Agricultural Innovations for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security
in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia:
Empirical Evidence
African Technology Policy Studies Network

RESEARCH PAPER | No. 12
Ekwe Agwu Agwu
Chukwudumebi Leticia Egbule
Festus Onesimus Amadu
Teddy Amara Morlai
Emmanuel Topor Wollor
Leroy W. Cegbe

Agricultural Innovations for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security
in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia:
Empirical Evidence

Ekwe Agwu Agwu
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Enugu State, Nigeria

Teddy Amara Morlai
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Freetown, Sierra Leone

Chukwudumebi Leticia Egbule
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Enugu State, Nigeria

Emmanuel Topor Wollor
University of Liberia
Monrovia, Liberia

Festus Onesimus Amadu
Njala University
Freetown, Sierra Leone

Leroy W. Cegbe
University of Liberia
Monrovia, Liberia.

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.
Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network
P O Box 10081, 00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya
2011

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-15-3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Abstract

5

1.

Introduction

6

2.

Literature Review

11

3.

Methodology

23

4.

Results & Discussion

29

5.

Conclusions & Recommendations

44

References

46

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 3

Acknowledgement
This paper was produced as part of the implementation of the African Technology
Policy Studies Network (ATPS) Phase VI Strategic Plan, 2008 – 2012 funded by
ATPS Donors including the Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (DGIS) the
Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, amongst others. The authors hereby thankthe ATPS for the financial and technical support during the implementation of the
program. The Authors specially thank the ATPS Climate Sense Program Director,
Dr. Kevin Urama (ATPS); and the Program Coordinators including Prof. Michael
Madukwe (ATPS Nigeria); Dr. Musa Dube (ATPS Swaziland), Prof. Bob Orskov(ATPS, UK), Dr. Nicholas Ozor (ATPS), and Ms. Wairimu Mwangi (ATPS) for theirtechnical support during the research process.

4 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceAbstract
The study ascertained climate change adaptation and food security situations in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia using the Agricultural Innovations System
Framework. Data were collected through the use of semi structured interview
schedule, key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). The
collected data were analysed using percentages, mean scores and trend
analysis. The findings showed that only 1.8% of respondents from Nigeria, 2.5%of respondents from Sierra Leone and 0.7% of respondents from Liberia
possessed special training on climate change adaptation and food security
issues. Findings also revealed a positive growth in the manpower strength offarms in Nigeria over the past five years, while Liberia had a positive growth up till
2008 and a downward trend in the 2009 with Sierra Leone having an unstablemanpower trend (both upward and downward trend) over the past five years. The
study also revealed, that there was a non-existence of overseas collaborations
with farmers; though there was a perceived increase in the trend of linkage
between the farmers and the R & D institutions in Nigeria between 2007 and 2009,
with a linkage index of more than 2. There was also an increasing higher linkage
index (of more than 2) between farmers and the technology delivery institutions in
Nigeria than in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Also, the respondents perceived foodsituations in their various countries not to have changed considerably. The
innovation systems revealed poor generation of innovations across the three
countries and poor domestic support for climate change adaptation and foodsecurity in the region.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 5

1. Introduction
In many African countries, food security at both the national and household levelis a dismal. Africa has the highest prevalence of under nourishment. In 2004,
whereas 14% of the global population was undernourished, 27.4% of the
population in Africa as a whole was undernourished (Babatunde, Omotesho andShotolan, 2007). In some countries, the rate of under nourishment is above 40%,
while it exceeds 50% in those countries experiencing or emerging from armed
conflict (Todd, 2004). In West African sub-region, Liberia and Sierra Leone areamong those with the highest rate of under nourishment in the continent with 1.4
and 2.3 million undernourished people respectively in 2002 (Babatunde et.
al.,2007). In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, the majority ofhouseholds are food insecure, especially the rural farming households.
Climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction and threatens to undo
decades of development efforts through direct negative effects on production
and indirect impacts on purchasing powers (African Development Bank (ADB)
Report (2003)). As the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
states, “the adverse effects of climate change are already evident, natural
disasters are more frequent and more devastating and developing countries
more vulnerable.” While climate change is a global phenomenon, its negative
impacts are more severely felt by poor people and poor countries because of
their high dependence on natural resources, and their limited capacity to copewith climate variability and extremes. Experience suggests that the best way toaddress climate change impacts on the poor is by integrating adaptation
responses into development planning (ADB, 2003). This is fundamental toachieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the over-arching goal ofhalving extreme poverty by 2015, and sustaining progress beyond 2015
6 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceAfrica remains one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change becauseof multiple stresses (resulting from both politics and economic conditions), thecontinent's dependence on natural resources and its weak adaptive capacity.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment
Report (2007) between 75 and 250 million people may be exposed to increased
water stress due to climate change by 2020 in Africa and this will adversely affectlivelihoods in the region. The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing
seasons and yield potentials, are expected to decrease due to climate change.
Yields from rain-fed agriculture in some countries could be reduced by up to 50%.
Thus, climate change may have particularly serious consequences in Africa,
where some 800 million people are undernourished.
In the West Africa sub region, the report showed that agriculture is critical to theeconomy. While the world average contribution of the agriculture sector to theGross Domestic Product (GDP) is only 4.5 %, the sector's contribution is about 30% in West Africa. In addition to the above, over 65 % of the population in the region
is rural, and about 90 % of the rural population directly depends on rain-fed
agriculture for income and food security. Therefore reduction in rainfall as
predicted by various climate models translates to threat to the livelihood of the
population and the economy of the sub-region.
Unfortunately, research data from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia show that theperformance of the agricultural sector continue to be relatively disappointing inthe sub-region as growth has been increasingly on the decline. Traditionally, theagricultural research systems in the region are characterized by a top-down,
centralized, monolithic and isolated structures. Linkages, interactions andlearning mechanisms among the component actors are notably weak and/or
often non-existent. Empirical evidence revealed several linkage gaps andmissing links among and between the actors in the systems (Agbamu, 2000;
Egyir, 2009). Institutions, for example, universities and research institutes
innovate in isolation and although research were taking place at various national
and international organizations, the coordination is dysfunctional, and poorly
linked to the productive sector. Besides, farmer innovations were not being
included in the knowledge system because traditional approaches such as the
NARS (National Agricultural Research System) perspective and AKIS
(agricultural knowledge and information system) depict research as the solesource of innovation. Without research, it implies, there is no innovation.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 7

