This article was downloaded by: [113.23.128.34] On: 30 October 2013, At: 23:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Development in Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20
Innovation in forage development: empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia a
b
Abebe Shiferaw , Ranjitha Puskur , Azage Tegegne & Dirk Hoekstra
c
a
IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , Addis Ababa b
IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , Addis Ababa c
IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , Addis Ababa Published online: 30 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Abebe Shiferaw , Ranjitha Puskur , Azage Tegegne & Dirk Hoekstra (2011) Innovation in forage development: empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia, Development in Practice, 21:8, 1138-1152, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2011.591186 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.591186
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Innovation in forage development: empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra Forage development is one of the strategies to address feed scarcity and low livestock productivity in Ethiopia. In line with government strategy, multiple actors took part in a forage development programme for six years (2004 – 09) in Alaba Special District, in southern Ethiopia. This paper analyses the six-year forage development programme, comparing its two phases, from an innovation systems perspective to identify best practices. The study shows that key forage innovative practices are: targeting innovative forage farmers, developing local forages, establishing private forage sources, forage promotion and diversifying capacity building. These best practices can be scaled up and out to address feed scarcity and increase livestock productivity. Innovation en matie`re de de´veloppement des forages : donne´es empiriques du District spe´cial d’Alaba, sud de l’E´thiopie Le de´veloppement de forages fait partie des strate´gies mises en œuvre pour lutter contre l’insuffisance de fourrage et la faible productivite´ du be´tail en E´thiopie. Conforme´ment a` la strate´gie gouvernementale, de multiples acteurs ont pris part a` un programme de de´veloppement de forages pendant six ans (2004 – 09) dans le District spe´cial d’Alaba, dans le sud de l’E´thiopie. Ce document analyse le programme de de´veloppement de forages de six ans, en comparant les deux phases d’un point de vue de syste`mes d’innovation afin d’identifier les meilleures pratiques. Cette e´tude montre que les pratiques cle´s innovantes en matie`re de forages sont : ciblage des agriculteurs innovants utilisant des forages, de´veloppement des forages locaux, e´tablissement de sources prive´es pour les forages, promotion des forages et diversification du renforcement des capacite´s. L’e´chelle de ces meilleures pratiques peut eˆtre accrue en termes de porte´e et de nombre afin de lutter contre la pe´nurie de fourrage et d’augmenter la productivite´ du be´tail. Inovac¸a˜o no Desenvolvimento das Forrageiras: Evideˆncia Empı´rica do Distrito de Alaba Special, no sul da Etio´pia O desenvolvimento das forrageiras e´ uma das estrate´gias para abordar a escassez de rac¸a˜o e baixa produtividade da produc¸a˜o de gado na Etio´pia. Alinhados com a estrate´gia do governo, va´rios agentes participaram de um programa de desenvolvimento de forrageiras durante deis 1138
ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 081138-15 # 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.591186 Routledge Publishing
Innovation in forage development
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
anos (2004– 09) no Distrito de Alaba Special, no sul da Etio´pia. Este artigo analisa o programa de desenvolvimento das forrageiras de seis anos de durac¸a˜o, comparando suas duas fases a partir de uma perspectiva de sistemas de inovac¸o´o para identificar as melhores pra´ticas. O estudo mostra que as pra´ticas cruciais e inovadoras relativas a´s forrageiras sa˜o: ter como alvo produtores inovadores de forrageiras, desenvolver forrageiras locais, estabelecer fontes de forrageiras privadas, promover as forrageiras e diversificar a capacitac¸a˜o. Estas melhores pra´ticas podem ser intensificadas e expandidas para abordar a escassez de rac¸a˜o e aumentar a produtividade do gado. Innovacio´n en el cultivo de forrajes: datos empı´ricos del Distrito Especial de Alaba en el sur de Etiopı´a El cultivo de forrajes es una de las estrategias para responder a la escasez de alimentos y a la baja productividad ganadera en Etiopı´a. En lı´nea con la estrategia gubernamental, varios productores del Distrito Especial de Alaba en el sur de Etiopı´a participaron en un programa de cultivo de forrajes durante seis an˜os (2004-2009). Para identificar las mejores pra´cticas, este ensayo analiza el programa y compara sus dos fases desde una perspectiva de innovacio´n de sistemas. El programa mostro´ que las pra´cticas ma´s innovadoras para la produccio´n de forraje son: orientar a los productores que utilizan nuevas pra´cticas en sus cultivos de forraje, desarrollar forrajes locales, crear fuentes privadas de forrajes, promover los forrajes y diversificar el fortalecimiento de capacidades. Estas buenas pra´cticas pueden darse a conocer y propagarse para responder a la escasez de alimentos e incrementar la productividad ganadera.
