Idv 611729-b4f6227fec008e3e496c01de7a01b6e0

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice1 1

INNOVATION SYSTEMS FOR RESILIENT LIVELIHOODS: CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Johannesburg, 26-28 August 2013

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practicei i

Copyright © 2014, RAEIN-Africa Pretoria, 2014

Publication Partner

This publication may be published for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The Regional Agricultural andEnvironmental Initiative Innovations-Africa (RAEIN-Africa) would appreciate receiving a copy of any pub-lications that uses this publication as a source of information.

Published by RAEIN-Africa

For further information, please contact:RAEIN-Africa19 Frikkie De Beer, Atterbury Estate, Block 5, Ground Floor, Menlyn, Pretoria, South AfricaBox 657, Menlyn Retail Park0063, Pretoria, South Africa

Tel: +27123480352, +27123481160Fax: +27123481136Email: [email protected]: www.raein-africa.org

Conference was funded by the DGIS of Netherlands through the RAEIN-Africa ISP-TEESA programme.

Disclaimer

While due care has been taken in compiling this publication, opinions expressed in the papers are entirely those of the authors, and not necessarily those of RAEIN-Africa and or the DGIS of Netherlands.

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice iiiii

Preface

I am pleased to introduce the synthesis report of the proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice. The Conference was aimed at providing a platform for a broad range of actors working towards an enabling environment for co-innovation to share experiences and learn from each other. In addition, the conference facilitated much needed dialogue on co-innovation for agricultural development in the region, based on experiences of RAEIN-Africa and that of other organizations and initiatives in the region.

The conference successfully stimulated discussions on the three important themes of Science, Technology and Innovation for Poverty Alleviation: Approaches, Discourses and Experiences; Practical Experiences: Technology Development and Innovation Approaches Targeting Resource Poor Communities and, Innovation in Policy Development, Public Participation and Implementation Processes. On the whole, the presentations and discussions at the Conference showed that co-innovation has a lot of potential in agricultural development. However a number of conditions must be met to make the process more effective. These preconditions ranged from policy related issues such as funding for research and development, stakeholder appreciation of different knowledge systems in particular indigenous knowledge in co-innovation and the importance of effective participation of all stakeholders in co-innovation. The Conference enabled RAEIN-Africa to not only share her experiences but to also learn from other initiatives with a view to informing future interventions.

I would like to record my sincere appreciation of the financial support from DGIS without which it would have been difficult if not impossible for RAEIN-Africa to host the conference. The tireless work of the Conference Organizing Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee of RAEIN-Africa and the Board of Trustees in the planning and execution of the Conference is greatly appreciated. I am also indebted to all the Session Chairs and the Conference Facilitator for ensuring the smooth flow of proceedings. I also acknowledge the important contributions of our technical team and the effort made in compiling this synthesis report.

My gratitude is also extended to the hospitality and banqueting team at Birchwood Hotel and OR Tambo Conference Centre whose efforts contributed to making the Conference a great success.

Doreen Shumba-Mnyulwa

Executive DirectorRAEIN-Africa

ii Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practiceiii iii

Contents

About RAEIN-Africa vList of acronyms and abbreviations viIntroduction 1

Objectives of the Conference 1Conference Themes 1

Conference Methodology and Process 2General Conference Approach 2Process steering group for feedback and co-management of the workshop 2Roles of session chairs and workshop facilitator 2

Conference Proceedings 4Highlights from the Official Opening session 4Insights from the Conference 7

a) Capacity strengthening key for ISA 7b) Innovative funding arrangements required for ISA 7c) Supportive policy and regulatory environment required for development 7d) Innovation Platforms help to define real community Problems 8e) ISA promotes partnership and participation for all stakeholders along the value

chain as a key requirement for success8

f) Communication is key / Mainstreaming of ISA/ co-learning process/ ISA ensures demand driven technology development

9

g) Indigenous and “Exotic” knowledge 9h) Adoption of technologies by resource poor communities 10

Emerging Challenges from the Conference 10a) How to facilitate wide adoption of innovations through the ISA processes 10b) How to develop and implement a Learning oriented Monitoring and Evaluation

system of the ISA process 10

c) How to strengthen/promote Communication and Knowledge management of ISA processes

10

d) How to support Capacity Building and Facilitation of Partnerships in Innovation Platforms

11

e) How to develop and support implementation of an enabling policy environment for innovation

11

f) How facilitate Sustainability of Initiatives and Innovation Platforms 11g) How to address and mainstream gender in ISA 11h) How to address Intellectual Property Rights issues in innovation processes 11i) How to manage the cost of Innovation 11j) How to clearly define the roles of different Actors in Innovation Platforms 12k) How develop a shared understanding of biotechnology and Indigenous Knowledge 12l) How to develop a shared understanding of ISA in practice 12m) How to Access climate finance and how countries and institutions can deal with

climate change issues 12

n) How to market Technologies developed by the ISA process for wide adoption 12o) How to ensure complementarity between indigenous and exotic knowledge 13p) How to communicate on the details of the Innovation Platform Process 13

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice ivv

Conclusions and Recommendation 13Policy Considerations Emerging from the Conference 14

Annex 1: Conference Programme 16Annex 2: Abstracts by Session 20Opening Session 20

Session 1: An Enabling Environment for Science, Technology and Innovation for Resilient Livelihoods

23

Session 2:Science Technology and Innovation for Poverty Alleviation: Approaches, Discourses and Experiences

23

Session 3: Practical Experiences on Technology Development and Innovations Targeting Resource Poor Communities

26

Session 4: Innovating for Public Participation in Policy Development and Implementation 32Annex 4: List of Conference Participants 36

iv Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practicev v

ABOUT RAEIN-AFRICA

The Regional Agricultural and Environment Innovations Network-Africa (RAEIN-Africa) is a Southern African Network organisation that promotes participatory development of appropriate science and technology for sustainable management of the environment and agricultural production systems. It does so by facilitating the creation of partnerships between government, civil society, and end-user groups, as well as supporting need driven development oriented research and all inclusive policy development processes.

Our Target

The primary target of RAEIN-Africa’s work is resource constrained and disadvantaged communities of the SADC whose livelihood depend on productive and sustainable interaction between agriculture and the environment. We partner with national and regional development actors to develop, through co-innovationprocesses, interventions that enhance food security and livelihood systems. RAEIN-Africa capacitates development actors and communities to better manage their environment for sustainable livelihoods.

Our Partners

RAEIN-Africa works with partners that include government ministries and departments, non-state actors among them the private sector, civil society organizations, research and academic institutions, farmer organizations, communities and the media. Our approach brings these Partners together in multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder platforms at national and regional level.

Thematic Focus and Approach

Food insecurity and fragile livelihood systems as well as related policy and regulatory environment remain priority challenges for development and hence obstacles to attaining the MDGs in SADC.

RAEIN-Africa focuses on three thematic areas i.e. Food Security and Livelihoods, Climate Change and Environment and, Policy and Governance.

Our Approach

Co-innovation is RAEIN-Africa’s user-centric approach to development of innovations for sustainable development. Co-innovation involves being in constant interaction with community-level as well as policy level realities in developingand implementing interventions for improving food security and livelihoods. Overcoming barriers to innovation is criticalfor sustainable development in the SADC. RAEIN-Africa provides a window through which countries of the SADC can overcome barriers to co-innovation for sustainable development by facilitating integrated capacity development

and sharing of development experiences. The Innovation Systems Approach (ISA), drives the Network’s projects. Through ISA RAEIN-Africa has been able to provide for meaningful participation of all actors including resource poor communities in innovation and technology development processes as well as in policy formulation and governance.

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice vi1

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CADECOM Catholic Development Commission DGIS Directorate-General for International CooperationGMO Genetically Modified OrganismIKS Indigenous Knowledge SystemIPR Intellectual Property ResourceISA Innovation Systems ApproachISP-TEESA The Innovation for Sustainable development and Poverty reduction: Towards an

Enabling Environment for systems of innovation in Southern Africa programme MRIU Malawi Research Into Use NAFU (South African) National Agriculture Farmers Union PPP Public Private PartnershipRAEIN-Africa Regional Agricultural and Environmental Innovations Network-AfricaSADC Southern African Development CommunityS&T Science and TechnologyTC Tissue CultureUN United NationsUNISA University of South Africa

vi Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice1 1

INTRODUCTION

RAEIN-Africa successfully conducted a three day conference from the 26th to the 28th of August 2013. More than 100 participants drawn from government, donors, civil society, private sector, media, UN Agencies as well as from Universities in SADC attended the Conference. Community representatives from countries where RAEIN-Africa has been implementing programmes were also able to attend the Conference and share their experiences. The Conference titled “Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice” was held at the Birchwood Hotel in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Conference was funded by DGIS of Netherlands through the Innovation Systems for Poverty towards an Enabling Environment (ISP-TEESA) programme that RAEIN-Africa has been implementing since 2009.

A Conference organising committee made up of RAEIN-Africa staff as well as representatives of our Partners from Botswana, South Africa and Tanzania took responsibility for organising the Conference. A call for abstracts was published on the RAEIN-Africa website and also circulated widely across the breath of RAEIN-Africa Partners as well as other institutions and organizations not necessarily Partners of RAEIN-Africa but working on similar thematic areas and applying the innovation systems approach in providing development solutions to resource poor communities.

Forty abstracts were received for the Conference. An independent team of reviewers was put in place to review the submitted abstracts. Each abstract was reviewed by at least two external reviewers and one internal reviewer to ensure that the process was thorough and that papers of high quality were selected. A total of 32 abstracts were selected and these were all developed into full papers and presentations. Over and above the papers, ten posters were presented at the conference.

This proceeding is a summary of the deliberations, presentations and discussions that were held at the Conference.

Objectives of the Conference

The conference had three main objectives;• To identify opportunities and challenges in the application of the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA)

in development of pro-poor innovations that enhance resilience of livelihood systems in resource constrained communities of southern Africa.

• To provide an opportunity for actors in science, technology and development to synthesise, share, document experiences and collaborate in co-innovation processes for inclusive and sustainable development

• To synthesize lessons emerging from ISP-TEESA and other similar initiatives from the region and beyond and identify emerging policy options for strengthening co-innovation processes for positive development outcomes in the SADC.

Conference Themes

The Conference was organised around three themes motivated by the work that RAEIN-Africa has been conducting in the SADC region. The themes covered three important components i.e. the theoretical underpinnings of co-innovation for inclusive and sustainable development, application of co-innovation in addressing development challenges faced by resource constrained communities and the creation of an enabling environment through appropriate policies developed with effective participation of the public. The conference papers and presentations were solicited based on these themes;

1. Science, technology and co-innovation for inclusive and sustainable development: Approaches, discourses and experiencesa. How do science, technology and innovation address challenges being faced by the resource poor

communities?

Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice 23

b. Is innovation the silver bullet for poverty alleviation and wealth creation?c. What can we learn from past experiences of technology development, dissemination and adoption by

resource poor communities?d. From participation to co-innovation: What has been the experience?e. Can co-innovation be an answer to development of technologies for resource constrained

communities?

2. Practical Experiences: Technology Development and Innovation Approaches Targeting Resource Poor Communities a. What are the practical experiences of technology development and adoption through participation,

multi-stakeholder involvement, innovation systems approach and co-innovation?b. Can resource constrained communities innovate to fight poverty and create wealth? What have been

the lessons, experiences, outcomes and challenges?

3. Innovation in policy development, public participation and implementation processes.a. How can policy development processes in science and technology be inclusive for improved

development outcomes in food security and livelihoods?

The conference sessions and presentations were organised according to above themes. Annex 1 provides the Conference Programme with details on the sessions and the presentations that were made in each of the Sessions.

CONFERENCE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS

General Conference Approach

The conference was organised to take place in a “workshop” and highly participatory format. Sessions were organised to start with a keynote address for each of the conference themes, plenary presentations, group discussions, side events, and open space/poster and networking session responding to the thematic areas. Invited and selected papers/case studies/success stories were to be published and shared widely.

The workshop process built fully on open, lively interaction and debate among participants in a least formal way that created a fruitful learning atmosphere. Maximum time was allocated to discussions in plenary and working groups to thresh out issues in-depth and to advance the conceptual thinking and share practical know-how.

Process steering group for feedback and co-management of the workshop

The workshop recognised the different interests of the stakeholders and tried to adequately represent them in the programme and the content of the workshop. While the organisers set a frame, it was refined and adaptedthrough comments from participants before the workshop and through a ‘process steering group’ during the workshop. The group consisted of a cross-section of the participants and stakeholders who represented the whole group well. During the workshop, the group members monitored the course of the workshop, on participant’s impressions and concerns and the resulting necessary adaptations on an on-going basis. Through this procedure it was possible to harness the best energy of the group and to be focussed but flexible to accommodate the interests of the participants as best as possible. The programme also provided room for flexibility. This process-oriented procedure allowed the participants to take an active role, responsibility for the success of the workshop and ownership of the outcomes.

Roles of session chairs and workshop facilitator

To ensure that the session chairs and workshop facilitator work complimentarily, their respective roles were defined, discussed and agreed. The session chairs managed time(as strictly as possible) and worked with

2 Conference Proceedings for the Innovation Systems for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice3 3

session rapporteurs to come up with a synthesis report that included: a) State of the art of the session topicb) Critical issues / challenges emergingc) Interesting/ innovative ways of dealing with challenges and the topic in practice

The facilitator guided the table group discussion and plenary discussions.

The workshop was structured along several analytical sessions building upon each other and based on conference themes. These session were:

Session 1: ‘Setting the Scene’: Opening, participant introductions, clarifying expectations and objectives and the workshop programme, bringing out controversial issues and agree on the joint way forward in the workshop formed the core of this session. Ground rules to guide the process were agreed in the session. Additionally, core values of the workshop were set for participants to get maximum benefit from the proceedings of the workshop.

Session 2: Science, technology and co-innovation for inclusive and sustainable development: Approaches, discourses and experiences.Key questions in this session were:

a. How do science, technology and innovation address challenges being faced by the resource poor communities?

b. Is innovation the silver bullet for poverty alleviation and wealth creation? c. What can we learn from past experiences of technology development, dissemination and adoption by

resource poor communities? d. From participation to co-innovation: What has been the experience? e. Can co-innovation be an answer to development of technologies for resource constrained communities?

