Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-jpcp9 Total loading time: 0.237 Render date: 2022-12-06T21:00:07.104Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Belton, V. and Stewart, T. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Identification and prioritization of farmers' innovations in northern Ghana
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Identification and prioritization of farmers' innovations in northern Ghana
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Identification and prioritization of farmers' innovations in northern Ghana
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *