Innovation processes in agro ecological transitions in developing countries

Innovation Platforms as a Tool to Support Technological Change in the Agri-Food Sector in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Plantain Value Chain in Côte d’Ivoire.. 1 Innovation P

Transitions in Developing Countries

coordinated by Dimitri Uzunidis

Volume 2

Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions

in Developing Countries

Edited by

Ludovic Temple Eveline M.F.W Compaoré Sawadogo

First published 2018 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,

or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street

London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78630-272-4

Contents

Foreword xi

Michel GRIFFON Introduction xiii

Ludovic TEMPLE and Eveline M.F.W COMPAORÉ SAWADOGO Chapter 1 Innovation Platforms as a Tool to Support Technological Change in the Agri-Food Sector in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Plantain Value Chain in Côte d’Ivoire 1

Euphrasie C.M ANGBO-KOUAKOU, Ludovic TEMPLE, Syndhia MATHÉ and Alexandre ASSEMIEN 1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Technological innovations in the Ivorian plantain sector 4

1.2.1 Development of plantain cultivar transfers 4

1.2.2 History of the WAAPP plantain program 5

1.2.3 Innovation platform features: objectives, composition and governance 6

1.3 Conceptual and methodological framework 10

1.3.1 SIS: framework for analyzing technological changes based on the strategies of stakeholders in agri-food chains 10

1.3.2 Conceptualization of the four components of an AIS 11

1.3.3 Methodological and analytical framework 13

1.4 Results 17

1.4.1 Functionality of Côte d’Ivoire’s PIPs 17

1.4.2 Reorganization of the AIS components by PIPs 17

1.4.3 Redirecting technological trajectories in the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire 18

1.5 Discussion of the functionalities of the system and IAs 20

1.5.1 Functionalities of the agricultural SIS for the plantain

sector in Côte d’Ivoire 20

1.5.2 IAs and changes 21

1.5.3 Renewal of technological innovation processes 21

1.6 Conclusion 22

1.7 Bibliography 23

Chapter 2 Biotechnological Cotton in Burkina Faso: An Innovation Trajectory in a Development Context 29

Eveline M.F.W COMPAORÉ SAWADOGO 2.1 Introduction 29

2.2 The rise of biotechnological cotton within a context of persistent development problems 33

2.3 Institutional mechanisms that led to the adoption of biotechnological cotton innovation in Burkina Faso 34

2.4 Identification of the actors and their place in the Bt innovation trajectory 35

2.4.1 Cotton producers 35

2.4.2 Cotton industries 36

2.4.3 Cotton researchers 36

2.4.4 Civil society 37

2.4.5 The government of Burkina Faso 37

2.5 Stabilization of the Bt cotton adoption process 42

2.6 Discussion and conclusion on the failure of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso 43

2.7 Bibliography 45

Chapter 3 Emergence of a Biofuel Innovation System and Production in Burkina Faso: An Analysis of the Determinants and Challenges for its Development 51

Salif DERRA and Ludovic TEMPLE 3.1 Introduction 51

3.2 Methodology 52

3.2.1 Analytical framework 52

3.2.2 Data collection 55

3.3 Defining the biofuel innovation and production system 56

3.4 Incentives for the emergence of the actor system 58

3.4.1 Biofuel support policies 58

3.4.2 Increased funding for biofuels research 59

3.4.3 Financing of biofuel production projects 60

3.5 Functional analysis of the biofuel innovation and production system 60

3.5.1 Creation of a platform for capacity-building 60

3.5.2 Functioning of the biofuels sector in Burkina Faso 61

3.5.3 Biofuel development models 62

3.6 The failures of the biofuel innovation and production system 63

3.6.1 Insufficient knowledge on the consequences of technological choices 63

3.6.2 Poor interaction within the actor network 64

3.6.3 Lack of regulatory frameworks and standards 64

3.6.4 Apprehension from national and international civil society 65

3.7 Conclusion 65

3.8 Bibliography 66

Chapter 4 Trajectories of Innovation in Conservation Agriculture at Lake Alaotra in Madagascar 71

Eric PENOT, Valentin FEVRE and Patricia FLODROPS 4.1 Introduction 71

4.2 The problem 73

4.3 Methodology 75

4.4 Status report on the adoption of CA in 2013 76

4.5 Developments in farming practices and innovations in CA 79

4.6 A wide variety of growing systems among the early adopters 80

4.7 Learning, innovation co-design and IS 82

4.7.1 Learning and recombination of knowledge 82

4.7.2 Empirical example of an evolution towards co-construction of systems 82

4.7.3 Toward innovation comanagement 83

4.8 Contrasting behaviors after project shutdown 84

4.9 Conclusion 87

4.10 Bibliography 91

Chapter 5 Ecological Transition of an Innovation Model: Yam Seed Production in Haiti 95

James BOYER and Ludovic TEMPLE 5.1 Introduction 95

5.2 Conceptual and methodological frameworks 97

5.2.1 Yam production in Haiti 97

5.2.2 Methodology and data collection 97

5.2.3 A three-phase mechanism for collecting data and validating results 98

5.3 The diffusionist attempt to transfer Miniset technology in Haiti 100

5.3.1 Emergence of the Miniset technique in Haiti 100

5.3.2 Orientation based on external research and exogenous elements 100

5.3.3 The diffusionist model’s failed attempt at adapting 102

5.3.4 Co-constructing adoption: adapting the technology

to green the process 104

5.4 From adoption results to the socioeconomic impacts of Miniset 107

5.4.1 Evolution of the adoption rate 107

5.4.2 Impact on production 107

5.5 Discussion of the conditions for changing an innovation model 109

5.5.1 Miniset: the failure of linear and diffusionist innovation models 109

5.5.2 Miniset: a positive contribution to agro-ecological innovation 110

5.5.3 Miniset: a reaffirmation of the importance of action research 111

5.6 Conclusion 111

5.7 Appendix: characteristics of surveyed areas 113

5.8 Bibliography 115

Chapter 6 Diversity of Innovation Processes in the Niayes Market Gardening System (Senegal): Between Conventional Intensification and Agro-Ecological Transition 117

Patrick DUGUÉ, Isabelle MICHEL, Victor KETTELA and Serge SIMON 6.1 Introduction 117

6.2 Theoretical position 119

6.3 Methodology 120

6.3.1 Context 120

6.3.2 Combination of methods 122

6.4 Results: diversity of technical innovation processes 124

6.4.1 Adoption and adaptation of an innovation from large capital-intensive farms: drip irrigation and electric pumping 124