Step 3 Practical Experiences: Technology Development and innovation Approaches targeting resource poor communities Key questions in this step were:

a) What are the practical experiences of technology development and adoption through participation, multi-stakeholder involvement, innovation systems approach and co-innovation?

b) Can resource constrained communities innovate to fight poverty and create wealth? What have been the lessons, experiences, outcomes and challenges?

Step 4: Innovation in policy development, public participation and implementation processes. a) How can policy development processes in science and technology be inclusive for improved

development outcomes in food security and livelihoods?

At the end of the sessions 2, 3 and 4, participants distilled major lessons and issues for further discussion guided by group task and reported back in plenary

Step 5: What are the implications and the way forward? This step examined the implications for RAEIN-Africa and partners. Based on that, concrete steps and actions were defined guided by the following discussion questions:

a) What are the major conclusions for this conference?b) What concrete actions do you suggest for continued joint learning / action which can work best for the

network – to keep the fire burning? c. Who should drive that and how?d. What support will you require from RAEIN Africa secretariat to make this joint learning / action

effective?


CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

The Conference generated a lot of exciting discussion on the three themes that were the focus of the Conference. Not only did the Conference provide insights and positive experiences on the application of the innovation systems approach in providing development solutions to resource poor communities but also identified the main issues that still remain a hindrance in the innovation development and utilization by resource poor communities. The proceedings have therefore been synthesised in terms of the insights and emerging issues.

Highlights from the Official Opening sessionThe official opening of the conference was preceded by welcome statement, an overview on RAEIN-Africa, statement from DGIS representative and keynote presentations from South Africa National Agriculture Farmers Union (NAFU) and College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA).

Welcome Statement

Mr Andrew Mushita, RAEIN-Africa Board Chairperson welcomed participants to the conference. In his welcome statement Mr Mushita acknowledged that despite significant investments in science and technology(S&T) in sub-Saharan Africa the region continued to be plagued by poverty and food insecurity especiallyfor resource constrained communities. Most countries will not meet Millennium Development Goals on eradicating poverty and hunger by 2015. Climate change has emerged as one of the major threats to initiativesfor poverty reduction and the resilience of livelihood systems for the poor. The conference provided an opportunity to reflect, strategize and recharge capacities required to make a meaningful contribution to poverty eradication as stakeholders (i.e. academicians, policy makers, government officials and civil societyorganisations, community representatives, small-holder farmers, scientists, marketers and private sector representatives). The conference was a platform through which participants would;

1) Identify opportunities and challenges in the application of the innovation systems in developing pro-poor innovations that enhance resilience of livelihood systems in resource constrained communities of Southern Africa;

2) Provide an opportunity for actors in science, technology and development to synthesise, share, document experiences and collaborate in co-innovation processes for inclusive development; and

3) Synthesize lessons emerging from ISP-TEESA and other similar initiatives from the region and beyond and identify emerging policy options for strengthening co-innovation processes for positive development outcomes in the SADC region.

Overview of RAEIN-Africa

RAEIN-Africa’s Executive Director, Mrs Doreen Shumba-Mnyulwa, gave a brief background on RAEIN-Africa. RAEIN-Africa is a regional Network of national multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder groups working together on common issues towards enhancing a conducive environment for sustainable development in southern Africa. The Network applies science, technology and indigenous knowledge systems to innovate focusing on three thematic areas, namely food security and livelihoods; environment and climate change and policy and governance. RAEIN-Africa is about inclusive innovation; integrated capacity development; knowledge for development and sustainable development. RAEIN-Africa’s strategy is based on providinga platform for different voices of multiple stakeholders in innovation processes. The Network uses the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA) in the development of innovations for sustainable development in agriculture and the environment. The ISA fosters innovation; provides a coherent analytical tool for handling the disparate processes of knowledge creation, distribution and use; allows for overcoming barriers to innovation and requires full participation of all stakeholders.


Statement from DGIS

In his speech, Mr N. Schelling, an Agricultural Councillor with the Netherlands Embassy and DGIS representative, highlighted the following key points;

• The key issue of this conference is identifying how investments in science and technology can be enhanced to really contribute to fight hunger and alleviate poverty. With all the investments in agricultural and environmental technologies so far, we have not achieved the expected results in many countries in Africa. The challenges of protecting our environment and the impact of climate change are becoming more visibly in worldwide food production systems and especially in vulnerable communities of Africa.

• The spread of new technologies is being shaped by highly globalised patterns of investments and information and in most cases out of reach of impoverished communities in Africa.

• Southern Africa has made many efforts to create an enabling environment for innovation systems to address the agricultural and environmental challenges. But the gains of this investment have not been able to address the mounting challenges: despite investments, small-holder farmers are still battling with food insecurity, poverty and declining quality of the environment. What approaches, methods, policies and capacities are therefore required to ensure resilience of livelihood systems in the region?

• The Netherlands Development Cooperation is fully aware of these challenges. In response, the Dutch Government spends 50% of its development aid in addressing poverty issues in Africa. The Netherlands Development Cooperation strategy is aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Dutch contributionto four thematic areas, security and legal order, sexual and reproductive health, water quality and availability and food security.

• Sustainable economic growth should be driven by private entrepreneurship as a key engine for enduring poverty reduction and social development. This strategy supports self-reliance of countries and resilient populations. It also connects between development objectives and global public goods: such as climate change and biodiversity policies. It is within this framework, that fora such as RAEIN-Africa’s, are supported by the Netherlands government. ISP-TEESA programme has been implemented by RAEIN-Africa from 2009 to date and has generated exciting experiences on managing the science-technology-policy-society interface.

• This conference provides a Platform for reflecting on how multi-stakeholder, participatory and inclusive approaches can be successfully implemented to achieve development goals. These approacheswill move us away from traditional charity, speaking of “donors” and “recipients”, away from “technology developers” and “users”. We will rather speak of a global and mutual partnerships, based on participatory and inclusive growth.

• This conference provides an opportunity to strategize and make science, technology and policy, more relevant for the benefit of the poor.

KEY NOTE: Constraints Faced by South African Resource Constrained Farmers

The NAFU President, Mr Motsepe Matlala gave an overview of smallholder agriculture, highlighting the following key points;

• The global food crisis of 2008 underlined the human and environmental vulnerabilities associated with the prevailing system of food production.

• In the fisheries sector, fish stocks are collapsing and actions undertaken by government and international institutions have failed to halt their demise.

• It is acknowledged by scientists, policy makers, producers and other key stakeholders in the agro-food sector that the global agro-food supply chains are unsustainable and that new incentives for increasing resource efficiency in the sector are crucial to meeting the challenges of increasing nutritional demand and addressing food security.

• There is need to move towards sustainable food systems, taking into account all aspects of the food value chain and understanding the drivers of what currently makes food systems unstable.


• In order to successfully address issues of sustainable production, it is necessary to consider production in conjunction with consumption, because consumption patterns drive demand, which often dictate what is produced, and to a great extent, how it is produced.

• Soil degradation, climate change impacts and water availability are environmental constraints in agriculture that require urgent attention. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

• Scientific research has contributed greatly to the improvement of agricultural practices in Africa. However despite the availability of high-yield and pest-resistant varieties of major crops, there is still a huge gap between the potential provided by improved germ plasm and the reality of farming yields (the yield gap), leaving Africa a long way from food sufficiency.

• South Africa resource constrained farmers face the following challenges among others; food insecurity [without any food safety nets], weather (drought / floods), escalating cost of inputs (fuel, fertilizers, wages etc.), chemical farming & mono-cropping (causing yield reductions), water availability, agricultural education & training [all levels] and access to markets.

• There is a high potential for smallholders to derive livelihoods from market-oriented agriculture. However smallholder farmers face a number of barriers to accessing markets. They are often ill-equipped to respond to rapidly changing market conditions, are unable to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by liberalization policies, are ill-equipped to benefit from the new market environment and they face enormous constraints in physically accessing markets.

• Smallholder farmers also lack information about markets, business and negotiating experience and a collective organization to give them the power they need to interact on equal terms with other generally larger, stronger market intermediaries.

KEY SPEECH: An enabling environment for Science and Technology for enhancing innovation for sustainable development

Professor Fhatuwani N. Madau of the University of South Africa highlighted the importance of looking at farming as a business. In his key note speech, Professor Madau highlighted the following key points;

• Bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and academics all tell farmers how they should farm and as a result billions of development funds have been misguided.

• The continent has huge potential and plenty of natural resource for economic development with agriculture in the lead, but faces a number of challenges; namely health, poverty and energy crisis, climate change and skills shortage.

• Science and technology (S&T) can play a role in alleviating these challenges. However, Africa facesa number of constraints to S&T development, lack of management capacity, lack of using equity instrument within the Direct Foreign Investments, lack of technical expertise and lack of capacity to negotiate off-take agreements in commodities.

• Addressing these challenges will require increased investment in Research and Development (R&D). At present Southern Africa invests less than 1% of GDP into research in S&T. Other requirements include support and expansion of state institutions (research councils), increase in capacity to formulate and implement S&T Policy, develop capacity to produce and exploit intellectual property and develop mechanisms to enhance trade of scientific goods.

• On the social level there is need to increase scientific literacy within the general populace by using community infrastructures to increase the capacity to produce students with Mathematics and Science competency and agricultural communities (including farmers) to adopt technological tools to improve their quality of life.

• Other areas critical for Africa’s development were identified as climate change (better irrigation systems),biotechnology (new cultivars, disease resistance breeds with low fat content), Space sciences (Remote sensing to increase visibility of areas of geographic importance e.g. land usage and agriculture; monitoring of the coast lines e.g. enforce fishing rights and communication e.g. satellite communication), Energy (diversify energy sources, nuclear, hydro, biomass solar, put emphasis on renewable energy, integrate the African energy pool and efficient utilization of energy) Information & communications technology. – connectivity, computing, internet, broadband, digitization etc.


In conclusion Professor Mudau stressed that what needed is a positive mind, creativity, building knowledge, encouraging scholarships, taking risks, avoiding being the enemy of ourselves and minimizing the spirit of blaming everyone.

Official Opening Statement

In his official opening statement, Mr I. Patel, the Deputy Director General, Social Economic and Partnerships Division, of the Department of Science and Technology in South Africa highlighted the following key points;

• The Department of Science and Technology develops the agenda for raising funding for S&T, partners with appropriate institutions to maximise the value of S&T and champions the value of education.

• RAEIN-Africa engagement with DST is timely especially that the department is developing a 5 year development plan and therefore, this provides room to forge partnerships especially in the areas of Climate change and SADC S & T programme.

• Innovation platforms are an interesting concept and are therefore key in developing greater interaction between stakeholders and developing lasting partnerships.

Insights from the ConferenceThe conference provided insights and lessons learned in the application of the innovation systems approach in promoting the participation of resource poor communities in technology development and policy formulation processes as well as the practical experiences in the adoption and utilization of innovations by resource poor communities. The following insights where identified;

a) Capacity strengthening key for ISAThe different experiences shared through the presentations demonstrated that the successful implementation of the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA) is largely dependent on building the necessary competencies and capacities. These should be on both the soft and hard capacities. It requires the building of a critical mass of cadres at both Msc and PhD levels. The capacity of the actors along the value chain should also be prioritised for successful implementation of ISA. Identification and recognition of the key competencies required as well as the different collaborative arrangements required should characterise the initial phase of ISA. The use of innovation systems as a tool for mind-set and management change was identified as having played a crucial role in the success of the innovation platforms.

b) Innovative funding arrangements required for ISADelegates to the conference observed with concern the dwindling budgets for research and development, science and technology and agricultural development in the SADC. They also noted that most funding available for research and development as well as science and technology has been provided by Donors and that has meant the research agenda setting is not necessarily need driven. The Innovation Systems Approach, by nature is multi-stakeholder and participatory and its successful application requires adequate resources. There is need to source funding from alternative sources that include private firms, public institutions and partnerships. Governments in SADC should increase funding allocations for science and technology, research and development as well as for agricultural development for innovation systems to provide development solutions for resource poor communities.

c) Supportive policy and regulatory environment required for developmentSustainable improvements in the livelihoods of resource poor communities require supportive policy frameworks that support science and technology innovations. It is important that resource poor communities are brought on board and participate in the policy formulation processes to ensure relevance and appropri-ateness. The RAEIN-Africa public awareness and participation platforms focusing on policy in Swaziland and Botswana provided evidence on how effective ISA is in improving public participation of communitiesin policy formulation processes and ultimately giving the voice to the voiceless. Given this success it is important that these platforms be mainstreamed in government programmes for sustainability.


d) InnovationPlatformshelptodefinerealcommunityProblemsThe presentations from the Conference underlined the importance of defining the real needs of the communityas a basis for developing solutions or innovations to address development challenges based on real needs. Demand driven technologies have an impact and are widely adopted. Evidence provided from the different papers highlighted the importance of community participation in research agenda setting includingdefining community needs, identifying the core issues or problems to be addressed and contextualising solutions for clearly identified constraints. The discussions and presentations also showed how researchers and development practitioners make assumptions about community needs and do not widely consult before developing the technologies as a result some technologies fail to improve the livelihoods of resource poor communities.

e) ISA promotes partnership and participation for all stakeholders along the value chain as a key requirement for success

The top-down approach that promote development and dissemination of technologies as silver bullets to development was blamed for the high rates of technology rejection. ISA as a bottom up approach that promotes participatory and a systems approach to technology development has potential for increasing successful uptake of technologies. The linking of innovation to the whole value chain and to entrepreneurshipwere identified as some of the important factors for improving sustainability and effectiveness of the technology or innovation.