KEY WORDS : Aid; Environment; Labour and livelihoods; Sub-Saharan Africa
Introduction In Ethiopian agriculture, livestock farming systems play a vital role for the livelihood of the people. However, the livestock sector has low productivity owing to several factors such as genetic make-up, poor nutrition and veterinary care. Various studies have confirmed that feed is the major limiting factor for livestock productivity in Ethiopia (Tedasse 1998, Gebremedhin et al. 2009) and that holds true in the Alaba Special District in southern Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, livestock obtain feed from natural pastures, crop residues, agro-industrial byproducts, cultivated pastures and forage-crop species (Mengitsu 2003). The key challenges in forage development are as follows. First, forage has a low adoption rate in Ethiopia (Duncan 2009). Second, apart from forage innovation, limits in institutional structures have also hindered forage innovation (Hall et al. 2007). Third, there is scarcity in the quantity and quality of animal fodder (Tadesse 1998, Gebremedhin et al. 2009, Yeshitila 2008). Lastly, the rise in fodder price and inefficacy in the feed market is another set of problems (Gebremedhin et al. 2009). In spite of the government and other partners’ efforts to develop forage and other sources of animal feed in Ethiopia, existing challenges have hindered the expected progress to reach the desired levels of livestock productivity because insights were not gained from interventions based on an innovation systems perspective. Thus, it is worth examining forage development from an innovation perspective to understand the systems involved in forage development, gain insights and identify innovative ‘best’ practices, to address the challenges confronted in forage development. In the southern part of Ethiopia, and the Alaba Special District, a mixed crop-livestock farming system dominates. Livestock breeds are mostly indigenous and dominated by cattle and shoats Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1139
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
(young pigs). Farmers practice different animal feeding and management strategies (Kategile et al. 1987). Domestic livestock grazes communally on fallow land, pasture, and on cropland after harvest. The livestock and fodder system in the study area shows that the agro-climate is suitable to grow a wide range of forage species. Nevertheless, the total land area allocated for forage production is small (IPMS 2005, Yeshitila 2008). Grazing land management is poor and has low productivity (Yeshitila 2008; Kategile et al. 1987) The practice of using additional sources of animal feed (industrial by-products) is rare. Natural pastures are poor and grazing lands are being converted to crop land. Moreover, the forage is scarce in quantity (with high seasonal variation) and inferior in quality. Thus, forage availability is currently far from reaching the needs of livestock system. Fodder production and management is predominantly traditional, with modern efforts in forage development being undertaken by the Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (OoARD), and community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). To overcome some of the challenges in forage development, there is a need to examine the development from an innovation systems perspective. The innovation systems concept offers opportunities for a holistic understanding of how knowledge is produced, diffused, and used. The concept enables us to make use of new knowledge and design alternative interventions because it places emphasis on actors and processes that have become and are becoming increasingly important in agricultural development (World Bank 2006). The concept of innovation systems can be used to gain additional insights into forage development, and to suggest innovative types of forage intervention for the future. This paper, therefore, examines forage development from an innovation systems perspective to draw out lessons and suggest innovative practices, based on the development efforts of multiple actors for six years (2004– 09) in the Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia. According to the World Bank (2006) ‘innovation’ is the use of new ideas, technologies or ways of doing things, in a place where – or by people who – they have not been used before. Hall et al. (2007) and the World Bank (2006) define innovation as the application of knowledge (of all types) to achieve desired social or economic outcomes. The distinction between ‘invention’ (the creation of new knowledge) and ‘innovation’ (in the sense of first application) is crucial (World Bank 2006). In line with the above definitions, this paper documents actors involved in the processes of how forage (seeds, cuttings and seedlings) is: introduced, produced and multiplied, promoted, disseminated, marketed, and benefits farmers. This study focuses on past and present innovation efforts in forage development, while also examining innovative features of actors’ roles and in the processes of forage introduction, multiplication, production, dissemination, promotion, dissemination and marketing. The paper begins with an introduction, and continues in the second part with outlining the study methodology. The third part presents results and discussions focusing on forage innovation systems, actors, innovation history, innovative forage farmers, and forage development activity. The study draws conclusions and recommendations in the fourth part.
