Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing Countries E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 285

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

This book investigates the interactions between different shifts in innovation models. It underlines ecological conditions and production intensification in the agriculture sector. In total six innovation processes were analyzed in different countries such as Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Haiti, Madagascar and Senegal. The similarities between these case studies are that they all demonstrate that sustainable and sufficient network between actors of the innovation are particularly useful for the development of agricultural innovation systems. The different papers demonstrate that there is a need for more commitment of public policy in innovation processes.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Foreword

Introduction

I.1. Introduction

I.2. The determinants of ecological intensification

I.3. Conclusion

I.4. Bibliography

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

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Technological innovations in the Ivorian plantain sector

1.3. Conceptual and methodological framework

1.4. Results

1.5. Discussion of the functionalities of the system and IAs

1.6. Conclusion

1.7. Bibliography

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

2.1. Introduction

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

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

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

2.5. Stabilization of the Bt cotton adoption process

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

2.7. Bibliography

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

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Methodology

3.3. Defining the biofuel innovation and production system

3.4. Incentives for the emergence of the actor system

3.5. Functional analysis of the biofuel innovation and production system

3.6. The failures of the biofuel innovation and production system

3.7. Conclusion

3.8. Bibliography

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

4.1. Introduction

4.2. The problem

4.3. Methodology

4.4. Status report on the adoption of CA in 2013

4.5. Developments in farming practices and innovations in CA

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

4.7. Learning, innovation co-design and IS

4.8. Contrasting behaviors after project shutdown

4.9. Conclusion

4.10. Bibliography

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

5.1. Introduction

5.2. Conceptual and methodological frameworks

5.3. The diffusionist attempt to transfer Miniset technology in Haiti

5.4. From adoption results to the socioeconomic impacts of Miniset

5.5. Discussion of the conditions for changing an innovation model

5.6. Conclusion

5.7. Appendix: characteristics of surveyed areas (source: [BOY 12])

5.8. Bibliography

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

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Theoretical position

6.3. Methodology

6.4. Results: diversity of technical innovation processes

6.5. Discussion

6.6. Conclusion

6.7. Bibliography

7 Food Challenges in Africa

7.1. Food challenge in Africa

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

7.3. Difficulty in raising capital

7.4. Agricultural prices south of the Sahara

7.5. Reasons for agricultural price volatility in Africa

7.6. The “endogenous” causes of price instability

7.7. Conclusion and implications for agricultural policies

7.8. Bibliography

List of Authors

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

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

Table 1.1. Data collection

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

Table 4.1. Situation typology of farms

Table 4.2. Review of positive and negative points on the adoption of CA techniques

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

Table 5.1. Summary of samples, categories and area distribution

Table 5.2. Summary of the three models

Table 5.3. Evolution of harvested areas expressed in number of mounds

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

Table 6.1. Comparison of three innovation processes studied

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

C1

iii

iv

v

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

e1

Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set

coordinated by Dimitri Uzunidis

Volume 2

Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing Countries

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

27-37 St George’s Road

London SW19 4EU

UK

www.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

111 River Street

Hoboken, NJ 07030

USA

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2018

The rights of Ludovic Temple and Eveline M.F.W. Compaoré Sawadogo to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018931223

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

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

ISBN 978-1-78630-272-4

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

Introduction 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 intensification 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, pp. 117–142, 2015.

[VAN 09] Vanloqueren G., Baret P.V., “How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations”, Research Policy, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 971–983, 2009.

Chapter written by Ludovic Temple and Eveline M.F.W. Compaoré Sawadogo.

1Innovation 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.

1.1. Introduction

Over the past few years, the renewal of public policies in West Africa has reestablished the need to increase food security without relying on 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.