6.4.2 An innovation process led by a development operator: the use of biopesticides and organic manure 125

6.4.3 Poorly visible innovations carried forward by market gardeners 128

6.5 Discussion 131

6.5.1 Recognizing the innovation capacities of farmers 131

6.5.2 Why should agronomists be interested in farming innovation? 132

6.5.3 How to support innovation processes? 135

6.6 Conclusion 136

6.7 Bibliography 137

Chapter 7 Food Challenges in Africa 141

Jean-Marc BOUSSARD 7.1 Food challenge in Africa 141

7.2 How to improve the food production capacity of sub-Saharan Africa 143

7.3 Difficulty in raising capital 145

7.4 Agricultural prices south of the Sahara 149

7.5 Reasons for agricultural price volatility in Africa 152

7.6 The “endogenous” causes of price instability 155

7.7 Conclusion and implications for agricultural policies 159

7.7.1 Improving infrastructure 160

7.7.2 Input subsidies 161

7.7.3 Price stabilization 163

7.8 Bibliography 165

List of Authors 167

Index 169

Foreword

The different chapters in this book deal with a difficult problem that can

be summarized as follows: “conventional” and modern agriculture in the second half of the 20th Century was based on a technical model using chemical inputs, mechanization and capital Farms, which use these inputs

at varying levels, could only “import” these techniques and inputs from large and increasingly monopolistic companies, acquiring them on the corresponding markets and following the recommendations attached to them This has resulted in a form of technical dependence of agriculture on the upstream industrial sector and a dependence on reasoning from research institutions and dissemination of technical models

In contrast, ecological intensification proposes to first intensify the natural functionalities of agroecosystems, which do not turn to industrial inputs as a first point of call For farmers in developing countries, this is an interesting opportunity However, ecological intensification is not easy to achieve First of all, it is knowledge intensive For example, reasoning in terms of food webs to control crop pests requires precise and sometimes complex knowledge, which is not the case in conventional agriculture where pesticides are used It therefore requires a shift from situations where simple technical practices are applied to complex reasoning requiring training through observation, diagnosis, knowledge of different technical alternatives, monitoring and surveillance Experience has shown that small-scale farmers quickly become familiar with this knowledge of how natural mechanisms work

But these techniques are not given away for free They are supplemented with conventional techniques, such as applying fertilizers where necessary,

as “natural” methods are insufficient In addition, ecological intensification comes with specific costs that can be high This is particularly the case for ecological infrastructures such as, for example, establishing hedgerows, terraces, impluviums and more general improvements, which are all investments, and these investments are not limited by human labor These are monetary costs

It therefore appears that this new form of intensification presupposes

a good understanding of ecology and good motivation from farmers to use it This can only be done if they are convinced that it is in their own interest and if they freely agree to use the new techniques by appropriating them This approach therefore contrasts with conventional extension, which has often placed farmers in a situation of dependence

The studies that are presented here show how this change is taking place

in practice on the ground The authors are to be congratulated for having done this work of observation and analysis of experiments on a social phenomenon that is of primary importance for the farming agriculture based

on agroecology

Michel GRIFFON

Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological

Transitions of Developing Countries

In this book, the core problem concerns the interactions between changes in innovation models, the institutional condition of production system greening and the social consequences Six innovation processes are, analyzed in the agricultures of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Haiti, Madagascar and Senegal, respectively Chapter 7 analyzes the extent to which the lack of full agricultural policy explains the failure of technology transfer based on capital intensification These situations converge to demonstrate that collaborative innovation models are particularly useful for development, as they adapt the studied processes to local needs These models imply more commitment from public policy innovation in the agricultural sector, mainly food, in order to regulate the market and encourage funding of infrastructure and investment in production

I.1 Introduction

The increase in global development inequalities, the questions raised due

to the acceleration of climate change, new food crises and technical transitions in the fields of digital computing, energy, biotechnology, etc., all converge for a technological paradigm shift in the agricultural and food sector The recognition of this in international political fora (World Bank, UNESCO, OECD, FAO, etc.) raises controversy about the economic and social model that it mobilizes and strengthens

The first model is based on the industrialization of production through the standardization of inputs that are used to produce agricultural and food goods This is predominantly in OECD countries It is partly due to technical progress in the postwar era in the fields of chemistry, motorization, genetics, etc It is based on the search for economies of scale, on the concentration and specialization of farms and land, and is often associated with a modernist vision of capital intensification It is mainly based on new techniques that implement scientific progress through the world’s agro-chemical and agrifood companies It requires agricultural policies that regulate market instabilities and the conditions for financing investment in production, which enable capital intensification [BOU 17] In other words, within agriculture, it promotes the “developmentalist” myth that southern countries are catching

up because of exogenous industry and technology transfers [COU 86] Ultimately, it “artificializes” agriculture by “disembodying” it from its relationship with the land, climate and work (human and animal): hydroponics or the decerebration of animals This model is highly efficient

in terms of productivity or return on investment and underpins an innovation trajectory that is polarized by the intensification of production (more inputs and capital to replace labor and land) The emancipation of production from the natural and social ecosystem reduces the diversity of these ecosystems to

a constraint that must be homogenized [VAN 09] Huge fires in the dried-out bogs of Sumatra (Asia) producing acacia for the paper industry or even the dehumanization process of Chaco (South America) to produce soya are increasingly common place

A second economic model [SOU 14] underpins an agriculture that is based on family production methods It still dominates agriculture in developing countries and is based on social structures of production, which are considered to be diverse in terms of their historical roots It challenges and calls upon the capacities of science and technology to accompany this diversity, which is a resource for innovation This intensification, which is sometimes described as an ecological one [GRI 02], prioritizes the exploitation potential of natural and social ecosystems by hybridizing scientific research knowledge and knowledge bases of localized rural societies Ultimately, this model refers to permaculture or other forms of organic farming that are based on the self-production of inputs

These two “stylized” models coexist in the differing agrarian realities in the North and the South They compete for resources: land, water, labor, knowledge, finance or in securing support for public policies for innovation

and research In some situations, these models are complementary Thus, they converge in recognizing the inadequacy of the diffusionist linear innovation model for the conception of invention through scientific research and its transfer from the laboratory to global agriculture [MEY 16] This convergence is reflected in the growing importance of a system-wide reference framework for innovation analysis in innovation and research policies, which can alternatively be mobilized to improve the use of biotechnologies or to support innovation derived from the tacit knowledge of rural societies [TOU 15]

This special book takes a look at different innovation situations The connections highlight how the transition from a linear diffusionist model to

a systemic collaborative model intensifies agricultural production in a sustainable manner The trajectories of agricultural innovations mentioned in the first five chapters are mainly based on improved achievement of ecological potentialities in the mobilization of environmental resources (human and non-human) due to the networking between innovation stakeholders They show that it is possible to improve food security through ecological intensification and capacity-building for agricultural innovation in developing countries Chapter 6 argues in favor of strengthening the capital intensification of production It analyzes how the incompleteness of agricultural policies, which is linked to the disengagement of states in regulating product markets and making financial investments, explains current technological inertia in the considered context

I.2 The determinants of ecological intensification

In Burkina Faso, based on the technological promises of reducing pesticides through the diffusion of Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs)

by an agro-chemical firm, Eveline Compaoré Sawadogo (Chapter 2) shows how the lobbies linked to globalized investments in GMOs create institutional conditions for the extension of Bt cotton She analyzes how emancipating the precautionary principles and not taking into account stakeholders’ expectations contributes to the failure of the innovation process She questions the negative social consequences of such a trajectory of Bt cotton