Factors that are important for the success of ISA and the Innovation Platforms were identified from the discussions following presentations on the practical experiences with ISA, the technology and policy platforms. These include:

i) Effective Networking and PartnershipsISA fosters effective partnerships and networking arrangements around identifying, developing and implementing development solutions. Experiences presented showed that greater success is achieved when resource poor communities are viewed not as only consumers or recipients of technologies but as equal partners in the development and utilization of technologies.

ii) Multi-stakeholder processesThe importance of the multi-stakeholder approach was demonstrated through the number of presentations made at the conference. The multi-stakeholder approach to problem solving provides a holistic analysis of the problems and development of comprehensive responses presented in a systems way, to the development challenges faced by resource poor communities. Stakeholder buy in should be based on a shared vision among supporting institutions as well as among participating communities. Multi-stakeholder processes are critical in ensuring ownership and sustainability.

iii) Informed Public ParticipationBottom up approaches that include ISA coupled with public awareness creation are important in promoting informed public participation in policy formulation as well as in research and development. The Botswana and Swaziland Innovation platform experiences demonstrated the importance of public awareness creation and public participation in the development of biosafety acts in the respective countries. Effective public participation goes beyond just having communities attending meetings and accessing information but being part of decision-making processes.

iv) Overcoming Institutional barriersInstitutions commonly have their own defined approaches and systems of operation that govern the institutional boundaries. These institutional boundaries and approaches can be barriers to effective participation in innovation systems. Overcoming these institutional barriers is critical for the successful application of ISA.


v) Public awareness: The role of mediaThe media has commonly been left out of multi-stakeholder processes. The practical experiences shared by the RAEIN-Africa Policy Platforms demonstrated the important role the media can play in not only increasing public awareness but promoting public participation in the policy formulation process.

vi) Farmer participation in technology developmentTop-down approaches commonly view farmers as consumers of technologies with no role to play in the innovation process. This is largely blamed for the lack of or poor adoption of technologies. Papers based on analysis of adoption patterns for some technologies showed that it is critical to have farmers participating in technology development processes if the technology is to be adopted and sustained by farmers. Farmer’s voices should be heard and be part of decisions making processes by the platform throughout the agenda setting, technology development and improvement of capacities and supporting policies.

vii) Relevance of technology to time and place developmentThe relevance of the technology is dependent upon the time in which the technology is released as well as the location/locality into which the technology is introduced. These two factors, time and location, can influence the adoption of the technology by farmers. Critical is the need to establish the relevance of the technology in addressing the context or specific needs of the target group.

viii) Need for shared visions among support institutionsMulti-stakeholder platforms require that supporting institutions develop a shared understanding of the ISA and a shared vision of the development process. Without this shared vision and understanding institutional boundaries will limit opportunities for effective partnerships and collaboration.

ix) Guidelines on partnerships and collaborationGuidelines on partnerships and collaboration should be developed based on the successful experiences from the countries where ISA has been implemented successfully. This will be critical in scaling up the use of ISA in government and civil society.

f) Communication is key / Mainstreaming of ISA/ co-learning process/ ISA ensures demand driven technology development

ISA facilitates a holistic approach to technology development with a focus on the whole product value chain. Technology Platforms demonstrated the need for full value chain analysis in identifying points of weakness and strength as well as the points of intervention. ISA reduces the gap between farmer practices and the research agenda and provides an opportunity for greater communication and understanding between all actors in the value chain from farmers, researchers, marketers and policy makers-learning processes require that innovation brokers are neutral and do not demonstrate a top down approach that inhibits farmer participation. Farmer participation in the innovation process is enhanced by innovation training and capacity development in a range of skills including entrepreneurship.

g) Indigenous and “Exotic” knowledgeThe importance of indigenous knowledge and farmer innovations was highlighted. A number of farmer innovations were identified as responding to the challenges farmers in the different countries face. However the effectiveness of some of the farmer innovations remains scientifically unverified. The contribution of farmer innovations to overall livelihood improvement is hampered by the lack of a clear framework that recognises farmer innovations including validation of such innovations. The question posed by discussants was on how we can bring science into indigenous knowledge and create a balance between indigenous and science knowledge. It is important that in the course of the technology piloting traditional/religious beliefs are upheld as these could be a limitation to technology adoption and utilization. Going forward it is important that we develop a framework that recognises indigenous knowledge and its role in social development.


h) Adoption of technologies by resource poor communitiesAdoption of technologies was very topical and generated discussion around factors that influence adoption of technologies. Technologies with demonstrable benefits to the beneficiaries are more likely to be adopted i.e.it is important for the beneficiaries of the technology to see value in the technology. At times the targeted beneficiaries fail to see the benefits of the technology in their circumstances and find no reason to adopt it. In other cases farmers may persist to use a technology despite the numerous impediments that they face in utilizing the technology including changes in government priorities and policies. Technologies should not demand extra investment by resource poor communities as well as create additional labour demand. Labour availability can limit the adoption of the technology even though the technology is technically superior to the farmer practice. It is important that technology adoption is supported until the time when there is increased trust of the technology by the beneficiaries. Government can play a role in supporting local innovations. When technologies are developed in a particular manner with the multi-stakeholder innovation systems approach then development and adaptation will take place simultaneously thereby increasing the chances of adoption.

Emerging Challenges from the Conference

Despite the insights and positive experiences that have been generated by various actors applying the innovation systems approach, there still remain issues that require address in the successful application of the ISA for positive and sustainable development of resource poor communities. The discussions centred around the need for more clarity on how these issues can be addressed to ensure wider utilization of development innovations by resource poor communities.

The issues raised were categorised as follows;

a) How to facilitate wide adoption of innovations through the ISA processesDelegates noted very low adoption rates for technologies meant to improve productivity in most countries.Low adoption of technologies has continued to be a major puzzle for most research and development institutions. The need to research on innovations that are relevant to beneficiaries and that improve production efficiencies was highlighted as the major requirement for improving adoption of innovations by resource poor communities. Other issues raised on increasing adoption of innovations included the need for increasing the human capacity in SADC especially at MSc and PhD level, the need to influence government to adopt ISA as a framework for improving public participation and adoption of innovations as well as the need to bring the youths on board in innovation development processes.

b) How to develop and implement a Learning oriented Monitoring and Evaluation system of the ISA process

There were questions raised in the discussions around the impact evaluation of ISA as one of the bottom up approaches. It is important that ISA is evaluated for effectiveness and compared with the other participatory approaches that are commonly used by development practitioners. An evaluation of the ISA would also help in articulating the benefits of the Innovation Platforms as an approach for co-innovation. The distinction between ISA and other participatory methodologies is also not clear and such an impact evaluation would provide a basis for clearly distinguishing ISA from the other bottom up methodologies. The other point of discussion was on the limitations imposed by ISA in terms of up scaling and the resources required to fully implement it. Sustainability of applying the approach could be compromised by the resource requirements.

c) How to strengthen/promote Communication and Knowledge management of ISA processesCommunication and knowledge management were identified as key issues still requiring attention. Specifically five issues were identified as key for communication and knowledge management in ISA processes;

• Strategies for effective communication of science• Effective knowledge sharing systems• Effective communication strategies• Public awareness raising strategies and


• Role of government in these processes

d) How to support Capacity Building and Facilitation of Partnerships in Innovation PlatformsCapacity building of the Innovation Platforms as well as creating partnerships that make Innovation platforms effective was identified as one of the key issues in the discussions. It was noted that the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA) takes on board both research and extension and as such requires multi-talented champions and diverse stakeholders. Within the groups of champions there should be a role for innovation brokerage. Commitment of members of the Innovation Platform to a common goal and process was identified as one of the key issues in strengthening the platforms. Capacity building of Innovation Platform actors in soft skills for development will also be important in building the platform foundation, strengthening the team as well as the cooperation between the users of the technology, the lead developers of the technology and the supporting representatives of other development groups along the value chain.

e) How to develop and support implementation of an enabling policy environment for innovationPolicies and regulatory environment that enables access and safe use of the technologies is a prerequisitefor successfully and sustainable adoption of technologies. Beneficiaries should have access to the key resources (e.g. land ownership, information) required to adopt and make effective use of the technologies. Policies should address the farmer’s needs on the technologies being adopted. Conflicting policies between central and provincial governments limit opportunities for resource poor farmers. This is worsened by the lack of awareness, and limited participation by the resource poor communities in the development and implementation of legal and policy frameworks supporting science and technology in agriculture.

f) How facilitate Sustainability of Initiatives and Innovation PlatformsThe RAEIN-Africa facilitated Innovation Platforms showed that they are effective and successful in their mandate. However concern was raised on their sustainability after project completion and project phase out. Options discussed included the adoption of such platforms by government as one way of mainstreaming ISA in government programmes and increased collaboration with other development organisations. The other dimension to the sustainability discussion was whether the Innovation Platforms are created to only serve a single purpose and when that is accomplished the platform is dissolved and another one formed for any other emerging issue.

g) How to address and mainstream gender in ISAA question was posed of how ISA can ensure a gender balance in the participation of man and women in innovation processes and in innovation platforms. Generally a concern was raised on why men continue to dominate in the production of high value crops like coffee compared to women and how ISA as an approach could address this imbalance. Related to this concern is the need to clearly define who is poor when looking at pro-poor technologies and who can access such technologies.

h) How to address Intellectual Property Rights issues in innovation processesIntellectual Property Rights should be addressed if there is to be effective commercialization of the innovations that come from the ISA process. Related to this is the issue of intellectual property rights in innovations that are developed together with farmers. Further research on how to deal with the issues of IPR in the multi-stakeholder processes such as ISA were encouraged. The issue of protection of farmer innovations and knowledge system is also to be included in such investigations.

i) How to manage the cost of InnovationManaging the cost of innovation in the face of declining government budgets for research and development and donor resources was a topical issue. Specific issues raised included;

• How can the Innovation Platforms be sustainably funded?• Can governments provide funding for Innovation Platforms?• How do we reduce dependence on donor funding for funding development of innovations?• Why is the agricultural sector under-funded when it’s the main employer in most African countries?

How can this be changed?


• When will governments reach the 1% of GDP to research and development agreed in SADC?• How can we reduce the high cost of GMO technologies?• What financial model should be adopted for improved agricultural development, farming as a business?• How can regional and national coordination mechanisms be funded?• What is the cost of technology transfer at the design stage?

j) HowtoclearlydefinetherolesofdifferentActorsinInnovationPlatformsThe success of ISA is based on the institutions and communities having a shared understanding and vision of the development process and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the different development actors in multi-stakeholder platforms. The main challenge that was identified is how to bring all partners or stakeholdersin a platform to the same level of understanding. The key questions rose included;

• How do we ensure that all partners play their role?• How do we attract private businesses?• How do we bring the media on board?• What should be the role of government in the platforms?• How do we convince policy makers to invest in the application of ISA?• How do we include farmers in research agenda setting?• How do we bring on board and recognise Indigenous Knowledge?

k) How develop a shared understanding of biotechnology and Indigenous KnowledgeThere is lack of a common understanding among institutions on biotechnology and GMOs and it will be important that there are efforts made to create a common understanding. A question was asked of whether GMO can be classified as a local innovation?

l) How to develop a shared understanding of ISA in practiceSeveral issues were identified as still requiring clarity on the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA) in facilitatingdevelopment processes. Among the issues that were flagged were;

• How does ISA ensure success compared to other bottom up approaches used in development?• In the ISA what are the rules of engagement for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)?• How do we reduce the level of complications regarding technologies when working with resource poor

communities on a technology?• Who participates and at what level of participation?

m) HowtoAccessclimatefinanceandhowcountriesandinstitutionscandealwithclimatechangeissues

Accessing climate finance as well as how countries institutions can respond to the realities of climate change was a topical discussion given its bearing on the resilience of livelihood systems. Specific issues raised around accessing climate finance as well as responding to climate change included;

• The need for clear guidelines on policy issues e.g. on climate change and GMOs.• The need to identify how best to deal with issues of climate change.• The need for climate finance that meets the adaptation priorities of Africa.• The need for an institutional framework for the administration of carbon credits.• The need to balance climate change adaptation and mitigation especially given the influence on which

to focus given by available sources of funding.

n) How to market Technologies developed by the ISA process for wide adoption Concern was raised on how innovations being developed are so focussed on increasing productivity without much emphasis on the marketing of the resultant produce. As a result farmers find themselves with no markets for the surplus produce. There is poor market intelligence and most technologies are not linked to markets. This creates room for middle men to exploit farmers with poor market access.


o) How to ensure complementarity between indigenous and exotic knowledgeThree main issues were raised on ensuing complementarity between indigenous and exotic knowledge and these are;

• How can IKS be innovated for improved productivity?• Can we validate farmer’s innovations (IKS) with science?• How do we balance the need to protect farmer landraces from contamination and the need for

technology to increase productivity?

p) How to communicate on the details of the Innovation Platform ProcessThere are issues that require further clarity on the Innovation Platform processes and these include;

• Can one platform handle multiple projects with different themes and areas of focus?• What is new with ISA and the platforms compared to the conventional research and development

approaches?• What triggers innovation?

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The work presented at the conference demonstrated that the ISA has great potential for both development and adoption of technologies in support of improved livelihoods as well as for influencing policy development in the region. However for the approach to work effectively, a number of issues must be taken into consideration.

a. The policy environment must be supportive: This includes a range of policy measures related to regulation of technologies and commodities, support programmes for farmers etc.

b. Government support of co-innovation: Governments must be encouraged to allocate funds from national resources for research for development.

c. Institutional arrangements and mainstreaming of the ISA: To enhance effectiveness, it is important that the ISA is mainstreamed into government policy making processes. There is also need to facilitate innovative institutional arrangements that will allow for enhanced collaboration and cooperation as well as improved knowledge and information flows.

d. Stakeholder communication and engagement: Participation of stakeholders is a must for effective implementation of the ISA. This requires effective development of a sound communication strategy with mechanisms of feed-back and reflection.

e. Establishment of stronger links with the private sector: Market related issues have strong implications for the successful adoption and sustainability of innovations in communities. There is need to facilitate establishment and strengthening of linkages with the private sector.

f. Enhancement of entrepreneurial skills: Farmers must be equipped with entrepreneurial skills to enable them to maximise on benefits of co-innovation.

g. Sustainability of platform interventions: Mechanisms for ensuring the sustainability of interventions and their benefits within communities after project close out need to be investigated and incorporated into future projects.

Roles of RAEIN-AfricaParticipants observed that lessons and experience gained with previous platforms justify establishment of more innovation platforms to respond to other priority areas in the region. Among these are climate change, biotechnology and biosafety. The Innovation platforms can also be useful approach for use in the up scalingof other proven technologies such as integrated pest management, conservation agriculture and others as identified by the users of the technologies.