According to Roling, (2007) farmers are very quick to take up opportunities. The
recent increase in the Free On Board (FOB) price of cocoa in Ghana from 40 to
70% led to a doubling of cocoa production without any technological breakthrough. Hence, if farmers are to cope, compete, and survive, they need toinnovate continuously. African farmers are not only innovating in terms ofcomponent technologies, but also in terms of farming systems. Farmers oftenknow more than scientists when it comes to the characteristics and dynamics ofthe environment in which they farm, including risks of water logging, drought,
pests, climate change and adaptation measures, thieves, and so forth. However,
emerging issues such as high food prices, climate change, and demands for biofuels require complementary knowledge from formal agricultural research anddevelopment (R&D) and support from policies and other institutions (AsensoOkyere and Davis, 2009). Hence, formal and informal knowledge and innovationmust therefore be linked to accelerate sustainable agricultural development in
the West African sub-region.
By adopting an AIS perspective, bigger issues come into focus than when
adopting a more limited NARS or AKIS concept. By starting at the knowledgeapplication end, the question of why farmers innovate or why they don't becomesa major issue for debate and research. What are the constraints that hold themback? Is it the prices in the market, for example, or the lack of (or lack of access to)technology? Are farmers passive recipients of technology or do they actively
search for innovations? What are the roles of input suppliers, cooperatives,traders, processors, NGOs, and government-extension services in technology
diffusion? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing
collaborations? How can they be improved and what can be done to reach more
farmers? This study therefore sought to identify and document innovation
capacity of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia as regards climate change
adaptation and food security using the Agricultural Innovation System
Framework.
1.1 Objectives
The over all objective of this research is to determine the innovation capacity of
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia as regards climate change adaptation and foodsecurity using the Agricultural Innovation System Framework. Specifically, thestudy sort to:
8 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

1. ascertain the manpower and specialization (training, experience and skills)of surveyed enterprises;
2. ascertain the intensity and trends of collaboration among key actors in the
climate change and food security innovation system;
3. determine respondents' perception of household food security issues in thevarious countries;
4. ascertain the performance of the system on the basis of innovation
generation; and5. determine respondents' perception of domestic environment support forclimate change adaptation and food security.

1.2
Rationale of the Study
Innovation system approach offers a more holistic, multidisciplinary andcomprehensive framework for analyzing innovation processes for climatechange adaptation and food security, as well as the roles of science andtechnology actors and their interactions because of its emphasis on wider
stakeholder participation, linkages and institutional context of innovation andprocesses.
Whilst climate change is presenting specific additional challenges todevelopment, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Unless concrete and urgent
steps are undertaken to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity ofpoor people, and unless these actions are integrated in national strategies forpoverty eradication and sustainable development, it may be difficult to meetsome MDGs by 2015. Adaptation which refers to consciously planned
adjustments in a system to reduce, moderate, or take advantage of the expected
negative impacts of climate change (Smit, Burton, Klein and Wandel, 2000) aims
to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and communities by building on andstrengthening their existing coping mechanisms with specific measures.
Hence, the starting point for addressing the critical issues for policy should be an
analysis of existing agricultural, environmental and food security policies in thesecountries as well as documentation of effective agricultural innovations forclimate change adaptation and food security in the West African sub-region andthe consequences of climate change for different rural communities. Since
adaptation can help farmers achieve their food, income and livelihood security,
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 9

negligence will have devastating implications for development and livelihood.
Moreover, mainstreaming climate issues into national development policies
ensures consistency between the needs of adaptation and poverty eradication.
Separation of the two runs the risk of adaptation policies inadvertently conflictingwith development and poverty policies, or conversely, development policies
inadvertently increasing vulnerability to climatic factors. Accordingly, thisresearch project is critical to the successful eradication of poverty and needs tobe undertaken.