Looking at the development conditions for Jatropha cultivation to produce energy in Burkina Faso, Salif Derra and Ludovic Temple (Chapter 3) extend this questioning They show how structuring research and

entrepreneurial investments in the bioenergy sector instigates technological dynamics in response to needs defined by industrial countries However, they underline how it can also feed a variety of possible technological models, some of which can meet localized needs (under certain conditions)

In Madagascar, Eric Penot et al (Chapter 4) question how the

diffusionist model of a new agro-ecological cropping system (SCV) reinforces its effectiveness through a development project by integrating farmers’ participation into the evaluation and experimentation mechanisms However, the results point to low adoption rates and partial adoption mechanisms of these techniques They question the future sustainability of these adoptions in terms of their ability to integrate the complexity of institutional and organizational variables that, beyond individual scales, structure the coordination of collective community or professional action

In Côte d’Ivoire, Euphrasie Angbo-Kouakou et al (Chapter 1) show how

a “South–South” technology transfer based on new disease-resistant plantain banana hybrids (which potentially reduce pesticide use) mobilizes participatory multi-stakeholder assessment schemes These schemes solidify

a collaborative innovation model They generate collective adaptations of the relationships between research and farmers These experimental platforms adapt the technology transfer offer to the needs of different stakeholders in the localized value chains

In Senegal, on the topic of market gardening, Patrick Dugué et al.,

(Chapter 6) show how spatial proximity between different agro-industrial and family production methods can lead to innovation processes for small producers In the observed situation, they favor the pooling of experimental and learning capacities, which allows for the adoption of new industrial innovations (thermal or electric pumps) for drip irrigation This adoption model is coupled with other innovation processes that are more based on natural and cognitive local resources, for example the fertilization of crops

or optimal valorization of land (crop associations) The hybridization of knowledge bases between professional organizations, civil society (NGOs with an organic farming model), businesses and research are at the root of these innovation mechanisms, combining different technical artefacts with local knowledge

In Haiti, James Boyer and Ludovic Temple (Chapter 5) analyze how a linear diffusionist innovation model has been transformed into an open and

collaborative model of long-term production of yams They highlight how this transformation needs to be created and strengthened through positive synergies between adoption mechanisms, the autonomous greening of the innovation process, and the socioeconomic impacts at a macroeconomic level

Jean-Marc Boussard (Chapter 7) emphasizes the need to increase the availability and accessibility of agricultural production in order to meet the needs of population growth By mobilizing the contribution of the agricultural production economy, he identifies the need to increase the productivity of the land and the labor it conditions for capital investment This capital investment can take different forms: infrastructure, mechanization, use of technical inputs

or mobilization of new knowledge It remains governed by agricultural policies, which secure access to credit and regulate agricultural and food markets

These six chapters provide cross-disciplinary knowledge of the results that illustrate a coevolution between the adaptation of agricultural innovation models and technological trajectories, which lead to a greening of agronomic practices in the intertropical agriculture of developing countries All these case studies confirm the growing practice of participatory research, which creates interactions between stakeholders These practices are more or less inclusive

of local and non-local stakeholders depending on the phase of the process: design, experimentation, dissemination In some cases, implementing a diffusionist model is a minor adjustment that barely modifies the linear dimension of the technology transfer governed by agro-chemical companies or researchers that are exogenous to rural societies This results in costly failures for local populations and partial adoptions that are not stable In other cases, the tools implemented (innovation platforms) modify the initial linear pattern

of technology transfer by creating feedback loops Finally, in yet other situations, the explicit implementation of collaborative innovation models during all phases of the process reinforces the endogenous innovation capacity

of farmers in self-production of inputs In these latter situations, the mechanisms for adopting innovation are faster, which breaks with the linear model There can be two outcomes relative to the situations mentioned above:

an increase in yield and productivity or an improvement in the innovation capacity of farmers through control of their own resources

I.3 Conclusion

In terms of greening of production, some case studies have shown that

innovation processes which reduce labor hardship (irrigation, in vivo seeding

multiplication) allow for better involvement of farmers in the adoption and dissemination of technologies With regard to innovations that are based on technology transfer, new varieties exist, crop systems to reduce pesticides developed in industrialized countries (SCV) and capital-intensive agricultural practices (new varieties including GMOs, chemical fertilizers) These produce divergent results depending on the institutional and political contexts The chapter by Boussard explains the failures of capital intensi-fication in the productivist model due to the inadequacy of agricultural policies to secure credit access conditions and reduce market instability Risk aversion is highlighted as a major variable for investment in production However, it does not question the compatibility of both this model and intensification technologies with the diversity of socioeconomic conditions for production and the specific nature of local needs In general, all the innovation situations considered here concern family-run farms The example of Senegal, however, reveals an explicit complementarity between different economic models of production organization

The innovation situations referred to in this book differ in terms of the level of involvement of the various stakeholders in innovation processes, but they also depend on the role played by institutional incentives provided by public policies They challenge the mechanisms and methodologies [TEM 16] that allow sub-Saharan Africa to accompany the transition from linear technology transfer models to collaborative innovation models Although the results are contextual in each case, the fact that they converge shows how these collaborative models reinforce the effectiveness of innovation processes with respect to better connectivity between the agronomic research activity and its usefulness in inclusive development Innovation and research policies that focus on the public good relative to local societal expectations are a necessity in the fragile institutional context

of developing countries

I.4 Bibliography

[BOU 17] BOUSSARD J.M., Les prix agricoles, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2017

[COU 86] COURLET C., JUDET., “Indutrialisation et développement: la crise des

paradigmes”, Tiers Monde, vol 27, no 107, pp 519–536, 1986

[GRI 82] GRIFFON M., “Révolution Verte, Révolution Doublement Verte Quelles

technologies, institutions et recherche pour les agricultures de l'avenir?”, Mondes

en développement, vol 117, pp 39–44, 1982

[MEY 16] MEYNARD J.M., JEUFFROY M.H., LE BAIL M et al., “Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems”, Agricultural Systems, vol 157, pp 330–339, 2016

[SOU 14] SOURISSEAU J.M., Agricultures familiales et mondes à venir, Editions

QUAE, Paris, 2014

[TEM 16] TEMPLE L., BIÉNABE E., BARRET D et al., “Methods for assessing the

impact of research on innovation and development in the agriculture and food

sectors”, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development,

vol 8, nos 5–6, pp 399–410, 2016

[TOU 15] TOUZARD J.M., TEMPLE L., FAURE G et al., “Innovation systems and

knowledge communities in the agriculture and agrifood sector: a literature

review”, Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, vol 2, no 17,

1

Innovation Platforms as a Tool to Support Technological Change in the Agri-Food

Sector in Developing Countries:

