39130 Endogenous and Modern Innovations: Differing Perspectives I n Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia, innovative farmers showing their own people from government and NGOs are technologies. Of the 2500 participants, seeking local innovations as starting points over 200 were innovative and model for participatory development and exten- farmers. sion. Ethiopia is one of nine countries In one area of the exhibition, Notes involved in the international network BoARD experts and farmers from PROLINNOVA (Promoting Local Innova- different parts of Tigray presented tion). The Ethiopian programme set up agricultural products, mainly cash multistakeholder teams in different crops such as pulses, oilseeds, spices, agroclimatic zones. In Tigray, the North- vegetables, fruits and honey. Some ern Typical Highlands (NTH) team processed products were also exhib- includes Mekelle University (MU), ited and sold. In another area of the KI Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Devel- exhibition, appropriate technologies opment (BoARD), Institute for Sustain- related to beekeeping, water pumping, able Development, Relief Society of irrigation, ploughing and biogas Tigray (REST), Adigrat Diocese Catholic production were demonstrated by Secretariat and TigrayAgricultural farmer innovators, extensionists, Research Institute. The NTH team brings entrepreneurs and NGOs. Many innovative farmers together around visitors, especially farmers, were http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm common interests to solve local problems attracted by the exhibits of silk and links them with formal researchers worms, solar energy and processing and extensionists wanting to support local prickly pear cactus. innovation processes. Observations by The exhibition of technologies and NTH team members at a recent exhibi- products was followed by a work- tion of farmers' and modern innovations shop. Many papers were presented revealed how differently the farmers and and participants discussed marketing, the "educated" perceive new technolo- agricultural institutions, research and gies. policy. The exhibition and workshop lasted five days. No. 96 September 2006 Exhibition of local and modern innovations IK Notes reports periodically on Indigenous Knowledge (IK) initiatives TheAgricultural Technologies Exhibition in Sub-Saharan Africa and was held in Mekelle, the capital of Tigray occassionally on such initiatives Region. It was organised by the Improv- outside the region. It is published by the Africa region's Results and ing Productivity by Marketing Success Learning Unit as part of an evolving K (IPMS) project coordinated by BoARD's partnership between the World Bank, Department of Agricultural Extension communities, NGOs, development (part of the NTH team) and the Interna- institutions, and multilateral tional Livestock Research Institute. Many organizations. The views expressed in World Bank this article are those of the authors government agencies, NGOs, private and should not be attributed to the firms and research organisations took World Bank Group or its partners in part. Some brought farmers with whom this initiative. A webpage on IK is they work: either "model farmers" available at: //www.worldbank.org/afr/ik showing introduced technologies or 2 Examples of local innovations At the exhibition, numerous farmers (about 30% women) displayed technologies they had developed themselves. These included: · A water-lifting device developed by Priest Malede Abreha and displayed as a model he built himself. The Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation (ISWC) project coordinated by MU identified this innovator in the late 1990s. After developing his first technology to lift water from a self-dug well, Malede modified the device to make it cheaper and easier to operate. A PROFIEET workshop organised in Axum for Tigray farmers and extensionists selected his innovation for further research in a Participatory Innovation Development (PID) pro- cess. · Subsurface drainage developed by Abadi Redehey. More than half of his 0.5 ha farm was waterlogged in the main wet season, so he could use the land only during the short rains. When visiting Axum town, he saw a sewage canal under construction. He decided to use this system to drain his land during the main wet season. He leads the excess water into reservoirs and uses it for irrigation in the dry season. At the Axum workshop, his technology was also selected for PID. · Drip irrigation developed by Weldu Gebrewahid and his wife Hawaria Berhe. Weldu is locally known as the "erosion challenger", because he literally built his fields by catching soil and water in deep pits on an eroded hillside. The couple modified the introduced drip-irrigation system and made it into a local technology. They hang gourds with water on each orange tree; the water drips down the trunk through small holes in the gourds. They bury pots with small holes beside each tree and fill the pots with water. They observe how tree growth and insect infestation differ according to watering technique. · Improved beehives and queen rearing developed by Giday Aregay (see Box 1), another technology selected for PID at the Axum workshop. · Domesticating wild bees for medicinal honey, an innovation developed by Birhane GebreMariam (see Box 2). How farmers assessed innovations The Mekelle exhibition provided the farmer innovators with · During the second and third rounds on Day 1, they new information. It was fascinating to observe how sought information about who developed the technologies systematically they took this in. and other farmers' views. First, they met with the · During a first round on Day 1, they looked at all innova- farmers they already knew, and then started talking with tions, whatever their origin. Individually, they visited only other farmers. They discussed the technologies exhibited: the technologies, not the technology developers. which ones looked easy to apply, if anyone had tried the 3 technology and what the experiences were. perishable ones like tomatoes. Besides productivity, they · On Day 2, the farmers selected and focused on the new asked about other qualities of the technologies and the technologies ­ whether "modern" or "local" innovations knowledge behind them. They posed numerous questions to ­ that interested them particularly. the local innovators. For example, many farmers visited · They spent the rest of their time trying to find out more Priest Malede's water-lifting model, although many "edu- about the skills and inputs needed for the technologies cated" people regarded it as a joke. The farmers asked they had selected. They visited the exhibits according to Priest Malede: How did you learn this? How long did it their importance. The more important the technology in take to make it? Are the materials you use easy to find? their view, the more time they gave to it. Does your family understand and like this? What main · After they had gathered all the information they wanted, problems did you observe? What is the cost? In contrast, they felt it was a waste of time to stay longer at the when farmers saw the "modern" implements from indus- exhibition and workshop. They stressed that the exhibi- trial workshops, they did not ask as many questions as the tion was very useful for exchanging experiences and experts did. learning about new technologies. There is obviously a gap between the "experts" and the smallholders in Tigray. This creates a big challenge for the NTH team, which tries to bring all these actors in agricul- Differences in interests and perceptions tural innovation together. For an effective innovation system, the actors need to believe in and like each other. In these rounds of gathering information, most farmers Otherwise, they cannot combine forces to make the most showed more interest in the local innovations than in the of Tigray's agricultural potential. technologies from modern workshops. The few farmers Observing how farmers learn from new technologies with some formal education visited both types of technol- exhibited by their peers and by modern workshops and ogy almost equally. research centres made us realise that most "educated" The formally educated experts were reluctant to visit people in agricultural research and development understand what smallholders had developed, were drawn to the little about what interests smallholders. They do not know newness and attractiveness of "modern" technologies, and what farmers want to give their time to see. We need to looked mainly at their productivity. It was the farmers who observe how farmers are developing their own innovations could identify the innovations most useful for smallholdings. and what type of information they seek from others to They were drawn to technologies they regarded as effec- continue their own development process. The exhibition tive, easy to apply and inexpensive. They appreciated provided a good opportunity to learn how information technologies that brought higher production, but asked exchange to support this process can be improved. about markets for the products, especially for the more This note was prepared by Hailu Araya, Institute for Sustainable Development, and Yohannes GebreMichael, Geography Department, Addis Ababa University. Both are involved in PROFIEET (Promoting Farmer Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia), a multi-stakeholder platform for learning about local innovation in ecologically-oriented agriculture and natural resource management (see www.prolinnova.net). A longer version of this article appeared in the LEISA Magazine. 4