Environmental change and maize innovation pathways in Kenya - STEPS Centre Methods case study

Environmental Change and Maize Innovation Pathways in Kenya:

Mapping Pathways In and Out of Maize

John Thompson ([email protected]) Food and Agriculture Domain Convenor

STEPS Centre – July 2013

mailto:[email protected]

Project Focus

• Examine prospects for ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ of alternative innovation pathways ‘in and out of maize’

• Assess responses of various actors to rapid environmental, social and technical change

narrow inputs

Dominant maize pathway driving agricultural R&D and policy priorities and excludes alternatives

Addressing Maize ‘Lock in’: Narrowing and Closing Down

POSSIBLE PATHWAYS

GOVERNANCE COMMITMENTS

SOCIAL APPRAISAL

‘closed down’ outputs

narrow inputs

Addressing Maize ‘Lock in’: Narrowing and Closing Down

POSSIBLE PATHWAYS


SOCIAL APPRAISAL

‘closed down’ outputs

Dominant maize discourse focused on adding a new pathway – DT maize

‘opened up’ outputs broad inputs

POSSIBLE PATHWAYS


SOCIAL APPRAISAL

Seeking Alternatives: Broadening and Opening Up

Can the STEPS Pathways Approach help to identify viable agricultural innovation pathways and open up debate about them?

A: ENGAGE ACTORS 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback

B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope key possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback D: REVEAL POLITICAL

ACTIONS 1: review relevant histories 2: confirm key protagonists 3: explore forms of agency 4: define possible interventions 5: review winners/losers 6: examine possible responses 7: establish accountabilities 8: seek critical feedback

C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS 1: review relevant histories 2: explore challenges/opportuniti3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresse 4: look at actors’ strength/weakne5: examine decision/branch point6: identify winners/losers 7: attend to issues of power/politic 8: seek critical feedback

STEPS METHODOLOGY appreciative process:

help appreciate alternative pathways

APPRECIATE PATHWAYS

• The four distinct stages in this process are overlapping and mutually co-constituting

• The logical sequence is therefore heuristic. The actual practice is more iterative and recursive

• Any ‘broadening out’ or ‘opening up’ of social appreciations of alternative pathways must in some way consider all these stages and tasks and thoroughly address a majority of tasks defined in each stage

Activities – 4 Key Stages 1. Engage actors: Interviews with stakeholders engaged in work on

maize R&D, adaptation to climate change, food security, etc

2. Explore framings: particularly their ideas about ‘resilience’, ‘innovation’ and ‘pathways‘ and test concepts in relation to environmental change and maize in Kenya

3. Characterise dynamics: • Phase I – Rapid rural appraisals and panel data comparative

studies – 3 sites (low, [medium], high potential agroecozones) • Mapping ‘pathways in and out of maize’ (based on the RRAs

and panel studies and key informant interviews) • Phase 2 – Analysing pathways and what facilitates/inhibits

access to them in risk-prone areas based on stakeholder criteria (using Multicriteria Mapping - MCM)

4. Reveal strategies: policy engagement and outreach

Multi-disciplinary Team • African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) –

African science and technology policy, climate policy • Centre for African Bio-Entrepreneurship (CABE) –

agricultural biotechnology, seed policy • Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and

Development, Egerton University – agricultural economics, Kenyan agricultural policy, agricultural panel data

• Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex (SPRU) – science and technology policy, multi-criteria mapping, STEPS pathways approach

• Institute of Development Studies (IDS) – agricultural and environmental policy, rapid appraisal methods, political economy of policy processes, STEPS pathways approach

A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together: 1. review relevant histories 2. analyse associated networks 3. snowball salient interests 4. prioritise most marginal 5. examine power relations 6. identify basic pathway

visions 7. be alert for hidden plurality 8. seek critical feedback

STEPS Methodology – Stage 1

Engage Actors • Review relevant histories

– Literature review Kenya’s agricultural (maize) history; environmental change; resilience; maize R&D/innovation

– Panel data analysis agricultural production and socio-economic trends in selected districts and sites

– Trends analysis dynamics of seasonal and long-term change in selected field sites

• Analyse associated networks and snowball salient interests key informants in scientific organisations, government ministries, farmers’ organisations, seed companies, NGOs, donors, others ; feedback

Engage Actors • Prioritise most marginal field

studies – ‘Low potential’ zone (5 villages)

Sakai, Mbooni East District, Eastern Province

– ‘High potential’ zone (3 villages) Mmbasu, Likuyani Division, Lugari District, Western Province

• Rapid rural appraisals + focus group and key informant interviews – Analysed dynamic drivers of

change in agricultural systems – Disaggregated communities –

gender, wealth, production and marketing strategies

Main story Diversification…

Multiple pathways – Both in and out of maize?

