Agric Hum Values (2014) 31:673–681 DOI 10.1007/s10460-014-9536-0

Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice: a case study of the potential introduction of GM cassava in Kenya’s coast Corinne Valdivia • M. Kengo Danda • Dekha Sheikh • Harvey S. James Jr. • Violet Gathaara • Grace Mbure • Festus Murithi • William Folk

Accepted: 28 July 2014 / Published online: 19 August 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Genetically modified (GM) cassava is currently being developed to address problems of diseases that threaten the food security of farmers in developing countries. The technologies are aimed at smallholder farmers, in hopes of reducing the vulnerability of cassava production to these diseases. In this paper we examine barriers to farmers’ voice in the development of GM cassava. We also examine the role of a translational research process to enhance farmers’ voice, to understand the sources of vulnerability farmers in a group in Kenya’s Coast face, and to determine if their concerns are consistent with those of the scientists in agriculture addressing farmers’ needs. A twoway communication participatory process provided insights into the complex vulnerability context of farmers, their primary concerns with processing and markets of cassava in order to improve livelihoods, the lack of networks with two way communication flows, and the lack of

information on GM technologies. The translational research engaged farmers and scientists in an iterative process where scientists are learning what farmers need, and farmers are learning about the potential benefits and risks from GM technologies, while at the same time expressing their concerns.

C. Valdivia (&)
H. S. James Jr. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: [email protected]

G. Mbure Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Muguga South, P.O. Box 30148-00100, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected]

H. S. James Jr. e-mail: [email protected] M. K. Danda Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, KARI-Mtwapa, P.O. Box 16-80109, Mtwapa, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] D. Sheikh Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Translational research
Participatory process
Uncertainty
Innovation
GM
Cassava

Introduction The adoption and diffusion of crop varieties that are drought tolerant, pest resistant, and rich in vitamins and micronutrients are an important part of a broader strategy to solve the problem of feeding a growing world population

F. Murithi Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Headquarters, P.O. Box 57811- 00200, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] W. Folk Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: [email protected]

V. Gathaara Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, KARI-Kabete, P.O. Box 14733- 00800, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected]

123

674

(Godfray et al. 2010). However, many of these varieties have not been adopted in developing countries, especially by smallholder farmers (see, for instance, Kijima 2011). While there are many reasons for the slow adoption and diffusion of new technologies (Foster and Rosenzweig 2010), an important one is the potential disconnect between the needs of smallholder farmers and what society generally and scientists in particular perceive those needs to be. Simply put, the technologies developed might not be what smallholder farmers actually need (Giller et al. 2009). This paper is about the ability of smallholder farmers in developing countries to communicate effectively their wants and needs and to influence the direction new technology development takes, particularly regarding the genetic modification of crops. The question is whether and to what extent farmers have a voice. Do smallholder farmers have a voice in the debate and a place at the table when it comes to the development of new agricultural technologies, especially genetically modified (GM) crops? If not, then what processes can be implemented to improve the voice of smallholder farmers? We provide insight to these questions from workshops we held with a group of smallholder farmers in Kenya that focused on the potential introduction of GM cassava in the country. Cassava is currently being modified to be resistant to two viruses, cassava mosaic virus and cassava brown streak disease, that affect the growth and development of the plant (Taylor et al. 2012; see also Legg et al. 2011). However, while field trials are underway, GM cassava has not yet been commercialized in Kenya. Therefore, we undertook a study to examine the benefits, risks and potential unintended consequences of introducing GM cassava in Kenya. We find that while disease-plagued cassava affects the overall productivity of cassava farmers, the larger question of food insecurity is about lack of market opportunities, access to resources, and a vulnerability context that challenges the ability of smallholder farmers to accumulate assets (James et al. 2014). To understand better the main concerns of smallholder farmers in Kenya, we used a translational research approach to listen to many farmers’ voices. We believe that translational research processes can help scientists and policymakers frame the problem and identify solutions that respond to unique farmer contexts. In this paper we focus on Kenya’s Coastal region, where cassava plays an important food security role in the livelihoods of people. Our translational research approach has three stages. The first is a participatory assessment with farmers to learn about their concerns with food insecurity, the role of cassava in their livelihood strategies, their access to information and technologies through their connections to institutions, and their knowledge of GM crops. The second stage is to share the farmers’ knowledge about their livelihoods, practices, technology, and cassava with scientists so