10 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence2. Literature Review
2.1
Food Security Situations in West Africa: The Case of
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
Almost 33 percent of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), or close to 200
million people, is undernourished, at the same time, the region as a wholeremains susceptible to frequent food crises and famines which are easily
triggered by even the lightest of droughts, or floods, pests, economic downturns
or conflicts (FAO, 2006), and which is also projected to be exacerbated by the
impact of climate change. Studies indicate that while the world food supply does
not appear to be seriously threatened by the projected global changes in climate,food insecurity in Africa will worsen and the population at the risk of hunger will
increase both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers during the coming
century (Downing, 1992; Fischer et. al., 1996).
According to FAO (2000) food insecurity is among the developmental problems
facing Nigeria. Recent poverty assessment survey has shown that over 70% of
the populations are living on less than a dollar per day and over 50% are foodinsecure (Babatunde, Olorunsanya and Adejola, 2008). The survey also revealed
that poverty and food insecurity is especially higher in rural areas where majorityof the people are resident and deriving livelihood from agriculture (National
Bureau of Statistics, 2006).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its State of Food Insecurity in theWorld, (2006) had indicated that Nigeria had about 12 million people reported asundernourished as at 2003. The proportion of the country's population depicted
as undernourished had however been declining with the percentage reducing
from about 13% from 1990 - 1992 to about 9% from 2001 - 2003. In fact, the FAO
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 11

report indicated that Nigeria is moving towards reaching the target of halving theundernourished population by 2015 set by the World Food Summit in November
1996. The report was explicit about policy interventions that may result in hunger
reduction. Such policies must:a) Enhance productivity of small holder agricultureb) Create an environment conducive to private investmentc) Combine poverty reduction with increased provision of global public goodd) Make trade work for the poor by enhancing domestic competitivenessthrough policy and institutional reforms, ande) Coordinate domestic and international resources for agriculture and ruraldevelopment.
In sub – Saharan Africa, there have been substantial increases in agricultural
productivity in recent years (Adewujon, 2006; FAO, 2001). From an average of
100 around 1990, the index of agricultural productivity increased to 156 in
Nigeria, to 142.9 in Burkina Faso and to 142 in Guinea in 1999.This
notwithstanding; there are countries in the sub-region that saw a declining trend.
Between 1988 and 1999, food production per capita actually declined in theGambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone (FAO, 2001; ADB,
2001/2002). According to Adewujon (2006), in 1998 the daily calorie supply percapita varied between 1,966 kilo calories in Niger Republic and 2,288 kilo calories
in Nigeria; while the per capita daily supply of protein varied between 35 kilo
calories in Liberia and 64 kilo calories in Nigeria. Furthermore, there was ageneral improvement in nutritional status in most countries with regard to total
calorie intake per capita, during the period from 1970 to 1998. The notable
exceptions were Liberia, Sierra Leone and Senegal. However, compared to otherparts of the world, the standard of nutrition in West Africa is still very poor. Whilethe depth of hunger, measured by the average dietary energy deficit ofundernourished people, expressed in kilocalories per person per day varies from
110 to 160 in the developed countries, it varies in West Africa between 210 for
Nigeria, and 390 for Liberia (FAO, 2000).
2.2
Nexus Between Climate Change and Food Security
Climatic variability and change are a major threat to food security in many regionsof the developing world (Archer, 2003), like Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia,
which are largely dependent on rain- fed and labour intensive agricultural
production because of the limited amount and uneven distribution of rainfall.
12 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceHence, linking climate change impacts to food security is significant tounderstand the implications on economic growth. Climate change impact onfood security, health and disaster management forms a complex labyrinth of
network that has strong correlation with socio-economic growth anddevelopment. For instance, it has long been acknowledged that the health statusof the population of any place or country influences development. It can be alimiting factor, as generally poor individual health can lower work capacity andproductivity; this impact can severely restrict the growth of economies (Philips
and Verhasselt, 1994). Similarly, poor diet as a result of food shortage leads toprotein and vitamin deficiency which in turn results to Kwashiorkor, Marasmus,
rickets and Berry-Berry sicknesses. In aggregate, this increases expenditure andlow work capacity of poorer communities-further complicating local economic
growth (Morlai, Mansaray and Vandy, 2010).
Climate change influence on food productivity is already impacting on humanity.
Around 800 million people are currently at risk of hunger (approximately 12% of
the world's population) (Parry, 2004), and malnutrition causes around 4 million
deaths annually. Studies reveal that temperature rises of 2 to 30C will increase thepeople at risk of hunger, potentially by 30-200 million (if carbon fertilization effectis small) (Warren et. al., 2006). In fact temperature increase by 30C will put
additional 250 – 550 million at risk – over half in Africa and Western Asia. However,if crop responses to CO2 are stronger, the effects of warming on risk of hunger will
be considerably smaller.
Poor communities are especially vulnerable to health outcomes resulting fromthe impact of climate change. Climate change is expected to alter the distribution
and incidence of climate-related health impacts ranging from a reduction in coldrelated deaths to greater mortality and illness associated with floods, droughts
and heat stress. In particular, climate change will augment health disparities
between rich and poor parts of the world. It will change the geographic incidenceof illnesses such as malaria. Climatic change places a strain on the transportsystem needed to move produced food from the point of production to the pointof consumption. During droughts, people are known to move to marginal lands,
which may not have good access roads, and transporting food from suchmarginal farms poses a huge challenge. Drought reduces food availability, which
decreases the rate of available food, and so the meal frequency decreases andAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 13