But where is it leading?

Towards more resilient livelihoods and agri-food systems?

Or are there constraints to pursuing these alternative pathways?

Identify Basic Pathway Visions

B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1. review relevant histories 2. elicit notions of systems 3. explore related narratives 4. address Sustainability

values 5. scope key possible

pathways 6. review aspects of

incertitude 7. differentiate perspectives 8. seek critical feedback


Scope Key Possible Pathways ‘In and Out of Maize’

• Fieldwork findings have been distilled into a set of 9 core pathways in drought-prone farming regions (e.g. Sakai, Eastern Province):

1. Reliance on internal/external inputs including local vs. certified seed (OPVs, hybrids, etc.) and their sources (informal vs. formal channels)

2. Reliance on maize as key crop 3. Diversification out of maize other

key crops (‘orphan’ dryland staple crops, horticulture)

Typology of Pathways

Low Maize High Maize Low- External Input

High- External Input

Typology of Pathways Low Maize High Maize

Low- External Input

High- External Input

1 – Alternative dryland staples for subsistence 2 – Alternative dryland staples for market

3 – local improvement of local maize

5 – Assisted seed multiplication of maize

4 – Assisted seed multiplication of alternative dryland staples

6 – Individual high-value crop commercialization

7 – Group-based high-value crop commercialization

8 – Commercial delivery of new DT maize varieties

9 – Public delivery of new DT maize varieties

Differentiate perspectives • The pathways served as a starting point

for opening up the discussion with farmers, scientists and policy makers on:

1. Range of pathways analysing ‘pathways in and out of maize’

2. Discussion about relevant criteria for choosing one pathway over another in such a way as to factor in the cross-scale dynamics and constraints

3. Critical examination of alternative visions of the future and institutional arrangements needed to support them


C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS: 1. review relevant histories 2. explore challenges/opportunities 3. scrutinise likely shocks/stresses 4. look at actors’ strength/weakness 5. examine decision/branch points 6. identify winners/losers 7. attend to issues of power/politics 8. seek critical feedback

Multicriteria Mapping (MCM)

• MCM is an interactive, decision analysis technique that provides a way of appraising a series of different options or pathways

• Helps individuals to explain their views about a complex issue in a systematic way

• Involves: – developing set of criteria – evaluating the performance of each pathway

under each criterion – weighting each criterion according to its relative

importance

Multicriteria Mapping (MCM): The Interview Process

2. Develop a set of criteria

5. Reflect on outcome

1. Discuss pathways

3. Score pathways under each

criterion; optimistic & pessimistic

scores to reflect uncertainty

4. Assign weight to

each criterion

Designs: Multicriteria Mapping (MCM) and Policy Engagement Process

Groups of Informants

1. Farmers (11 stakeholder groups) a) Gender b) Income level

2. Nairobi-based Informants (12 stakeholder

groups) a) Senior government officials b) Commercially oriented c) Science and technology institutes d) Biotechnology focus

Sets of Criteria: Macro and Micro Issues • Economic and Market Issues 71 criteria

– Resource costs 23 criteria – Availability and access to resources 30 criteria – Market aspects 18 criteria

• Stress Tolerance Issues 43 criteria – Water use 17 criteria – Pests and disease resistance 14 criteria – Suitability of crop to agro-ecological conditions 12 criteria

• Social, Political & Cultural Issues 33 criteria – Knowledge and skills 14 criteria – Social and cultural 9 criteria – Food security 10 criteria

Evaluating Pathway ‘Performance Rankings’ • Performance rankings are literal ‘maps’ of pathway

scores

• Averaged across groups of stakeholders & sets of criteria (issues)

