Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /agsy

Insights into potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda

Oscar Ortiz a,⇑, Ricardo Orrego a, Willy Pradel a, Peter Gildemacher b,1, Renee Castillo c, Ronal Otiniano c,Julio Gabriel d, Juan Vallejo d, Omar Torres e, Gemebredin Woldegiorgis f, Belew Damene g,Roger Kakuhenzire h,2, Imelda Kasahija h, Ignatious Kahiu i

a International Potato Center, Av. La Molina 1895, Apartado 1558, Lima-12, Perub International Potato Center, P.O. Box 25171, Nairobi 00603, Kenyac CARE-Peru, Cajamarca Office, Urb. Los Rosales Mza. A Lote 17-18, Cajamarca, Perud Fundación Proinpa, Av. Meneces s/n, Km. 4 Zona El Paso, Cochabamba, Boliviae Asociación de Servicios Artesanales y Rurales, Casilla 1420, Av. Blanco Galindo Km 5.5, Cochabamba, Boliviaf Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopiag Self Help Development International (SHDI), P.O. Box 1204, Addis Ababa, Ethiopiah National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), P.O. Box 295, Entebbe, Ugandai AFRICARE, P.O. Box 403, Kabale, Uganda

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 September 2011Received in revised form 16 August 2012Accepted 30 August 2012Available online 13 October 2012

Keywords:Innovation systemsParticipatory appraisalTechnological innovationOrganizational innovationInteractionsPotato

0308-521X/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.08.007

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +51 1 3496017; fax: +E-mail address: o.ortiz@cgiar.org (O. Ortiz).

1 Present address: Royal Tropical Institute, Mauritsk2 Present address: International Potato Center, Coun

a b s t r a c t

In the last 50 years, theoretical and practical approaches to promoting agricultural innovations have beenevolving. Initial innovation diffusion theories led to a linear, top-down approach of technology transfer.However, changes occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, such as the economic structural adjustment whichcaused a dramatic decrease in governmental agricultural research and extension services in severaldeveloping countries. Simultaneously a number of new stakeholders (NGOs, private companies, farmerorganizations, local governments, etc.) started to contribute to agricultural innovations more activelyin the 1990s and 2000s. As the changes occurred, scholars began proposing new theories, such as theinnovation systems approach, to explain how multiple stakeholders interact, exchange information, gen-erate knowledge and develop innovations for solving problems. The paper describes the results of a rapidappraisal of potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda. The method was useful foridentifying components and limitations in the system at pilot sites. Results indicate that the systems hadsimilar types of components, namely national and local government organizations, NGOs, private compa-nies, farmer organizations and media; another common feature was the limited interaction among orga-nizational components, which reduced farmer access to information, technologies, organizations,markets and services. However, the role of organizational components was different across countries.Farmer organizations played a limited role at the pilot sites in these countries, except in Bolivia. The roleof national governments was also limited in Bolivia and Peru, but played a major role in Ethiopia andUganda at the moment of the study. Local governments were starting to play an important role in the foursites. NGOs played an active role in most countries, and the private companies in charge of input supplywere more active in Bolivia and Peru. Media (radio) were present, but they were not contributing signif-icantly to disseminating information for innovation. The International Potato Center (CIP) was present inall the systems, playing a role of innovation brokerage. Results indicate that different types of interven-tion would be needed for each country to strengthen the roles that components were already playing, butshould look for improving interactions among components. In Ethiopia, strengthening innovation capac-ity of potato-related government organizations would be desirable to start the process, but in Bolivia,Peru and Uganda, enhancing interactions and coordination among government organizations, NGOs, pri-vate companies and farmer organizations would be needed, for example, to improve farmer access toquality planting material and markets. The role of farmer organizations and the private companies incharge of input supply need to be strengthened in the potato innovation systems in all places. The rapidappraisal of potato innovation systems has shown to be a method with potential to start understandingthe complexity of the innovation systems and identify potential entry points for interventions.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ll rights reserved.

51 1 3175326.

ade 63, 1092 AD Amsterdam, The Ntry Project Manager, ARI-Uyole, P.O

etherlands.. Box 400, Mbeya, Tanzania.

74 O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

1. Introduction

Promoting technological change or innovation in agriculturehas been a permanent preoccupation of public and private organi-zations since agriculture first began to use scientific results to im-prove productivity and efficiency in the 16th and 17th centuries.Interestingly, potatoes were associated with the beginning of for-mal agricultural extension, which was implemented in Irelandafter the potato famine in 1847 (Swanson and Claar, 1984). Indeveloping countries such as Peru, there is evidence that agricul-tural societies (farmer organizations) influenced the creation ofagricultural universities and other forms of technological innova-tion in the early twentieth century. Prior to that date, farmers(basically landlords who owned haciendas) were responsible forbringing agricultural innovations to their farms. During colonialtimes in Peru, there is no evidence of formal government effortsto promote agricultural innovation, which was radically differentfrom the pre-Columbian era when the Inca Empire was built basedon agriculture, and there were both formal and informal ways ofdisseminating agricultural information and promoting innovation(De la Vega, 1966; Cobo, 1979; Ortiz, 2006).

In several developing countries, formal extension servicesstarted in the mid-twentieth century, and in the last 50 years, the-oretical and practical approaches to promoting technologicalchange and innovation in agriculture have been evolving in re-sponse to changes in the external environment (agroecosystems,institutions, policies, and markets). The agricultural innovationsystems approach proposed recently (Hall et al., 2003; Hall,2009) aims at understanding the complexity of agricultural inno-vation. However, this approach has not developed yet sufficienttools for understanding and managing innovation systems. Theobjective of this paper is to describe the main results of a rapid ap-praisal of potato-related innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia,Peru and Uganda, focusing on the characteristics of the main com-ponents of the system. The study was conducted at pilot sites,which represented important potato producing areas in each ofthe countries.

Although, the results presented in the paper are related to pota-to production and use, they present an example of innovation sys-tems around root and tuber crops, which are essential for resource-poor farmers (Scott et al., 2000). Root and tuber crops share somecommonalities, such as the challenges around the improvement ofseed systems, because they use vegetatively propagated plantingmaterial (roots, tubers or stem cuts), or the perishability of the pro-duce. The results, however, would not represent innovation sys-tems around other crops such as cereals or grains withcommercial or export orientation.

2. Agricultural innovation, evolution of concepts

The term innovation refers to the understanding and use of anew idea, practice or method, which replaces something that anindividual or organization has been using so far. For this paperthe new ideas, practices or methods are related to potato produc-tion and use. Innovation can be conceptualized as a ‘‘product’’ or‘‘end result’’ usually measured as adoption rates by some authorssuch as Rogers (1962, 1995), while other authors conceptualizeinnovation as a process; for example, the process of generatingnew knowledge and applying it in a productive way (Hall et al.,2003, 2004), or as new ways of coordination and adjustmentamong people, technologies or natural phenomena (Leeuwis,2004). Although, this discussion would seem to be theoretical, ithas had practical implications. For example, the innovationdiffusion theory (Rogers, 1962, 1995) led to linear, top-down,

technology transfer approaches, which have been used at the fieldlevel for several decades. The Green Revolution, which worked rel-atively well in some locations in Asia, but it did not work well inother parts of the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, is an exampleof these approaches (Pachico et al., 2000; Renkow and Byerlee,2010). The extension approach known as the training and visit(T&V) system was also based on the innovation diffusion theoryand had been promoted by donor agencies since the 1970s. Despitethe fact that the model was promoted in several countries, involv-ing large investments, evaluations indicate that the approach hadproblems related to its relatively high cost, rigidity of application,and limited response to farmer needs (Antholt, 1994; Andersonet al., 2006).