Methodology The study involved methods such as ranking, interviews and focus group discussions methods to analyse livestock feed problems, and to describe forage systems at the district level. Informants included OoARD staff, Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) staff, South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) staff, farmers and NGO staff from a European Union project (Ley Volunteer International Association [LVIA]) (IPMS 2005). As a research and development project, the Improving Productivity Market Success (IPMS) project and its partners implemented various activities for six years in selected peasant associations, such as training, demonstrations, providing credit for forage producers through farmers unions, 1140
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Innovation in forage development
organising visits, establishing forage production on farmer households and plots, promoting forage in open markets, facilitating the marketing of forage; and collected relevant forage data. Innovation histories were analysed using timelines. Tools such as the mapping of actor networks, an actor matrix and analysing linkages were used as described in Douthwaite and Ashby (2005) and Bolo (2005). Comparative analysis of the two phases of innovation (Phase One from 2004– 06, and Phase Two, from 2007 – 09) was undertaken. Comparison was based on the rate of dissemination, the number and roles of key actors, driving forces, knowledge sources, the focus of initiatives, and capacity building efforts in forage development. IPMS project data was collected from innovative forage farmers, Farmers Training Centres (FTC), and experimental forage shops, in addition to secondary data review. Findings were validated in a stakeholder workshop in 2008.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Description of the study area Alaba Special District is located 310km south of Addis Ababa and 85km southwest of Awassa, the capital of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR). The district is located at 78 17′ N latitude, and 388 06′ E longitude (see Figure 1). The district has 79 peasant associations (PAs). The total population of the district is 210,243 (49.7 per cent are women). There are six ethnic groups in the area; the dominant ones are Alaba and Gurage which account for 81 per cent and 10 per cent of the population respectively. The altitude of the district ranges from 1554m to 2149m above sea level. The topography of the district is dominantly level, and agro-ecologically the district is described as Weyna Dega or a temperate climate, cool sub-humid highlands (Tropical Climate I). Mean annual rainfall ranges from 857mm to
Figure 1:
Location of the study area – Alaba Special District
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1141
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
1085mm per year with a bimodal distribution pattern. Annual mean temperature varies from 17 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Overview of forage in the study area The agro-ecology, soil and topography of the area is favourable for the production of a wide range of forage species. Forage is an important input supply for the population of 67,302 shoats and 161,728 cattle of the district to enhance food security and improve livelihoods. Of the total 64,116.25 ha of the district only 6.8 per cent is grazing land (IPMS 2005). Yeshitila (2008) indicates that feed shortage in dry periods causes tremendous losses to livestock productivity. Feeds are deficient in their nutrient content and not utilised to the optimum efficiency. Population pressure on land, small land-holding, expansion of arable land, inadequate and uneven rainfall, and low awareness levels about the use of animal feed have exacerbated livestock feed problems in the district. Agro-industrial by-products (as supplementary feed) is supplied by 11 animal feed shops in Kulito town and the service of the shops is limited to peasant association (PA) beneficiaries surrounding Kulito town. To address the problem of inadequate livestock feed, the need for forage development is paramount. Introduction of improved forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings, as well as demonstrations around these, started in the district in 2000. Significant forage development in the study area started from 2004 onwards, with support from BoARD at the regional level and donor supported projects like the EU Food Security Project. Over the past years the OoARD at district level, and its partners, have undertaken various development efforts to address forage problems; nevertheless, there is still an inadequate supply of forage for livestock as verified recently by Yeshitila (2008). The most commonly identified forages in the district are: Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Cow pea (Vigna unguiculata), Oat (Avena sativa), Lablab (Dolichos lablab), Leucanea (Leucanea leucocephala), Vetch (Vicia spp.), Sesbania (Sesbania Sesban) and Panicum (Panicum spp.), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum) and local grass introduced from an adjacent district called ‘Desho’ grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum). There are three forage production and multiplication sites owned by OoARD (Laygnaw Aresho – 2 ha; Alem Tenna – 1 ha; Tachenaw Bedene – 3 ha). These sites were previously funded by National Livestock Development Project (NLDP) and the EU food security project, and are now supported by the district OoARD budget, Safety Net programme, and Food for the Hungry International (FHI), who started support as of 2009. After 2007, farmers’ forage production and multiplication sites were also established in Gedeba, Lagenaw Bedene, Asore, Gerema, Andegna Ansha and Hulegeba Kukie PAs. Moreover, four model FTCs supported by the IPMS project in Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna and Misrak Gortancho also became a source of forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings for surrounding PAs.