123

C. Valdivia et al.

that they can respond to the needs of smallholders in ways that reflect the unique circumstances of different farmers in difficult contexts. The third stage is the feedback process with farmers to share what we learned from them, to ask if we captured what they shared with us, and to present information that responds to their concerns, as well as continue the conversation about GM modified crops. Why is it important for smallholder farmers to have a voice? Farmers will ultimately decide what crops to grow and how to do so, and farmers are in charge of negotiating within their unique circumstances in their pursuit of livelihoods and well-being. Listening to their voices and engaging them to share their priorities and needs can inform scientists on the critical concerns farmers face in addressing food security. There are a number of ways that have been considered to engage smallholder farmers in debates about new technologies, such as communities of practice (Hendrickson et al. 2014) and transnational roundtables (Cheyns 2014). In this paper we aim to show that the translational research process can also facilitate and enhance the capacity of farmers to have a voice. We begin by describing briefly the context of agricultural research in Kenya, followed by a discussion of barriers to effective farmers’ voice. We then describe our translational research process and illustrate how and why we believe it is effective in enhancing farmers’ voice.

Background on agricultural research in Kenya ‘‘A vibrant cassava sub-sector contributing significantly to improve livelihoods, food security and industrialization’’ is the vision of the National Cassava Development Strategy of the Government of Kenya (Ministry of Agriculture 2011, p. 2). Cassava is an important food security crop in Western Kenya, the Coastal regions, and parts of Eastern Kenya. The crop performs well under marginal areas and environmentally challenged conditions. Though cassava has not been a top priority in agricultural research (Ministry of Agriculture 2011), the situation has changed over time with increased demand for production of traditional crops. Recently, KARI reprioritized food crops research so that pulses are prioritized first, followed by root and tubers and lastly the cereal crops, with cassava was ranked second after the sweet potato. Priority setting is important because it informs the research conducted and resources contributed by KARI. Beginning in the 1980s, farming systems research became integrated into KARI, focusing on how agricultural technology fit within farming systems (Okali et al. 1994; Rees et al. 1998) and intending to include processes of monitoring and evaluating the development and utilization of new agricultural technologies, such as improved crop varieties (Mason et al. 1999).

Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice

In the early 1990s, KARI realized that many technologies generated by the institution were remaining on the shelves. This created the need for KARI to create a socioeconomics division within the institution with the responsibility of conducting socio-economic related studies with the following objectives: characterizing the various farming systems practiced by the farmers in the country, identifying different farmers needs in terms of crops, livestock and natural resource management, and aiding in priority setting of agricultural research for the country. Currently KARI utilizes participatory approaches whereby all stakeholders within the different agricultural value chain as mandated to KARI are involved in the priority-setting process (KARI 2009). Specific programs include food crops, horticultural and industrial crops, natural resource management and livestock value chains, as well as biotechnology and biodiversity conservations and socio-economics and applied statistics (SEAS). Importantly, the SEAS mission is to better understand farmer needs so that KARI research programs can effectively meet those needs. However, although barriers have prevented an effective communication channel between KARI and smallholder farmers, especially in regions with a high degree of food insecurity, the situation is changing with KARI’s new approach to research, involving all the stakeholders in problem and solution identification through the participatory value chain approach.

Barriers to farmers in having a voice Although not intended to be an exhaustive review of barriers and challenges, the following are important factors that contribute to the inability of smallholder farmers in Kenya to have a voice. First, there is considerable fragmentation among farmers within Kenya. For a long time, farmers have been reluctant to form into farming groups and have instead operated individually. The reason is in part because many farmers have had poor experiences with previous efforts to organize workers into cooperatives, losing money when these groupings go under or disintegrate. Farmer heterogeneity is another reason for the difficulty in farmers working together. Thus, each farming household has attempted to manage its own value chain to answer basic farming production questions independent of what other farmers do. Fragmentation among farmers makes it difficult for KARI and government extension agents to reach out to large numbers of smallholder farmers, especially in rural areas. However, the situation has changed with many farmers coming together to form groups. The encouragement of farmers to form groups has also been a strategy enshrined by the National Agricultural Extension Program (NAEP) of the Ministry of Agriculture. Unfortunately, the process is