the balance of nutrients can be inadequate. This leads to malnutrition in children(Ziervogel, Nyong, Osman, Conde, Cortes and Downing, 2006).
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change since the1970s is already responsible for over 150,000 deaths each year through theincreasing incidence of diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition (Table 1)
predominantly, in Africa and other developing regions (McMichael et al, 2004).
Just a 10C increase in global temperature above pre-industrial temperature
could double annual deaths from climate change to at least 300,000 (Patz et. al,2005). It has been an established fact that the distribution and abundance ofdisease vectors are closely linked to temperature and rainfall patterns, and will
therefore be sensitive to changes in regional climate in a warmer world. For
instance, changes to the mosquito distributions and abundance will haveprofound impacts on malaria prevalence in affected areas. Mosquitoes needaccess to stagnant water in order to breed, and adults need humid conditions forviability. Warmer temperatures enhance vector breeding and reduce thepathogen's maturation period within the vector organism. However, very high anddry conditions can reduce mosquito survival (WHO, 2003).
Table 1: Estimates of extra deaths (per million people) fromclimate change in 2000
Disease/ Illness

Annual Deaths

Climate Change Components (Death/% totalDiarrhoeal Diseases
Malnutrition
Malaria
Cardiovascular Disease

2.1 million
3.7 million
1.1 million
17.5 million

47,000/ 2%
77,000/ 2%
27,000/ 2%
Data not provided on total heat/cold

HIV/AIDS
Cancer

2.8 million
7.6 million

There is no climate change element here
There is no climate change element here

14 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceProvided there is no change in malaria control efforts, an additional 40 to 60
million people in Africa could be exposed to malaria with just a 20C increase intemperature, increasing to 70 million to 80 million at 3-40C (Warren et al, 2006).
Also many diarrhea diseases vary seasonally, suggesting sensitivity to climate.
Diarrhea diseases typically peak during the rainy season in tropical regions. Bothfloods and droughts increase the risk of diarrhea diseases. As stated by WHO(2003), major causes of diarrhea linked to heavy rainfall and contaminated watersupplies are cholera, typhoid, hepatitis A, E-coli infections, shigella, etc. In 2006,
WHO also estimated that 2% (47,000 deaths) of the total global annual death fromdiarrhea disease are climate-related.
One important thing to note also is that global climate change will beaccompanied by increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as
warmer summers and milder winters. Extremes of temperature can kill. For
instance, death rates during the winter season in temperate countries are 10-25%
higher than those in the summer. In July 1995, a heat wave in Chicago, USA,
caused 514 heat-related deaths (12 per 100,000 population) and 3,300 excess
emergency admissions (WHO, 2003). Deaths resulting from thermal extreme aremostly see in people with pre-existing disease, especially cardiovascular andrespiratory disease. The very old and very young are most susceptible.
2.3
The Innovation System Perspectives
Innovation system approach emerged in the mid 1980s as a Schumpeterian
perspective that drew significantly from the literature on evolutionary economics
and system theory (Speilman, 2005). However, more comprehensive description
was first set forth by Lundvall (1985) and applied to national comparisons ofinnovation system by Freeman (1987 and 1995), Nelson (1988 and 1993) and
Edquist (1997) with empirical application focusing primarily on national industrial
policy in Europe, Japan and several East Asia countries that were experiencing
rapid industrialization during the 1980s. Metcalfe (1995) and Roseboom (2004)
further confirmed that the concept of innovation system was first mentioned in theindustrial literature in the late 1980s and later entered into the vocabulary ofnational and international policy makers in the industrialized world. In recent
times the concept is gradually spilling into policy making circles in developing
countries.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 15