New approaches to innovation have been related to changes inthe external environment, which were accelerated by the imple-mentation of economic structural adjustment in several develop-ing countries, with the consequent dramatic decrease ingovernmental agricultural research and extension services. At thesame time, a number of new stakeholders (NGOs, private sector,farmer organizations, local governments, etc.) started to contributeand, in some cases, take the lead in promoting agricultural innova-tions during the 1980s and 1990s (Bebbington et al., 1993; Umaliand Schwartz, 1994; Ameur, 1994; Ortiz, 2006).

The appearance of new stakeholders involved in agriculturalinnovation, and the realization of their importance among donorsand scholars, highlighted the need to improve linkage mechanismsfor technological innovation, for example, through participatoryresearch (Chambers et al., 1989), or for improving the share ofinformation and knowledge (Kaimowitz et al., 1990). The new con-text and the need for these better linkage mechanisms are alsohighlighted in the agricultural knowledge and information system(AKIS) approach (Röling, 1990; Engel, 1997). This approach pro-poses that innovation is the result of networking among individu-als, groups and organizations for the generation and use ofinformation and knowledge to solve problems. This was a pioneer-ing approach for dealing with the increasing number of new stake-holders associated with agriculture.

In several cases innovations started to occur as a result of acombination of the comparative advantages of public and privatestakeholders, among which research organizations were just oneamong several players. As the changes occurred, scholars startedto propose new theories aiming at explaining how multiple stake-holders interact and innovate to solve common problems. The agri-cultural innovation system approach (Hall et al., 2003, 2004; Hall,2009) was initially used in the private sector in an attempt to ex-plain and promote innovation. Vinod et al. (2004) conceptualizesinnovation systems as the group of organizations, enterprises andindividuals that demand and supply knowledge and technologies,together with the policies, rules, and mechanisms that are involvedwhich influence how stakeholders interact for sharing, accessing,and using knowledge. Spielman et al. (2009) rightly indicate that‘‘individuals, and their environments form complex systems, char-acterized by a large number of actors, diverse interactions and rela-tionships, and constantly changing influences emerging fromtechnological, market, policy, cultural and other socioeconomicfactors’’. The authors call these ‘‘complex adaptive systems’’.

Altemburg (2009) indicates that there is the need to developinclusive innovation systems in developing countries, particularlyby paying attention to the ‘‘. . .development of innovations that im-prove the livelihood of the poor’’. Berdegué (2005) also points outthat a number of agriculture-related organizations are interested inthe promotion of pro-poor innovations. However, given the exist-ing diversity and complexity of stakeholders, the question is howto develop innovations that can have a wider impact on poverty

Table 1Participants in the workshops for rapid appraisal of potato innovation systems.

Location Bolivia Ethiopia Peru Uganda

Number of workshops 3 1 4 2

Number of individual participants fromFarmer organizations 48 3 29 20National GOs 0 4 16 14Local GOs 3 0 8 0NGOs 7 3 5 11Private sector 3 7 17 4Media 2 1 7 3International Center (CIP) 0 2 3 3Total participants per pilot site 63 21 85 55

O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83 75

alleviation. Douthwaite (2002) and Douthwaite et al.(2009) havebeen looking at this issue and proposes two approaches called‘‘learning selection’’ and ‘‘learning to innovate’’. The former focuseson the participation of users to enhance the design of the innova-tion through reiterative cycles of learning, so that the innovationaccumulates the contribution of several users and reaches suffi-cient levels of optimization for moving to wide-scale adoption.The second approach suggested by Douthwaite stresses that peo-ple, particularly those with limited resources in developing coun-tries, need to learn to innovate. A key feature of Douthwaite’sapproach is the need to have quality interactions that promotecross learning and innovation among stakeholders.

Quality of innovation and quality of interactions among stake-holders are related concepts, and Biggs and Matsaert (2004) indi-cate that ‘‘. . .a strong, effective and sustainable innovationsystem is one where institutions facilitate flows of informationand good partnership coalitions between key actors over time’’.The authors indicate that, although linkages and interactions area fundamental function of an innovation system, the analysis ofthese topics has not received sufficient attention in the literature.The issue of quality of interactions and innovations has also beenexplored particularly in the private sector in relation to customervalue and organizational learning (Tee, 2009). This means thatthe innovation process has more quality if it brings value to its cus-tomers or stakeholders. In addition, within innovation systems of afirm, Björk and Magnusson (2009) point out the direct interrela-tionship between how the stakeholders connect to each other(quality of interactions) and the quality of the innovation ideasthat are generated. At a regional level, Fritsch and Slavtchev(2011) propose that the intensity of interactions between stake-holders of the innovation system from both private and public sec-tor determines the efficiency, and thus the quality of theinnovation process. Another way of improving quality of interac-tions would be that stakeholders make use of current communica-tion methods such as mobile phones or other informationcommunication technologies (ICTs), which would facilitate accessto relevant information (Ducombe and Heeks, 2002; Rao, 2007;Ducombe, 2010).

The innovation systems approach has been presented as aframework for helping stakeholders to understand the complexityof innovation processes, which is a common characteristic of cur-rent agricultural systems, particularly if the sustainability dimen-sion is taken into account (Scoones et al., 2007; Thompson andScoones, 2009). However, understanding complexity and manag-ing innovation systems remains a challenge and there is a needfor methodological approaches to understand and handle complex-ity in a practical way. There have been some methods related toagricultural knowledge and information systems (Engel, 1997),and the actor-oriented approach (Biggs and Matsaert, 2004), whichcan be adapted to understand agricultural innovation systemsfrom the perspective of key stakeholders.

Key: Farmer organizations – potato growers represented farmer groups in processof formalization, groups formed to receive training, and formal groups already incharge of potato production and trade.National GOs: This included representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture suchas research and extension institutes, plant health organizations, and special agri-cultural projects run by the government. In the case of Bolivia, there was notpresence on national GOs at the pilot sites.Local GOs: representatives from local municipalities participated in the workshopin Bolivia and Peru. Local GOs were not represented in Ethiopia and Uganda.NGOs: representatives from NGOs participated in all the workshops. They includedrepresentatives of local, national or international NGOs.Private sector: This included representatives of input suppliers and local potatotraders.Media: representatives of local radio stations.International Center (CIP): representatives of CIP present in the areas or who travelespecially for the workshops.Note: additional information about workshop participants for Ethiopia and Perupilot sites are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively.

3. Methodology for rapid appraisal of potato innovationsystems

The study was conducted at pilot sites representing key potatoproducing areas in four countries. In Bolivia, the pilot site was lo-cated in the Cochabamba Province, ranked first in potato produc-tion, with altitudes around 2500 and 3000 m above sea level. InEthiopia, the pilot site was in the Oromia Province, also the mainpotato producing area in the country, with altitudes around2500 m. In Peru, the pilot sites were located in the CajamarcaDepartment, Northern Highlands, with altitudes between 2500and 3000 m, ranking fifth in potato production but among the firstin poverty levels. In Uganda, the pilot site was in the Kabale District

in the South West of the country, also ranked first in potato pro-duction, with altitudes around 2000 m. At all pilot sites, potato cul-tivation was characterized to be in the hands of small farmers whoplanted less than 0.5 ha with this crop one or two times per year.