• High end of range indicates average optimistic scores

• Low end of range indicates average pessimistic scores

• Length of range (or bar) indicates uncertainty & ambiguity expressed – Uncertainty is expressed by individuals in a stakeholder group – Ambiguity is the result of disagreement between stakeholders

Qualitative Analysis of the Pathways Evaluations

• Used to identify groups of stakeholders with shared points of view

• Used to group criteria according to shared themes

• Clarifies the reasons for convergence and divergence in the pathways performance rankings

Pathways Out of Maize: Orphans or Siblings? Performance rankings for different groups of stakeholders shows a surprising

amount of optimism about alternative dryland staple crops, especially under a set of stress tolerance criteria

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Performance Rankings

Alternative staples for subsistenceAlternative staples for market

Local improvement of local maize seedAssisted seed multiplication (alternative crops)

Assisted seed multiplication (maize)Individual high-value crop commercialization

Group-based high-value crop commercializationCommercial delivery of new maize varieties

Public delivery of new maize varieties











Sakai Farmers(11 interviews)Stress Tolerance issues (22 criteria)

Biotech Focus (5 interviews)Stress tolerance issues (9 criteria)

Public sector (3 interviews)Stress tolerance issues (8 criteria)

Pathways in Maize: Sakai farmer performance rankings show a preference for local maize,

not new maize

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Performance Rankings





Public delivery of new maize varietiesAlternative staples for subsistence

Alternative staples for marketLocal improvement of local maize seed

Assisted seed multiplication (alternative crops)Assisted seed multiplication (maize)

Individual high-value crop commercializationGroup-based high-value crop commercialization

Commercial delivery of new maize varietiesPublic delivery of new maize varieties






Sakai Farmers (all)11 interview s

Sakai Farmers (low income)3 interview s

Sakai Farmers (high income)8 interview s

Pathways in Maize: Performance rankings for groups of Nairobi-based informants show a

variety of high performing pathways, but rarely high maize options

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Performance Rankings



















S&T Institutes(5 interview s)

Biotech Focus (5 interview s)

Commercially Oriented(5 interview s)

Public sector off icials(3 interview s)

Pathways in Maize: Living in Parallel Worlds? Performance rankings for different groups of Nairobi-based informants

show assisted seed pathways are ‘consistent’ performers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Performance Rankings
















S&T Institutes(5 interview s)

Biotech Focus (5 interview s)

Commercially Oriented(5 interview s)

STEPS Methodology – Stage 4 D: REVEAL POLITICAL ACTIONS

1. review relevant histories 2. confirm key protagonists 3. explore forms of agency 4. define possible interventions 5. review winners/losers 6. examine possible responses 7. establish accountabilities 8. seek critical feedback

‘opened up’ outputs

acknowledged plurality and conditionality

broad inputs

POSSIBLE PATHWAYS


SOCIAL APPRAISAL

Pathways In and Out of Maize

Using the STEPS Pathways Approach to foster dialogue and debate and encourage appreciation of alternative pathways

APPRECIATE PATHWAYS

Policy engagement

• National policy workshop – Involved key policy actors – Farmer representatives actively engaged – Presented STEPS approach, findings and

recommendations – Video: ‘Pathways In and Out of Maize’ – Working groups linked to pathways – Policy issues and options; ‘action points’

for different actors • Key Stakeholder Group meetings –

– Climate Change and Arid Lands Group – Seeds and Seed Policy Group – Drought Tolerant Crops and Plant

Breeding Group – Rockefeller Foundation Climate Group

APPRECIATE PATHWAYS

Policy engagement

• Follow up project: ‘Beyond Biosafety’ biotechnology regulation in Kenya

• International conferences environmental change and food systems

• Video: ‘Seeds and Sustainability’

• Kenya Agricultural Research Institute informed ‘National Climate Change and Agriculture Programme’

• Future Agricultures Consortium informed projects on the ‘Political Economy of Seed Systems’ + ‘Integrated Seed System Development’

http://steps-centre.org/dev/steps/publication/seeds-and-sustainability-maize-pathways-in-kenya/?referralDomain=films

Environmental change and maize innovation pathways in Kenya - STEPS Centre Methods case study

Education

Transcript of Environmental change and maize innovation pathways in Kenya - STEPS Centre Methods case study