Systems approaches to innovation in pest management: reflections and lessons learned from an integrated research program on parasitic weeds in rice

Abstract

This paper provides a retrospective look at a systems-oriented research program, on the increasing occurrence of parasitic weeds in rainfed rice in sub-Saharan Africa, to qualitatively assess merits and identify challenges of such approach. We gained a broad contextual overview of the problem and different stakeholders' roles, which enabled identification of entry points for innovations in parasitic weed management. At the crop level parasitic weed infestation is associated with poor soil fertility and water management. Farmers' infrequent use of inputs to control them was caused by various factors, ranging from fears of undesired side effects (agronomic) to a lack of quality control of products (institutional). Furthermore, there may be enough extension agents, but they lack the required training on (parasitic) weed management to provide farmers with advice, while their organizations do not provide them with the necessary means for farm visits. At even higher organizational levels we observed a lack of coherent policies on parasitic weed control and implementation of them. Merits and challenges of an integrated multi-stakeholder and multi-level research project are discussed.

Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development

“…Rather than understanding 'inclusiveness' of IPs in AR4D as a call for continuous, comprehensive, and proportional stakeholder group representation to strengthen systemic capacity to innovate (e.g. Rodenburg et al 2015;Schut et al 2016a;Van Paassen et al 2014), it requires strategic thinking about which configuration of stakeholders groups across different levels may have the highest potential to fulfill the functions required to achieve successful innovation at each point in time (as also suggested by Swaans et al 2014). Hence, when working with IP, concrete strategies are needed regarding whom best to involve and support when.…”

“…Acknowledging the challenges of impact at scale and multilevel dynamics in innovation processes (Hansen and Coenen 2015;Hermans et al 2016;Makkonen and Inkinen 2014;€ Osterblom et al 2015;Westley et al 2014;Wigboldus et al 2016), AIS scholars argue for more explicitly addressing innovation as a process occurring across levels where different stakeholders can enact or resist to change (Cullen et al 2014;Foran et al 2014;Rodenburg et al 2015;Schut et al 2015a;Van Paassen et al 2014). One suggested approach is the creation of interlinked IPs; that is, community-level IPs to address local issues and (sub)national-level IPs to address (Schut et al 2016a …”

“…Sustainable change thus requires co-evolution between, and effective re-organization of, the system's technical, social, and institutional components-including social norms and common modes of operation (Dormon et al 2007;Flor et al 2016;Kilelu et al 2013;Klerkx et al 2013; Leeuwis and Aarts 2011;Ngwenya and Hagmann 2011;Rodenburg et al 2015;Schut et al 2016b). As argued above, effectuating such change in an inclusive way requires involvement of different stakeholder groups (Foran et al 2014) and fostering of interaction and interactive learning among them, which calls for process facilitation by intermediary actors and structures (Foster and Heeks 2013b;Howells 2006;Klerkx et al 2015;Meyer and Kearnes 2013) that focus on facilitating interaction and integration of several actors.…”

Transdisciplinary weed research: new leverage on challenging weed problems?

“… Technological: some farmers were afraid of undesired side effects of fertilisers on the crop, for example increased weed abundance; Sociocultural: farmers were concerned that use of improved crop varieties would contaminate aromatic qualities of local rice varieties; Economic: purchasing power of farmers was low; Institutional: lack of quality control of agricultural inputs lead to adulteration of crop protection chemicals, fertiliser and seeds, which discouraged farmers from investing in such products (Rodenburg et al ., ). …”

“…by Stokols, ), relatively long periods are often needed to integrate work in scientific disciplines with other academic disciplines, and, more broadly, to engage in social processes relevant to transdisciplinary research. Such processes include integration of knowledge from a wide range of scholarly and practice‐based sources (Bammer, ; Rodenburg et al ., ), and the building of trusting relationships for multistakeholder collaboration in innovation activities (Leeuwis & Aarts, ), collective action and participatory democratic governance (Gaventa, ). At present, these processes cannot be expected to self‐organise.…”