The work proposed by Engel (1997) and Biggs and Matsaert(2004) was taken into account for mapping components, interac-tions and flow of information in the potato innovation systems.In both cases, the authors suggest that studying agriculturalknowledge and information systems, or innovation systems,should involve the stakeholders or components of the system itself,in order to gather their views, perceptions, needs and proposedsolutions. Therefore, specific participatory workshops were de-signed for a rapid appraisal of potato innovation systems, whichwas the first step of a project designed to improve innovation capa-bilities in the system (Ortiz et al., 2011).

A total of ten participatory workshops (one in Ethiopia, one inUganda, three in Bolivia and five in Peru) were run between2004 and 2006. An average of 22 participants representing differ-ent stakeholders in the potato innovation systems participated ineach workshop, namely representatives of farmers as individualsor organizations, national and local government organizations,NGOs, private companies and media representatives (additionaldetails on the participants are presented in Table 1, and Figs. 2and 3). A common feature in the four countries is that there wasno sufficient information about who forms part of the potato inno-vation system, so it was not possible to have a formal samplingframework from which to select informants. Therefore, the selec-tion of the participants followed the principles of ‘‘snowball sam-pling’’ (Atkinson and Flint, 2001), in which some key componentsof the potato innovation systems (i.e. representatives of the agri-cultural research, development, and farmer organizations) sug-gested other possible actors to be invited, which includedrepresentatives from local and national governmental organiza-tions, the private sector and media. With some variations theworkshop participants responded to the following questions: (1)who are the main stakeholders or components (organizations orindividuals) that form part of the potato innovation system, and

76 O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

what is their role? (2) what types of interactions occur amongcomponents in relation to potato production and use? and (3)which are the main problems of the potato innovation system, per-ceived by the components?

In general terms, the workshops followed a similar format. Par-ticipants were asked to write on cards the names of the individualsor organizational components of the potato-related innovation sys-tem, starting with their own, and then referring to others that theyknew. The role and relevance that each component had in the sys-tem was also described, indicating what they do regarding potatoproduction, use and trade. Since one card was used per component,a list of components was prepared by sticking the cards on thewall. Once the list of main components and their roles had beenidentified, an actor linkage matrix (adapted from Biggs and Matsa-ert, 2004) was constructed, and participants identified interactionsamong components. The interactions were analyzed using princi-ples of social network analysis (Borgatti et al., 2009) and were de-fined as any kind of contact, formal or informal, among two ormore components resulting in information exchange, carryingout potato related activities, accessing input, or trading products.In an ideal situation, all components (i.e. organizations) wouldinteract with each other in search of information or to carry out po-tato-related activities. If that were the case, the total number ofinteractions could be calculated by the following formulaNi = ((n � n) � n)/2, where: Ni: Maximum number of interactionsand n: number of components identified. Participants identifiedthose components that interacted with each other, the purposeof such interaction, and how it occurred, and also ranked theimportance of such interactions. For example, whether there wasa formal agreement, or whether it was ad hoc for specific purposessuch as trade. Having the list of components and the matrix ofinteractions, participants then identified the main problems ofthe potato innovation systems in general.

The results of the workshops were analyzed in order to describethe key characteristics of the potato innovation system, such as therole of farmer organizations, national or local government, NGOs,private companies, international research centers, and media(radio), and how these components interacted with each other. Asimple qualitative ranking exercise with values from one to fourwas used to analyze opinions about the role of each component,indicating when there was a very limited role (in some cases to-tally absent and negligible for promoting potato-related innova-tions), limited role (some signs of incipient participation in thepotato systems), increasing role (starting to contribute to innova-tion), and major role (perceived an important or driving force forpotato-related innovation).

Detailed reports per workshop and per country were elaborated.However, a limitation of the results from pilot sites is that they can-not be generalized for the whole country in statistical terms, be-cause they represent case studies. Nevertheless, given the factthat workshops were carried out in key potato production areas,the findings can provide an insight into the main characteristics ofthe potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda.

As indicated, this study was part of a larger intervention aimingat improving innovation through participatory research, in whichdifferent participatory methods were assessed by stakeholders fromtheir own view points (Ortiz et al., 2011). Therefore, the results com-ing from the initial rapid appraisal of potato innovation systemswere later triangulated by results coming from participatory re-search (PR) conducted during between 2005 and 2007 in the four pi-lot sites. Although the aim of PR was to assess the factors thatstakeholders take into account for getting involved in participatoryresearch, it was also the chance to get additional information aboutthe characteristics and constraints of the potato innovation systems,particularly in terms of stakeholder roles and interactions. In addi-tion, the results from Ethiopia and Uganda were also analyzed from

the perspective of information and knowledge systems (Gildemach-er et al., 2009), which was another way of triangulating results.

4. Results of the parallel analysis in the four countries

The study aimed at assessing the main characteristics of the po-tato innovation systems at the pilot sites in the four countries,using a rapid appraisal method specifically designed for this pur-pose. The method shows what can be achieved through a rapid ap-praisal as a way to begin understanding characteristics, constraintsand opportunities. Because of the differences in the number of par-ticipants in the workshops per pilot site, and the number of work-shops per country, results cannot be compared numerically, butthe evidence produced allows for a parallel analysis of the fourcases and enables us to extract general trends in the characteristicsaccording to the perceptions of participants. Fig. 1 shows a parallelanalysis of the potato innovation systems at the pilot sites in thefour countries, and attempts to summarize the findings of thestudy.

4.1. Complexity of the system

According to the opinions of the workshop participants, thecomplexity of the system was a function of both the number anddiversity of components. As indicated before, it is hard to comparethe number of components, which varied from 14 components inEthiopia to 31 in Bolivia, but in general terms, results indicate thatthe potato innovation system was relatively less complex at the pi-lot sites in Oromia, Ethiopia (Fig. 2), with fewer organizationalcomponents in general, and where government organizationsplayed a major role, compared to the cases in the other countriessuch as Peru (Fig. 3), where the role of the government sectorwas limited and there was a major role on the part of a larger num-ber of NGOs and private companies in charge of input market.

When most components played a limited role, the radar graph(Fig. 1) showed a polygon where most values were around 2, andthe system was regarded as less complex (case of Ethiopia), com-pared to systems where components played more diverse rolesand the graph showed several values around 3 or 4 (meaning rolesincreasing in importance or already major for potato innovation),which suggest some type of specialization in the system as in thecases of Bolivia and Peru.

Results of the participatory workshops in Ethiopia indicate that14 components were identified in the potato innovation system:namely, researchers, farmers, potato traders, consumers, districtbureau of agriculture, transporters, daily laborers, NGOs, farmercooperatives, brokers, store owners, media, agro-input suppliersand supermarkets, with different interactions (Fig. 2).

Up to 31 organizational components were identified at the pilotsite in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The matrix of components and inter-actions showed a very complex network, with more frequent andstronger interactions occurring between farmer organizationsand NGOs, a private foundation and private companies in chargeof input supply, whereas the interactions with the government sec-tor were less common at the time of the study in 2005.

In Cajamarca, Peru, a total of 30 components were identified inthe four sites where the workshops took place, involving govern-ment, non-government, farmer, and private input supply compa-nies. The potato innovation systems were more complex in thoseprovinces such as Sanchez Carrion where potato was the maincommercial activity for the farmers, than in the province of SanMiguel, where potato was a secondary activity after dairy cattle.Fig. 3 shows the complexity of the system in Cajamarca, Peru.