675

moving slowly and much work needs to be done in this area. A related problem is that extension services have been hampered by reduction of staff, putting additional pressure on agents to meet with farmer groups rather than individual farmers. Second, informing farmers about technologies is not sufficient for adoption when contexts are uncertain. For example, reporting climate data to farmers will not lead to its use (Ziervogel and Downing 2004; Patt and Schroter 2008). For farmers to have a voice, information presented to them by scientists and other stakeholders has to fit the farmer’s context and be relevant and delivered in their language by a trusted source (Valdivia et al. 2003; Valdivia et al. 2010a, b). An important context is how farmers feel as a result of risk and uncertainty, such as resulting from climate change. Therefore, the riskiness and uncertainty surrounding the decision-making context, as well as the capacity of farmers to take risks, matter a great deal when communicating information to them (Valdivia et al. 2003; Gilles and Valdivia 2009; Valdivia et al. 2010a, b). However, even when risk and uncertainty are taken into account, there may be other barriers that impede use of the new information. Institutional, economic, and political constraints are barriers to the use of information (Eakin 2000; Agrawala and Broad 2002). Often those who benefit are the best placed to take advantage of knowledge, but are not necessarily the most vulnerable (Adger 2006). Third, smallholder farmers and scientists utilize different knowledge systems. Thus, a failure to bridge these systems will create a barrier to farmers’ voice. Understanding knowledge systems is important because people assess and respond to risks using different types of knowledge systems. An example is the difference between rules based systems and association based systems (Slovic and Weber 2002). Rules based systems are cognitive. They involve normative models of decision-making and require effort and a degree of conscious control. They also tend to be relatively slow. Associational systems tend to be somewhat automated and are relatively fast. They are evolutionary and build on people’s knowledge and past experiences. Association based system can emerge when new knowledge conflicts with people’s experiences; when this happens they are more likely to trust their experiences than the new knowledge. Scientists and farmers rely on different knowledge systems to guide their decisions (Gilles and Valdivia 2009). While both are empirical, the focus and orientation are different. The farmer’s production decisions are based on local knowledge, built on years of observations, experience and experimentation, and provide specific sets of behavioral rules. In contrast, scientific knowledge focuses on relationships and phenomena that do not vary across time and space while local knowledge is very context specific (Gilles and Valdivia 2009).

123

676

C. Valdivia et al.

Translational research and farmers’ voice

The case study design, protocol and process

We argue that a translational research process can help overcome these barriers. What is translational research? It was first coined in the medical sciences to express two different ideas about how science becomes part of useful knowledge for decision making, such as from the bench to the bedside, or how knowledge becomes practice in the health sciences (Woolf 2008). In the context of agricultural development it is equivalent to turning knowledge to action (Valdivia et al. 2010a). Translational research focuses on the social and human dimensions of science developments, in order for these to be appropriated by decision makers. It does so by bringing smallholder farmers together and by enhancing a two-way communication and participatory process where farmers and researchers work together to bridge differences in knowledge systems, to build social and political capital, and to strengthen the capacity of smallholder farmers to act in contexts where there is uncertainty (Wilkins 2001; Hayward et al. 2004; Sperling et al. 2008; Valdivia et al. 2010a, b). An effective form of participatory research is where farmers present their knowledge to scientists and they in turn provide farmers the results of their existing knowledge (Valdivia et al. 2010a, b). Some researchers have found that information with alternatives that is provided to vulnerable farmers allows them to adjust (Patt et al. 2005; Valdivia et al. 2010a, b). Our translational research approach begins by understanding the vulnerability context and degree of insecurity, learning about the livelihood strategies and the role cassava plays, how well connected farmers are to sources of information, whom they trust for that information, and what experiences they have with technologies. Here vulnerability refers to an inability of smallholder farmers to respond effectively to shocks that result in a loss of assets (Valdivia and Gilles 2001). We engaged women and men farmers as well as groups of farmers who are more and less food secure in order to learn from their unique experiences and perspectives. We then shared these with crop scientists so that they would be better able to develop knowledge that reflects the experiences, needs and preferences of smallholder farmers. To this end we held two workshops. In the first workshop we learned from the farmers about the various roles of cassava in their livelihoods, and the context in which they have to make decisions. We shared this information with the scientists and helped them develop contextualized information for the farmers that was presented in a second feedback workshop. In the second workshop, which included participation by KARI scientists, we focused the dialogue on what we learned and what scientists and stakeholders had to share in response to the needs and concerns of smallholder farmers. In short, we aimed to enhance the voice of smallholder farmers.