The Innovation System thinking represents a significant change from theconventional linear approach to research and development. It provides
analytical framework that explore complex relationships among heterogeneous
agents, social and economic institutions, and endogenously determined
technological and institutional opportunities. It demonstrates the importance ofstudying innovation as a process in which knowledge is accumulated andapplied by heterogeneous agents, through complex interactions that areconditioned by social and economic institutions (Agwu , Madukwe & Dimelu,
2008). According to Tugrul and Ajit (2002) it is not a simple aggregation oforganizations as portrayed by some views, but a group of agents who operate
like an invisible orchestra characterized by coherence, harmony and synergy. It
is an interactive learning process in which enterprises/agents in interactions witheach other, supported by organizations and institutions play key roles in bringing
new products, new processes and new forms of organizations into social andeconomic use (Francis, 2006). The above definitions point to the three essential
elements of innovation system namely:
1. The organizations and individuals involved in generating, diffusing, adapting
and using knowledge.
2. The interactive learning that occurs when organizations engage in
generating, diffusing, adapting and using new knowledge and the way inwhich this leads to innovation (new products, processes or services).
3. The institutions (rules, norms, conventions, regulations, traditions) thatgovern how these interactions and processes occur.
The concept of innovation system is built on several assumptions and integrates
current trends in development in the analytical framework. They include thefollowings:
a. Innovation takes place everywhere in the society and therefore bringing the
diffuse element of a knowledge system and connecting them aroundcommon goals should promote economic development.
b. Innovation is an interactive process and is embedded in the prevailing
economic structure and this determines what is to be learnt and where
innovation is going to take place.
c. Innovation includes development, adaptation, imitation and the subsequent
adoption of technology or application of new knowledge.
d. Innovation takes place where there is continuous learning and opportunity tolearn is a function of the intensity of interactions among agents.
16 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

e. Heterogeneous agents are involved in innovation process, and formal
research is a part of the whole innovation processes.
f. Linkages and/or interaction among components of the system (knowledge
generating, transfer and using agents) are as important as direct investment
in R and D.
g. Institutional context rather than technological change drives socio-economic
development.
h. In addition to technical change and novelty, innovation includes institutional,organizational and managerial knowledge.
Speilmen (2005) reported that analysis of innovation system may focus on the
study of the system at different spatial (local, regional, national) at different
sectoral levels (agriculture, environment) in relation to a given technological set(biotechnology, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)), focus
on the material (particular goods or services) and temporary dimension thatstudies how relationships among agents change over time as result ofknowledge flow.
Empirically, the application of the innovation system approach at different
analytical dimensions such as local, national, regional, sectoral and others havebeen advanced in literature. For instance, its early application started withintroducing the concepts such as institutional learning and change, and therelationships between innovation and institutional context in which innovations
occur. According to Speilmen (2005), studies by Johnson and Segura Bonilla(2001), Clark, Sulaiman % Naik (2003) and Hall and Yoganand, (2001, 2002)
introduced innovation system to the study of developing countries agriculture
and agricultural research systems.
At the national and regional level the concept was adopted in sub-Saharan Africa
by Samberg (2005), Roseboom (2004), Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003),
Peterson, Gijsbera and Wilks (2003), and Hall and Yoganand (2004), in Latin
America by Vieira and Hartwich (2002) and in India by Hall et al (1998). Generally,
most of its application across countries focused on institutional arrangements inresearch and innovation. For example Hall et al. (2002) emphasized on publicprivate interactions in agricultural research in India; and in south Asia and subSaharan Africa. Kangasmemi (2002) focused on producers organizations. Other
scholarly studies focused on technologies opportunities, for example zero tillage
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 17

cultivation survey in Argentina conducted by Ekboir and Parallada (2002) which
revealed social, and economic change that encouraged the diffusion of zerotillage cultivation.
2.4
Application of Innovation System Concept to Agriculture
and its RelevanceIn the last decade, economic and technology strategies have shifted fromnational agricultural research system (NARS) to agricultural knowledge, andinformation system, (AKIS) and more recently to agricultural innovation system(AIS). The national agricultural research system perspective emerged in the late1980s and tends towards linearity in movement of knowledge from known source(formal research) and flowing to some end users (the farmers). It further
recognizes the public good nature of agricultural research, the role of the state infostering technology change, and assumed that the social and economic context
of technological change is exogenous and unchanging. By 1990s agricultural
knowledge and information system (AKIS) evolved as a more sophisticated andless linear approach. Contrary to the focus of the NARS, it emphasizes linkages
between research, education and extension in generating and fostering
technological change. AKIS, however, is limited in its ability to conduct analysis
beyond the nexus of the public sector and to consider the heterogeneity among
agents, the institutional context that conditions their behaviours and the learning
processes that determine their capacity to change (Speilman, 2005). In general,
the system projects agricultural research system as the epicenter of innovation as
opposed to the multiple knowledge bases put forward in innovation systemperspective. The agricultural innovation system (AIS) comprises a far broader setof actors than the traditional agricultural research, extension and education
agencies. Innovation takes place throughout the whole economy, and not all
innovations have their origin in formal S & T nor are they all exclusively technical.
This new perspective places more emphasis on the role of farmers, input
suppliers, transporters, processors and markets in the innovation process. Whileeach of the three system concepts has its own strengths and weaknesses, they
can be seen as interlinked and cumulative: NARS focuses on the generation ofknowledge, AKIS on the generation and diffusion of knowledge, and AIS on thegeneration, diffusion, and application of knowledge.
Agricultural innovation system evolved directly from the concept of nationalinnovation system with the sectoral level as the unit of analysis. Adapting the
18 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