Results and discussion Forage innovation systems Innovation is essentially the result of interactive process between many actors (Dantas 2005). The dynamics of multiple actors in forage development in the study area was visualised in two phases (Figure 2). There was interactive learning in forage innovation in Phase Two, compared with Phase One, because phase two included the involvement of research institutes, and so increased the number of actors. Compared with Phase One, there is more interaction (reflected in 1142
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Innovation in forage development
Figure 2:
Actor linkage map in forage innovation
number of arrows, arrow width and bi-directional arrows) among actors in Phase Two. The strength of the linkage between actors is depicted by the width of the arrow. In the first phase, OoARD was a key actor, and a similar role is played by farmers and FTCs in Phase Two. There was a significant increase in the role of farmers (reflected in actor size and position in the system) in Phase Two, compared with Phase One. Hall et al. (2007) state that a successful innovation system is characterised by a high degree of interactive learning where farmers act as key actors among multiple actors. In both phases, however, the missing role among actors is the lack of a central coordinating body (which should have been done by OoARD). In describing the nature of innovation and innovation capacitates, the World Bank (2006) indicates that research, the collaborative effort of partners, and the existence of a broad set of attitudes and practices, the role of public sector and market in promoting interaction, are all important components of innovation. In Phase Two, the involvement of multiple actors (research, public, different NGOs and private sector actors) has led to a broad set of attitudes and practices which foster culture of forage innovation. Trends over the two phases of innovation show some radical, and many small and continuous, improvements (for example, the increasing involvement of innovative forage farmers, involvement of seed laboratories, and increase in forage marketing). Comparatively speaking, in Phase One actors had limited access to new knowledge (sources of forage knowledge are diversified), weak organisational learning, and weak connection to sources of financing for innovation. Development projects like the IPMS have provided credit for forage innovator farmers through the Alaba Farmers Union (Menchenon), and the involvement of multiple actors has created diversified support. As reviewed by Dantas (2005), in an innovation system none of the actors acts in isolation, each operates according to a set of ‘rules of the game’ which can be both formal and informal. Existing partnerships in forage development among actors remained informal in both phases. Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1143
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
Figure 3:
Relative influence of actors in forage innovation
Formal linkages are needed for joint planning to set common goals, to define roles and set common procedures. The number of actors and forage production sites increased in Phase Two (2007 – 09). This reflected increased access to forage and better options for diffusion and adoption of forage technology in the study area. Bolo (2005) describes the three key attributes of innovation as learning, linkages and investment. In both phases, forage actor partnerships in the district lacked formal learning mechanisms (e.g. forage platform, joint planning meetings, monitoring, evaluation and reporting sessions) and linkages, which should have been coordinated by OoARD. Actor influences in partnership were rated through a group discussion, based on the roles actors played over all forage development phases, and validated during stakeholder workshops. Forage partners which phased in more recently to the study area, such as FHI, Durame Seed Laboratory and Ethiopian Sheep and Goat Improvement (ESGI) Project are omitted (Figure 3).
Actor network matrix and innovation timeline Partnerships between actors in the network matrix were rated and described in a stakeholder workshop held in 2008. Partnerships were described as: S¼ Strong W¼ Weak M¼ Medium Actor relations were described as: A ¼ Crucial B¼ Problematic C ¼ Absent but needed Actor networks are loose in Phase One, compared with firm connections between actors in phase two (Figure 2) where the IPMS project played a partial role as a ‘node’ for actor coordination. Thus, linkages between IPMS, FTC, farmers, OoARD became strong (S). Linkages between NLDP, OoARD, FHI, the FAO-funded natural resource development project 1144
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Innovation in forage development
(MERET project), and the ESGI project, were medium (M); whereas linkage between the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), farmers, OoARD, ARC, and the Durame Seed Laboratory were weak (W). There are better networks between the public and private actors in the forage system, especially in Phase Two. The better degree of linkage among actors in Phase Two shows a better flow of knowledge, skills and experience in the forage innovation system. Likewise, Hall et al. (2007) indicate that an effective network is needed to bring large institutional dimension to bring innovation in addition to fodder technology. In Phase One, except for relations between OoARD and the EU, and OoARD and the 4th Livestock Project, which were rated as strong (S), most of the relations among actors were rated as medium (M). Relations between farmers and other actors were rated absent but needed (C) except for their relationship with OoARD. Other donors or projects did not have direct and frequent contact with farmers, which was the most important – but missing – link which has undermined the role of farmers in development processes. In Phase Two, mapping the actor linkages shows the existence of strong partnerships between OoARD, IPMS, FTCs, farmers, and their relationships were described as crucial (A). The emerging roles of some of the actors (including innovative forage farmers) and FTC in forage development was described as crucial (A). The new roles of farmers emerging in Phase Two increase the capacity of the system to be sustainable. Linkages between the EU Food Security Project and farmers, the ILRI, and the 4th Livestock Development Project were absent but needed (C). Actor linkages between farmers, OoARD, the IPMS project, FTC, and the ARC (Awassa Research Center) were described as crucial (A), whereas links between projects and NGOs (the MERET project, IPMS project, ESGI project, FHI, EU Food Security Project) were rated as problematic (B) because the focus and goals of the projects vary to the extent that they can contradict one another. For example, while food security projects (EU and FHI) distribute forage free of charge, the IPMS project promotes forage on a cash basis. An innovation timeline is a sequential list of key events in innovation history (Douthwaite and Ashby 2005). A forage innovation timeline for the study area was developed and validated in a stakeholder workshop. A process of innovation can be triggered by a number of factors (Bolo 2005). In Phase One, the key triggering factor for forage development was OoARD’s goal to introduce forage and establish forage multiplication sites. The three forage production or multiplication sites are government-owned, run with external project funding support and provided forage supply free of charge. The free distribution of forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings restricted forage diffusion in Phase One. In Phase Two, however, the economic benefits gained from forage by innovative farmers and the sale of forage seed, cuttings and seedlings are triggering factors. With the involvement of more farmers in forage development, forage (seeds, cuttings and seedlings) started to be sold on a cash basis. The practice of forage production diversified from government-owned nurseries to farmers’ plots (described as private forage production/multiplication sites) and model FTCs (Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna and Misrak Gortancho). In Phase Two, there were seven privately owned forage production sites established. In addition to OoARD and SMS (subject matter specialists), knowledge sources diversified to include FTCs, innovative farmers and others. In Phase Two (after 2007), various actors like the IPMS project, ILRI, the ESGI, the Safety Net and MERET Project (FAO-funded natural-resource management project) were also involved in forage development. Farmers’ capacity building included visits to forage sites and farmer-to-farmer training on forage production sites (IPMS 2008). Study tours were organised to increase awareness, and enable farmers to share their experiences on forage production. Although farmer-tofarmer learning is an innovative approach in Phase Two, most farmers who live adjacent to innovator farmers had still not adopted the practice of forage seed production/multiplication. Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1145
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
The key reason lies in the lack of capacity to invest (land, time and money) and to take the risk to go into forage production. However, it is worth noting that there are seven farmers who have established forage production sites in the district.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Targeting innovative forage farmers In Phase Two (after 2007), the forage development programme focused on farmers which are described here as ‘innovative forage farmers’. The process started with the identification of innovative farmers in consultation sessions around forage production (cuttings and seedlings) and seed multiplication. Forage ‘innovator farmers’ were identified by asking and understanding what these farmers do differently with forage as ‘outliers’ from most other farmers. The innovative forage farmers are isolated groups or individuals working with the same constraints and resources as every farmer and who prevail against the odds. These farmers have a ‘positive deviant’ as recognised in business literature indicated in Hall et al. (2007). In the consultation sessions, forage innovator farmers were identified based on key parameters like budget allocation for forage, and their ‘positive deviance’ in areas such as looking at forage types, land allocation, forage production skills, knowledge and experience, and attempts to sell forage (seedlings, cuttings and seed). A typical forage innovator farmer, identified by the IPMS project and OoARD, is Bergena Basore. Bergena lives in Galato PA at Andegna village. He gained knowledge and skills on forage from an OoARD-owned forage production and demonstration site. He allocated 0.5 ha of land for forage in 2006 and was willing to invest in an ‘experimental forage shop’. His private nursery was established in 2007 in Gedeba PA, on over 1ha of land (which expanded later) and he has taken part in forage promotion in open markets. Land was allocated from an enclosed area by the MERET project in consultation with OoARD. Credit support of Birr 10,000 was provided through the IPMS project for the establishment of the experimental forage shop and nursery site through the Alaba Farmers Union. Initial annual forage yield production was 5.56 qt in 2006, which increased to 18 qt in 2008. Like Bergena, in Phase Two, development partners have identified six farmers as forage producers and multipliers. These farmers have allocated between 0.1 ha to 2.5 ha of land for forage and have become sources of forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings for their area. The innovator forage farmers have the following common features which can be described as positive deviants. The first is their willingness to accept risk in forage production and multiplication. Second is their capacity to produce various and large quantities of forage (seedlings/cuttings in numbers, seed in qt). Third is their willingness to invest time, money and allocate land (in ha) for forage development. Last, they search for additional knowledge, skills and support from various sources, in and out of their area of residence. By the end of 2009, the seven innovative farmers have distributed forage to 164 households in 20 PAs (Table 1). This figure does not include forage sold to NGOs and during promotion sessions. The average annual income from one type of forage called ‘Desho’ alone ranges from 120 – 2490 birr/year (1US$ ¼ 13 birr) while average income is 991 birr/year. Thus, the authors believe that targeting such innovative forage farmers in each district brings significant change in the supply and diffusion of forage seed/cuttings and seedlings. Targeting innovative farmers may address some of the problems associated with the slow uptake of improved forage among smallholders in Ethiopia as indicated by Duncan (2009). Although OoARD has also produced forage on farmers’ fields in past years (Phase One) with what they called ‘model farmers’, the involvement of most farmers in forage production and seed multiplication only started recently. Looking at the diversity of 1146
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Innovation in forage development Table 1: Established private forage sites in the study area (2007–09)
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
No.