A Case Study of the Plantain Value Chain in Côte d’Ivoire

Since 2011, innovation policies in the agri-food sector in Côte d’Ivoire have been based on designing a technology transfer mechanism named “innovation platforms” in order to introduce improved plant varieties and hybrids This chapter particularly focuses on the implications of

“plantain innovation platforms (PIP)” in the reorientation of local technology choices in order to ensure national food security through increased domestic food product supplies We use the conceptual framework of the sectoral innovation system (SIS) This framework helps to characterize the functioning of the PIPs We identified four components that structure sociotechnological innovations: research, intermediation, value chain (VC) and financing Our results show that PIPs help to structure SIS by influencing the public policy decision process (research and innovation) in the selection of cultivars to be introduced, the cultural practices and also the food preferences, thus integrating the geographic diversity of recipients of these innovations in this developing country These policy changes involve considering the needs of local producers and consumers for choosing plants and new technical processes The future of these PIPs is thereby questioned

Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing Countries, First Edition

Edited by Ludovic Temple and Eveline M.F.W Compaoré Sawadogo

© ISTE Ltd 2018 Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc

international markets but instead on an increase in food production relative

to the needs of the internal market [HUG 94, BRI 13] These policies are supported by the West African Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP), which was initiated in 2011 by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) with financial support from the World Bank In particular, these programs concern the generation and/or transfer of technological innovations (pure breeds of animals and plant hybrids or varieties: cultivars), as well as their dissemination to populations and target audiences in the agricultural and food chains in this subregion [TEM 11a]

In Côte d’Ivoire, actions are undertaken on behalf of the State by the Interprofessional Fund for Agricultural Research and Development (FIRCA) and a technical and fiduciary executive agency (FIRCA_WAAPP_Côte d’Ivoire) In this country, the WAAPP program is supervised by the Ministry

of Agriculture in collaboration with some 20 national and international institutions [CGI 13], which include research, technical and financial partners One of the goals of this program for improving agricultural and food productivity is to establish conditions for the development of an agricultural innovation system (AIS) [HAL 05] through the selection and introduction of new improved varieties and hybrids in food crop plantations

A central element for these innovation systems (ISs, which are run by different projects and programs in sub-Saharan Africa) to function is the creation of multistakeholder innovation and exchange platforms

[NED 11, ADE 12, KLE 12, KIL 13, SCH 15] These platforms are intended

to organize stakeholder connections in order to use research and innovation results in agriculture and food Their objectives are to create frameworks for the transfer, extension, co-construction, coproduction of technologies and/or consultation between stakeholders, and to support innovations in the development of an agri-food industry

However, technological changes imply the coevolution of three dimensions of innovation: “hardware, software and orgware” [KLE 12] Diffusionism-based approaches tend to focus on “hardware” and very little

on software and orgware For example, technologies have been around for a long time but have not yet been spread The current strategy is to work on

“software” and “orgware” to foster technological development This involves examining how innovation platforms can help achieve this It also raises the question of understanding how innovation platforms contribute to

structuring SISs [MAL 05] and how they reorient technological choices in the agricultural and agri-food value chains in Côte d’Ivoire, a developing country

It is important to note that the “hardware” dimension of innovation is jointly linked to a technology that is specifically driven by agronomic research and to technological devices that support innovation In this case, the innovation platform is an organization that supports this technology (hardware) The “software” dimension refers to the knowledge transmitted

by broker services (consultancy) to beneficiaries of these innovations through training, learning and capacity-building sessions The “orgware” dimension refers to strategies for coordinating stakeholders in the sector, and for restructuring components of an AIS through exchanges between research institutions, extension or advisory support services and beneficiaries/target stakeholders

In this study, we propose to evaluate the impact of these transfer mechanisms (platforms) on the organization and evolution of an AIS, which

is shaped by research and financial institutions, professionals in the sector and broker services that provide agricultural extension We also evaluate their impact on the direction of technological research and innovation It is also necessary to analyze the capacity of this mechanism to include different categories of stakeholders within a sector (such as producers, traders and processors) for it to develop in a way that is suitable for the geographical diversity of agricultural production regions in Côte d’Ivoire

The methodology involves using the SIS approach [MAL 02, MAL 05, TOU 15] to represent the relationships between our four components in this sectoral technology transfer mechanism, which are the research component, the intermediation component, the VC component and the financing component Analyzing this sociotechnological innovation helps to check how multistakeholder dynamics structure an AIS and coordinate the stakeholders within the five existing PIPs retained for the study, in a global

VC [GER 05] or an agricultural sector in Côte d’Ivoire

The referenced case study is based on data from qualitative surveys carried out by focus groups, semidirective interviews and surveys of various stakeholders that were identified in each of these components (MINADER – Ministry of Agriculture; ANADER (National Agency for Rural Development) – Agency of extension; FIRCA – WAAPP Program Execution Agency; CNRA – Center for the Coordination of Agricultural

Research Programs), as well as the leaders and managers in charge of PIPs

in four of the main plantain-producing regions (Abengourou, Adzopé, Agboville and Soubré) The collected material was supplemented with a dozen interviews conducted with researchers and experts in the agricultural and agri-food sector in France and Côte d’Ivoire between 2015 and 2016

We postulate that the creation of collaborative platforms or transfers is a structuring element in the existence of this IS Our argument is based on two secondary working hypotheses: first, we assume that by bringing together professionals and research institutions, platforms adapt innovation processes and collective learning to the diversity of each context Second, these platforms redirect the mechanisms for creating or introducing varieties operated by national agronomic research structures through a retroactive process on the AIS

This chapter is divided into four sections In section 1.2, we present the developments that have occurred due to the introduction of technological innovations in the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire Section 1.3 describes the SIS framework and its four identified components, as well as the methodology used for data collection In section 1.4, we present our results, which are discussed in section 1.5 In conclusion, we propose some recommendations and perspectives for future research

1.2 Technological innovations in the Ivorian plantain sector

1.2.1 Development of plantain cultivar transfers

This literature review on the introduction of plantain varieties and hybrids

in Côte d’Ivoire and on the process of creating PIPs, highlights the macroeconomic elements, public policy, program or project aspects that have built up cultivar transfers since the 1980s [LAS 73, LAS 89, CHA 80, OSS 98, KOF 01, KOF 04, CNR 08, TRA 09]

The literature highlights the development of the socioinstitutional environment of innovation processes in the food sector [CHA 96, PNI 10, PNS 11, SND 14, BLO 14, PER 15]

In the present framework, we are interested in the latest introductions of three improved cultivars of plantain plants: PITA 3 (2012), FHIA 21 (2012) and Big Ebanga (2014) The processing of this (secondary) information

collected makes it possible to identify the components of an AIS on plantains, which are under construction in Côte d’Ivoire

The socioinstitutional environment of this sector is shaped1 to include the major actors and stakeholders who were surveyed

1.2.2 History of the WAAPP plantain program

In 2012, producers in the Côte d’Ivoire plantain sector were informed of the existence of new and improved cultivars of high yield plantains that were potentially tolerant to Cercosporiosis (a leaf disease), namely PITA 3 and FHIA 21 These two hybrids were then experimentally tested in 10 producer groups in seven zones: Abengourou (2), Bouaflé (2), Issia (2), Adzopé, Agboville, Divo and Tiassalé, representing a total of 224 producers of which