various definitions of innovation system, agricultural innovation system is defined
as a set of agents that jointly and/or individually contribute to the development,
diffusion and use of agriculture-related new technologies and that directly and/or
indirectly influence the process of technological change in agriculture (Tugrul
and Ajit, 2002). The organizations include research institutes, training andeducation institutions, credit institutions, policy and regulatory bodies, private
consultants / NGOs, farmers, farmers' associations and public services deliveryorganizations. It emphasizes agricultural innovations and goes beyond previous
knowledge system concepts by incorporating the goals of current reform
measures, such as political decentralization, public sector alliances with theprivate sector, enabling private sector participation in advancing consensus
approach to development and promoting demand-driven services. Besides, it
captures the intricate relationships between diverse actors, processes of
institutional learning and change, market and non-market institutions, public
policy, poverty reduction and socioeconomic development. Figure 3 shows thepossible linkages and relationships among diverse actors in an agricultural
innovation system.

Market/demand (set price,
volume, quality)

Enterprises, Produce
products for sale (mainly
use knowledge-codified or
tacit

Diffusion:
Information/knowledgetransmitters

Research and Training:
Produce knowledge(mainly codified)

Infrastructure, policy,
legislation, resources
Source: Francis (2006).

Figure 1: Elements of Agricultural Science Technology andInnovation (ASTI).
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 19

By adopting an AIS perspective, bigger issues come into focus than when
adopting a more limited NARS or AKIS concept. By starting at the knowledgeapplication end, the question of why farmers innovate or why they don't becomesa major issue for debate and research. What are the constraints that hold themback? Is it the prices in the market, for example, or the lack of (or lack of access to)technology? Are farmers passive recipients of technology or do they actively
search for innovations? What are the roles of input suppliers, cooperatives,traders, processors, NGOs, and government-extension services in technology
diffusion? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each diffusion
channel? How can they be improved and what can be done to reach more
farmers? In answering these questions, we may learn that the most criticalbottleneck is not the lack of available technology, but whatever prevents otherfactors from playing their often-far-more-crucial role. Hall and Yoganand (2002)
highlighted that applying innovation system to agriculture in developing countries
may provide the following features:a) It focuses on innovation as its organizing principles. Here the concept ofinnovation is used in its broad sense as the activities and processes
associated with the generation, production, distribution, adaptation and useof new technical, institutional, organizational and managerial knowledge.
b) Conceptualizes research as part of the wider process of innovation andextends its tentacle to identify actors and their scope, and the wide set of
relationships in which research is embedded.
c) Recognize the importance of both technology producers and technology
users and acknowledge that their roles are both context specific anddynamic.
d) It recognizes that the institutional context of the organizations involved (andparticularly the wider environment that governs the nature of relationships)
promotes dominant interests and determines the outcome of the system as awhole.
e) It recognizes that innovation systems are social systems. It therefore focuses
not only on the degree of connectivity between different elements but also on
the learning and adaptive process that make systems dynamic andevolutionary.
f) Matches better with the non-linear interactive concept of innovation.
g) It is more holistic including the final step (application) in the innovation
process and incorporates ideas from various disciplines.

20 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidenceh) It stresses the importance of linkages among different actors.
i) It is only a framework for analysis and planning and can draw on a large bodyof existing tools
Nonetheless, scholars have expressed concern as to the relevance of nationalinnovation system concept for agriculture in developing countries. Issues raised
include the fact that transplanting the insight from innovation studies indeveloped countries is against the evolutionary character of the nationalinnovation system, which argues that innovation process and systems arecontext specific and historically determined. In contrast however, Johnson and
Segura-Bonilla (2001) reporting from their experience in Central America
favourably argues for the suitability of national innovation system for agriculture indeveloping countries buttressing the following points:
1) The national innovation system concept help to concentrate on what we
believe is important in development as it takes departure in learning
capabilities and focuses on innovation processes and their role indevelopment.
2) It has a broad explanation of innovation as based on both research and inevery day routine economic activities and in both high-tech and low-tech
sectors.
3) Its growth factors are interacting and feeding upon each other. An interaction
between firms, organizations and the public sector is the essence of theconcept.
4) Institutions and production structures matter.
5) It is a flexible approach, which for example can direct emphasis on local,
national, regional systems and their mutual interdependence.
6) Finally, it is an inherently comparative approach and compares the anatomy
and changes of different innovation systems.
In addition, Speilman (2005) argued that innovation system perspective on
agriculture is critical to shifting socio-economic research beyond technologicalchange “induced” by the relative prices of land, labour and other production
factors in agriculture; beyond the concept of linear technology transfers fromindustrialized to developing countries, from advanced and international research
centres to national systems as engine of change. Speilman (2005) thus
concluded that the application of innovation system analytical framework toAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 21