Innovative forage farmer
PA
Forage area (ha)
Forage types (No)
Desho production (kg/yr)
Desho annual income ∗ ∗ (Birr ∗ ∗ ∗ / yr)
Start (m/y)
Service Service coverage coverage (Household) (PA)
1
Bergena Bsssore
Gedeba
2.58
11
61,890
2490
June 2007
90
4
2
Zeynu Hordofa
Layenaw Bedene
0.17
3
31,620
500
July 2008
13
2
3
Kassim Mohmded
Laynew bedene
0.18
3
28560
1317
June 2009
27
5
4
Sulatan Haji Mohammed
Asore
0.10
1
18540
400
July 2009
4
1
5
Ahmed Endires in
Gerema
0.07
2
2780
120
July 2009
2
1
6
ShieJemal Bekere
Andegna Ansha
0.13
1
37,500
1130
July 2009
12
5
7
Nuriy Abdo Hulegeba PA
Hulegeba Kukie
0.13
1
30,000
980
June 2008
16
4
Source: IPMS Project forage data, 2007–09 ∗ The three most common types of forage, in order of availability in the production/multiplication sites are, local grass (‘Desho’ grass, Pennisetum pedicellatum), Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Oat (Avena sativa). There is also Vetch (Vicia spp), Cow pea (Vigna unguiculata), Lablab (Dolichos lablab). ∗∗ Desho is harvested three times/year (a unit of Desho (‘Dubbo’) corresponds to a bundle of 60–80 tillers or seedlings) while price varies between Peasant Associations (PAs) (3–15 Birr/dubbo) ∗∗∗ 1 US$ ¼ 13 Birr (in 2009), 9.57 Birr (in 2008) and 8.83 Birr (in 2006/2007)
model farmers targeted in Phase One, there are no commonly agreed features of model farmers that one can draw in terms of forage production and multiplication. However, farmers targeted as ‘innovative forage farmers’ in Phase One do have common features, described above. According to IPMS (2008), farmers targeted for forage seed production at their household plots in Galato, Hulegeba Kukie, Andgena Choroko, Wanja PAs were able to produce at least three common types of forages: Oat (Avena sativa), Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), and Desho (Pennisetum pedicellatum). The factors that trigger innovation are quite diverse (World Bank 2006), and forage innovator farmers were triggered by knowledge, skills gained, experiences achieved and above all economic benefit from forage production and seed multiplication. Farmer visits to farmers’ forage production and multiplication sites have stimulated innovative forage farmers to sell and promote forage seedlings and cuttings as produce.
Local forage, forage promotion and marketing Despite the development efforts to introduce forage and build the capacity of farmers in the study area by multiple actors, effort are missing around the areas of marketing forage (seed, seedlings and cuttings) and promoting forage as a product. Berhanu et al. (2009) described the existence of an inefficient animal feed market in Ethiopia. Likewise, the forage market in Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1147
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
Alaba is at an infant stage (with an informal structure, irregular and variable demand and supply). The demand for forage is high owing to a high livestock population, a prolonged dry season, poorly managed grazing land, and conversion of grassland into croplands. Although demand for forage is very high, supply is inadequate in open markets where hay, crop residues and grasses are sold in irregular patterns. The supply of animal feed in open markets is undertaken as a coping mechanism by women farmers for additional income. The quantity of feed supplied is still too small to meet existing demand. Forage promotion and marketing resulted in establishing ‘experimental forage shops’ from 2006 to 2008. Promotion of the shops and forage was undertaken in open markets (at Kulito, Guba and Besheno). Forage promotion involves the display of forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings in an open market (like technology exhibitions) so that the public can have access to forage knowledge and technology. On a promotion days the number of farmers who attend session varied from 250 to 2,000 (n ¼ 18 promotional events). Farmers also buy and sell the forage at the venue, which stimulates marketing of forage. Promotion involves the use of loud speakers to disseminate knowledge and it is usually accompanied by the distribution of leaflets on forages. The promotion session is what is described as ‘going public’ – a recent extension method advocated by Bentley et al. (2003). Venues for forage promotion sessions were mainly open markets and four model FTCs. The experimental forage shops played a role as marketing points for forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings. For example, sales data from forage shops show that the maximum monthly forage sale was 110kg in May 2007 and the minimum was 5kg of forage in Oct 2006 (Figure 4). Farmers purchase more forage seeds during the rainy season; consequently income from shops is lower in dry season. In Phase Two, FTCs became marketing points for forage. Field data on ‘Desho’ forage sales from Ansha FTC shows that ‘one dubo’ (a bunch of grass with 60– 80 seedlings) has a price of 2 Birr/bunch (1 US$ ¼9.57 Birr in 2008). In October 2008, forage seedlings were provided for 45 farmers as part of a demonstration (40 per cent of them purchased extra seedlings). In Phase Two, distributions from four Model FTCs (Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna and Misrak Gortancho) over two years reached over 800 farmers. The IPMS project took part in the promotion of forage in open markets in cooperation with OoARD and innovative farmers. Tens of thousands of farmers attended the promotion sessions in Guba, Kulito and Besheno markets (IPMS 2008). Such practices of exhibiting forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings in open markets were innovative, and addressed gaps in capacity through training. Such sessions can impart knowledge while selling forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings. Unlike the efforts of forage development in Phase One, which focused more on exotic species, in Phase Two focus was given to local forage species. Hall et al. (2007) point out the existence of renewed interest in indigenous knowledge in recent years, which has included efforts to document
Figure 4:
1148
Monthly income of experimental forage shop in Alaba (June 2006 to June 2007)
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Innovation in forage development