155 were women (over 69%) [WAA 13] These tests continued in 2013 and were prolonged until 2014 Approximately 92,680 PITA 3 and FHIA 21 seedlings were distributed by ANADER free of charge to over 160 producer groups between 2012 and 2014 As one of the main partners in rural development, ANADER provided advisory support (general extension) in agricultural production localities

The demonstration plots were subdivided into three sections in each grouping and covered on average, a quarter of a hectare (ha) of land This was required to accommodate the two improved hybrids, which were subject

to diffusion together with a local variety (Affoto/N’Dè Fôtô or

Agnrin/Agninnin) as a control variable These were all selected through

1 The national institutions involved in this plantain innovation process include the Ministry of Agriculture (MINADER) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), the Interprofessional Fund for Research and Agricultural Development (FIRCA), the National Center for Agricultural Research (CNRA), the Ivorian Institute for Tropical Technology (I2T), the National Center for Specialization in Plantain Banana (CNS BP), the Félix Houphouët-Boigny National Polytechnic Institute (INPHB), the École Supérieur d’Agronomie (ESA_INPHB), the École Nationale de la Statistique et Économie Appliquée (ENSEA), the National Agency for Rural Development (ANADER), African Institute for Economic and Social Development (INADES-Formation), the Plantain Innovation Platforms (PIP), the Association for the Development of Intensive Crops (ADCVI), the Professional Agricultural Organizations (OPA), the Rongead International Trade & Sustainable Development NGO, the Chigata Women and Development NGO, etc External partnerships were established with CIRAD, CGIAR, IITA and CARBAP

agronomic studies (CNRA)2 This methodology helped to compare cultural methods On the control plot, producers were free to grow plantain in accordance with traditional cultivation practices, whereas on plots containing improved hybrid cultivars, new and more specific cultivation techniques were applied to the management of a monoculture farm, under the supervision of ANADER’s extension and advisory officers

The use of plantain plants selected by research has radically modified local cultivation techniques [TEM 11b] It has reduced vulnerability to disease and therefore increased yield per hectare, according to researchers These results have been confirmed by the producers surveyed

As a result of this experiment, five PIPs were created in 2013 in five of the main plantain production areas: Abengourou, Adzopé, Agboville, Issia and Soubré, financed on the basis of a public–private partnership (PPP) between the Côte d’Ivoire Government and the World Bank (the WAAPP project)

1.2.3 Innovation platform features: objectives, composition and governance

1.2.3.1 State objectives for the creation of innovation platforms

Agronomic research has produced a number of technologies for which the effectiveness has been proven in experiments but not always in real environments Thus, by setting up innovation platforms in the agricultural and agri-food sector (plantain, cassava, maize and rice), the Ivorian authorities aim

at taking into account the real needs of economic stakeholders (producers, processors, etc.) by improving the transfer of research results

The initial objectives of these innovation platforms are mainly to facilitate access to agricultural (hybrid) inputs, to increase the production of these strategic crops [PNI 10], to support the sale of these products on local and regional markets, and above all to build a permanent framework for multistakeholder dialog in the Ivorian agri-food chains

2 In 2007, the PITA 3, FHIA 21 and CRBP 100 hybrids were used in a participatory selection

of plantain plants in western Côte d’Ivoire According to the CNRA, this pilot test was what motivated the choice of the varieties PITA 3 and FHIA 21 in the implementation of the WAAPP project http://www.cnra.ci/downloads/Rap_programmes%20de%20recherche% 202007.pdf _ p57

The PIPs constitute a new technological mechanism (hardware) that was set up as part of the implementation of programs to improve productivity in the plantains sector These PIPs experimentally structured the AIS in the sector by developing the “orgware” and “software” dimensions of innovation Through this process, they ensure synergy between the sector stakeholders while broadening their spectrum to all the different links in the VC Thus, the design of PIPs aims at increasing the domestic supply of local food and hence improving food independence in Côte d’Ivoire

1.2.3.2 Creation of PIPs and evolution of the number of members

The establishment of PIPs was made possible from September to December 2013 through joint action from the Ministry of Agriculture, CNRA, IITA, ANADER and FIRCA_WAAPP The Abengourou YEBOYEKON innovation platform was the first to be set up (September 13, 2013), then successively the Agboville N’DÈ N’FENIN-TÔH PIP in the Agneby Tiassa region (September 25), the Adzopé WOYÈ PIP (October 3), the Issia PIP (September 5) and the Soubré PIP in the region of Nawa (December 17, 2013) This action marked the beginning of the local organization and restructuring of the sector

Since their creation, a range of actors have emerged, varying depending

on the implementation area and the stakeholders These PIPs are composed

of direct actors in the VC (producers, nursery men, traders and processors) and indirect actors who do not own the product, but whose involvement is necessary for marketing it (transporters); law free trade (law enforcement agencies); microfinance institutes (MFIs); farmer organization by broker services (ANADER, ADCVI), etc These platforms aim at integrating the different links in the chain of implementation of changes (technical, organizational) that are necessary for the diffusion of new cultivars

The number of producer groups ranged from two to 10 per PIP, with an average number of members ranging from 150 to 600 for the Soubré platform, which currently has about 20 groups This number appears to have increased from 35 to 68 between 2013 and 2016, reflecting the interest of this category of stakeholders in the success of the PIP With a total of about 1,500 members [FIR 15], these groups account for between 40 and 65% of women plantain producers, often reaching about 150 women per PIP This could be justified by the presence of at least two groups of food-producing women per PIP in Côte d’Ivoire All these producers are grouped within an

agricultural professional organization (APO) In addition, nursery activity has developed rapidly, as is currently the case in Agboville’s PIP These actors ensure a sustainable supply of improved plants

As for associations that group traders, there exists one or even two associations per platform, with a majority of women members (80–90%) At this level, it is worth noting that in the case of food traders’ associations, the stakeholders could simultaneously be producers and traders These associations are mainly owned by women and are referred to as “food trader cooperatives” Some are pooled as a federation of cooperatives (FENACOVICI, COCOVICO, CNAVICI)3 while others are not affiliated in any way This would probably make it more difficult for this category of stakeholders in the industry, as well as restaurant owners, to take ownership

1.2.3.3 Governance of PIPs facing the diversity of contexts

Three years after being set up, the perception of the role of a PIP varies from region to region and differs from that of research institutions and broker services For some platform chairmen, the PIP is a central purchasing body, while for others, it is a regulatory framework in which all the industry’s stakeholder groups meet to exchange ideas and establish a solid business relationship between each other

