M., and Wettasinha, C. 2009. Recognizing and enhancing processes of local innovation. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., and Wettasinha, C. (eds). Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers' Livelihoods. Earthscan, London, UK, p. 239254.Google Scholar
6 Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L.A. 1989. Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technical Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
7 Rhoades, R. 1989. The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology. In: Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L.A. (eds). Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technical Publications, London, UK, p. 39.Google Scholar
8 Röling, N. 2009. Conceptual and methodological developments in innovation. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., and Wettasinha, C. (eds). Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers' Livelihoods. Earthscan, London, UK, p. 934.Google Scholar
9 Millar, D. 1994. Experimenting farmers in Northern Ghana. In: Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. (eds.). Beyond Farmer First. Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
10 Sumberg, J. and Okali, C. 1997. Farmers' Experiments: Creating Local Knowledge. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., London, UK.Google Scholar
11 Bentley, J.W. 2006. Folk experiments. Agriculture and Human Values 23:451462.Google Scholar
12 Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). 2001. Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
13 Haile, M., Abay, F., and Waters-Bayer, A. 2001. Joining Forces to discover and celebrate local innovation in land husbandry in Tigray, Ethiopia. In: Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
14 Wettasinha, C., Wongtschowski, M., and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). 2008. Recognising Local Innovation: Experience of PROLINNOVA Partners. International Institute of rural Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite, The Philippines and PROLINNOVA International Secretariat, ETC EcoCulture, Leusden.Google Scholar
15 Critchley, W. R. S. and Mutunga, K. 2003. Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT. Land Degradation and Development 14:143162.Google Scholar
16 Mutunga, K. and Critchley, W.R.S. 2003. Farmers' initiatives in land husbandry. Promising technologies for the drier areas of East Africa. Technical Report No. 28. Regional Land Management Unit, Nairobi.Google Scholar
17Available at www.prolinnova.net. (accessed March 10, 2014).Google Scholar
18 Gupta, A.K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., Patel, H., Patel, K., Chand, V.S., James, T.J., Chandan, A., Patel, M., Prakash, T.N., and Vivekanandan, P. 2003. Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures 35:975987.Google Scholar
19Available at www.nif.org.in. (accessed April 14, 2014).Google Scholar
20Available at www.sristi.org. (accessed April 14, 2014).Google Scholar
21Available at www.sristi.org/hbnew. (accessed April 14, 2014).Google Scholar
22 Kummer, S. 2011. Organic farmers' experiments in Austria—learning processes and resilience building in farmers' own experimentation activities. Doctoral thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.Google Scholar
23 Leitgeb, F., Kummer, S., Funes-Monzote, F.R., and Vog, C.R. 2014. Farmers' experiments in Cuba. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29:4864.Google Scholar
24 Bell, M., Hobbs, B., and Ellis, H. 2003. The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 37:289316.Google Scholar
25 de Bruin, K.C., Dellink, R.B., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, A. van Buuren, L., Graveland, J., de Groot, R.S., Kuikman, P.J., Reinhard, S., Roetter, R.P., Tassone, V.C., Verhagen, A., and van Ierland, E.C. 2009. Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change 95:2345.Google Scholar
26 Belton, V. and Stewart, T. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
27 Khan, Z.R., Midega, C.A.O. and Pickett, J.A. 2011. Striga weed in Africa: cultural control. Encyclopedia of Pest Management. doi: 10.1081/E-EPM-120046898.Google Scholar