Analysis of the general objectives

In this section, I pull together Chapters 2 to 5 in order to address the general objectives of this study. The general objectives relate to 1) the salient technical and institutional constraints that hinder innovation in smallholder ruminant production system; and 2) what previous interventionists and farmers themselves do to resolve the constraints experienced in the ruminant production system.

120 The findings show that the technical constraints experienced in the small ruminant system had institutional dimensions that operate at different levels of social organization over time. Chapter 2 shows that the constraints farmers experienced are water shortages during dry season, diseases and theft. The corresponding institutional limitations can be ordered from community through district to national levels. These include limited gaps in interaction between community and district and national level organizations for water provision, weak support systems for animal production and health services delivery, and weak traditional authority for ensuring justice. Chapter 3 shows that reduction in public expenditure following implementation of decentralization and privatization reforms at the national level prompted emergence of informal animal health delivery system characterised by the prevalence of self- medication and absence of quality control which may have negative externalities and may undermine efficacy of disease management not only in communities but also in district and regional capitals. Moreover, the constraints farmers experienced in the crop-livestock system have persisted without effective resolution for about twenty years (Animal Research Institute, 1999, ICRA and NAES, 1993). The geographical coverage and persistence of the constraints prompt the need for spatial and temporal coordination of interventions. The need for temporal coordination complements earlier studies that advocate for coordination of development in several domains of the economy simultaneously (Dorward and Kydd, 2004, Leeuwis, 2004).

The findings are consistent with the consensus that institutional innovation is required for any meaningful change in smallholder livestock production (FAO, 2012, ILRI, 2011). However, institutional context in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) favours export crop production but discriminate against smallholder food and livestock production (Animal Research Institute, 1999, Hounkonnou et al., 2012, Wright et al., 2012). There is therefore a call to strengthen the capacity of SSA countries to formulate and implement policies and institutional changes in order to enhance the livelihood of a large number of livestock-dependent poor people (FAO, 2012). Other studies show that appropriate technology and information and access to markets supported by policies are the keys to sustainable livestock productivity and incomes (Udo et al., 2011, Wright et al., 2012).

6.3.2. Interventionists inability to make a difference in smallholder husbandry practices

The findings show development interventionists have made little impact on animal husbandry practices of most smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana. In response to the

121

joint technical and institutional constraints, the majority of smallholders seek to be resilient through diversified livelihood strategies, and invest more labour and capital resources in crop production than in animal husbandry even though the two enterprises are co-dependent. Only a few farmers and communities have changed from minimum to moderate investment in livestock husbandry. These changes included routine use of preventive and curative veterinary services, adoption of supplementary feeding, and organized herding (Chapters 2, 3 and 5). However these improvements were not leading to active participation in the marketing of small ruminants.

Interventionists’ inability to adapt and their tendency for prescriptive solutions are largely responsible for unbeneficial outcomes of development interventions on the livestock production system. For instance, when there was substantial reduction in funding and staff strength after the decentralisation and privatization reforms, the veterinary staff did not adjust their normative position that they were the only competent people to deliver animal health care. This was evidenced in withdrawal of support for community animal health workers whom they blamed for having contributed to self-medication by farmers. Consequently, they could not respond to the emergence of informal animal health delivery system characterised by the prevalence of self-medication and absence of quality control. In contrast to veterinary staff, smallholder farmers adjusted to the dynamics in the contexts. For example, due to reduction in coverage by veterinary technicians and mark-up in the price of treatment, many cattle owning households learnt to treat animals themselves. Also, lack of awareness of the functioning of the mixed farming system lead to misalignment of the feeding interventions. Despite being examined on station and showing promising results, the agriculturists overlooked the farmers’ priority for food crops, labour requirements and appropriate timing of planting of the forages. Thus, we see a situation in which agriculturists were reluctant to adapt to changes in the contexts whereas farmers were striving to move on.

The findings reflect on a number of studies that show that the dominance of transfer- of-technology (ToT) cognitive view of innovation have contributed to inability to scale out proven technologies to a wider socio-economic impact (Douthwaite et al., 2001, Sumberg, 2002, World Bank, 2003). Our study shows the persistence of the ToT model among management and field level agriculturalists even though they employed participatory methods in identification of constraints experienced by farmers. This might relate to the tendency to employ participatory methods to provide legitimacy for interventions rather than as tools to help address felt need of local people (Leeuwis, 2004). A related issue is that the agriculturists do not have practical exposure to other

122 frameworks such as innovation system perspective or institutional analysis that stress the complementary role of technology and institutions as pertinent to sustainable development (Klerkx et al., 2010). As a consequence, the agriculturists stuck to the tools, methods and cognitive view of ToT model of innovation but which are not effective in dealing with above-farm-level institutional constraints such as livestock theft, weak structure of veterinary services or on station experimentation (Hounkonnou et al., 2012).