As part of our broader project to understand the risks and benefits of introducing GM cassava in Kenya, we expected that gender and degree of vulnerability are important factors affecting the type of livelihood activities farmers undertake. Because of gender and vulnerability differences, we also expected that the technology preferences, concerns, and access potential would differ (see James et al. 2014). Therefore, we designed the protocol to gather farmer responses by identifying groups of smallholder farmers that differ by their degree of vulnerability; we also separated men from women in some group discussions in order to capture gender differences. The case study design was single case of a well-connected farmer group, and multiple embedded of subgroups formed according to food security and gender. In this context, ‘‘well-connected’’ means access to trusted sources of information, such as having regular interactions with KARI and Ministry of Agriculture extension agents. In our first workshop, we developed specific activities around several overarching questions about farmer livelihood strategies. The first group activity was a food security profiling exercise to define what food is, and what the characteristics are of those who are secure and those who are vulnerable. Color-coded cards were used to capture responses by women and men, and to self-identify into a group. The second group activity was the development of a timeline of shocks and other events that have impacted their community and families in the past 15 years. The third and fourth activities were based on sub-groups, formed by food secure and food insecure, and by gender. In the third activity we asked about livelihood activities, the farming system, and the role of cassava and who makes decisions on consumption, production value added activities and marketing, and preferred varieties of cassava according to their uses. In the fourth activity, we identified sources of trusted information and how it was used. The final group activity brought everyone together. Discussion helped farmers recall experiences with technologies and their knowledge of GM crops. A team of nine people was trained to facilitate the workshop and process the data. The protocol was pilot tested by the team with 18 farmers (16 women and 2 men) in a similar community in Kilifi, in the Coast of Kenya. Team building was critical because it helped engender confidence among smallholder farmers participating in our group discussions. One evidence of confidence created by the team is that farmer participants voluntarily categorized themselves into food secure and food insecure groups and also identified themselves as vulnerable or non-vulnerable. The farmer group that is the focus on this case study is Basi Mwangaza (meaning ‘‘Seen the Light’’). It is located

123

Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice

in Tezo, Bahari Division, Kilifi County, in the Coast of Kenya. The group was formed in 2001, based on maize as their common interest crop, but it changed to cassava in 2005 because maize was becoming less profitable. The group is considered well connected to extension services, KARI, University of Nairobi, National Council for Science and Technology, and a German NGO. Basi Mwangaza produces ethanol from cassava tubers and is the parent organization of six other community-based organizations, each with 33 members. They also carry out milling of maize and cassava, and sell cassava cuttings. There were 42 women and 9 men from Basi-Mwangaza who participated in our study.

General findings from the workshops First workshop The first workshop was conducted in November, 2012. The meeting lasted 5 h. Discussions were conducted according to the protocol explained above. The data were recorded in the local language and translated into English and analyzed by each team facilitating the activity. Additional information from the cards was used to complement the flipcharts, notes, and recordings from the group activities. The first activity with smallholder farmers included discussions with all group members. Both women and men identified maize, cassava, cowpeas, and green grams as the crops grown in this region. While maize was grown by 30 % of the food secure participants, cassava was grown by 80 %. Importantly, cassava is mostly farmed in an intercropping system with legumes and other crops, because it is a subsistence crop. Farmers can use cassava leaves for green manure and the tubers as a feed for livestock. Cassava was also viewed as a commercial crop for ethanol production and for other value-added production activities, such as dried chips and flour. Some farmers marketed cassava cuttings, although most grew cassava for consumption as a subsistence crop. Challenges to cassava production include the mosaic and brown streak diseases, theft of tubers, pests such as white flies and green mites, poor access to markets for inputs, and leaves that wilt when there is drought. Some consumption problems include bitterness and high cyanide levels, fibrous tubers, and perishability. Many farmers lack equipment for chipping and drying, which can be a problem during long rainy seasons, while some farmers don’t possess skills for processing. Markets are insecure and are especially poor for bitter varieties, which are mainly used for processing. However, many farmers also lack the knowledge and skills needed to adequately process the bitter varieties.