agriculture is embedded within the wider context of institutional change, change
process, and answers certain questions that the linear, conventional researchand systems are unable to address.
In other words, the innovation system approach offers a more holistic,
multidisciplinary and comprehensive framework for analyzing innovation
processes for climate change adaptation and food security, as well as the roles ofscience and technology actors and their interactions because of its emphasis on
wider stakeholder participation, linkages and institutional context of innovationand processes. Whilst climate change is presenting specific additional
challenges to development, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Unless concrete
and urgent steps are undertaken to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive
capacity of poor people, and unless these actions are integrated in national
strategies for poverty eradication and sustainable development, it may be difficult
to meet some MDGs by 2015.

22 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence3. Methodology
3.1
Area of Study
The study was carried out in three west African countries, namely: Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia.
Nigeria is a federal constitutional republic comprising thirty-six states and one
Federal Capital Territory. The country is located on the Gulf of Guinea, and has atotal area of 923,768 km2 (356,669 sqmi) and shares land borders with theRepublic of Benin in the west, Chad and Cameroon in the east, and Niger in thenorth (Wikipedia, 2009). Nigeria is an important centre for biodiversity. It is widelybelieved that the areas surrounding Calabar, Cross River State, contain theworld's largest diversity of butterflies. Nigeria's Delta region, home of the large oil
industry, experiences serious oil spills and other environmental problems.
When dividing Nigeria by climatic regions, three regions, the far south, the far
north, and the rest of the country emerge. The far south is defined by its tropicalrainforest climate, where annual rainfall is 60 to 80 inches (1,524 to 2,032 mm) a
year (). The far north is defined by its almost desert-like climate, where rain is lessthan 20 inches (508 mm) per year. The rest of the country, everything in between
the far south and the far north, is savannah, and rainfall is between 20 and 60
inches (508 and 1,524 mm) per year
(http://www.uni.edu/gai/Nigeria/Background/Standard5.html).
However, according to Federal Government of Nigeria report on droughtmanagement (FGN,1999), the Nigeria landmass of 923,766 km2 is divided into
seven ecological zones. This classification is based on the similarity of climaticelements and the type of vegetation that can be supported. These ecological
Emerging Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study in Dangbe East District of Ghana | 23

zones are the mangrove swamp, rainforest, montane forest /grassland, derived
savannah, guinea savannah, Sudan savannah and the Sahel savannah. The
mangrove swamp and rainforest zones, and part of derived savannah zone arefound in the southern part of the country. These zones are characterized by highrainfall intensity, long wet season, dense vegetation, rugged topography andtemperature range of 26 – 28ºC and small farm holdings. Flood and watererosion are the major problem of crop production in these zones. A sizeable
hectare of agricultural land and farmer's properties are lost yearly to watererosion in the eastern part of the country. Maize, cassava, yam and vegetables
are the major crops grown in these zones.
The Republic of Sierra Leone is a country bordered by Guinea in the north,
Liberia in the southeast, and the Atlantic Ocean in the southwest. Sierra Leone2
covers a total area of 71,740 km(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563681/Sierra_Leone.html).
The national capital Freetown sits on a coastal peninsula, situated next to the
Sierra Leone Harbor, the world's third largest natural harbour. The climate is
tropical, with two seasons determining the agricultural cycle: the rainy seasonfrom May to November, and a dry season from December to May, which includes
harmmattan, when cool, dry winds blow in off the Sahara Desert and the nighttime temperature can be as low as 16 °C (60.8 °F) ( Blinker, 2006). Logging,mining, slash and burn, and deforestation for land conversion have dramaticallydiminished forested land in Sierra Leone since the 1980s. Until 2002, Sierra
Leone lacked a forest management system due to a brutal civil war that caused
tens of thousands of deaths. Deforestation rates have increased 7.3% since theend of the civil war. The Republic of Sierra Leone is composed of three provinces:
the Northern Province, Southern province and the Eastern province and one
other region called the Western Area. The provinces are further divided into 12
districts, and the districts are further divided into chiefdoms, except for theWestern Area. The country is divided into four agro –climatic regions, namely,
Coastal Plains, Rainforest, Savannah Woodland and Transitional
Rainforest/Savannah Woodland.
Liberia has a tropical climate with two wet seasons in the southeast and one wet
season from May to October for the rest of the country. The climate is
24 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidencecharacterized by constant high temperatures and abundant rainfall. Annual mean
temperature is 77,5 degree (22.5 degree). Annual mean temperature is 77,5
degree (22.5 degree). High humidity is common during the wet season and theprevailing winds are the NE and SW Monsoons as well as the Harmattan which isa dust laden wind from the Sahara Desert. Tornadoes are also common during thewet season. Average annual precipitation in Monrovia is 4,150 mm (163 inches)
and average temperature ranges are from 22 degrees Celsius (72 degrees
Fahrenheit) to 27 degrees Celsius (81 degrees Fahrenheit) all year. According to
USAID Report (1999) Liberia has four distinct agro-ecological zones (AEZ), eachhaving its unique and vegetation determined by rainfall pattern,
altitude/topography, and temperature. The four major AETs are: (a) Coastal
Plains; (b) Upper Highland Tropical Forest; (c) Lower Tropical Forest; and (d)Northern Savannah.
3.2
Data Collection Technique
Tools of participatory research namely: semi structured interview schedule, key
informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) were used in datacollection. These instruments contained both open ended and semi structured
questions.
Section A of the interview schedule elicited the farmers' profile; information
concerning the respondents was collected. Section B identified the manpower
and training needs of the farmers. Section C determined the respondent's
awareness and knowledge of climate change phenomenon. Section D of theinterview schedule sought for information on various innovative climate change
adaptation measures used by respondents. Section E looked at the food security
issues as it affects the respondents. Section F sought to elicit information on theintensity and trend of collaborations and networks with other stakeholders in thelast five years. Section G sought to ascertain the performance of the farmers as
regards climate change adaptation; while section H sought information on
perception of respondents on domestic environments efforts to support climatechange adaptation and food security issues.
3.3
Population and Sample Size
The population for this study included all types of farmers and major stakeholders
in the field of agriculture/ food security and climate change issues in the three
countries.
Emerging Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study in Dangbe East District of Ghana | 25