In Uganda, a total of 22 components were named by the work-shop participants, also showing a complex network of relation-

Fig. 1. Parallel analysis of the role of the components and their interactions in the potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda. Key: (1) very limited role;(2) limited role; (3) increasing; and (4) major.

O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83 77

ships existing at the time of the workshop in 2006, and where thegovernment sector was playing a catalytic role of promoting link-ages among different components, particularly for facilitatingfarmer access to private advisory services (Feder et al., 2011).

4.2. Role of farmer organizations

Rogers (1995) indicated that an innovation consisted of thehardware or physical component, and the software or informationand knowledge needed for its functioning. Klerkx and Leeuwis(2009) add another component to innovation, and they call it ‘‘org-ware’’ defined as the organizational characteristics of a system thatfacilitate or limit innovation to take place. In other words, there areinnovations that require strong organizations to take place. Sincefarmer organizations were named as the central component ofthe potato innovation systems, their role is described in thissection.

In Bolivia, there were different types of farmer organizations,some of them specifically related to agriculture in general and po-tato in particular, and others that had a political function. Forexample, agricultural organizations included seed-producing asso-ciations and farmer organizations formed through farmer fieldschools (FFSs) and local agricultural research committees (CIAL)(Gabriel et al., 2004), political community organizations calledunions (‘‘sindicatos’’) also had some influence on agriculturalactivities. Workshop participants perceived that farmer organiza-

tions were relatively stronger in Bolivia and played a major rolein the potato innovation system, compared to other countries(Fig. 1). It was clear that farmers in the Bolivian case felt clearlypart of an organization, which was perceived to be useful for theirpurposes.

In Ethiopia, participants in the workshops indicated thatfarmers also played a central role in the potato innovation system,being in charge of producing potatoes for home consumption, forthe market, and for seed; however, their organizations wereregarded as having a limited role in the innovation process. Atthe pilot site some unions were in the process of formation atthe moment of the study thanks to the support of GOs and NGOs.

In Peru, farmers were organized into several community-basedorganizations to support agricultural activities, but only a few ofthese organizations were involved in potato production. Potato-re-lated organizations were more common in areas where the potatoproduction system was more dynamic, with more intense potatocultivation and trade. This implied more frequent interactionsamong farmer organizations with other organizations in chargeof input supply, production, advisory services and trade of pota-toes. As indicated by Biggs and Matsaert (2004), Tee (2009) andFritsch and Slavtchev (2011), intensity of interactions usually re-sults in improved innovation process. Farmers were aware of theneed to have strong internal organizations (which was not yetthe case at the moment of the study), and to have stronger linkageswith other components of the potato innovation system. External

Fig. 2. Interaction of Potato Innovation actors in Oromia, Ethiopia in 2004. Note: The thickness of the over outline and arrows indicates the strength of the component and ofthe linkages and information exchange. Key: SHDI – Self Help Development International; CIP – International Potato Center; and EIAR – Ethiopian Institute of AgriculturalResearch.

78 O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

organizations such as local municipalities and NGOs (as was thecase in the province of Sanchez Carrión) provided support to estab-lish linkages among organizations. In other cases, such as in SanMiguel, Peru, where potato cultivation was less intensified, farmerswho received training on the farmer field school (FFS) method (Or-tiz et al., 2004) formed an association of FFS facilitators, which sup-ported training activities. However, their role was limited, in partbecause of the reduced importance of potatoes in the livelihoodsystem, which did not provide motivation for more intense interac-tions among components. In general, the role of farmer organiza-tions in the potato innovation systems was regarded as limitedat the Peruvian pilot site.

In contrast, in the case of the potato innovation system in Ugan-da, farmer organizations were regarded as playing an increasinglyimportant role. Three farmer associations were identified as part ofthe potato innovation system: The Uganda National Seed PotatoProducers Association (UNSPPA), which was in charge of producingseed of higher quality through semi formal and farmer-based seedsystem; the Kabale District Farmers Association (KADFA) whichwas an umbrella organization of farmers in the district, coordinat-ing activities on different crops including potato; and NyabyumbaUnited Farmers Association, which was an association of groups offarmers who participated in an FFS project between 1999 and 2002(Hakiza et al., 2004). Farmer organizations interacted with othercomponents of the system through different mechanisms, suchas participatory research activities in collaboration with govern-ment organizations (NARO) and NGOs (Africare), as described byOrtiz et al. (2011).

4.3. Role of national government organizations

The role of national government organizations varied at eachlocation according to the participants’ perceptions. For example,a major government presence in research, agricultural extensionand input marketing was the main characteristic of the Ethiopiansystem following the government policy of agricultural develop-ment-led industrialization strategy (van der Veen and Gebrehiwot,2011), and also a major role of the Ugandan government for pro-moting private advisory services (Feder et al., 2011), which canbe regarded as an attempt to improve interactions among compo-nents of the systems - in stark contrast to the Bolivian and Peru-vian systems where the involvement of national governmentalorganizations in the innovation system was minimal at the mo-ment of the study, following trends towards privatization (Ortiz,2006).

The governmental organizational components in the Ethiopiansystem, basically the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research(EIAR) and the government extension services, were perceived asplaying a major role in the system. For example, researchers fromthe Potato Program provided improved potato varieties to farmers,conducted research to control potato late blight, and investigatedfertilizer rates. This was confirmed in the findings of Ortiz et al.(2011). The District Bureau of Agriculture was also in charge ofidentifying farmer problems, introducing new technologies, facili-tating input provision for agriculture, providing general advice tofarmers, and bringing feedback to researchers albeit in a limitedway.

Fig. 3. Interaction of Potato Innovation system actors in Cajamarca, Peru in 2004. Note: The thickness of the oval outline and the arrows indicates the strength of the linkagesand Information Exchange. Key: IDER-CV – Institute of Regional Development ‘‘Cesar Vallejo’’; ADRA – Adventist Agency for Development and Assistance Resources; ERA –Andean Rural School; PRISMA – Project in Informatics, Health, Medicine and Agriculture; EDAC – Team of Agricultural development Cajamarca; ADIAR – Association for theRegional Alternative International Development; IINCAP – Research and Professional Training Institute – ‘‘Jorge Bassadre’’; CEDEPAS – Ecumenical Center of Promotion andSocial action; GTZ – German Cooperation Agency; CIP – International Potato Center; CODECO – Community Development Committee; CEPASAS – Consortium of AgriculturalProducers from the Province of Sanchez Carrion; INIA – National Institute for Agricultural Research; SENASA – National Service for Agricultural Health; and PRONAMACHCS –Special National Project for Watershed Management and Soil Conservation.

O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83 79

The potato innovation system in Bolivia changed from a govern-ment-centered service to a more complex system with the partic-ipation of several private companies (input supply), public andfarmer organizations and NGOs in the last three decades (Bebbing-ton et al., 1993), up to the time this study was conducted in 2005.However, in more recent years the government has been trying todesign a strategy to reactivate government agricultural services be-cause of the political changes in Bolivia.