traditional livestock feeding and fodder systems. Discussions with farmer groups and experts in the study area shows farmers’ preference for local grass (‘Desho’) for having a fast growth rate, high biomass production, capacity to tolerate drought, ease in planting and managing, and wide adaptation to various soils and topographies. These features of the forage reflect ‘appropriateness’. In 2009, the authors could confirm that no other forage (of the 11 most commonly growing forages) has been as widely distributed and adopted as ‘Desho’ grass in the district. The estimated land covered by the grass in Bedene, Asore, Gerema, Hulegeba, Chambulla, four model FTCs and surrounding PAs, land of seven innovative forage farmers, and forage seed multipliers farmers (Gedeba, Galato, Wanja) reached over 85 ha of grass in the district in 2009. Working with local forage ‘Desho’ which is described as ‘appropriate technology’ has provided a lesson on how forage’s fast dissemination and adoption can be achieved if supply is on a cash basis.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Review of forage innovation and future outcomes Recognising the dynamism of innovation systems, increased monitoring and evaluation of forage development and coordination is certainly needed among actors. Future coordination is expected to be undertaken by OoARD (extension process coordinators). For monitoring and evaluation, indicators were suggested at impact (goal level), outcome (result level) and output (input level) during a stakeholder workshop. The indicator at goal level is the increase in livestock produce (kg of meat or L of milk/year/household). The outcome indictors are the amount of forage seed multiplied (qt/ year/household) or income from forage (Birr/year/household) or the amount of forage seed exchanged among farmers. Output indictors (at activity or input levels) are the number of households involved in forage seed multiplication or else the area covered by forage production and multiplication (ha). Coordination, monitoring and evaluation processes should involve all partners, be led by OoARD, and be conducted to strengthen institutional learning. A review of first and second phases of forage development shows differences in emphasis, approach, and goals among actors. There is change in the number of actors, their roles, the number of forage sites, the economic benefit gained from forage, a diversification in forage activity, a shift from exotic forage to local forages, and a change in access to forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings for farmers (Table 2).
Conclusions and recommendations This study from an innovation perspective points out how forage development can be enhanced through innovative practices to diversify and disseminate forage and increase forage sources and availability while ensuring economic benefit from forage, in a bid to contribute to increased livestock productivity, reduce feed scarcity and develop market-oriented forage production. Key innovative practices in the six years of forage development documented (which can be taken as best practices) are, first, targeting and working with innovative forage framers. The sustainability of private forage production sites is ensured by the economic benefit they give to owners, and forage technology dissemination is faster and continuous as farmers’ involvement increases in the process. Second, giving emphasis to ‘appropriate’ local forages is essential in addition to exotic forages, as exemplified by the adoption of the local grass ‘Desho’ in this case study. Farmers’ preferences and the nature of the local forage (high biomass producing capacity, high rate of growth, wide agro-ecological adaption of forage, resistance to drought and ease of management) lead to wider dissemination and a higher adoption rate. Third, the establishment and development of private forage production and multiplication sites (owned by farmers) and forage shops as forage sources, and the economic gain associated with these things, is a driving force for forage dissemination. Farmer-owned forage production sites accelDevelopment in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1149
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra Table 2: Review of forage innovation in the study area Phase One (2004–06) Past forage development Slow dissemination and adoption of forage technology
Phase Two (2007– 09) Present forage development Fast dissemination and adoption of forage technology
Focus on government forage multiplication Focus diversified: farmers’ plots, FTC and private forage sites and exotic forages production/multiplication sites and both exotic and local forages No direct forage promotion or marketing effort
Promotion of forage in market sites and marketing effort
Limited partners and QoARD as key actor
Multiple partners and farmers and FTCs as key actors
Driving force was technology introduction
Driving force is benefit (economic gain) from forage
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Farmers’ preferences not taken into account Consideration of farmers’ preferences No scale-out: forage development confined Scale-out of forage development between PAs and from to forage production sites farmer to farmer Limited knowledge sources: QoARD and SMS (subject matter specialists)
Diversified knowledge sources (QoARD, SMS, FTCs and innovative farmers, ESGI Project, IPMS project)
Capacity-building was limited to training and demonstration
Capacity-building included training, demonstrations, forge promotion, forage field days, forage visits (PA to PA) credit provision, and marketing support
Forage development increased farmers’ awareness and results were predictable
Forage development increased farmers’ benefits and forage development has unpredictable results with experimental approaches (forage shops, forage sales in FTCs, private forage sites emerging)
Source: Forage Stakeholder Workshop, June 2008
erated dissemination of technology and ensured economic gains (because of cash-based supply) as triggering factor. Fourth, forage promotion in open market sites, FTCs and at private forage production sites has led to wide dissemination of forage technology. Promotion can be undertaken as routine activity by OoARD and also by innovative farmers. Lastly, diversifying capacity building efforts from conventional training and demonstration to include of forage study tours (farmer-to-farmer visits), forage field days, credit support for forage development, forage seed quality testing, and forage monitoring and evaluation are best practices to stimulate forage development processes. The IPMS project recommends the scaling out of the above innovative practices in the district by OoARD and piloting of these best practices in areas with similar agro-ecology in the region by BoARD to enhance current government efforts in forage development as part of the livestock extension programme. It is recommended that OoARD play the coordination role among multiple actors in forage joint planning, reporting, monitoring and evaluation to develop better links and develop formal partnerships between actors. It is also recommended that further quantitative and comprehensive study be undertaken on forage innovation in the study area and region.