Participants also observed that whilst a lot of headway has been made with regards to biosafety public awareness and public participation, indications are that more effort must still be made on awareness creation and education on modern biotechnology with particular emphasis innovative approaches for enhancing public participation in biosafety decision-making.


Delegates identified the following as roles that RAEIN-Africa will need to focus on going forward:

Resource mobilization and fundingRAEIN-Africa should continue resource mobilization for interfacing science and technology in agricultureand environment. RAEIN-Africa encouraged to consider a wide range of potential strategic partners. Proposals to be developed should reflect the lessons emerging from the conference.

Support to platforms and other Network PartnersThe Network should continue to provide a platform for sharing of experiences and joint learning through regional workshops, conferences as well as electronic and social media including online discussions. RAEIN-Africa should also continue providing support in the areas of:

o Facilitation of the formation Innovation Platforms on common themeso Capacity building to enhance the effectiveness of co-innovation; and innovation platforms o Provision of backstopping to Network partners.

Protection of Intellectual Property Right RAEIN-Africa should strengthen her role as a hub of information sharing but must also strategize on protection of IPR with a view to protecting traditional knowledge of farmers and communities.

Strengthening of partnerships in-countryRAEIN-Africa is encouraged to continue with efforts to strengthen partnerships in-country in order to ensure full institutionalization of activities.

Enhance alignment of regional issues with policy making structuresRAEIN-Africa is encouraged to strengthen links and alignment of issues of regional nature such as biosafety with regional policy making structures such as SADC.

Capacity building for sustainable development RAEIN-Africa should continue with capacity building interventions to ensure capacities of actors in the region are strengthened. Areas of focus should include:

o Policy options for effective implementation of ISAo Stakeholder mapping and stakeholder relations management for platform actorso Gender and youths issues in co-innovation processeso Donor intelligence training for climate change adaptationo Monitoring and evaluation of projectso Effective communication of science o Intellectual property rights and its implications for co-innovation

Roles of PartnersNetwork partners were encouraged to strive for mainstreaming of the ISA in their own institutions and countries. Where possible, champions for the ISA / co-innovation approach to development need to be identified to lobby for mainstreaming of the approach.

Policy Considerations Emerging from the Conference• Climate Change Adaptation vs Mitigation and Funding Arrangements:

Participants at the conference noted a discord between funding priorities of international development partners which place emphasis on mitigation whilst national governments appear to place a stronger emphasis on adaptation. They therefore recommended facilitation of dialogue processes to provide clarity on the issue at all levels.

• Funding for Science & Technology / Research for development: Governments in the region must be encouraged to provide more funding support for science and technology.


• Biotechnology and Biosafety: There is need for clarity on the message to be communicated on genetically modified organisms and the potential role modern biotechnology can play in livelihoods in the region.

• Indigenous knowledge systems:The role of IKS in development needs to be clarified.


ANNEX 1: CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

DAY 1: MONDAY 26 AUGUST, 201308.00 - 09.00 REGISTRATIONOPENING SESSION CHAIR PERSON: Prof FMucavele, RAEIN-Africa Board Member RAPPORTEUR: Dr. P. Dlamini, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat09.00 - 09.15 Welcome Speech

Mr A. T. Mushita, RAEIN-Africa Board Chair09.15 - 09.30 RAEIN-Africa, an Overview

Ms D. Shumba-Mnyulwa, Executive Director, RAEIN-Africa09.30 - 09.45 Key note speech

Mr N. Schelling, Agricultural Councilor, Netherland Embassy, South Africa and DGIS Representative

09.45 - 10.00 Key note addressConstraints Faced By South Africa’s Resource Constrained Farmers: The Contribution of Research by Vice President, NAFU

10.00 - 10.15 Key note addressAn Enabling Environment for S&T for Enhancing Innovation For Sustainable Development by Prof F. N. Mudau, UNISA

10.15 - 10.40 Official OpeningDepartment of Science & Technology, South Africa

10.40 - 11:00 HEALTH BREAKSESSION 1:AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOR RESILIENT LIVELIHOODSChair: Prof Mkamanga , RAEIN-Africa Board Member Rapporteur:Mr K. Mutiro, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat11:00 - 12:25 1. The Role of S&T (or Agricultural Research & Development) in attainment of

MDGs by Mangwende, SANBio.2. Recharging Capacities for Co-Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable

Development in SADC by Ms D. Shumba-Mnyulwa, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.3. Funding for Innovation and Agricultural Transformation through Science and

Technology in SADC by Dr S. Mwale/ Dr T. Samulenga, CCARDESA.4. Innovation systems approach for public participation in policy governance:

Constraints, challenges and prospects for developing countries by Dr P. Dlamini, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.

5. A case for local climate change adaptation innovation focus by Mr X. Ngwadla, CSIR.

12.25 – 14.00 NETWORKING LUNCH SESSION 2 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION: APPROACHES, DISCOURSES AND EXPERIENCES Chair: Mr A. T. Mushita Rapporteur: Dr D. Mulenga14:00 - 16:30 1. ‘Fit’ not ‘Fix’: Exploring Introduction of the Black Australorp Breed as a Pro-poor

Agricultural Innovation in Malawi by Mr A. Safalaoh, University of Nottingham.2. Process Papers from RAEIN-Africa Technology Platforms for Poverty Alleviation:

o The Development Process of an Innovation Systems Approach: The Case of Sweet potato Innovation Platform in Malawi by Dr A. Maluwa, University of Malawi.o Namibia


3. Process Papers from RAEIN-Africa Policy Governance Supported Platforms:o Botswanao SwazilandGroup DiscussionGroup Chairs – Prof I. Mariga; Dr. R. Kingamnkono; Dr S. Mwale; Ms R. Mbulu

16:30-17:00 HEALTH BREAK17:00-18:30 POSTER PRESENTATIONS

• Swaziland Citizen Jury, by Swaziland Public Awareness and Public Participation Platform.• Southern Africa Biosafety and the Environment Programme (BEP) by RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.• Southern African Network for GM Detection Laboratories (SANGL) by RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.• Capacity Building on Liability and Redress and Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing by RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.

19.00-21.00 CONFERENCE COCKTAIL

DAY TWO: TUESDAY 27 AUGUST, 201308.30 - 09.30 Group Feedbacks Session

RAPPORTEUR: Dr. D.K. Mulenga

Feedback Group 1 Feedback Group 2 Feedback Group 3 Feedback Group 4

SESSION 3PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES ON TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATIONS TAR-GETING RESOURCE POOR COMMUNITIES SESSION CHAIR: Prof I. Mariga RAPPORTEUR:Dr. P. Dlamini09.30 - 10.30 1. ISP-TEESA: Breaking New Ground in Co-innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable

Development – What have we learnt? by Ms D. Shumba Mnyulwa, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat.2. Co-learning and innovation in smallholder agricultural pest management: reflecting on advances in developing alternatives to synthetic pesticides in East and Southern Africa by Mr L. Chikukura, University of Zimbabwe.3. Knowledge generation and innovation in resource constrained communities: The case of Dzindi Irrigation Scheme in Limpopo Province of South Africa by Dr. P. Chaminuka, University of Limpopo.

10.30 - 11.00 HEALTH BREAK11.00 - 12:40 1. Innovation for and by Resource Constrained Communities in Malawi: Pitfalls,

Opportunities, and Emerging Lessons for Farmers at Dwale Extension Planning Area in Malawi by Dr A. Maluwa, University of Malawi.2. The Flow of Agricultural Technologies Within Resource Constrained Communities in Hwedza District of Zimbabwe by Mr M Charumbira, Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe. 3. Farmer Voice on the application of tissue culture in Sweet Potato Production in Malawi by Mr M. Matokoso, Farmer.4. Farmer Voice on application of artificial insemination in Cattle Production in Namibia by Mr E. Kandji, Farmer.5. Farmer Voice on agricultural technologies in Limpopo South Africa, Farmer.


12.40 - 14.00 LUNCHSESSION CHAIR: Mr S. Ipinge RAPPORTEUR:Mr K. Mutiro14.00 - 15.30 1. Sweet Potato Tissue Culture and Rural Livelihoods: The Malawi Experience.

2. Banana Tissue Culture and Rural Livelihoods: The Tanzania Experience.3. Artificial Insemination and Rural Incomes: The Namibian Experience.4. Institutional Arrangements and Innovation Brokerage in Malawi Aquaculture and Legumes Innovation Platforms: Getting New Technologies Into Use by Mr N. Moyo, Feed the Future.

15.30 - 15.45 HEALTH BREAK

15.45 - 17.30 1. Assessment of innovations for sustainable livelihoods for smallholder farmers in response to changing climates in semi-arid Zimbabwe through farmer perceptions by

Ms K. Musiyiwa, ICRISAT.2. Institutional and Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Adoption of Conservation Agriculture with Trees in Karatu and Mwanga Districts, Tanzania by Mr E. Nassari, EnviroCare.3. The farmer field school as an agricultural innovation market place: Experiences from the coffee sector in Zimbabwe by Mr D. Kutywayo.

Group Discussions Group Chairs (Dr. E. Mneney; Dr. C. Mungoma; Mr A. Safalaoh; Dr D. Earnshaw)

DAY THREE: 28 AUGUST 201308.30 - 09.30 Group Feedbacks Session

RAPPORTEUR: Dr. D.K. Mulenga

Feedback Group 1 Feedback Group 2 Feedback Group 3 Feedback Group 4

SESSION 4INNOVATING FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION CHAIR PERSON: RAPPORTEUR: 09.30 - 10.30 1. Progress on implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in Southern Africa and

arrangements for public participation in decision making by Mr A. Owusu-Biney, UNEP-GEF.2. Biotechnology and biosafety initiatives in SADC: Guidelines for handling GMOs by Dr Molapong, SADC, Secretariat.3. Challenges presented by gaps in regulation of modern biotechnology: Perspective of policy maker. Mr S. Zuke, Swaziland Environment Authority. 4. Using an Innovation Public Awareness and Participatory Platform to Facilitate Enactment of the Swaziland Biosafety Act of 2012 by Prof. A. Dlamini, University of Swaziland.

10.30 - 11:00 HEALTH BREAK11.00 - 12:00 1. Challenges presented by gaps in regulation of modern biotechnology: Perspective of

rural communities (Botswana)2. Enhancing Biotechnology and Biosafety Public awareness and participation in Botswana by Dr. S. Ngwako, Botswana College of Agriculture.


3. Implications of traditional knowledge systems on adaptation to climate change by Mr N Zimba, Zambia Climate Change Network.4. Perceptions on climate change and its impacts on ecosystem services in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania and Taita, Kenya: Implications for policy Action by Mr Simeon P. L. Shimbe, Sokoine University of Agriculture.

CLOSING SESSIONRapporteur: Mr K Mutiro12.00 - 13:00 Way Forward

Ms D. Shumba-Mnyulwa, RAEIN-Africa Secretariat

Official Closing AddressDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

13.00 LUNCH AND DEPARTURE


ANNEX 2: ABSTRACTS BY SESSION

Opening Session

Welcome Address: Mr Mushita, RAEIN-Africa Board ChairProtocol…

• The Netherlands Embassy DGIS Representative• The NFU President• The Deputy Director General of the Department of Science and Technology• RAEIN-Africa Board Members here present• Other Distinguished guests and dear friends

I am honoured to welcome you all to the international conference on “Innovation for Resilient Livelihoods: Connecting Theory to Practice”. Significant investments have been made in Science and Technology, Research and Development in an effort to address the growing levels of poverty and food insecurity particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite these investments Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be plagued by poverty and food insecurity especially for resource constrained communities. Most countries will not be able to achieve their MDG targets particularly that of eradicating poverty and hunger by 2015. In recent years climate change has emerged to be one of the major threats to initiatives meant to reduce poverty and increase the resilience of livelihood systems of the poor. Climate change, if not taken head on, promises to cause a huge dent on the trajectory out of poverty for resource constrained communities of the SADC.

This Conference comes at a time the region is facing rising poverty levels, increasing unemployment, declining agricultural productivity and increased loss of biodiversity. The Conference provides us with the opportunity to reflect, strategise and recharge capacities required for us to make a meaningful contribution to poverty eradication as academicians, as policy makers, as government, as civil society, as community representatives, as ordinary farmers, as scientists, as marketers and as private firms. I am pleased to see such a good mix of the different actors, working on making the eradication of poverty a reality in the SADC, attending this conference.

RAEIN-Africa together with all its Partners in the SADC and beyond, have been working on maximising the benefits of science and technology and indigenous knowledge systems by developing innovative ways of managing their interface with society. This has seen the creation of multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholderplatforms in partner countries working towards inclusive and sustainable development innovations. This Conference is therefore a platform through which we will;

1. Identify opportunities and challenges in the application of the Innovation Systems in development of pro-poor innovations that enhance resilience of livelihood systems in resource constrained communities of southern Africa.

2. Provide an opportunity for actors in science, technology and development to synthesise, share, document experiences and collaborate in co-innovation processes for inclusive and sustainable development and

3. Synthesize lessons emerging from RAEIN-Africa implemented Innovation for sustainable Development – Towards the creation of an enabling environment for Innovation in Southern Africa (ISP-TEESA)and other similar initiatives from the region and beyond and identify emerging policy options for strengthening co-innovation processes for positive development outcomes in the SADC.

There are no ready recipes or magic formulas on most effective initiatives for the social, economic and political development of our countries. However I believe that the work that RAEIN-Africa and Partners have engaged in over the past five years creates enough background to stimulate open and serious discussions on how we can maximise the benefits of Science and Technology and Indigenous Knowledge systems for the betterment of resource constrained communities of the SADC. I therefore would like to invite all of us to be open and creative in our debates and bravely present non-tradition approaches, ideas and proposals, based on


the best experience we have had from implementing various programmes in our countries.

Once again on behalf of myself and the RAEIN-Africa Board and Secretariat I would like to thank you all for attending this very important conference. Your experience, expertise and readiness to share your knowledge and ideas are highly valuable and needed as SADC makes efforts to create a more sustainable trajectory out of poverty for resource constrained communities.

I wish all of us fruitful discussions, interesting findings, observations and establishment of new and exciting collaborative arrangements and partnerships.