In the case of Peru, stakeholders participating in the workshopsidentified different government organizations dealing with potato-related aspects such as research, information provision, and sani-tary control. However, these organizations played a limited rolein promoting innovation in the opinion of the workshop partici-pants. For example, the national institute for agricultural research(INIA) was in charge of research, promotion, and the technologicaltransfer of crops of national importance, and, in particular, it wasresponsible for releasing and promoting new potato varieties;but INIA was not directly present in any of the four sites studied.The Agrarian Agency, under mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture,was in charge of agricultural development by disseminating infor-mation about the areas of crops planted and harvested, marketinformation, and promoting linkages among organizations; butthe scarcity of human and financial resources did not allow for a

more efficient work. In addition, the national agrarian sanitary ser-vice (SENASA) had responsibilities for controlling plant and animalhealth, and also contributed with training to seed potato growersand was in charge of potato seed certification, also in a limitedway.

In Uganda, government organizations were also part of the po-tato innovation system and were perceived to play a major role inthe system. They included the National Agricultural Research Orga-nization (NARO), the National Agricultural Advisory Services(NAADS), and Area Based Agricultural Modernization Programme(AAMP). At the pilot area of Kabale, Namulonge Agricultural Re-search Institute (NAARI) was one of the nine research institutesof NARO with the mandate to generate and disseminate improvedtechnologies of beans, cassava, cereals (maize and rice), sweet po-tato, potato, and animal production. However, the specific mandateon potato (called ‘‘solanum potato’’ or ‘‘Irish potato’’) was devolvedto Kachwekano Agricultural Research and Development Centre(ARDC) following its establishment as a NARO zonal centre in thesouthwestern highlands agro-ecological zone of Uganda in 2000.At the time of the workshop, the center was called Kachwekano Zo-nal Agricultural Research and development Institute (KAZARDI).The station was in charge of carrying out research on potato varietyimprovement (variety evaluation and on-farm/on-station technol-

80 O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

ogy development trials), variety dissemination, training of trainersin potato production, foundation/basic seed production, and net-working with other researchers, extension agents, developmentagencies and farmer organizations. In Uganda there was an on-going decentralization of responsibilities from national organiza-tions to regional institutions and local government and a tendencyto privatization of delivery of agricultural extension services underthe NAADS program (Feder et al., 2011).

4.4. Role of local government organizations

Interactions among innovation system components occur at lo-cal or regional level, and the intensity of such interactions deter-mines efficiency of the system (Fritsch and Slavtchev, 2011). InEthiopia and Uganda, the role of local government organizations(municipalities) was perceived as weak within the potato innova-tion system. In Bolivia and Peru, local municipalities have startedto play an increasingly important role for the coordination and pro-motion of agricultural development in general, and potato produc-tion in particular. In the case of Peru, some municipalities, such asthose in the provinces of Baños del Inca and Sanchez Carrión,showed substantial commitment to agricultural development ingeneral and potato production in particular. They had technicalstaff responsible for providing information to farmers, and wereinterested in the use of participatory methods for testing and pro-moting potato technologies, and in the promotion of interactionsamong other public and private organizations in the system. Therole of local governments for agricultural development has alsobeen highlighted by Fernandez-Baca et al. (2010). Therefore, localgovernment organizations in coordination with national organiza-tions should increase their role for promoting such interactions in amore coordinated way.

4.5. Role of international agricultural research organizations

The International Potato Center (CIP) was involved in the potatoinnovation systems at all the pilot sites studied. This was becauseCIP played a coordination role in a project that promoted techno-logical innovation at the pilot sites in the four countries, and hadbeen a partner with the organizations involved since at least1999. CIP performed as an ‘‘innovation broker’’, using the terminol-ogy proposed by Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009), by promotinginteractions, providing technical support and methodological back-stopping for organizations. However, CIP’s role was not clearly per-ceived by all components of the system, but by those directlyinteracting with CIP, which were research and development orga-nizations in the four countries (Fig. 2 illustrate the Ethiopian case),and included farmer organizations in the case of Peru (Fig. 3). Inthe past, international agricultural research centers have func-tioned mainly as technological sources, particularly new varieties.In more recent years, these centers have diversified their agendasand, for example, have started to perform as ‘‘connectors’’, conceptcoined by Gladwell (2002), by facilitating access to relevant infor-mation about technologies, methods and opportunities to the com-ponents of the innovation systems, by connecting potato-relatedresearch and development organizations and market actors (Dev-aux et al., 2009; Horton et al., 2009), by promoting the farmer fieldschool approach and other participatory methods for technologicalinnovation in the four countries (Ortiz et al., 2004, 2008, 2011), butalso, as indicated by Marin and Arza (2009), when referring to therole of multinationals in local innovation systems, by maintaining‘‘. . .involvement in international process of knowledge creationand diffusion’’ and keeping pace with technological change world-wide. Results suggest that finding more efficient ways of becomingpart of national, regional or even local innovation systems shouldbe included in the agenda of international and national research

organizations. CIP’s role as a broker and connector for innovationin the four countries was facilitated by a grant provided by theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). In the caseof Uganda, other international research centers were involved andpartially related to the potato innovation systems, such as theInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and AfricanHighlands Initiative, which were promoting value chains for localcrops (Kaganzi et al., 2009).

4.6. Role of NGOs

The role of NGOs in the potato innovation system also variedfrom one country to another, with relatively less importance inthe case of the Ethiopia potato innovation system, compared tothe other countries, where a larger number of NGOs were activelyparticipating in the system at the time of the study.

In Ethiopia, NGOs, such as Self Help Development International(SHDI) were perceived as being in charge of technology dissemina-tion, and providing training to farmers. They also worked on facil-itating farmer access to market opportunities and on theestablishment of farmer cooperatives and unions. Their role inthe potato system was perceived as increasing in importance.

According to the workshop participants, non-government orga-nizations (NGOs) and a private foundation also played a major rolein the Bolivian potato innovation system. For example, at the pilotsite of Cochabamba, PROINPA, ASAR and CIFEMA had potato-re-lated activities. PROINPA was a private foundation working moreon research (Gandarillas et al., 2007), for example, for the introduc-tion of new potato varieties; ASAR (Asociación de Servicios Artesa-nales y Rurales) worked on providing technical assistance, training,and credit, particularly in relation to potato seed production. TheResearch, Training and Extension center on Agricultural Mechani-zation (CIFEMA) aimed at building, validating, and disseminatinggood quality agricultural tools, implements and equipmentadapted to the Andean conditions.

There were ten NGOs in the potato innovation system in Caja-marca, Peru, which was a relatively larger number compared tothe other countries (Fig. 3). There were NGOs with national cover-age and some with local influence only. NGOs were providing tech-nical assistance, for example, about improving potato seed, butalso were carrying out activities to strengthen local organizations,and were perceived as playing a major role in the potato innova-tion system according to participants in the workshops. The roleof NGOs in participatory research and organizational learning inPeru also has been highlighted by Ortiz et al. (2008).

There were five NGOs working in Uganda for potato productionat the time of the workshop. For example, Africa 2000 Network-Uganda (A2N), which worked on farmer training, provision ofstarter seed, linking farmers to markets, information dissemination(community libraries), and establishing marketing centers. TheNGO Africare had worked in Africa for 35 years and ran the ‘‘Farm-er training and improved potato production programme’’ contrib-uting to their mission related to food security in Uganda.Nangara Integrated Development Project (Nangara ID), a projectfrom the African Evangelistic Enterprise (AEE), had the purposeof improving the standard of living of rural households. CAREUganda was implementing the ‘‘Food security through farmerinnovation’’ project, using participatory methodologies to charac-terize and diagnose critical issues in two watersheds in Kabale dis-trict. CARE worked on promoting linkages among researchers, seedmultipliers and business people, market interactions, training inpotato crop and post harvest management, and soil and water con-servation. World Vision was also active at the pilot site of Kabaleproviding information to farmers.