677

Basic needs for these smallholder farmers are varieties of cassava that are sweet, equipment for drying and chipping, and better access to markets. The most preferred varieties include Kibandameno, Kaleso, Tajirika, Shibe, and Karembo. Several of these were sourced from other farmers; although KARI also has provided cuttings to farmers. According to the men in the group, to be food secure means that people have access to meals at all times, have healthy children, and can rely on their own harvest for food security. They are able to invest and pursue development projects, have full time employment, and are well behaved and moral. While women listed these same indicators, they added living a happy life, having a family that is well clothed, and being able to meet all school expenses. Food insecurity indicators included the inability to purchase food, children that could not attend school, children that are malnourished, and being dependent on off-farm work for income. Food insecure people are poorly clothed and cannot save, and they depend on others for assistance. Women added that food insecure people are always under stress, have to stint on meals, cannot afford good shelter, have poor health, and may opt to steal. We found important differences in the information networks of food secure and food insecure farmers and in their experiences with new technologies. For example, men in the food secure group considered the Ministry of Agriculture as their primary source for crop husbandry. They are also connected with KARI for crop varieties, the University of Nairobi for technology used for ethanol extraction, and the East African Agricultural Productivity Project, the Equator Kenya and Afrigoken for production and marketing of chili pepper, and the Kenya Dairy Development Project for savings and credit. Women in the food secure group were connected to organizations that facilitated access to technologies. The most trusted source for them was the public sector institutions consisting of the Ministry of Agriculture for planting materials (seed), pest management, diseases, crop husbandry and post-harvest management, and KARI, which provided seeds, capacity building, disease control, and value addition. The women listed University of Nairobi as third, related to cassava and cowpea seeds and value addition of leafy vegetables. In contrast, while men in the food insecure group indicated a connection to several organizations, there was consensus among them that a lot of the information they receive is not particularly helpful because they do not have the resources needed to implement any knowledge they learn from them. For example, the National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs Program (NAAIP) provided information on fertilizers, but farmers were not able to use it because they cannot afford to purchase the needed farm

123

678

inputs. Similarly, USAID provided knowledge on sweet potato seeds, green grams and cowpeas but farmers do not have the resources to buy them. Organizations they felt most helpful are those that provided resources rather than information. For example, the University of Nairobi provided new varieties of cassava that they are testing, while Equator Kenya and Frigoken provided seeds for chili production. Similarly, KARI provided access to three cassava varieties; Karembo, Tajirika, and Shibe, although this group preferred primarily Tajirika. The food insecure women had the least connections to sources of information. They tended to trust the Ministry of Agriculture for information on cassava value addition, as well as village elders for issues related to health, and the village level farmer groups for issues related to welfare. This group of women indicated that they use the information from the four sources mentioned above. The Basi Mwangaza group has had experiences with new technologies. They indicated benefiting from new varieties for consumption, processing and marketing. The key challenge of the new cassava varieties is that these are bitter, but are acceptable when processed into flour. These varieties tend to attract wild animals which destroy the crops, and their market prices are not favorable. They seek varieties that have high yields, are early maturing, have large tubers, and produce better marketing opportunities. Importantly, when asked about their awareness or knowledge of GM crops, only one participant in our well-connected group of smallholder farmers mentioned having heard about GM maize on the radio from a story originating in South Africa. Second workshop The second workshop held in January, 2014, included participation by farmers and KARI scientists. In preparation for the second workshop, we met with KARI scientists to discuss some of the findings from our meetings with smallholder farmers. In discussing the role of cassava in an intercropping system, one KARI scientist said that the GM cassava is best grown in a monocropping rather than in an intercropping system and that the improved varieties will require training on husbandry practices and will need fertilizer and other inputs. The issue of monocropping is important because many smallholder farmers grow cassava as a subsistence crop rather than as a crop for marketing purposes—and smallholder farmers grow cassava as a monocrop when they intend to market it. The same scientist also noted that the improved varieties could have the unintended consequence of reducing biodiversity and promoting an abandonment of legumes and other nutritious crops grown in an intercropping system.