3 FENACOVICI: National Federation of Food Co-operatives in Côte d’Ivoire (from the

French Fédération Nationale des Coopératives de Vivriers de Côte d’Ivoire); COCOVICO: Cocody Food Trade Co-operative (from the French Coopérative des Commerçants de Vivriers

de Cocody); CNAVICI: National Coordination of Food Stakeholders in Côte d’Ivoire (From the French Coordination Nationale des Acteurs du Vivrier de Côté d’Ivoire)

For the economic operators that make up the PIP, it appears to be “a framework for consultation, exchanges and sharing information between the different stakeholders (direct and indirect) in a same VC in order to resolve their production, processing, marketing, transport and financing problems This mechanism should make it possible to defend their common interests through the search for a shared added value, which would improve their income and livelihoods and hence, their living conditions and well-being” [FIR 15]

Partner (IITA) and research (CNRA) institutions see PIPs as a tool for the dissemination of new technologies (innovation and knowledge) and a mechanism for building up the beneficiaries’ capacities It is therefore a suitable tool for providing solutions to the constraints faced by most of the stakeholders in a VC and a tool for managing the multistakeholder process in this chain It also shows that a PIP is mainly a means or framework for exchanges to improve the identification of farmers’ needs and to disseminate new technologies in rural areas It is also a mechanism where several categories of stakeholders work together to create value for equitable sharing

The operation of these platforms was done in two phases After they were implemented, executive offices (EOs) were set up as the first direct actors (producer groups) saw fit These executive officers are those who had benefited from improved seedlings and training sessions on new cultivation practices brought about by the use of new hybrid varieties in 2012 Thus, the number and categories of stakeholders involved in the EO differed from one platform to another, but each EO remained on the whole dominated by producers with the presence of a few traders, processors and transporters

In May 2015, research institutions (IITA, CNRA) suggested a new form

of PIP organization with a theoretical maximum of seven members in each

EO, so an average of one representative per stakeholder group including the PIP chairman In addition, the frequency of EO meetings in the PIPs remains monthly, while the General Assemblies (GAs) take place on a quarterly basis These GAs are made up of two representatives from each producer group, traders’ cooperatives and associations of processors or restaurant owners, who have subscribed and are up to date with their membership fees,

in addition to each representative of the indirect stakeholders who are members of the PIP

However, the organization and motivation of the stakeholders remain a major challenge for the survival of each PIP In practice, the PIPs should be self-financed through enrolment fees for groups and associations, and membership fees Although this self-financing took place in 2014, it was partial in 2015 and remained hypothetical in 2016, at the time of our field investigations The collected amounts are deposited in a bank account at an authorized financial institution in the region where the PIP is located This disposition is intended to promote the creation of their files for legal formalities,

as is currently the case for the PIPs in Adzopé, Agboville and Soubré

1.3 Conceptual and methodological framework

1.3.1 SIS: framework for analyzing technological changes based

on the strategies of stakeholders in agri-food chains

The conceptual framework of ISs [LUN 92, HAL 05, TOU 15] was used

to shape the functioning of PIP [HEK 07] through the description of components, stakeholders and their interactions [RÖL 09] This conceptual framework allowed us to identify four components of AIS in the plantain sector in our study in order to analyze the dynamics of interactions between categories of stakeholders and their coordination strategies in agriculture and the agri-food sector in developing countries

The AIS is composed of the following main stakeholders: (1) research; (2) broker services (extension and advice); (3) professionals or economic stakeholders made up of agro-procurement stakeholders, producers, traders and processors; and (4) institutions for financing agricultural innovation in the plantain sector

This step should lead to an assessment of the operation constraints of this AIS, which is still under construction in the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire The characterization of how PIPs function also helps to identify institutional arrangements (IAs) and changes [HOU 12] between categories

of stakeholders, while integrating the diversity of the sociocultural contexts

in which these PIPs develop

This approach makes it possible to highlight the mechanisms for coevolution

of the dimensions of innovation “hardware, software and orgware” [KLE 12], which would underpin innovation processes in the plantain sector

1.3.2 Conceptualization of the four components of an AIS

The AIS, which we discuss in the Ivorian context, is a mechanism that links four components that structure current sociotechnological innovations, namely (1) research, (2) intermediation, (3) VC and (4) innovation financing (Figure 1.1) These elements act and interact in this agri-food system for the creation of goods and/or services

Figure 1.1 AIS in Côte d’Ivoire 4

Thus, AIS in developing countries can be conceptualized in the agri-food sector as follows:

By producing basic knowledge, technologies and diverse products, the

“research component” guides innovation processes in the food sector [MAL 05] In Côte d’Ivoire, this action is devolved in the agricultural field

by national research institutions in agronomy (CNRA, I2T, CNS BP), universities and higher engineering and technical colleges (INPHB, ENSEA, UFHB, UNA), as well as subregional (CARBAP) and international research and cooperation organizations (CIRAD, IITA, CGIAR)

In order to ensure that the generated knowledge is circulated among professionals or direct stakeholders in VCs, an “intermediation component” has also been identified The intermediate innovation stakeholders, which are also called “brokers” [KLE 12, KIL 13], have the particularity of making theoretical knowledge more accessible by transforming it into a more adequate language to ensure the dissemination or transfer of technologies to direct actors in the VC or to the beneficiaries of innovation The structures within this component are partly owned by the state in developing countries

4 Euphrasie C.M Angbo-Kouakou’s graphic design, 2016 (to appear in his thesis)

They provide guidance, training, capacity-building, extension and advice on agricultural practices in the sector on which the Ivorian economy is based: agriculture These are ministries in charge of agriculture, livestock, economy and finance, industry, crafts and SMEs, ANADER, INADES Formation, ADCVI, NGOs, EPOs, some agricultural cooperatives and village groups Professionals and private entrepreneurs, which are still direct or indirect stakeholders of the VC in the plantain sector, have all been grouped together

in this AIS as part of the “value chain component” Within this component, although the economic agents are heterogeneous, they benefit from training, apprenticeship (learning by doing), capacity-building for production, marketing and processing techniques, and also support (material and/or financial) This component brings together economic stakeholders who generally develop commercial relations and aim at making profits It brings together both upstream and downstream actors At the center of this VC component are the plantain growers, including both men and women, but many more women from the food sector in general The upstream actors provide the agro-supply service for inputs such as nursery men and suppliers

of phytosanitary products Downstream of the VC, there are transporters, traders, processors (industry and artisanal) and stakeholders of large and medium distribution, with raw or processed products (flour, pastry, plantain chips) that are either intended for local markets or for export to West African subregion countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, etc.) or even to the European Union and America

The “financing component” of innovation supports, on the one hand, research, development, technological innovation and knowledge dissemination activities, and, on the other hand, the agricultural sector It consists of international donors (World Bank, AFD), regional banks (BAD, BCEAO, BOAD) and national commercial banks (BNI, BICICI, SIB) as well as FIRCA at the national level Local MFIs also contribute to granting microcredits and the development of savings, such as the women’s food credit union (MUCREF) and the Financial Institution for Savings and Credit Co-operators and farmers (IFECC, COOPEC)