I Thank you_______________________________________________________________________________________

Key Note Speech:DGIS/Embassy of NetherlandsMr Niek Schelling, Agricultural Counsellor, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands at Pretoria, South Africa 26th August 2013

Dear:- Chairman and Members of RAEIN-Africa Board - Programme Director - Representatives of the Regional Bodies - Representatives of various Government Departments- Colleagues from other Embassies- Members of the press- Distinguished guests- Ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning!My name is Niek Schelling and I am Agricultural Counsellor for Southern Africa, at the Dutch Embassy in Pretoria. As representative of the Dutch Government, I feel very honoured to introduce on the theme of science and technology in development, and how this relates to our Government policy on Development Cooperation.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The key issue of this conference is: identify how investments in science and technology can be enhanced to really contribute to fight hunger and alleviate poverty. With all the investments in agricultural and environmental technologies so far, we have not achieved the expected results in many countries in Africa. But we strongly believe that science and technology have a great potential to give answers to our questions. So somehow we must improve our approaches and become more effective.

The challenges of protecting our environment and the impact of climate change come faster and closer towards all us. They more and more interact visibly to worldwide food production systems and especially in vulnerable areas and communities in Africa.

Developments of science and technology are also proceeding faster than ever, and innovations are abundant. The spread of new technologies is being shaped by highly globalised patterns of investments and information. And usually out of reach of Impoverished communities in Africa.

This forces us to question how the role of science and technology can become more relevant to really address crucial development challenges.

Early development theories, such as the “big push” and quick “take-off” and “the pro-poor technologies”


concepts were to simple and have shown their constraints. Many countries did not “take off”; the “pro-poor technologies” did not necessarily solve the poverty challenges. Some African countries experience an economic boom, caused by the discovery of oil, gas or minerals, but they hardly develop their rural areas, or solve their poverty and food security problems.

Southern Africa has made many efforts to create an enabling environment for innovation systems to address the agricultural and environmental challenges. But the gains of this have not been able to address the mounting challenges: despite investments, small-holder farmers are still battling with food insecurity, poverty and declining quality of the environment.

What approaches, methods, policies and capacities are then required to ensure reliance of livelihoods systems in the region? Addressing the interface of science, technology, policy and society is high on agenda of many countries and Development agencies.

Ladies and gentlemen

The Netherlands Development Cooperation is fully aware of these challenges. In response to these, the Dutch Government spends 50% of its development aid in addressing poverty issues in Africa. Our strategy is aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Dutch contribution to four thematic areas:

1. security and legal order, 2. sexual and reproductive health, 3. water quality and availability4. food security.

In 2012 the focus of our development cooperation policy shifted from social sectors to production sectors. We see sustainable economic growth driven by private entrepeneurship as a key engine for enduring povertyreduction and social development. This strategy supports self-reliance of countries and resilient populations. It also connects between development objectives and global public goods: such as climate change and biodiversity policies. It is within this framework, that fora such as RAEIN-Africa’s, are supported by my Government.

The Dutch Government wants to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the novel technologies such as biotechnology, to improve impact of our development efforts. For over a decade my Government supports the multistakeholder platform on biotechnology and biosafety. It has addressed small-holder farmer’s challenges and it created an enabling environment for innovations for sustainable development.

In the nineties we supported four “Special biotechnology” programmes for resource- constrained communities in Colombia, Kenya, India and Zimbabwe. The last one has evolved into a regional programme that is now the RAEIN-Africa. Its ISP-TEESA programme has been implemented from 2009 to date and it has generated exciting experiences on managing the science-technology-policy -society interface.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This conference provides a Platform for you to reflect on the way how multi-stakeholder, participatory and inclusive approaches can be successful to achieve development goals. These approaches will move us away from traditional charity, speaking of “donors” and “recipients”, away from “technology developers” and “users”. We will rather speak of a global and mutual partnerships, based on the core of participatory and inclusive growth.

This conference provides an opportunity to strategize and make science, technology and policy, more relevant for the benefit of the poor. The experiences you will be sharing are all unique and essential for the way for-ward. Give us your concrete examples, so we can learn from you: Not only is the process important but also the substance. As close as possible to reality in your particular circumstances.


I expect that in the future we will see more interwoven approaches, in which science, policy and society co-construct each other. We will see multiple private-public partnerships between new actors, farmers, civil society, private companies and research institutions.

I am convinced that the strength and abilities of RAEIN-Africa will mobilise support and engage us all, in the worlds` challenges. I am encouraged by all present here: Governments representatives, civil society organisations and companies that want to move forward: away from traditional developers and disseminators, into responsible participants in this joint innovation process for social and environmental improvement.

Eradication of extreme poverty will continue to be a major goal for countries of SADC. I see responsible participation of stakeholders as the key to innovative and inclusive growth, food security and poverty alleviation.

I strongly believe this conference will recharge our inspiration and commitment to eradicating poverty finally allowing us all to “take off”.

Thank you _______________________________________________________________________________________

Session 1: An Enabling Environment for Science, Technology and Innovation for Resilient Livelihoods

Session 2: Science Technology and Innovation for Poverty Alleviation: Approaches, Discourses and Experiences

Abstract 1:‘Fit’ not ‘Fix’: Exploring Introduction of the Black Australorp Breed as a Pro-poor Agri-cultural Innovation in Malawi Andy Safalaoh, Sujatha Raman and Ian Forbes Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. [email protected]; [email protected]; +447769095241

Introduction of agricultural technologies is widely recognised as one of the cornerstones of productivity enhancement intended to bring about improved livelihoods of the poor. Despite their much-publicised ‘promises’, their adoption and the vaunted ‘pro-poor’ benefits are often times unsatisfactory. This study seeks to address the question on how innovation pathways could ensure that technological interventions significantlycontribute to livelihoods of the poor. Specifically, the study investigates enablers of and barriers to the adoption of the Black Australorp (BA) chicken breed in Malawi. The BA breed was introduced to increase egg and meat production of the local chicken through crossbreeding. The study draws on and integrates key concepts from innovation system studies, diffusion of innovations research and the sustainable livelihoods approach. The investigation takes a qualitative approach, using a case study research strategy. The study site is Thyolo District, Malawi. Participants were selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and an analysis of relevant documents. Preliminary findings show that ‘no one size fits all’. Enablers of successful BA adoption include congruence with adopters’ needs, affordability, accessibility and sustenance of production. Availabilityof complementary innovations such as vaccines and enabling policy and institutional frameworks are also crucial. Barriers to non-adoption and discontinuance include non-availability or inadequate supply of the technology, mismatch between technology requirements and available resources, high poverty levels, weak institutional support mechanisms and preference for alternative technologies. It is concluded that ‘pro-poorness’ of agricultural technologies is not about ‘technological fix’ but ‘technology fit’ through creation of a context-specific enabling environment.

Keywords: Technology adoption, context, barriers, enabling environment, pathways


Abstract 2: The Development Process of an Innovation Systems Approach: The Case of Sweet Potato Innovation Platform in Malawi. Dr. Alfred Maluwa1, Raymond Chimsale2, Dr. Moses Maliro3, Dr. Felistus Chipungu4 and Felix Chipojola4. 1University of Malawi, Kamuzu College of Nursing, Lilongwe, Malawi; 2CADECOM Chikwawa, Chikwawa, Malawi; 3LUANAR, Bunda Campus, Lilongwe, Malawi; 4Bvumbwe Agricultural Research Station, Limbe, Malawi.

Malawi developed and is implementing an innovation systems approach through a sweet potato production and value chain project. The project started in 2011 and will be concluded in 2014. The project is being implemented in Makhanga Extension Planning Area in Nsanje district. The area was chosen because the people were food insecure due to failure of maize the main staple food caused by frequent floods and droughts. Farmers in the area have adopted sweet potato to mitigate against the food insecurity. The crop is drought and flood tolerant, nutritious and farmers harvest multiple crops annually due to its short growing cycle. The platform promotes interaction of various actors in the sweet potato value chain, which is an innovative way of approaching food security, as opposed to the traditional way of involving actors in one segment of the value chain. The members of the innovation platform were selected according to their expertise and relevance to the project from government, NGOs, local leaders, community members and the business community. The RAEIN-Africa National Working Group through the National Contact Point at Bunda College initiated and took a leading role in the formation of the platform and Catholic Development Commission (CADECOM) was selected to coordinate the platform activities. CADECOM had more activities than others that were related to sweet potato production and value chain in the area. All the platform members participated in the development of the proposal and underwent 2 training sessions in innovation systems approach which improved understanding among all the members. The farmers had additional training on production and value chain of sweet potatoes. The innovation platform has enrolled 110 farmers which are organized through clusters of villages under village heads. This arrangement is efficient because the farmers support each other within their clusters. The community members perceive the innovation platform as a source of new knowledge from research and extension and it has assisted them to change their mind set by cultivating the spirit of self-help. The organization and management of innovative platforms requires dedicated people at secretariat, robust steering committee and dedicated local communities that are ready to participate in the learning and implementation of activities that boost their agricultural, production, processing and marketing. The system is ideal in a setting where extension services are decentralized and implemented in a pluralistic manner.

Key words: Sweet potato; Innovation system approach; Farming community members; Food insecurity; Drought and flood mitigation;

Abstract 3: Enhancing Biotechnology and Biosafety Public awareness and participation in Botswana: Experiences of the Botswana Innovation Platform S. Ngwako*, K. P. Walker, D. George, M. Matsheka, T. Moyo, M. Pholo, M. K. Molelekeng, U. Batlang, D. Gaborekwe, T. Mfolwe, F. Mmereki, D. Machacha, K. Lethola, C. Mazereku, K. Monare, N. Bodilenyane, N. Radijeng, B. Sesanyane and O. Mapitse Department of Agricultural Research, Private Bag 0033, Gaborone, Botswana * Corresponding Author: [email protected]

The Botswana Biotechnology and Biosafety Public Awareness and Participation Innovative Platform(BOPAPIP) was established with a mandate to promote and facilitate public awareness and education on issues of biotechnology and biosafety in Botswana. The outcome of the process was expected to be processingand finalization of the National Biosafety Framework as well as suggestions on mechanisms for public participation in biosafety decision-making in line with Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol. The platform included actors of different background including scientists, farmers, seeds companies and media representative. The platform embarked on several awareness activities with the purpose of Enhancing knowledge of stakeholders to facilitate participation in decision making regarding the safe


use of biotechnology in Botswana for sustainable livelihood. This awareness creation helped to facilitate mainstreaming of Biosafety issues in the national agenda. The awareness creation has resulted in the debate and approval of the policy on biotechnology and biosafety by policy makers paving the way for the development of the bill and regulations to be discussed and passed by the policy makers, as they have realized the need for the country to have the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) in place to guard against the effects of Biotechnology and Biosafety in Botswana. Kgotla meetings were found to be an efficient mechanism for engaging with large members of the public with a view to raising awareness and facilitating dialogue at community level.

Keywords: Awareness, biotechnology, biosafety, GMO, Kgotla, workshops

Abstract 4: Application of the Innovation Systems Approach for Public Awareness and Participation on Biosafety: The Case of Swaziland Magagula C.N1*. Dlamini A.M.2; Dladla G.3; Mhlanga, C.3; Dlamini C.Z.3; Zuke S.3 1 University of Swaziland, Department of Biological Sciences, P/B 4 Kwaluseni, Swaziland. [email protected]; +268 2517 0292; +268 7605 8258; 2 University of Swaziland, Department of Animal Science, P/B Luyengo, Swaziland; 3 Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Mbabane Swaziland.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) addresses trans-boundary movement of living modified organisms. Swaziland acceded to the CPB in 2006 at the same when the National Biosafety Framework was completed. However, there, were delays in adoption of the Biosafety Bill of 2008. The long delay in enactment of the low was attributed to a number of hindrances, related to minimal understanding of the country’s obligations with regard to the CPB. To overcome this challenge, a multi-stakeholder platform, based on the Innovation Systems Approach (ISA) was utilised to facilitate and catalyse the approval process of biosafety regulatory mechanisms, emphasising stakeholder-based initiatives. The Public Awareness and Participation Platform (PAPP) was composed of diverse representation of affected and influential stakeholders whose expertise helped to advance the level of awareness on biosafety issues in a sustainable way. A number of innovative activities were formulated and implemented through surveys on biotechnology and farming, disseminating outreach materials, interactive workshops, field tours, public debates and citizens’ jury, amongst others. These activities were dynamic and could be modified based on the platform’s experiences and targeted towards enhancing its capacity, due to continuous feedback loops of the participation and learning processes. Utilisation of the ISA yielded a number of benefits for the platform and country. These included: improved and balanced reporting on biotechnology and biosafety by the media; increased participation of stakeholders in decision making process towards the Bill’s adoption; successful training of trainers on Biosafety inspections and enactment of the Biosafety Bill to an Act of Parliament in 2012. Additionally, the regulatory authority is already utilising the platform’s achievements by initiating strategies for interventions on biosafety, such as the mainstreaming biosafety into education curricula as well as mainstreaming of the ISA to influence policy. PAPP’s experiences have highlighted that the ISA can be effective in conveying highly scientific informationto sectors of society that cannot easily comprehend it, thus facilitating the appropriate regulation of such technologies.