Acknowledgements The authors are very grateful to Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for funding the Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers’ Project. The IPMS project
1150
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
Innovation in forage development is owned by Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), managed by International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and implemented with multiple partners. Special thanks go to Bereket Dindamo (Research and Development Assistant). Semsu Mohammed (Field Assistant) and Selamu Chamisso (forage Subject Matter Specialist) at the district OoARD for data collection.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
References Bentley, J., E. Boa, P. Van Mele, J. Almanza, D. Vasquez, and S. Eguino (2003) ‘Going public: a new extension method’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1 (2): 108–23. Bolo, M. (2005) ‘Applying Innovation Systems Approach to Agricultural Research, the Case of Kenya’s Floriculture Industry’, paper presented at the ACTs training course on Innovation Systems and Development, Nairobi, Kenya, 20– 24, March 2005. Dalrymple, D. (2005) ‘Innovation systems: old wine in a new bottle?’, SciDevNet policy brief [online], 13 April, Science and Development Network, available at http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/research and development (retrieved 10 May 2008). Dantas, E. (2005) , ‘The ‘System of Innovation’ approach, and its relevence to developing countries’, SciDevNet policy brief [online], April, Science and Development Network, available at http://www.scidev. net/dossiers/research and development (retrieved 14 July 2008). Douthwaite, B. and J. Ashby (2005) ‘Innovation Histories: A Method for Learning from Experience’, ILCA Brief 52515 Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ilacbr/52515.html (retrieved 5 September 2011). Duncan, A. (2009) ‘Forage Seed Systems in Ethiopia: Fodder Round Table Meeting’, flyer prepared based on workshop held at International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 12 March 2009 Available at http://fodder-adoption-project.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ethiopian+seed+system: flyer+final.pdf (retrieved 10 June 2008). Gebremedhin, B., A. Hirpa, and K. Berhe (2009) ‘Feed Marketing in Ethiopia: Results of Rapid Market Appraisal’, IPMS project working paper 15, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya: IRLI. Available at: www.fao.org/ fileadmin/templates/agphome/images/iclsd/documents/wk2_c6_gerard.pdf Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, and P. Bezkorowajnyi (2007) ‘Reframing Technical Change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity, A Conceptual Framework’ Available at http://www. merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2008/wp2008-003.pdf (retrieved 5 June 2009). IPMS (2005) ‘Design and Diagnosis of Alaba Pilot Learning Site (PLS)’, project consultation workshop, Alaba Kulito, May 2005, available at www.ipms-ethiopia.org/content/files/documents/PLS-DPD/Alaba.pdf (retrieved 10 May 2008). IPMS (2008) Bi-annual reports for year 2006, 2007 and 2008, Alaba PLW report, Available at www.ipmsethiopia.org/Documents-Publications/Reporting/Progress-Reports (retrieved 20 May 2008). Kategile, J., A. Said, and B. Dzowela (eds.) (1987) ‘Animal Feed Resources for Small-Scale Livestock Producers’, proceedings of the second PANESA (Pastures Network for Eastern and Southern Africa) workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, November 1985. Available at: http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5548E/ x5548e00.htm (retrieved 7 July 2011). Mengistu, A. (2003) A Practical Guide to Forage Seed Production and Marketing in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: Institute for Sustainable Development. Tadesse, A. (1998) ‘The unexploited potential of improved forages in the mid altitude and low land areas of Ethiopia’, in B. H. Dzowela, A. N. Said, W. Asrat, and J. A. Kategile (eds.) Proceedings of the PANESA/ANRAB First Joint Workshop on Utilisation of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural by-products, Addis Ababa: ILCA. World Bank (2006) Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems, Washington, DC: World Bank. Yeshitila, A. (2008) ‘Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources Utilization in Alaba Woreda, Southern Ethiopia’, unpublished MSc thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Available at http://www.ipms-ethiopia. org/content/files/Documents/publication/Msc-Thesis/Final_Thesis_YeshitilaAdmasu.pdf (retrieved 10 May 2008).
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
1151
Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra
The authors Abebe Shiferaw (corresponding author) works as research and development officer for ILRI. He is an associate PhD student (University of Bern) and holds BSc and MSc degrees. He worked as academic staff for Asmara University, Alemaya and Mekelle University College before joining World Vision Ethiopia as programme development coordinator. ,
[email protected]. Ranjitha Puskur is an Innovation System Scientist (PhD) on the IPMS project at the International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa. Azage Tegegne is an Animal Scientist (PhD) on the IPMS project at the International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa.
Downloaded by [113.23.128.34] at 23:09 30 October 2013
Dirk Hoekstra is a Project Manager on the IPMS project at the International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa.
1152
Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011