123

C. Valdivia et al.

During the second workshop, the results of the participatory assessments were presented and discussion followed to determine if the presentation had captured their issues. This was followed by presentations and booths providing information on farmer identified issues. Sessions included cassava agronomy and dealing with pests and the best bet production practices. A second session focused on postharvest handling and value addition, with particular focus on cassava. A third focused on marketing, in particular how to deal with increased production, consumer preferences, and product diversification. The fourth session focused on GM crops, particularly GM cassava, in order to enhance awareness of on-going research, benefits and find out about concerns or fears. During the evaluation of the event farmers validated the knowledge presented as reflecting discussions in the participatory assessment. Participants commented approvingly of the approach taken, focusing on two-way communication and interaction. Farmers completed a short assessment form of the feedback workshop, singling out the process as a new approach in building a partnership of farmers with researchers and extensionists. The most liked presentations on value addition and marketing, which is consistent with the concerns expressed at the participatory assessment workshop. Areas for improvement listed included providing more advisory technical presentations and punctuality. They also expressed an interest in more information about GM crops, which farmers understood would allow them to escape the challenges of pests and diseases, but feared the short and long-run consequences of consuming GM crops. Farmer representatives were chosen to participate in a stakeholder conference where their own experiences will be shared.

Commentary and conclusion Translational research is about developing knowledge that takes into account the characteristics and context of the user. It takes a unique process that acknowledges that smallholder farmers’ decisions may have dire consequences that can threaten their ability to survive. This context requires a two-way process to develop knowledge that is trusted and that is generated within the context of smallholder farmers. It also acknowledges that farmers are often marginalized from mainstream institutions, and often do not have voice in the development of knowledge intended to benefit them. Just as Woolf (2008) observed that translational research in health professions mattered as much as the translation from basic research to applied in medicine in addressing disease, our argument is that when devising solution to development and poverty matters,

Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice

translational processes are as important, if not more so, than GM technologies in addressing food security. The reason is that translational processes can help bridge the gap and overcome barriers that inhibit the ability of farmers voices to be heard. Our case study, of workshops held in Kenya with smallholder farmers, illustrates how translational research processes can help. The translational approach as conceived and implemented in this project aimed to strengthen the human, social and political capitals of smallholder farmers as they engage with researchers and other actors to define their concerns, needs, opportunities and aspirations. This particular case focused on enabling a conversation about what farmers need and about what new technologies can offer, especially regarding the potential introduction of GM cassava in Kenya. The process aimed to share knowledge, strengthen the networks, and build the connections between smallholder farmers, scientists and other stakeholders to participate in the conversation. An important barrier to farmer voice of Kenyan smallholder cassava farmers is that historically they have preferred to operate in isolation. The participatory activities in the translational research process use various techniques to bring farmers together and to encourage them to express their voices, especially those of women, the elderly and the vulnerable. The process itself aims to strengthen the social networks within the group. It also aims to build more bridging social capital by creating a two-way communication process with other stakeholders, such as the scientists, extension officers, others in the value chain. This is important, because for farmers to be willing to express themselves they need to trust each other as well as other stakeholders and sources of knowledge. For example, the groups of men and women and of secure and less secure farmers identified post-harvest processing and marketing as key constraints, and also the preferred varieties of cassava farmers are looking for that are not yet available. The twoway process not only contributed to strengthening the trust and communication, key in uncertain and risky contexts, but also facilitated information to the scientists about the key traits farmers are looking for so that they understand what to focus on. Overcoming other key barriers to improved livelihoods by smallholders, such as poor markets and limited processing abilities, are central to adoption, and farmers had the opportunity to learn from other stakeholders who are working to facilitate access to markets. A central finding of the process was to learn that farmers actually have little information about GMOs, that they are in a vulnerable context, and that their networks of information are mostly one-way communication networks— thus highlighting the relevance of translational research. Another key finding is that there may be a conflict in the