According to the results in the four cases, NGOs were playing animportant role for improving potato innovation systems, particu-

O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83 81

larly when their efforts were oriented to strengthen farmerorganizations and promoting linkages among farmers and othercomponents of the system, either government organizations orprivate companies, which according to Biggs and Matsaert (2004),Tee (2009) and Fritsch and Slavtchev (2011), is a critical functionto improve the quality of the innovation systems. The role of NGOscan be strengthened when formal interactions occurred for potatoinnovation, such as through participatory research (Ortiz et al.,2008, 2011).

4.7. Role of the private sector

The term private sector in this paper refers to private companiesin charge of input supply mainly. According to workshop partici-pants, the private companies’ presence and role in the potato inno-vation system was perceived as relatively more important inBolivia and Peru than in Ethiopia and Uganda. In the Latin Ameri-can cases, most farmers reported having contacts with agrochem-ical companies (or input sellers) for both buying inputs andreceiving information. In the African cases, on the one hand, therewas some presence of private companies in Uganda, where the in-put trade was fully liberalized, but local availability of inputs, espe-cially fertilizer, within the potato growing areas was limited. InEthiopia, agricultural input suppliers were also identified as impor-tant components of the innovation system in charge of selling fer-tilizers, other agro-chemicals and farm tools, although theirpresence was limited in the rural areas according to the workshopparticipants.

In Bolivia, the private companies played a major role in the sys-tem and participated in different sectors of the potato value chain,such as the provision of agricultural tools, agrochemicals, and cred-it. Agrochemical companies were active in the potato system andprovided training courses and information about soil fertilizationand strategies for chemical pest control, aiming at selling agricul-tural inputs to farmers.

In Peru, agrochemical companies and potato traders alsoplayed a major role compared to the systems in Ethiopia andUganda. Agrochemical sellers were in charge of supplyingfarming inputs and also providing advice for controlling potatoinsects and diseases. Potato traders usually participated in thesystem by buying potatoes from farmers and selling them to lar-ger markets, and by providing market-related information in theprocess.

As indicated, the presence of private companies, which soughtproactively the establishment of interactions with farmers andother members of the system, seemed to add dynamism to the po-tato innovation systems particularly in Bolivia and Peru. The role ofthe private sector in innovation has been highlighted by Pomaredaand Hartwich (2006) particularly for the case of Latin Americancountries.

4.8. Role of the media

According to workshop participants in all countries, the media(specifically the radio) played a weak role for the potato innovationsystem. In Bolivia, mass media, such as radio, formed part of thepotato innovation system by disseminating some information.Radio stations in rural Cochabamba were involved in a process ofpopular education in Quechua (native language) and Spanish, andbroadcasted some potato-related information.

In Ethiopia, although media were identified as part of the system,they were regarded as playing a very limited role, basically by pro-viding some information about new technologies and agriculturalinputs. A similar situation resulted from the Peruvian pilot sites,where two local radios were broadcasting information and promot-ing the agricultural activities of NGOs and GOs in the system.

In Uganda, local radio stations that broadcast in vernacular lan-guage were widely listened to. Also, these radio stations did haveinteractions with other actors in the innovation system, althoughlimited. Media in Uganda were identified as important for spread-ing information. Kabale district had four community radio stationsat the time of the workshops. One of them worked with NAADS bybroadcasting market information to the farming and trading com-munity albeit in a limited fashion.

4.9. Interactions among components and quality of innovation

The performance of an innovation system is in direct relation-ship to the quality of the interactions among components (OECD,1997; Biggs and Matsaert, 2004; Tee, 2009; Björk and Magnusson,2009; Fritsch and Slavtchev, 2011). Therefore, understanding link-ages and interactions among stakeholders is important to improveinnovation. In addition, the importance of interactions, such as net-working with an innovation system perspective, has been high-lighted by Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) and Spielman et al. (2009),as a mechanism to establish connection between the demandand the supply of innovation. The latter authors indicate ‘‘for com-plex or new innovations, actors have to interact often and infor-mally to resolve unexpected problems and the technical andmarket uncertainties derived from the innovation’’.

Stakeholders at all pilot sites pointed out the existence of lim-ited interactions among the components of the system. In Ethiopia,with 14 components identified, a total of 91 interactions could oc-cur potentially, and in Bolivia with 31 components, 465 interac-tions could take place in an ideal situation; however, less than athird of the potential interactions were reported. Similarly, in thecase studies from Peru, with 30 components, only less than 23%of the potential interactions were reported; in Bolivia the situationwas similar with only 22% of interactions occurring, mostly involv-ing farmers. These results are an indicator of the lack of coordina-tion and collective action among public, non-governmental andprivate companies to attend potato-related farmer needs.

Promoting interaction or coordination among stakeholders wasseen as important by different organizations, but constrained byhaving too few staff members in the field and insufficient financialresources to promote coordination. However, for example, inUganda, specific attempts were made by GOs and NGOs to promotemore efficient interactions among the components of the potatoinnovation system. In Peru, CARE was playing a catalytic role inthe province of Sanchez Carrion, promoting linkages among orga-nizations and local government. In the same way, PROINPA in Bo-livia, EIAR in Ethiopia and NARO in Uganda, were already active inpromoting interactions. However, this role was limited because inall cases, it depended on special project funding and the role endedwhen the funds stopped according to participants’ opinions.Investing in improving interactions and linkages of the potatovalue chain has shown to be important for promoting potato-re-lated innovation in the Andes and in Uganda (Devaux et al.,2009; Horton et al., 2009).

In general terms, interactions in the Ugandan system were morefrequent and better organized than in the other countries, withspecific government and non-government interventions designedto promote interactions among the different sectors. The institu-tion having the largest number of partners was Africare, which re-lated directly to 12 of the partners present in the workshop. Thegovernment research and extension agent interacted with all theactors, though to a different extent with each one. This was be-cause of the policy requirement to have greater integration be-tween agricultural research and extension services to promoteprivate advisory services (Feder et al., 2011). Poor linkages amongthe institutions involved in the potato innovation system wereidentified as one of the hindrances to information and technology

82 O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83

access. Research, agricultural extension service, NGOs, farmers, pri-vate sector, and mass media were found to have limited commonactivities and there was little interaction and coordination amongstakeholders. Workshop participants perceived that to improvethe potato sector in Uganda, priority should be given to those inno-vations designed to build potato-related capabilities of differentstakeholders in the system, and to improve interaction mecha-nisms for better coordinated work, which would result in im-proved innovation capacity.

In the four potato innovation systems analyzed, organizationsdid not interact sufficiently among each other for improving thecoordination of activities; similarly Morris et al. (2006) highlightthe same weakness. In addition to this limitation, workshop partic-ipants in the four countries identified the fact that the limited coor-dination reduced the access of farmers to essential information andproduction inputs. It was clearly indicated in all the pilot sites that,for example, access to better quality of planting material called fora better integration of the existing organizational componentsfrom the public, NGO and private sector. It was also identified thatthe improvement of potato value chains was highly desirable in allsites, but this also required improving interactions among relevantsystem components, as highlighted by Devaux et al. (2009) andHorton et al. (2009).