Keywords: Innovation Systems Approach, Public Awareness and Participation platform, multi-stakeholders approach; innovation; biosafety


Session 3: Practical Experiences on Technology Development and Innovations Targeting Resource Poor Communities

Abstract 5:Co-learning and innovation in smallholder agricultural pest management: reflecting on advances in developing alternatives to synthetic pesticides in East and Southern Africa Brighton M. Mvumi1*, Larry Chikukura1, Emmanuel T. Nyahangare2, John F. Kamanula3, Stephen P. Nyirenda4, Phosiso Sola5/6, Joshua O. Ogendo7, Omari Mponda8, Steve R. Belmain9, Philip C. Stevenson9/10 1Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe; 2Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe; 3Department of Chemistry, Mzuzu University, P/Bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu 2, Malawi; 4Department of Agricultural Research Services, Lunyangwa Station, P.O. Box 59, Mzuzu, Malawi, 5Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources, PO Box BE 398, Belvedere, Harare, Zimbabwe; 6Centre for International Forestry Research c/o World Agroforestry Centre, P.O. Box 30677 -00100 Nairobi, Kenya; 7Department of Crops, Horticulture and Soils, Egerton University, P.O. Box 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya; 8Naliendele Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 509 Mtwara, Tanzania; 9Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK; 10Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom *Corresponding author: [email protected] and [email protected]

Most adaptive research tends to lack involvement of clients and technology end-users, with possible limited uptake of technologies or outright rejection by farmers and/or service providers. This paper reports how a network of scientists at national agricultural research institutes and non-governmental organisations in eight African countries worked together with advanced research institutes and farmers to generate and disseminate pesticidal plant research results, knowledge and skills at national, continental and inter-continental levels through multi-institutional and multidisciplinary collaboration. This diverse network has a unique knowledge and expertise in biorational agricultural pest management, which strengthened knowledge about use of pesticidal plants for smallholder farming. The paper draws specific lessons and learning on innovation from progress made by researchers in Southern Africa working with stakeholders in the development of safer, effective and environmentally-friendly options of managing stored-grain pests, cattle ticks and vegetable pests. The network held a series of workshops through which priority pesticidal plants were identified and some of which have since been tested and found effective. Through these learning platforms, the network has produced, shared and disseminated research and development ideas, protocols, results and skills. The outputs were shared at international conferences/meetings in Africa, Asia and Europe. The quality of research has been raised considerably as evidenced by the number of published refereed papers, popular articles and conference proceedings. Since the network’s inception, several research projects have been initiated and other synergistic associations have been forged, propagation materials collected, and techniques for propagation and conservation of botanical pesticides developed. The paper reports practical experiences and strategies for co-learning and co-innovation among stakeholders in agricultural research and development and opportunities for increasing availability of food through capacity building and use of locally available pesticidal plants especially for resource-poor farmers and possibly organic farmers.

Key words: Pesticidal plants, multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaboration, network, information-sharing mechanisms, learning platforms, capacity-building

Abstract 6: Knowledge generation and innovation in resource constrained communities: The case of Dzindi Irrigation Scheme in Limpopo Province of South Africa Petronella Chaminuka, Mmapatla Senyolo, Mukondelele Makatu and Prince Mageza, University of Limpopo

Technology is a major force driving agriculture and its development and dissemination determines future food production and prospects for poverty alleviation. In most smallholder agricultural systems, technological development and implementation is based on top-down approaches that do not enable rural communities to take ownership of the processes. Furthermore, limited effort is made to identify locally driven


processes of technological changes, and their related drivers as key determinants for informing technological development. Understanding drivers of change and rural innovation systems is essential to enable effective technology development that is able to drive processes of agricultural development forward. In addition, it is important to understand the effects of different forms of technology household livelihoods and farm productivity. The general aim of the study was to analyse processes of knowledge generation and rural innovation systems over the past thirty years in resource limited communities. Specifically the study identified technological changes that occurred, their main drivers, and analysed processes through which knowledge and information are transferred between various stakeholders in resource constrained communities. The study also identified practical experiences in agricultural innovation. The study was conducted at Dzindi Irrigation Scheme in Limpopo Province of South Africa focussing on use and development of irrigation technology, chemical pest control, use of inorganic fertilisers, mechanised labour, hybrid seed and market development for maize, cabbage, chinese cabbage (dabadaba) and nightshade (muxe). Data were collected using participatory several tools/methods, which included mapping exercises, focussed group discussions, community workshops and transect walks. A household survey using an open ended survey tool was also used to collect household specific data. Results of the study indicate that there have been changes in farmer use of technologies, which can be traced back over a period spanning more than thirty years. The changes included new crops grown, new ways of ploughing, use of new inputs and development of farmer driven innovation to counteract challenges such as pests and disease problems and high costs of production. The changes in technology at Dzindi were driven by several drivers which included government support, linkages with the private sector and market development. Farmer livelihoods were impacted in both positive and negative ways. The use of hybrid seed and chemical fertilisers enabled farmers to increase yields particularly for maize, but increased the costs of production. In response to market development farmers domesticated and commercialised crops previously growing in the wild. They also developed on farm vegetable processing as a way to counter negative market effects. The use of mechanised land preparation enabled farmers to plant all their land and improve their incomes. Practical experiences in rural innovation at Dzindi provide useful learning experiences for other farmers and can guide policy makers and development practitioners regarding the type of support needed to enable technological change that is sustainable.

Key words: Technology, participatory methods, commercialisation, market development.

Abstract 7: Innovation for and by Resource Constrained Communities in Malawi: Pitfalls, Opportunities, and Emerging Lessons for Farmers at Dwale Extension Planning Area in Malawi. Alfred Maluwa, PhD; University of Malawi, P/Bag 1, Lilongwe, Malawi. Felistus Chipungu, PhD; Bvumbwe Agricultural Station, Limbe, Malawi. Margaret Sikwese, PhD; Malawi Institute of Management, Lilongwe, Malawi. Felix Chipojola; Bvumbwe Agricultural Research Station, Limbe, Malawi.

A study was conducted at Dwale Extension Planning Area (EPA) in Thyolo district to determine the development and dissemination of technologies and resultant adaption, adoption and/or rejection of the technologies by resource constrained communities over the past 30 years. A survey involving key informantinterviews with leaders of institutions, focus group discussions with members of the farming communities and stakeholder mapping was used to collect data. Results show that there is diversity of crops that are being farmed and livestock that is being raised in the area. The main crops included maize, beans, pigeon peas, onions, green beans, carrot, sweet potatoes, soybeans, ground nuts and cotton. The results further show that finger millet, pearl millet, sorghum, bambara nuts, ground nuts, barter beans, Green and black gram (mphodza), cowpeas, local maize, sunflower and beans have been abandoned over the years. Crops like millets, sorghum, local maize, nuts and beans were mainly used for subsistence and hence were abandoned because of lack of research activities, back up extension services and good seeds. Sunflower, though a cash crop was abandoned because the crop demanded more land resources. Farmers at the EPA are innovative and have therefore adapted some of the introduced technologies to suit their limited land resources, such as the spacing and number of seed per hole during the planting of maize. The farmers rejected technologies that are labour, land and capital intensive such as the Chinese compost manure, construction of modern animal house and dedication of land for animal pasture. The farmers have been very successful in their farming activities


due to the physical location of the EPA, climatic conditions, favourable government policies on technology development and transfer, availability of social amenities, availability of supportive farmer based and non-governmental organizations. Results show that technologies that target resource poor farmers should directly respond to farmers’ needs without demanding for increased labour, land and financial costs.

Key words: Resource constrained communities; technology development and dissemination; abandoned crops; rejected technologies; technology adoption and adaption.

Abstract 8: Artificial Insemination as a method of improving cattle productivity and disseminating improved genetic materials to smallholder farmers in Otjinene, Namibia K. L. Shiningavamwe1, G. Tjipura-Zaire2, R. Mbulu3 & E. Naomab4 1Division of Livestock Research, 2Central veterinary Laboratory; Ministry of Agriculture, Water & Forestry, Windhoek, Namibia; [email protected]; [email protected]; 3kfw Development Bank, Windhoek, Namibia, [email protected]; 4University of Namibia, [email protected].

In Namibia, approximately 60% of households own cattle, of with nearly 40% are poor resource farmers in communal areas, where poverty and food insecurity levels are more prominent. As far as cattle farming has a potential to transform lives of thousand households, cattle productivity has remained relatively low due to various constraints among others low genetic potential of indigenous cattle and low carving rates compoundedby low annual take-offs. The same sentiments on constraints were also shared by the farmers’ representatives during the stakeholders’ workshop in July 2010 in Windhoek. In the same vein, the findings of baseline surveyconducted in Otjinene in July 2011 similarly validated and confirmed that reproductive performance of communal herds were constrained mainly by lack of good quality bulls, couples with high cost of bulls. In an effort to realize the desired productivity, a project on artificial insemination (AI) was commissioned in 2011 with funding from RAEIN-Africa. The objective of the project was to evaluate AI as a mean for increasing cattle productivity and profitability in Otjinene. Since reproduction is a complex aspect, it required an innovation solution. To this end, the innovation system approach was used in implementing the project to ensure diverse stakeholders’ participation and contribution to decisions. In addition, the project also aimed to strengthen and develop capacities for stakeholders to effectively carry out AI and respond to other arising challenges. A total of 98 cows were brought to the 3 community based insemination sites where they were dewormed and vaccinated. Communities agreed on using those insemination sites based on their distances and quality (e.g. fenced off, grazing capacity, water availability and holding capacity). Cows received lick supplements in addition to the natural grazing. Of the 98 cows only 82 were synchronised and inseminated as the rest were either pregnant at arrival or too wild to be handled. Pregnancy diagnosis was done 3 months after insemination. The highest result of 75% was observed at Okatjana site indicating that AI in a communalsetting can achieve desirable outcomes. However, the project highlighted the need to improve pasture and feed management in addition to the general management practices. There is also a need to revise the current livestock improvement act of 1970 so that it responds to the dynamics of the smallscale farming systems. The project indicated the commitment of farmers in Otjinene to gain access to better quality breeds and willingness to collaborate in this regard.

Key words:

Abstract 9: Innovation systems approach in improving farmers’ livelihood: the case of banana tissue culture in Tanzania Rwegasira G. M.1, Mbanzibwa D. R.2, Saria N.3 and Msuya E.4 1Department of crop Science and Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3005 Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania; 2Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute, P. O Box 6226 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; 3Envirocare, P. O Box 9824 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; 4Dept. of Agric. Economics & Agribusiness, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3005 Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: +255 754 595058


Agricultural researchers strive to develop technologies to solve farmers’ problems in Tanzania. However, there have been limited success and lack of sustainability of projects developed by researchers for farmers.Linearity approach in delivering technologies whereby researchers, extension officers and development workers interact in a way that places farmers at the receiving end of the chain has been blamed for failure. Based on this experience, an innovation system approach (ISA) is being employed to improve livelihoods of banana farmers in Mkuyuni ward, Morogoro region through planting of disease free tissue culture (TC) materials. Through the ISA, platform members have identified lack of clean banana planting materialsand poor crop husbandry as the major constraints of banana production in the area. Following this observations, researchers at Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute and Sokoine University of Agriculture have employed tissue culture (TC) technology to massively produce disease free planting materials. Since research institute don’t work at community level, a non-governmental organization (NGO) experienced in community development projects was involved. Preliminary observations suggest the ISA is registering success in improving banana production in Mkuyuni ward. Positive responses observed include formation of groups for trainings by farmers themselves, continued attendance to trainings suggested by farmers and sharing of indigenous knowledge on banana disease management. Hence only demand driven banana management technologies are developed. For instance, banana varieties produced using TC technology were those identified by farmers. They include Mzuzu, Mtwike, Bahama, Bukoba and Malindi. In the laboratory, the parent plants were first diagnosed for diseases and only diseases free materials were used for multiplication using TC technology. Tissue culture challenges included contamination and differential response of different varieties to MS media. Corms of 25% of collected suckers were unsuitable as they were infected with C. sordidus. About 70% of the remained suckers were endophytically infected by Proteus spp., Erwinia spp., Klebsiella spp. and Staphylococcus spp (bacteria) and Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., Penicillium spp. and Candica spp. (Fungi). Yet, a total of 434 banana stands have been planted and established well in farmers’ fields. It is noted that organization structures, nature of contracts and responsibilities of employees in collaborating institutes have bearing on effectiveness of the ISA. This serves as a lesson for adjustment in the current and future projects. Successful adoption of TC material in Mkuyuni ward, albeit in preliminary stages, implies that the ISA could be employed in other community development projects.

Key words: Banana, Tissue culture, Innovation system Approach, Contaminations

Abstract 10: Institutional arrangements and innovation brokerage in the Malawi Aquaculture and Legumes innovation platforms : Getting new aquaculture and legumes technologies into use. Nobel Moyo, Integrating Nutrition in Value Chains (INVC) Project, Malawi: Email: [email protected]

The Malawi Research into Use (MRIU) Programme set up commodity-based innovation platforms along aquaculture and legumes value chains as a way of bringing actors together to agree on commodity/sector improvement strategies, hence embracing the innovation systems thinking. The hypothesis of research into use (RIU) was that an innovation systems approach would prove more effective than linear approaches of getting research outputs into use for the benefit of the poor. Malawi RIU adopted the role of innovation brokerage as key in creating a conducive environment for better utilization of research. Malawi RIU found a niche in brokerage to begin transforming partnerships, interactions, working routines, policies, as well as the production and use of knowledge; treating brokering as a product of three factors: demand articulation, network building and innovation process management within such networks. This paper describes the innovation systems approach of the Malawi RIU country programme in improving the availability of fingerlings (fish seed) of improved tilapia and legumes seed of released varieties towards developing the fish farming and legumes sectors in Malawi. It examines innovation brokerage in aquaculture and legumes, highlighting the interactions of actors in the two commodity value chains. The paper also discusses how Malawi RIU facilitated the adoption of new technologies by way of fostering interactions amongst various stakeholders from private sector, government agencies, academia, NGOs, research institutions and farmers. The paper also identifies issues that need to be considered for the system to be effective in enabling innovationin value chains. The paper is based on documentary analysis of the experiences and lessons learned on


innovation brokerage, innovation platforms and multi-stakeholder interactions. The paper concludes that Malawi RIU mainly facilitated a new way of making the technologies available through a continuum of brokerage processes and interactions. The legumes platform has negotiated a new working practice for seed multiplication, while the fish farming platform has, in addition to improving access to improved tilapia, sought to strengthen the policy regime that governs the fisheries sector through the guidelines for fingerlings production.

Key words: Innovation, brokerage, innovation platform, networks, partnerships, technologies, aquaculture, legumes.

Abstract 11: Sweetpotato Technology and Innovative Systems Approach to Sustain Household Food Security and Cash Income in Malawi Chipojola, FM1, Chipungu, FP1, Maliro, M6, NjolomaJ6, Chiipanthenga, M2, Chimsale, R3, Maluwa AO5 and Benesi IRM4

1Bvumbwe Agricultural Research Station, PO Box 5748, Limbe, Malawi 2Kasinthula Agricultural Research Station, PO Box 28, Chikwawa, Malawi 3Catholic Development Commission in Malawi (CADECOM), PO Box 162, Chikwawa, Malawi 4Chetedze Agricultural Research Station, PO Box 258, Lilongwe 5University of Malawi, Kamuzu College of Nursing, P/Bag 1, Lilongwe, Malawi 6Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bunda College, PO Box 219, Lilongwe.