In addition to formal intragroup relations, informal interactions also take place between the components, which allows this sectoral mechanism to be defined as a system These interactions between the main actors and stakeholders of the components often occur in the context of public policy implementation, a national development program or a project

It would certainly be beneficial to apply this AIS to the new policy for reducing food dependency in Côte d’Ivoire in order to obtain a positive impact of this program for improving agricultural productivity (WAAPP) and achieving food security challenges

NOTE.– The AIS that is applied to the interaction strategies of plantain stakeholders in Côte d’Ivoire is done through its four components and its relationship with the experimental scheme called PIP, which is implemented

by WAAPP

1.3.3 Methodological and analytical framework

Within the framework of primary data collection and for the purposes of this study, several bodies were selected to conduct semidirective interviews: the Ministry responsible for this productivity improvement program (MINADER), the executive body (FIRCA_WAAPP), the coordination center for research programs on plantains (CNRA) and the technical extension agency (ANADER) According to experts, surveys were carried out in France (VITROPIC, CIRAD and experts) and in Côte d’Ivoire (researchers and experts) in 2015 and 2016 to better understand and define the process of sociotechnological innovation under way in the plantain sector

in Côte d’Ivoire

A field survey mission was also carried out in four of the five PIPs, from April 25 to 30, 2016 These surveys were made possible through the use of semidirective face-to-face interview guides The interviews were conducted

at the headquarters of each PIP EO, usually located at ANADER’s departmental or regional offices in Soubré, Agboville, Adzopé and Abengourou The collections were held before the elected presidents of each PIP with one or two members of each EO also participating, amounting to a total of 12 direct stakeholders These included producers, nursery men, traders and restaurant owners who were members of the PIP Sometimes ANADER’s advisory agent in charge of implementing the WAAPP project was also present

Table 1.1 summarizes the survey methods used and the nature of the information collected These surveys were used to better understand the organization of this AIS and analyze its development

1.4 Results

1.4.1 Functionality of Côte d’Ivoire’s PIPs

The PIP is a multifunctional tool with two goals for economic operators

in this agricultural sector The first is to bring in stakeholders who steer innovation (intermediaries, researchers, etc.) and have them interact with the actors of the VC (producers, traders, processors and consumers) based on study results (CNRA, IITA, CNS BP) The process of this technology transfer is mainly carried out through (1) the selection and introduction of two improved hybrids through research, (2) the dissemination of these new technologies (innovations and knowledge) within producer groups and (3) training, learning and capacity-building of stakeholders on the use of the technical package surrounding this technology

The second goal of PIPs is to restructure the coordination between VC stakeholders in order to speed up the use or non-use of initial (varietal) technical proposals by managing the multistakeholder process within them Investigations reveal several constraints on the governance and effectiveness of PIPs, which are reflected in the dilution of General Assemblies (AGs), even though monthly meetings in EOs are held regularly Conventional operational problems linked to the lack of transport facilities for EO members have strongly penalized the tasks assigned to them by producers and members, as is the case in the Nawa PIP in Soubré

1.4.2 Reorganization of the AIS components by PIPs

Reorganization of the four plantain SIS components into the platforms has resulted in it organizing and coordinating the activities of stakeholder groups involved in the diffusion of new technologies This organization takes place across multiple levels: (1) analysis of the choice of new varieties introduced in each locality; (2) consideration of their acceptability conditions

by beneficiaries; (3) the need to integrate endogenous innovation processes carried out by stakeholders; (4) reorientation of technological trajectories by public policies that are introduced into the sector; (5) emergence of IAs between the platform’s member stakeholders; (6) identification of the real needs of the platform’s members; and (7) taking into account the food preferences of potential consumers and, in particular, local consumers

Regarding the coordination of activities of heterogeneous groups of stakeholders, three relationships between stakeholders in the VC have emerged as the most significant in the field during the WAAPP variety experiment These were (1) collaboration between research and development structures and intermediation agencies or producer coaching services in rural areas; (2) interactions between these structures and groups of producers who benefit from innovation; and (3) exchanges between research structures and professionals in the VC for better guidance of public policies in the choice of cultivars

Thus, the PIPs caused the SIS components to interact in 2014 and organized a participatory construction of local adoption conditions for hybrids that had been selected in 2007 (Figure 1.2) However, the national dissemination that followed in 2012 did not take into account the needs linked to diversity of contexts and regions, let alone the preferences of local consumers [JIG 16]

Figure 1.2 Structuring of the plantain innovation platforms (PIP) in the Ivorian AIS

1.4.3 Redirecting technological trajectories in the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire

Redirecting public policy decisions has been made possible because of ongoing exchanges between several categories of actors and stakeholders in the VC within the VC component It has also taken place due to the multiple interactions developed between the different components (professionals,

intermediaries, research institutions and funding bodies) of this AIS In this way, the PIPs have led to the emergence of coordination dynamics among stakeholders in various regions, which made it possible to specify the needs for improving the productivity of plantations and to respond to the food preferences of local plantain consumers

In 2012, after the dissemination of the PITA 3 and FHIA 21 varieties and

the transfer of cultivation technologies linked to the use of these varieties by ANADER (which was carried out under the impetus of agronomic research), the participatory establishment set up in 2013 of a PIP in the main production areas encouraged the identification of plantain cultivars that were

similar to the main local varieties (Agnrin and Affôtô) Thus, the interactions

between stakeholders in the sector within the PIPs made it possible to express the needs of local producers and consumers in terms of choice of plantain plant material

Unilaterally, FIRCA_WAAPP also changed its innovation policies in

2014 by introducing the Big Ebanga variety, a cultivar from Cameroon

Illustration of PIP governance: case of the N’DÈ N’FENIN-TOH PIP in Agneby Tiassa

To illustrate our statements, we have chosen to highlight the case of the governance of Agboville’s PIP as a model for the success of these experimental schemes

In Agboville, this theoretical institutional capacity was below what was required in May

2016, with five members (one producer, one nurseryman, one trader, one processor for transforming PITA 3 into chips and one transporters’ representative), while in Soubré, there were 10 stakeholders (two producers, two traders, two processors, one seller of phytosanitary products, two microfinance representatives and one CNRA representative), which could be due to the Soubré PIP chairman’s interest in turning it into a purchasing center, beyond a simple consultation framework between stakeholders In addition, the Agboville PIP General Assembly was made up of two representatives per stakeholder group involved in PIP in 2013;

in other words, 20 members for the 10 producer groups, four members for two merchant associations and two members for the transporters’ union

Subsequently, five producer groups (10 members) and an industrial unit for processing PITA 3 into chips were integrated, as well as two nurserymen This PIP did not include sellers

of phytosanitary products as the plots did not require fertilizer nor pesticides during experimental testing (FAO 2011) However, in order to control plantain diseases, some Agboville producers used ashes, as did the PIPs of Adzopé and Abengourou There were more men than women in this EO, as opposed to in the plantain producer groups in the region [KOF 08] This situation may be explained by the fact that many women in the Agneby