Although the existence of sufficiently good interactions ori-ented to promote exchange information, inputs and promote inno-vation is a key feature of innovation systems, promoting more andbetter interactions depends on the number and type of compo-nents, which in turn influences transaction costs for establishingsuch interactions. Having more components in the innovation sys-tem is not necessarily good if there are not chances for qualityinteractions. If contacting and coordinating people, both forms ofinteraction, do not occur, the systems tend to anarchy, as indicatedby Ameur (1994). Additional funding for covering transactionalcosts, however, is not easy to find, and is difficult to foresee duringproject design. Additionally, it is hard to know what would be thecritical mass to involve in order promoting innovations more sus-tainably. Accessing funding sources that cover transaction costs forpromoting interactions remains a challenge. In this context, therole of telephone or other ICT could be important to improve com-munication and initiate interactions as has been proposed by Du-combe and Heeks (2002), Rao (2007) and Ducombe (2010) inother contexts, and by Amaya and Alwang (2011) particularly forBolivia. The role of transport infrastructure to reduce transactioncosts and promote interactions in Peru has also been highlightedby Escobal (2004). This also calls for a more active role of localand national organizations, which tend to have a more permanentpresence in the innovation systems, to connect different organiza-tions and act as brokers of innovation.

5. Concluding remarks and challenges

Theoretical approaches to innovation have been changing overthe years, evolving from the linear and relatively simple approachof innovation diffusion to a more complex and as yet insufficientlyexplored approach to innovation systems, which fits well with theincreased number and diversity of stakeholders currently involvedin agricultural innovation (as in the cases studied in the paper).However, understanding and managing complexity requires prac-tical methodological approaches to support project design andimplementation. The paper has described the results of a rapid ap-praisal of innovation systems, which has generated information toillustrate the situation of the potato innovation systems at pilotsites in four countries, and the identification of potential entrypoints. Some of them were immediately implemented, such asthe assessment of participatory methods to improve interactions

among components (Ortiz et al., 2011), and others pursued latersuch as inter-organizational projects oriented to improve potatoseed systems in Uganda and Ethiopia.

The findings of the study illustrate the complexity of the potatoinnovation systems in the four countries, and the diversity of rolesof the components in promoting potato-related innovations.Although, the results are related to potato, they represent an exam-ple of innovation systems around root and tuber crops, which areessential for resource-poor farmers. The results, however, wouldnot represent systems around commercial or export crops in whichthe private sector plays a key role in the innovation process.

The findings allow for the identification of potential entrypoints for improving the potato innovation system, particularlythinking about the potential role of international or national agri-cultural research organizations as connectors for, and brokers ofinnovation. For example, in the case of Ethiopia, where govern-ment organizations were playing a strong role, research and devel-opment projects should have these organizations as partners,including capacity building of their human resources as a priority,trying to promote more and better interactions with NGOs andfarmer organizations, but also with market actors and private com-panies. In Uganda, the government also played a strong role, butwas more proactive in terms of promoting linkages among differ-ent agricultural stakeholders. Therefore, interventions for bettercoordination among government projects and a number of strongNGOs would be desirable. In the case of Peru, the strong presenceof NGOs makes them an essential partner for research and devel-opment projects, with a view to improving their interactions withthe government and private companies at national, regional andlocal levels. In Bolivia, the presence of strong farmer organizationsmakes it possible to have them as key partners, together withNGOs and the private companies in charge of input supply and pro-cessing. This finding also suggests that strengthening farmer orga-nizations should be a priority in all countries in order to enhancethe innovation capacity of the system as a whole.

The study has shown that one of the main factors that hinderthe efficiency of potato innovation systems is the limited interac-tion among components or stakeholders, which reduces thechances of learning from each other among farmer, government,non-governmental and private companies in the potato system.However, improving innovation systems for the sake of innovationshould not be pursued. Improvements should seek to attend spe-cific demands, such as increasing the efficiency of the system toprovide planting material of higher quality to farmers, which wasa need expressed in all cases.

Managing interactions and improving their efficiency forexchanging information, technology and inputs is a challenge in it-self. Better interactions represent higher transaction costs, whichare not easily foreseen when designing interventions, but shouldbe taken into account. The results call for a more active role of localand national organizations to coordinate and brokerage innova-tion, and also a more proactive role of both national and interna-tional research organizations to find entry points into localinnovation systems if the innovation system is to be improved.

References

Altemburg, T., 2009. Building inclusive innovation systems in developing countries:challenges for IS research. In: Lundvall, B., Joseph, K.J., Charminade, C., Vang, J.(Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. EdwardElgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 33–56.

Amaya, N., Alwang, J., 2011. Access to information and farmer’s market choice: thecase of potato in highland Bolivia. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 1 (4), 35–53.

Ameur, C., 1994. Agricultural Extension: A Step Beyond the Next Step. World BankTechnical Paper Number 247. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Anderson, J., Feder, G., Ganguly, S., 2006. The Rise and Fall of Training and VisitExtension: An Asian Mini-Drama with an African Epilogue. World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper 3928, May 2006. The World Bank. Washington, DC.

O. Ortiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 114 (2013) 73–83 83

Antholt, C., 1994. Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change andInstitutional Modernization in Agriculture. World Bank Technical PaperNumber 217. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Atkinson, R., Flint, J., 2001. Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations:Snowball Research Strategies. Social Research Update. Issue 33, Summer 2001.University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.

Bebbington, H., Thiele, G., Davies, P., Prayer, M., Riveros, H., 1993. Non-Governmental Organizations and the State in Latin America. Rethinking Rolesin Sustainable Agricultural Development, Routledge, USA.

Berdegué, J., 2005. Pro-Poor Innovation Systems. International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD), Rome.

Biggs, S., Matsaert, H., 2004. Strengthening Poverty Reduction Programmes using anActor-Oriented Approach: Examples from Natural Resources InnovationSystems. AgREN, Network Paper No. 134. ODI, Agricultural Research andExtension Network, London.

Björk, J., Magnusson, M., 2009. Where do good innovation ideas come from?Exploring the influence of network connectivity on innovation idea quality. J.Prod. Innov. Manage 26 (6), 662–670.

Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., 2009. Network analysis in the socialsciences. Science 323 (5916), 892–895.

Chambers, R., Pacey, A., Thrupp, L.A. (Eds.), 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovationand Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Cobo, B., 1979. History of Inca Empire (R. Hamilton translator). University of TexasPress, USA.

De la Vega, G., 1966. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru(H. Livermore translator). University of Texas Press, USA.

Devaux, A., Horton, D., Velasco, C., Thiele, G., Lopez, G., Bernet, T., Reinoso, I.,Ordinola, M., 2009. Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes.Food Policy 34, 31–38.

Douthwaite, B., 2002. Enabling innovation. A Practical Guide to Understanding andFostering Technological Change. Zed Books, London.

Douthwaite, B., Beaulieu, N., Lundy, M., Peters, D., 2009. Understanding howparticipatory approaches foster innovation. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 7 (1), 42–60.

Ducombe, R., Heeks, R., 2002. Enterprise across the digital divide: informationsystems and rural microenterprise in Botswana. J. Int. Dev. 14 (1), 61–74.

Ducombe, R., 2010. Livelihoods framework to analyze ICT applications for povertyreduction through microenterprise. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. Mass. Inst. Technol. 3(3), 81–100.

Engel, P., 1997. La organización social de la innovación. Royal Tropical Institute, TheNetherlands.