The Malawi Government is currently focusing on reducing poverty through strategies that increase agricultural productivity. The current challenges of climate change which are impacting on maize the staple crop provide a new learning opportunity for Malawi in terms of crop diversification and their associated production technologies that are resilient to climate change pressures. Sweetpotato is one of the widely grown crops in the country and it offers opportunities for improving food security and income. Makhanga EPA is prone to both floods during the rainy season as a result of upland water flows and droughts resulting in critical shortage of planting vines due to poor seed management. Although high-yielding improved varieties of staple crops exist in the world today, farmers in cradles of crop genetic diversity continue to plant local in association with modern varieties for various reasons which include resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. RAEIN-Africa is supporting the sweetpotato project in Makhanga EPA Nsanje district which is implemented by the Platform members including Government institutions, NGOs, traders, communities, academia and civil society. The aims are to promote and facilitate innovative approach to utilize biotechnology to increase sweetpotato production by focusing on the entire sweetpotato value chain actors. An initial multi-stakeholderscooping study was undertaken in 2011 to ensure that the needs of the farmers and other actors in the sweetpotato value chain are taken into account during project implementation. The participatory studies revealed that availability and access to clean planting material was the most limiting production factor to sustaining the value chain. A marketing study from the same area revealed that buyers demand improved varieties while post harvest shelf life is an important variety specific trait for household food security and delayed marketing underlining the importance of cultivar diversity. Further, findings revealed that farmers use their own cultural practices due to knowledge gap that existed between themselves, researchers and extension personnel in sweetpotato production suggesting the need for an innovative approach to improve productivity. In 2010/11 season, preferred farmer varieties were collected for cleaning and made available back to farmers.Use of conventionally cleaned vines associated with the demonstration of best bet production practices doubled farmers’ yields from 90 tons in 2011 to 180 tons in 2012. It is envisaged that the application of biotechnology to access clean vines and variety diversity will feed, empower and sustain the established community based vine multiplication nurseries and provide an even more opportunity for increased productivity. The technologies need to be up-scaled in other communities and therefore facilitating existing land and labour to be deployed more efficiently while sustaining the value chain.

Key words: Sweetpotato, tissue culture, cultural practices, Makhanga EPA, food security, income, yields


Abstract 12: Assessment of Innovations for Sustainable Livelihoods for Smallholder Farmers in Response to Changing Climates in Semi - Arid Zimbabwe through Farmer Perceptions Kumbirai Musiyiwa1,2, Walter Leal Filho, Justice Nyamangara and David Harris 1Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Lohbruegger Kirchstraße 65, Sector S4 / Room 0.38, 21033 Hamburg, Germany. 2Physical address: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Matopos Research Station, P.O. Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Email: [email protected]; Phone: +263 83 8311-5. Fax: +263 83 8253. Mobile: +263

Increasing sources of livelihoods and of income through appropriate innovation platforms may contribute to reduced food insecurity and increase resilience of rain-fed smallholder farmers in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe. Negative impacts of climate change and variability are mainly projected for smallholder production. Small grain and livestock production will remain important sources of livelihoods for Zimbabweancommunal farmers in semi-arid areas in future climates. Platforms for innovations for crop and livestock production need to be strengthened to decrease vulnerability of smallholders. The objectives of this study were to assess agricultural innovations in semi-arid smallholder areas and suggest innovations which may improve livelihoods in current and future climates through analysis of farmer perceptions. Sites selected were semi-arid Matobo (AER IV, V) and Chiredzi (AER V) districts of Zimbabwe. Livelihood sources were identified through household surveys. Interventions/strategies introduced by institutions and farmer organizations and possible gaps in innovations were identified through focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Climatic factors in both districts and soil fertility in Matobo were some of the main constraints to production. Crop technologies/interventions by institutions and farmer organizations included irrigation for horticulture, soil fertility management, improving access to fertilizer, and access to grain markets in Matobo. In Chiredzitechnologies/interventions included small grain production and soil fertility management innovations. Farmers particularly in Chiredzi identified livestock production to be one of the most important sources of livelihoods. Poor informal markets and bargaining power as well as shortage of grazing land, in addition to pests and diseases were however cited as some of the main constraints to livestock production. For livestock systems there may be need for enhancing platforms for fodder production and grazing management and market access to increase income for households. Small grain production may be enhanced by innovations in processing.

Keywords: Climate change, smallholders, institutions, livestock innovations, markets

Abstract 13: The farmer field school as an agricultural innovation marketplace: Experiences from the coffee sector in Zimbabwe Abel Chemura1, Dumisani Kutywayo2 and Caleb Mahoya2 1Corresponding author: Dept of Environmental Science and Technology, Chinhoyi University of Technology, P. Bag 7724, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe, [email protected], +263773840175 2DR&SS, Coffee Research Institute, P.O Box 61 Chipinge, Zimbabwe

The farmer field school (FFS) concept grew as a result of inadequacies realized in other agricultural extension approaches in dealing with crop production challenges. The objectives of this paper are analyze how farmer experimentation in the coffee FFS has been performing in terms of agricultural innovation and dissemination of farming technologies that can foster rural development of farming communities. An evaluation of the FFS approach in Zimbabwe was done using questionnaires to participants and facilitators; analysis of attendancerecords, records on topics covered and innovations developed was done for four of the fourteen FFSs located in 3 districts of Zimbabwe operational since 2004. The results indicated that the FFS concept was well received by farmers with participation averaging over 70%. Males constituted over 69% of all members of FFSs and in one FFS males constituted 80.5% of the members while the largest membership for women was 41.4% of the members. The largest number of members were middle aged (50.8% aged between 30 and 50 years), followed by old farmers (39.7% over 50 years) while young farmers constituted a small proportion of FFS participants (0.1% less than 30 years). The key component of the coffee FFS was non-replicated trials where the “field school” was divided into two; improved practices and farmer practices. Key innovations


developed and disseminated from coffee FFS included the use of botanicals such as Tephrosia vogelli, Capsicum annuum, Carica papaya for the control of coffee leaf rust and the use of cultural management practices such as mulching, weeding and pruning for preventing coffee white stem borer infestations. All FFSs adopted at least one improved technology in pest and disease management such as new chemicals recently registered and research recommended agronomic practices. Although there were challenges in implementation of FFS in smallholder coffee production, it is concluded that FFS can be important agricultural innovation marketplaces where production technology is developed, evaluated and disseminated and ultimately contribute to improved coffee and other crops’ productivity especially in remote communities.

Key words: Farmer field school, coffee, botanicals, cultural control practices

Abstract 14: Institutional and Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Adoption of Conservation Agriculture with Trees in Karatu and Mwanga Districts, Tanzania.Nassari E, Sokoine University of Agriculture. [email protected], +255 784 244 837

A study was carried out to assess institutional and socioeconomic factors influencing adoption of Conservation Agriculture With Trees (CAWT) in Karatu and Mwanga districts in Tanzania. SSFs in the study areas face low yield due to drought and moisture loss hence the need to adopt CAWT which its adoption rate has been slow. CAWT practicing 10 villages were purposively sampled 5 from each district and a total of 100 respondents randomly selected for household survey from village register. In addition Focus Group Discussions in PRA and desk reviewing of major policies related to CAWT were employed. Logistic regression model was used to determine the influence of socioeconomic factors on CAWT adoption and results indicate farmer’s age influences CAWT packages adoption. Age was found statistically significant (P<0.05) on Minimum Tillage/No soil Turning signaling an indicator that socioeconomic factors are contributing to slow CAWT adoption rate. Sex and education level were found to be statistically insignificant (P<0.05) but significant (P<0.1) for Cover Crop and Crop Rotation implying less influence to CAWT adoption. Education level and farm size did not vary much from one household to another due to elite rural-urban migration and women are highly dominated by men. Content analysis and in-depth review of the major policies showed that, Agricultural and Livestock Policy 1997, Livestock Policy 2006, National Land Policy 1997 and National Forest Policy 1998 do not have provisions on CAWT. Implementation of policy provisions however, mention pillars of CAWT as Minimum Tillage, Use of cover Crops, Crop Rotation and Farm-Trees integration in their statements. Institutional factors analysis showed few SSFs possess title deed, weak market links with less access to CAWT inputs which are not affordable and lack of subsidies, poor trainings quality are not farmerstailored. Institutional frameworks analysis shows poor coordination of CAWT amongst stakeholders and political support. For CAWT to become a reality to SSFs there should be access to good markets, inputs, tools, subsidies, farmers’ tailored trainings and land ownership security which are the current institutional factors affecting CAWT in the study areas. The study recommends that; policy improving interventions be made, formation of CAWT coordinating body at national level, and farmers and extension officers be trained to increase awareness and knowledge on CAWT for speeding up its adoption rate. Although socio-economic factors were found to have less influence in the adoption of CAWT in this case the researcher recommends their consideration since they are volatile variables.


Session 4: Innovating for Public Participation in Policy Development and Implementation

Abstract 15: Botswana Biotechnology and Biosafety public awareness campaign; Experiences, challenges and lessons. Maitshwarelo Ignatius Matsheka and Dineo Gaborekwe Corresponding Address Dr M. I Matsheka, University of Botswana, [email protected]

In a bid to actualize Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Botswana embarked on an innovations systems approach that resulted in an establishment of platform called Botswana Biotechnology and Biosafety Public Awareness and Participation Innovation Platform (BOPAPIP). The platform comprised of members from various stakeholders in environmental conservation, biotechnology and agricultural sectors of government and non-governmental institutions (NGO’s). This paper outlines the process in which these stakeholders, with different perspectives on biotechnology and biosafety, came to accommodate divergentviews and work in unison in enhancing an understanding of biotechnology and biosafety issues. The Department of Agricultural Research as the National Biosafety Competent Authority encountered problems in coordinating the platform activities partly due to government bureaucracy which impeded the efficient execution of operational activities; The fact that platform members were obliged to undertake platform activities on an adhoc basis meant there was a relatively high rotation of personnel acting as alternates and therefore, lack of continuity in platform initiatives. Lack of financial inducement also contributed to inconsistent participation especially for those members that are from NGOs and the private sector. Communication of the highly technical subject of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in an unambiguous way to the mainstream public with disparate literacy levels proved to be a challenge. This was compounded by having to translate highly scientific language to the local vernacular without losing the meaning. Working with limited financial resources meant the conventional utilization of advertorials in private radio stations and print media would not suffice as a communication strategy. Instead programs in public broadcasting radio stations and the national television station were used to achieve nationwide coverage at no cost. The low internet penetration in the country also meant that this cost effective option of transmitting information could not be utilized. Although having a population of approximately 2 million people, the daunting logistics of covering every part of the country, meant that only a few selected major village and urban areas were chosen for the awareness campaign workshops and kgotla meetings. Despite the limited number of the populace attending the workshops and Kgotla meetings, this strategy proved to be advantageous in being interactive as views from members of the public were taken onboard. While striking the right balance in communicating the positives of GMO’s and possible risks without alarming the public proved to be a delicate task in Kgotla meetings, the lack of knowledge and misconceptions on biosafety issues, which was evident among members of the public, were dispelled. Overall public deliberations were quite lively and insightful with members of public decrying the lack of regulation and labelling of GMO foods. Despite the challenges encountered, the platform realized its key objectives as the media workshops resulted in various media houses producing accurate articles that were well balanced, portraying the positives and negatives of GMO’s; and the address to Members of Parliament by BOPAPIP, played a pivotal role in expediting the debate of the National Biosafety Policy in parliament as this has since been approved.

Key words: Public awareness, innovation platform, kgotla, public participation, biosafety

Abstract 16: Implications of traditional knowledge systems on adaptation to climate change Zimba Noah, Zambia Climate Change Network, P.O. Box 50699 RW Lusaka Zambia. [email protected] +260977873673

Maintenance of integrity of Zambia’s natural resource pool remains anchored on indigenous knowledge systems uptake. Stewardship of this knowledge has depreciated rapidly in recent years leading to knowledge loss particularly on useful practices that offered resilience and coping actions to impacts of climatic change. Consequently indigenous options to respond to vulnerability by local are on the decline. In recent years innovative actions to integrate indigenous knowledge in adaptation action in Zambia through the PPCR


constitute plausible efforts to use and maintain indigenous knowledge in responding to impacts climate change. Consequently Zambia’s Sixth National Development Plan has mainstreamed environmental and climate change issues, by addressing challenges through array of strategies, supported by building blocks elaborated among which include existing capacities and increasing networking. This synthesis has been informed by multiples tools that involved literature review, observations and user consultations with sample communities, FBO’s1 and practitioners in Zambezi and Kafue basins in Zambia. The outlook observed that firstly degradation and deprivation of indigenous adaptation knowledge pool that was supported by ethno systems. The knowledge degradation has inhibited application of traditional knowledge and further exacerbates loss of knowledgepool, which invariably deprives local resilience capacities to climate change. Secondly indigenous knowledge in Zambia has remained the preserve of rural communities or simply enthusiasts. It has been recognised that increasing loss of valuable information of traditional systems in Zambia requires proactiveintervention. Thirdly that lack of documentation of traditional knowledge remains major hindrance to improvement and integration of indigenous knowledge into climate change resilient actions. Knowledge security and sharing can be enhanced through documentation, sharing opportunities that foster security of indigenous systems and invariably harness opportunities for increasing local resilience.

Key words: Indigenous, knowledge, resilience, communities

Abstract 17: Perceptions on Climate Change and its Impacts on Ecosystem Services in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania and Taita, Kenya: Implications for policy actions Simeon P.L. Shimbe, Reuben M.J. Kadigi, Japhet J. Kashaigili, Jumanne M. Abdallah and Charles Stephen Corresponding address: Simeon P. L. Shimbe, Department of Agricultural economics and Agribusiness, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. BOX 3007 Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania, Email: [email protected], Mobile phone: +255 754 405 582.