679

GM cassava technology, which is intended to be planted as a monocrop for the marketing of cassava rather than for subsistence farming. In contrast, most farmers intercrop cassava with legumes and other crops, and they invest little in inputs and labor, because for many smallholder farmers, cassava is grown as a subsistence crop. This contrasts with how GM cassava cuttings should be grown according to the scientists. Our translational process thus enabled scientists to learn about farmers’ preferences or need and do. In this way smallholder voices are beginning to be heard in a twoway process of communication, but it does require investments in time and resources, and therefore institutional commitment. How this process can inform KARI and other organizations engaged with farmers, and how farmers develop and strengthen their groups to participate in the conversation, will depend on ownership of the process and negotiating the political context. As smallholder farmers form, and are encouraged and supported in efforts to develop, into farmer groups, there will be greater opportunities for translational research processes that link knowledge systems, build trust, and increase efficacy in the development of knowledge and technologies that can address the needs of vulnerable smallholder farmers to improve their food security and wellbeing. Although this translational approach is an important beginning, more needs to be done to facilitate and improve the smallholder voices in Kenya. One is the need to help farmers speak collectively. Key here is strengthening farmer networks and developing farmer organizations, such as producer and marketing groups, so that smallholder farmers can be more united (see Danda 2013). Another is continued efforts to facilitate regular interactions among stakeholders that include smallholder farmers and representatives of farmer groups. There are also limitations to the translational approach. It requires training because it encompasses social and behavioral sciences, often outside the mainstream training of social scientists. It is not about facilitating of focus groups. It is about engaging in a process to unveil the vulnerability context, the experiences and livelihoods of farmers, the networks and connections they trust, and their local knowledge, and translate this into information that has meaning as well as fostering a horizontal two-way communication process that enables voice. This is context specific, depending on the local cultures, economic and power structures, and therefore research is needed to learn how the process takes shape. And this requires commitment. Bottom line, if returns to investments in biotechnology for food security will be realized, particularly in the context of studying the potential introduction and adoption of GM cassava in Kenya, then the issues of translational research for adoption will require even greater investments,

123

680

as we have only started the conversation with smallholder farmers. Acknowledgments We appreciate funding from the John Templeton Foundation, grant #29728, for our project ‘‘Assessing and Communicating the Risks and Benefits of GM Cassava in Kenya’’.

References Adger, W.N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 268–281. Agrawala, S., and K. Broad. 2002. Technology transfer perspectives on climate forecast applications. Research in Science and Technology Studies 13: 45–69. Cheyns, E. 2014. Making ‘minority voices’ heard in transnational roundtables: the role of local NGOs in reintroducing justice and attachments. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(3): 439–453. Danda, M.K. 2013. Determinants for the market competitive edge of the new cassava seed: A case study of Mtwapa mandate area in the Coastal lowlands of Kenya. Unpublished MS thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. Nairobi, Kenya: JKUAT. Eakin, H. 2000. Smallholder maize production and climatic risk: A case study from Mexico. Climatic Change 45: 19–36. Foster, A.D., and M.R. Rosenzweig. 2010. Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual Review of Economics. doi:10. 1146/annurev.economics.102308.124433. Giller, K.E., E. Witter, M. Corbeels, and P. Tittonell. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crop Research 114(1): 23–34. Gilles, J., and C. Valdivia. 2009. Local forecast communication in the Altiplano. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) 90(1): 85–91. Godfray, H.C.J., et al. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(5967): 812–818. Hayward, C., L. Simpson, and L. Wood. 2004. Still left out in the cold: Problematizing participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis. 44(1): 95–108. Hendrickson, M.K., J.L. Gilles, W.H. Meyers, K.C. Schneeberger, and W.R. Folk. 2014. Choice and voice: Creating a Community of practice in KwaZulu-Natal. South Africa: Agriculture and Human Values, this issue. James, H., C. Valdivia, W. Folk, D. Sheikh, F. Murithi, V. Gathaara, M.K. Danda, C. Bett, and G. Mbure. (2014). An assessment of factors facilitating and limiting the adoption of GM cassava in Kenya. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). 2009. Strategic Plan, 2009-2014. Nairobi, Kenya: KARI. Kijima, Y. 2011. An inquiry into constraints on a green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of NERICA rice in Uganda. World Development 39(1): 77–86. Legg, J.P., et al. 2011. Comparing the regional epidemiology of the cassava mosaic and cassava brown streak virus pandemics in Africa. Virus Research 159(2): 161–170. Mason, V.I., et al. 1999. Guidelines for participatory monitoring & evaluation of technologies with farmers. Kitale: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. Ministry of Agriculture. 2011. National cassava development strategy 2012–2016. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture. Okali, C., J. Sumber, and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer participatory research: Rhetoric and reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