Escobal, J., 2004. The Role of Public Infrastructure in Market Development in RuralPeru. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Feder, G., Birner, R., Anderson, J.R., 2011. The private sector’s role in agriculturalextension systems: potential and limitations. J. Agribusiness Dev. Emerg. Econ.1 (1), 31–54.

Fernandez-Baca, E., Montoya, M.P., Yañez, N., 2010. Innovation for PovertyReduction with Inclusion in the Andean Region. ISDA. Montpellier, June 28–30, 2010.

Fritsch, M., Slavtchev, V., 2011. Determinants of the efficiency of regionalinnovation systems. Reg. Studies 45 (7), 905–918.

Gandarillas, A., Blajos, J., Aguirre, G., Devaux, A., Thiele, G., 2007. Changingparadigms for organizing R&D: agricultural research and the creation of thePROINPA Foundation in Bolivia. Int. J. Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 6 (2), 256–276.

Gabriel, J., Herbas, J., Salazar, M., Ruiz, J., Lopez, J., Villaruel, J., 2004. Participatoryplant breeding: a new challenge in the generation and appropriation of potatovarieties in Bolivia. In: Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysisfor Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA), ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), PROINPA Foundation.Cali, Colombia.

Gildemacher, P., Maina, P., Nyongesa, M., Kinyae, P., Woldegiorgis, G., Lema, Y.,Damene, B., Tafesse, S., Kakuhenzire, R., Kashaija, I., Musoke, C., Mudiope, J.,Kahiu, I., Ortiz, O., 2009. Participatory analysis of the potato knowledge andinformation system in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Wettasinha, C. (Eds.), Innovations Africa: EnrichingFarmers’ Livelihoods. Earthscan, London, pp. 153–166.

Gladwell, M., 2002. The Tipping Point: How Little Things can Make a Big Difference.Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company, New York.

Hall, A., Mytelka, L., Oyeyinka, B., 2004. Innovation Systems: What’s Involved forAgricultural Research Policy and Practice? ILAC Brief 2.

Hall, A., Sulaiman, V.R., Clark, N., Yoganand, B., 2003. From measuring impact tolearning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improvingthe management of international agricultural research. Agric. Syst. 78 (2), 213–241.

Hall, A., 2009. Challenges to strengthening agricultural innovation systems: wheredo we go from here? In: Scoones, I., Thomson, J. (Eds.), Farmer First Revisited:Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development. Practical ActionPublishing, Sussex, UK, pp. 30–38.

Hakiza, J.J., Adogola, W., Mugisha, J., Semana, A.R., Naluknago, J., Okoth, J., Ekwama,A., 2004. Challenges and prospects of disseminating technologies through

farmer field schools: lessons based on experiences from Uganda. Uganda J.Agric. Sci. 9, 163–175.

Horton, D., Akello, B., Aliguma, L., Bernet, T., Devaux, A., Lemaga, B., Magala, D.,Sekitto, I., Thiele, G., Velasco, C., 2009. Developing capacity for agriculturalmarket chain innovation: experience with the ‘PMCA’ in Uganda. J. Int. Dev. 22(3), 367–389.

Kaganzi, E., Ferris, S., Abenakyo, A., Sanginga, P., Njuki, J., 2009. Sustaining linkagesto high value markets through collective action in Uganda. Food Policy 1, 26–30.

Kaimowitz, D., Snyder, M., Engel, P., 1990. A conceptual framework for studying thelinks between agricultural research and technology transfer in developingcountries. In: Kaimowitz, D. (Ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research andTechnology Transfer in Developing Countries. Westview Press Inc., Colorado,USA and London, UK, pp. 227–269.

Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers atdifferent innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76, 849–860.

Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking AgriculturalExtension. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Marin, A., Arza, V., 2009. The role of multinational corporations in nationalinnovation systems in developing countries: from technology diffusion tointernational involvement. In: Lundvall, B., Joseph, K.J., Charminade, C., Vang, J.(Eds.), Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries. Edward ElgarPublishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 280–310.

Morris, S., Massey, C., Flelt, F.A., Sligo, F., 2006. Mediating technological learning inagricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 89, 26–46.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1997. NationalInnovation Systems. OECD Publication, Paris.

Ortiz, O., Garret, K.A., Heath, J.J., Orrego, R., Nelson, R., 2004. Management of potatolate blight in the Peruvian Highlands: evaluating the benefits of farmer fieldschools and farmer participatory research. Plant Dis. 88 (5), 565–571.

Ortiz, O., 2006. Evolution of agricultural extension and information dissemination inPeru: an historical perspective focusing on potato-related pest control. Agric.Hum. Values 23, 477–489.

Ortiz, O., Frias, G., Ho, R., Cisneros, H., Nelson, R., Castillo, R., Orrego, R., Pradel, W.,Alcazar, J., Bazán, M., 2008. Organizational learning through participatoryresearch: CIP and CARE in Peru. Agric. Hum. Val. 25, 419–431.

Ortiz, O., Orrego, R., Pradel, W., Gildemacher, P., Castillo, R., Otiniano, R., Gabriel, J.,Vallejo, J., Torres, O., Woldegiorgis, G., Damene, B., Kakuhenzire, R., Kashaija, I.,Kahiu, I., 2011. Incentives and disincentives for stakeholder involvement inparticipatory research (PR): lessons from potato-related PR from Bolivia,Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 9 (4), 522–536.

Pomareda, C., Hartwich, F., 2006. Agricultural Innovation in Latin America:Understanding the Private Sector’s Role. International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington, DC.

Pachico, D., Hertford, R., de Janvry, A., 2000. Assessing the impact of agriculturalresearch on poverty alleviation. Food Policy 25, 379–388.

Rao, N.H., 2007. A framework for implementing information and communicationtechnologies in agricultural development in India. Technol. Forecast. Soc.Chang. 74 (4), 491–518.

Renkow, M., Byerlee, D., 2010. The impacts of CGIAR research: a review of recentevidence. Food Policy 5, 391–402.

Rogers, M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations, first ed. The Free Press, New York.Rogers, M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. The Free Press, New York.Röling, N., 1990. The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: a

knowledge system perspective. In: Kaimowitz, D. (Ed.), Making the Link:Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries.Westview Press Inc., Colorado, USA and London, UK, pp. 1–42.

Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Stirling, A., Thompson, J., 2007. DynamicSystems and the Challenge of Sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1. STEPSCentre. Brighton.

Scott, G., Rosegrant, M., Ringler, C., 2000. Global projections for root and tuber cropsto the year 2020. Food Policy 25 (5), 561–597.

Spielman, D., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., 2009. The art and science of innovation systemsinquire: applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technol. Soc. 31, 399–405.

Swanson, B.E., Claar, J.B., 1984. The history and development of agriculturalextension. In: Swanson, B.E. (Ed.), Agricultural Extension. A Reference Manual,Rome, pp. 1–19.

Tee, P., 2009. Relating quality and innovation: an exploration. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 1(1), 3–15.

Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 2009. Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: anemerging agenda for social science research. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 386–397.

Umali, D., Schwartz, L., 1994. Public and Private Agricultural Extension: BeyondTraditional Frontiers. Washington, DC. World Bank Discussion Paper 236. WorldBank.

van der Veen, A., Gebrehiwot, T., 2011. Effect of policy interventions on foodsecurity in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 16 (1), 18, <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art18/>.

Vinod, K.G., Koryukin, E., Bhatia, M., Agarwal, P., 2004. Innovation Systems: WorldBank Support of Science and Technology Development. World Bank WorkingPaper No 32. World Bank. Washington, DC.