Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
extension, input suppliers, researchers, agencies, and policy makers, networks
emerge when different actors realize a mutual desire to improve a product or process
(Buck and Scherr 2009; Ekboir 2012). Innovation networks can form by the deliber-
ate actions of actors (formation of IPs), or emerge organically as actors collaborate
(Ekboir 2012). This collaboration facilitates social learning by fostering information
sharing (Buck and Scherr 2009). Strong networks foster access to knowledge and
physical inputs, increasing farmers' access to options (Swenson and Moore 2009).
Building networks and strengthening existing ones is an investment in social capital
necessary for fostering technological change.
Strengthening network ties improves the flow of information between local
actors. This is supported by Conley and Udry's (2001, 2010) investigation into how
farmers learn through strong social network ties. Working in Ghana with a project
on pineapple production for European markets, Conley and Udry (2010) surveyed
farmers to see how and why farmers were redesigning the technological package
with specific regard to fertilizer use. It was discovered that farmers only commu-
nicated about fertilizer usage with a very small number of contacts as opposed to
widespread sharing of experiences at the village level. For instance, when one farmer
in the group applied significantly high amounts of fertilizer and experienced a vast
yield gain, those individuals in that farmers “close” network were significantly more
likely to increase their fertilizer application in the following growing season (Conely
and Udry 2010). Thus, production behavior was highly influenced by their social ties
in these small networks.
IPs create an environment that fosters the process of innovation by assembling
a variety of stakeholders to identify and resolve systematically interdependent
issues in a production network (Adekunle et al. 2010; Nederlof and Pyborn 2012).
Researchers do not define a problem and recommend a solution; instead, various
stakeholders identify issues and collaborate to resolve them. When scientific and
local knowledge are equalized, an environment is created where stakeholders can
contribute their own knowledge, skills, and perspective (Lamb and Moore 2010;
Nederlof and Pyborn 2012). This establishes the foundation for negotiation between
differing sources of knowledge (Moore 2011). As a viable solution is agreed on, the
IP facilitates connections to other network actors, driving learning and adoption.
Tenywa et al. (2011) demonstrated that a market-based IP, in which participants
innovate to take advantage of a market opportunity, results in a quicker formulation
of a win-win situation than does a researcher-led IP. This is not to say that an IP must
be centered on a market issue. Rather, the strength of an IP is in framing an issue in
terms of market incentives (Posthumus et al. 2011; Nederlof and Pyborn 2012) and
fostering connections with private sector stakeholders. In Zambia, IPs were devel-
oped at the local, district, and national levels to support the adoption of conservation
agriculture and proved to be instrumental in forging relationships among stakehold-
ers, developing connections with private sector actors such as seed companies, finan-
cial service providers, and traders (Nederlof et al. 2011).
Innovation networks and platforms enhance farmers' ability to adapt to constantly
changing market and agroecological conditions, thus enriching a system's resilience
by improving its capacity for self-organization, learning, and adaptation (Walker
et al. 2002). A resilient community possesses the tools to respond to fluctuating