123

C. Valdivia et al. Patt, A.P., and D. Schroter. 2008. Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique: Implications for the success of adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change 18: 458–467. Patt, A., P. Suarez, and C. Gwata. 2005. Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. PNAS, 102(35): 12623–12628. www.pnas.org. cgi.doi/10.1073/pnas.0506125102. Accessed 1 May 2014. Rees, D.J., E.K. Njue, F.W. Makini, and D.M. Mbugua. 1998. Participatory rural appraisals of the farming systems of southwest Kenya, 1995 and 1996. Kitale: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. Slovic, P., and E.U. Weber. 2002. Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Paper presented at Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, April 12–13. Sperling, F., C., Valdivia, R. Quiroz, R. Valdivia, L. Angulo, A. Seimon, and I. Noble. 2008. Transitioning to Climate Resilient Development: Perspectives from Communities of Peru. Climate Change Series No. 115. Washington, DC: The World Bank Environment Department Papers, Sustainable Development Vice Presidency. Taylor, N.J., et al. 2012. The VIRCA project: Virus resistant cassava for Africa. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 3(2): 93–103. Valdivia, C., and J.L. Gilles. 2001. Gender and Resource Management: Households and Groups, Strategies and Transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 5–9. Valdivia, C., J. L. Gilles, and M. Garcı´a. 2010a. Adapting to Change: Institutions and Processes in Linking Knowledge Systems for Action. In Strengthening Institutions to Address Climate Change and Advance the Greening Economy. 2nd Global Conference of Environmental Governance and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University and United National Institute for Training and Research, 17–19 September. Valdivia, C., J. L. Gilles, C. Jette´, R. Quiroz, and R. Espejo. 2003. Coping and Adapting to Climate Variability: The Role of Assets, Networks, Knowledge and Institutions. In Insights and Tools for Adaptation: Learning from Climate Variability (pp. 189-199). Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Global Programs, Climate and Societal Interactions. Valdivia, C., A. Seth, J.L. Gilles, M. Garcı´a, E. Jime´nez, J. Cusicanqui, F. Navia, and E. Yucra. 2010b. Adapting to climate change in andean ecosystems: Landscapes, capitals, and perceptions shaping rural livelihood strategies and linking knowledge systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(4): 818–834. Wilkins, L. 2001. A primer on risk: An Interdisciplinary approach to thinking about public understanding of agbiotech. AgBioForum 4(3&4): 163–172. Woolf, S.H. 2008. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. Journal of the American Medical Association 299(2): 211–213. Ziervogel, G., and T.E. Downing. 2004. Stakeholder networks: Improving seasonal climate forecasts. Climatic Change 65: 73–103.

Corinne Valdivia, PhD is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Missouri. Her research and outreach activities concentrate on understanding the mechanisms that lead to sustainable livelihood strategies, with a particular focus on the tropics and semi-arid highland and sub-humid regions of Latin America and East Africa. M. Kengo Danda, MBA is an agricultural economist and research officer with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute in Mtwapa,

Using translational research to enhance farmers’ voice Kenya. Kengo has extensive work experience in participatory research. Currently his research and development efforts are in commodity value chains, emphasizing the development and evaluation of alternative value chain strategies. Dekha Sheikh, PhD received her doctorate in agricultural economics and is an independent consultant with expertise in vulnerability assessments and participatory research with rural communities. She has been a professor in Kenyan universities, and has work with international organizations, including the World Food Program, the International Livestock Research Institute, and ASARECA. She is currently based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Harvey S. James Jr., PhD is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Missouri. His research interests include ethical issues affecting smallholder farmers and arising in agricultural markets. Dr. James is editor of Agriculture and Human Values. Violet Gathaara is a Senior Research Officer in the Socio-Economics and Applied Statistics Programme at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya. She is currently pursuing a MSc degree at Van Hall Larestein University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands, studying rural development management. Recently she has conducted socio-economic related studies in the area of

681 biotechnology, natural resources management and climate change. She hopes to continue working in the area of rural development, particularly with issues related to rural livelihoods. Grace Mbure is a principal Research Officer in the Socio-economics and Applied Statistics Research Programme at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. She specializes in socio-economic impact analysis of technologies, adoption studies, gender studies, diagnostic analysis of constraints, needs assessments. Festus Murithi, PhD is an agricultural economist and Assistant Director of the Socio-economics and Applied Statistics Research Programme at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. His PhD in agricultural economics from Reading University in the UK. His current research interests are in food and nutrition security, institutional development and management, monitoring and evaluation, policy research and analysis, and impact assessment. William Folk, PhD is a professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Missouri. Dr. Folk’s research interests have focused upon studies of gene expression and replication of viruses, animals, humans and plants. Recently, Dr. Folk’s interests have been directed to the application of the life sciences to global problems of food security and health care. He also participates in collaborative research programs in the US, Africa, China, Europe and Taiwan.

123