In recent years, communities, especially farmers, have started to experience the multifaceted challenges of providing food security for a growing population while ensuring the integrity of ecosystems. Climate change is altering their farming environment; changing temperatures and precipitation patterns are affecting crop production, livestock performance, water availability and the provision of ecosystem services. It is important to acknowledge that farmers have their own ways of perceiving and understanding these dynamics. In this regard, communities’ perceptions on climate change and its impacts on ecosystem services are of research importance to inform climate change future policy actions in Tanzania and Kenya. This information would have a bearing on the future adaptation, mitigation and motivations for various stakeholders to support future policy actions. A field survey was conducted along the altitudinal gradients of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania and Taita Hills in Kenya. The objective of the survey was to assess communities’ perceptions and knowledge on climate change and its impacts on ecosystem services in order to provide information for policy actions. Data were collected through focus household questionnaire interviews, group discussions and transect walks. Results show that all the respondents in the survey were aware of the climate change and they were able to give the indicators and impacts of climate change. The survey identified a number of ecosystem goods and services available in the study areas. The findings also show that farmers are innovatively diversifying their sources of livelihoods; from solely farm to combined farm and non-farm sources to cope with climate change. To enable the communities cope with climate change, the study recommends some policy actions which include support for livelihood diversification, mass education on environmental conservation, strict enforcement of legislation governing exploitation of ecosystem services and mainstreaming climate change into all development policies at local, national and international levels.

Key words: Perceptions; Climate Change; Ecosystem services; Diversification; Policy actions; Livelihood


Abstract 18: Using an innovation public awareness and participatory platform to aid enactment of the Swaziland Biosafety Act of 2012 Dlamini A.M.1; Magagula C.G.2; Dladla G.3; Nkabindze B.3; Dlamini C.Z.3; Zuke S.3 1 University of Swaziland, Department of Animal Science, P/B Luyengo, Swaziland. [email protected] ; +268 25170567 2 University of Swaziland, Department of Biological Sciences, P/B 4 Kwaluseni, Swaziland 3 Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Mbabane Swaziland

Development of a national biosafety framework, particularly the legislation, requires public participation. In order for the public to effectively particularly in the decision making process, an understanding of the subject is prerequisite. Modern biotechnology and biosafety are not easy subjects to be comprehended by many stakeholders. Public awareness exercises could be used to enhance the comprehension of difficult subjects by stakeholders in order for them to make well informed decision. The aim of the project was to use an innovative platform to create public awareness on biotechnology and biosafety in order to enhance decisionmaking in the development of the national biosafety framework for Swaziland. The platform is based on Innovation System Approach principle. It was composed of representatives from key stakeholders in biotechnology and biosafety including: farmers, researchers, advocacy groups, government ministries, academia, media and policy makers. The innovative public awareness strategies used were participatory in nature and these included: round table discussions, radio shows and live interview broadcasts, field visits and demonstrations, educational tours, debates, case studies, and the citizen’s jury approach. Awareness campaigns were directed to multi-stakeholder groups including: policy makers such as politicians and senior government officers, farmers, boarder post inspectors, consumers, University students, the food consortium, media houses. Public awareness materials developed and used were pamphlets, tracts, posters, guidelines and a trainers’ manual. The major achievement from the innovative platform was the passing of the Biosafety Bill into the Biosafety Act of 2012.

Key words: Innovation platform, Biosafety Act, public awareness, citizens’ jury, biotechnology stakeholders, Innovation System Approach.


ANNEX 3: LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

NAME POSITION ADDRESSCONFERENCE FACILITATOREdward Chuma Process Facilitator Southern

AfricaPICOTEAM+263 772 235 [email protected]

RAEIN AFRICA SECRETARIATDoreen Shumba-Mnyulwa Executive Director RAEIN-Africa

+27 12 348 0352+27 12 348 1160+27 76 560 5378 (Mobile)+27 12 348 1135 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Phumzile Dlamini Technical Advisor RAEIN-Africa+27 12 348 [email protected]

Killian Mutiro Technical Advisor RAEIN-Africa+27 12 348 [email protected]

Shepherd Kapayapundo Finance and Administration Manager

RAEIN-Africa+27 12 348 [email protected]

Dr Dorothy Mulenga RAEIN-Africa +27 12 348 [email protected]

Henry Ndengejeho Programme Officer +264 61 206 [email protected]

Aune David Admin Assistant RAEIN Africa+264 61 206 [email protected]

Netherlands RepresentativeNiek Schelling Agricultural Counsellor Embassy of the Kingdom of the

Netherlands, South Africa P.O. Box 117 Pretoria 0001 +27 (0)12 425 4500

Center for the Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development in Southern Africa (CCARDESA)Prof Timothy Simalenga Executive Director CCARDESA

Gaborone+267 399 [email protected]

Simon Mwale Manager CCARDESAGaborone+267 314997+267 723 007 [email protected]


AngolaDr Antonio Alcochete Director Ministry of Higher Education, Science and

TechnologyLuanda+244 924 440 [email protected]

BotswanaDouglas Machacha Chief Agricultural Officer Department of Agricultural Affairs

+267 366 8188+267 717 [email protected]

Maitshwarelo Ignatius Matcheka

Senior Lecturer University of Botswana+267 355 2607+267 7211 3524+267 3554 465 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Samodimo Ngwako Senior Lecturer Botswana College of Agriculture+267 365 0213+267 726 801 43+267 342 8753 (Fax)[email protected]@bca.bw

Charles Mazereku Biosafety Officer Department of Agricultural Research+267 366 8120+267 741 774 [email protected]@yahoo.com

Daniel Mathiba Farmer +267 719 230 09KenyaRachel Shibalira Consultant UNEP-GEF

+254 735 247 [email protected]

MadagascarDr Desire Randriamasi-manana

General Direction of Environ-ment

Ministry of Environment and Forests+261 33 12 001 [email protected]

MalawiFelix Chipojola Fruits, Treenuts and Flowers

AgronomistDepartment of Agricultural Research Services Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security+265 1 471 527+265 888 364 931+265 993 968 794+265 1 471 [email protected]


Nobel Moyo Independent consultant Feed the Future/Intergrating Nutrition in Value Chains+265 1 755 734/36+265 999 884 453+265 888 203 [email protected]

Dr Patience Chipungu National Research Coordinator for horticulture and Sweetpotato Breeder

Department of Agricultural Research Services Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security+265 9999 [email protected]

Raymond Chimsale Catholic Development Commission in Malawi (CADECOM) Secretary

CADECOM+265 888 504 [email protected]

Dr Alfred Maluwa Research Director University of Malawi+265 888 675 498+265 999 612 [email protected]@kcn.unima.mw

Makuwira Matokoso Farmer +265 994 072 846Andrews Safalaoh Associate Professor University of Nottingham

+44 776 909 5251+44 115 951 [email protected]@nottingham.ac.uk

NamibiaSheehamandje Ipinge Director Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

+264 61 208 7081+264 811 226 873+264 81 242 9976+264 61 208 7081 (Fax)[email protected]

Alfred van Kent Deputy Permanent Secretary Ministry of Education+264 61 293 3507+264 81 122 [email protected]

Dr Martha Kandawa-Schulz Deputy Dean University of Namibia+264 61 206 [email protected]

Katrina Shiningavamwe Agricultural Research Officer Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry+264 61 208 7047+264 81 251 9690+264 208 7082 (Fax)[email protected]

Absalom Shigwedha Freelance Journalist Media for Environment, Agriculture and Sustainable Development in Namibia+264 81 295 [email protected]

Francois Lottering Audiovisual Services Namibia Press Agency+264 81 310 [email protected]


Lawrence Katjatenja Farmer Otjinene+264 818 059 342

Edison Kandjii Farmer Otjinene+264 81 231 2786

South AfricaMotsepe Matlala President National African Farmers Union of South

Africa+27 82 933 4858+27 82 933 4858+27 86 646 2965 (Fax)[email protected]

Prof Fhatuwani Mudau Head of Department College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences,Department of Agriculture and Animal HealthUNISA+27 11 471 3231+27 82 940 [email protected]

Prof Irvine Mariga Associate Professor University of Limpopo+27 15 268 2203/2527+27 82 200 9269+27 15 268 2892 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Petronella Chaminuka Senior Lecturer University of Limpopo+27 15 268 2350+27 82 465 6628+27 86 514 9296 (Fax)[email protected]

Ndishavhelafhi Kenneth Nengovhela

Farmer Dzindi Irrigation Scheme+27 73 928 9912+27 54 887 82

Mashudu Violet Mulaudzi Farmer Dzindi Irrigation Scheme+27 723 130 381

Naledza Calvin Agricultural Officer Department of AgricultureLimpopo+27 15 963 2006 (Tel)+27 72 235 3106+27 15 963 1414 (Fax)[email protected]@webmail.co.za

Mmbengeni Aaron Mathuba Agriculture Farmer Dzindi Irrigation Scheme+27 796 919 780

Thando Mkhize Biodiversity Officer Department of Environmental Affairs+27 12 310 [email protected]

Pam Yako Assistant Lenande Leadership+27 12 998 1938+27 82 550 [email protected]


Mary Nengovhela Consultant Zenande Leadership +27 12 998 7337+27 737 357 [email protected]

Lewis Hove Regional CA Coordinator Food and Agriculture Organization+27 11 517 1527+27 82 908 [email protected]

Sina Luchen Agronomist Food and Agriculture Organization+27 82 908 [email protected]

Tshifiwa Tshimomola Biodiversity Officer Department of Environmental Affairs+27 12 310 3557+27 12 320 [email protected]

Karabo Malakalaka Biodiversity Officer Department of Environmental Affairs+27 12 310 3867+27 82 733 [email protected]

Xolisa Ngwadla Competence area manager: Global Change

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research +27 12 841 [email protected]

Prof Ignatious Ncube Associate Professor University of Limpopo+27 844 889 956+27 844 889 956+27 86 77 [email protected]

SwazilandStephen Zuke Director of Policy, Planning

and ResearchSwaziland Environment Authority+268 240 478 93+268 760 259 48+268 240 41 719 (Fax)[email protected]

Prof Abednego Dlamini Senior Lecturer University of Swaziland+268 760 346 08+268 252 844 [email protected]

Daniel Khumalo Chief Executive Officer Swaziland Cotton Board+268 764 495 54+268 250 527 [email protected]@swazi.net

Constance Dlamini Legal counsel Swaziland Environment Authority+268 760 259 [email protected]

Bongani Nkhambindze Biosafety Officer Swaziland Environmental Authority+268 2404 6760+268 762 26767+268 2404 1719 (Fax)[email protected]


Dr Diana Earnshaw Lecturer University of Swaziland+268 251 700 00+268 763 287 54+268 252 744 41 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Cebisile Magagula NCI/Senior Lecturer University of Swaziland+268 251 70292+268 760 58 258+268 251 700 01 (Fax)[email protected]

Setsabile Sibisi Senior Journalist Swaziland Television Authority+268 760 32595+268 240 42093 (Fax)[email protected]

TanzaniaNeema Tindamanyire Programme Officer

EnvironmentCommission for Science and TechnologyDar es Salaam+255 784 147 947+255 767 147 [email protected]

Nassari Elisaria Extension Officer ENVIROCAREDar es Salaam+255 784 244 837+255 712 0151 [email protected]

Dr Rose Rita Kingamkono Chief of Party Land O’LakesDar es Salaam+255 754 769 808+255 7844 096 [email protected]

Dr Emmarold Mneney Head: Cashew Biotechnology Unit

Mikocheni Agricultural ResearchDar es Salaam+255 22 277 5663+255 754 387 662+255 22 277 5549 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Deusdedith Mbanzibwa Agricultural Researcher Mikocheni Agricultural Research InstituteDar es Salaam+255 755 881 [email protected]

Simeon Shimbe Agricultural officer Vice President’s office, Dar es SalaamDar es Salaam+2550754- 405582+255 713- [email protected]

UK


Prof Andy Safalaoh Associate Professor Institute for Science and SocietyUniverity of NottinghamUK+44 776 909 5251+44 115 951 [email protected]@nottingham.ac.uk

ZambiaMunshimbwe Chitalu Chief Executive Officer Organic Producers and Processors Associa-

tion of Zambia+260 211 262 497+260 966 753 485+260 211 265 208 (Fax)[email protected]@organic.org.zm

Dr Catherine Mungoma Director Seed Control and Certification InstituteLusaka+260 211 278 236+260 966 764 822+260 211 278 170 (Fax)[email protected]

Dr Collins Sianangama Lecturer School of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of ZambiaLusaka+260 955 851 560+260 979 401 122+260 965 401 122 [email protected]

Miriam Zimba Reporter Times of Zambia+260 977 453 344+260 977 4533 44+260 966 453 [email protected]

Noah Zimba Chairperson Green Basin Naturals+260 977 8736 73+260 211 293 716 (Fax)[email protected]

ZimbabweDr Jonathan Mufandaedza Chief Executive Officer National Biotechnology Authority

Harare+263 4 782 856/9+263 776 901 997+263 774 552 267+263 4 782 [email protected]

Sifelani Tsiko Journalist The HeraldHarare+263 4 795 771+263 772 584 [email protected]


Stephen Muranda Project Manager Biotechnology Trust of ZimbabweHarare+263 772 935 [email protected]

Kumbirayi Musiyiwa PhD Student International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)Bulawayo+263 83 8311-5+263 773 593 [email protected]

Dumisani Kutywayo Director: Crops Research Department of Research and Specialist Services+263 4 704 531-9+263 772 598 [email protected]

Emmanuel Nyahangare Lecturer University of Zimbabwe+263 773 528 [email protected]

Regis Mafuratidze Policy Analyst Community Technology Development TrustP.O Box 7232Harare+263 714 291 [email protected]

Andrew Mushita Director Community Technology Development TrustP.O Box 7232Harare+2634 489169 [email protected]

Morris Charumbira Monitoring and Evaluation Manager

Restless Development Zimbabwe36 Harvey Brown, Milton Park, Harare+263 4 705 826+263 772 948 [email protected]

Kudzai Kusena Agricultural Scientist Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Institute5th Street ExtensionP. O Box cy550Causeway [email protected]


Contact Details

Physical:19 Frikkie De Beer, Atterbury Estate, Block 5, Ground Floor, Menlyn, Pretoria, South Africa

Postal:RAEIN-Africa, Box 657, Menlyn Retail Park0063, Pretoria, South Africa

Tel: +27123480352, +27123481160Fax: +27123481136Email: [email protected]: www.raein-africa.org

Documents

Idv 611729-b4f6227fec008e3e496c01de7a01b6e0