Tiassa plantain producer groups are unaware of the very existence of a PIP in their region, especially since most of the time, it is the broker service (ANADER) that coordinates the activities carried out within the PIP framework, and especially on behalf of the WAAPP project

Box 1.1 Agboville PIP governance

1.5 Discussion of the functionalities of the system and IAs

1.5.1 Functionalities of the agricultural SIS for the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire

The renewal of technological innovation trajectories is changing the structure of SIS in the plantain sector and thus, the initial functionalities (see section 1.3.2) of this SIS are modified [HEK 07] Indeed, the role of the AIS

is (1) to slow down or (2) to promote the diffusion of a technology subsequent to a better understanding of local needs This change reflects a shift in the diffusionist model of innovation based on the introduction of hybrids from “technology pools” to a “bottom-up” process that favors the adaptation of introduced technologies

During the first stage of participatory selection in 2007, which preceded the widespread diffusion of PITA 3 and FHIA 21 hybrids within producer groups in 2012, the innovation policy was mainly of the technology pool type This combined a top-down design characterized by the transfer of technologies identified by research and popularized by “brokers” through training, learning and capacity-building sessions for beneficiaries of these hybrids, which is linked to the “software” dimension of innovation

According to the Adzopé and Soubré PIP managers, this approach, which prevailed before the platforms were set up, led to widespread rejection of the PITA 3 hybrid by beneficiary producer groups in certain localities and mixed acceptance of the FHIA 21 hybrid This situation called for the identification

of producers’ real productivity needs and local consumer preferences through a “bottom-up” approach involving interactions between all four components of the AIS within PIPs

In a second phase, it structured an innovation policy that was based on

the introduction of Big Ebanga, a traditional variety grown in Cameroon

However, this did not result from the creation of varieties based on agronomic research in Côte d’Ivoire

1.5.2 IAs and changes

The use of platforms as a means for IA or change [HOU 12] highlights the interaction between different components of the SIS and the coevolution

of the three dimensions of innovation (hardware, software and orgware) and, where appropriate, specifically the “orgware” dimension In fact, the IAs between stakeholders have been strengthened between producer groups and nurseries trained in plant breeding and propagation methods These new informal IAs take the form of low-cost exchanges of plant material (vitro plants or vivo plants) between these two groups of stakeholders The WAAPP program has strengthened the professionalization of plantain nurserymen in Côte d’Ivoire since 2015

The aim of promoting permanent contact between stakeholders in the research component and producers of the selection has made it possible to better guide agronomic studies in order to better satisfy the needs of these stakeholders Thus, several researchers who were interviewed have now declared that they are looking back over studies that increase the productivity of local varieties Identifying these local varieties and their genetic improvement potential is actually becoming the common target for these two components of the AIS (research and VC)

These situations have also shown that widespread dissemination of new so-called improved varieties has, of course, responded to the experimentation needs and availability of planting material However, poor knowledge of cultivation techniques during the harvest has subsequently increased postharvest losses and has deteriorated relations between producers and buyers (traders and consumers) Therefore, all of the stakeholders surveyed (researchers, producers, etc.) were each confronted with the difficulty of having to find new cooking and food preparation techniques for the consumption of the introduced hybrids

1.5.3 Renewal of technological innovation processes

The two hybrids, introduced PITA 3 and FHIA 21, which have been described as having an improved yield and as potentially being plantain

plants that are Cercosporiosis-tolerant, have proven their worth in food crop plantations in Côte d’Ivoire through higher yields than older varieties However, this does not necessarily meet the needs of local producers for new plant varieties and the food preferences of Ivorian consumers [LOP 11] In addition, the rejection of these varieties of hybrids depending on the experimental regions varies, of course, according to the dietary habits of populations

This local reality is reflected in the words of the Agboville and Adzopé PIP chairmen: “Here in Agboville, the two varieties have been accepted by the majority of the local population, since we eat the plantain when it is green (non-ripe)” (Mr Ado Joseph); “We, the Attié of Adzopé, prefer the very ripe and yellow plantain, and the new varieties of PITA never go yellow, which makes it very difficult for us to market it and consume it locally” (Mr Achy Jean Sylvio)

In fact, the work carried out shows that introducing hybrids to increase yields of plantain was more for industrial processing into chips or pastry, and for export purposes, than to meet the population’s needs for fresh consumption This is explained by PIP chairman Achy: “In Adzopé, we agreed to continue the production of PITA and sell it to the new processing unit to turn plantain into chips” According to Dame Nemeu Déborah of the PIP Executive Board in Soubré, “Faced with poor sales of new varieties of plantain, I decided to make flour out of them, which was later used to make cakes and I was filmed by FIRCA_WAAPP several times to show my example to other plantain producers and processors”

Thus, meeting local needs would then imply combining production targets with the variable and diverse food preferences of rural households [DUR 12] in an economy with very heterogeneous customs and usages [GIB 05, CAR 08]

The PIPs therefore highlight the preferences of VC professionals, thus marking the inadequacies of diffusionist technology transfers in developing countries

1.6 Conclusion

The aim of spreading disease-resistant and high-yielding varieties of plantain hybrids in Côte d’Ivoire has led to the creation of experimental

mechanisms: PIPs This study analyzes the impact of four PIPs on the restructuring of AISs and the reorientation of technological trajectories in the plantain sector in Côte d’Ivoire

Thus, it contributes to the evaluation of the impact of innovation platforms on the organization of the four components of the plantain AIS (research, intermediation, VC and financing) These are identified by their complementarity in several production areas where these PIPs are, respectively, implemented (Abengourou, Adzopé, Agboville, Soubré and Issia)

Our study shows that coevolution between these four components of the AIS and the three dimensions of innovation (hardware, software and orgware) restructure and influence public decision-making processes in the selection and emergence of new technological innovations Through the introduction of so-called improved hybrids (PITA 3, FHIA 21), the plantain sector’s development strategy has not really been successful On the other

hand, it has induced the introduction of the Big Ebanga variety

PIPs have also reoriented stakeholder strategies and made them coherent (research, VC, intermediation) by taking into account the needs of producers for varietal improvement based on local food preferences and not the preferences of potential industries or processing units for export

Thus, PIPs are helping to generate multistakeholder coordination dynamics and strengthen the capacity of the sector’s stakeholders to make technical choices, which has enabled the AIS to restructure its plantain sector However, our results raise questions about the future effectiveness of these PIPs in Côte d’Ivoire

1.7 Bibliography

[ADE 12] ADEKUNLE A.A., FATUNBI A.O., “Approaches for setting-up

multi-stakeholder platforms for agricultural research and development”, World Applied Sciences Journal, vol 16, no 7, pp 981–988, 2012

[BLO 14] BLONDEL S., BRIN R., KOFFI C., Organisation des filières bananes ivoiriennes: Une étude de terrain expérimentale, Working document of GRANEM

no 2014-03-042, University of Angers, available at http://granem.univ-angers fr/_attachments/cahiers-2014-article-3/DT_GRANEM_42.pdf?download=true, September 2014