Respondents for this study were selected through a multistage samplingtechnique. In the first stage, thirteen states (namely: Abia, Adamawa, Brono,
Cross Rivers, Delta, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Ondo, Oyo, and Plateau states), wereselected from the seven agro-ecological zones in Nigeria; In Sierra Leone, six
districts (namely: Freetown Peninsula, Kailahun, Bo, Koinadugu, Moyamba andFree Town Coastal Plain districts) were selected from the four agro-climatic
regions, while seven counties (namely: Nimba, Bong, Lofa, Grand Bassa,
Margibi, Grand Cape Mount and Grand Gedeh) were selected from the four agroclimatic regions, in Liberia.
In the second stage, using the delineation by the different states' Agricultural
Development Programmes (ADPs), two agricultural zones were randomly
selected from each state giving a total of 26 agricultural zones in Nigeria. Fromeach of the selected zones, 25 farming households were randomly selected forinterview. This gave a total of 650 framing households from Nigeria. In Sierra
Leone, a sample size of 70 farming households were randomly selected fromeach of the six districts giving a total of 420 households; while in Liberia 60
farming households were randomly selected from each of the counties surveyed,giving a total of 420 farming households.
The sample of farming households for this study was selected through a
combination of strategies that recognized the social component of indigenous
knowledge and practices. Criteria used for selection included age (for historicalinsight on indigenous knowledge), framing experience and interest. In all, a totalof 1,490 farming households were interviewed. However, 1,424 (624 from
Nigeria); (400 from Sierra Leone) and (400 from Liberia) completely filledinterview schedules were used for analysis.
3.4
Measurement of Variables
Section A of the instruments elicited information on characteristics of the farming
households. Variables measured under this section were: age (in years); years offarming experience (in years); sex; marital status; household size; ownership
structure of farm and organization; main areas of focus in farming; available
extension activities on climate change.
Section B of the interview schedule identified the available manpower and areasof specialization of respondents. Respondents were asked to name their highest
26 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidenceacademic qualification and areas of interest. Respondents were asked if they
have had any specialized training on climate change and/or whether theirorganizations provided opportunities for staff training on climate change
adaptation by ticking against a response option of “Yes” or “No”. Respondents
were also asked to indicate by ticking the appropriate response to show if their
manpower strength was “Decreasing=1”, “Remained the same=2” or“Increased=3” over the last five years.
Section C farmers' instrument, sought to elicit the availability of overseas and / orlocal collaborators and whether these collaborations covered the issues of foodsecurity/climate change. Respondents were asked to indicate the existence ofcollaborations by ticking “Yes” or “No”, they were also asked to indicate the mainareas of available collaborations. The intensity of collaboration was measured ona five point Likert-type scale of “None”, “Weak”, “Average”, “Strong” and “Verystrong”, with nominal values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. These values wereadded to obtain 15, which was further divided by 5 to get a value of 3.0, which wasregarded as the mean. Collaborations with mean scores of less than 3.0 wereregarded as showing weak intensity while those with mean scores of greater or
equal to 3.0 were regarded as showing strong intensities. Respondents were also
asked to indicate how collaborations with the various organizations havechanged over the past five years. To measure this trend, each respondent was
required to indicate his/her responses by ticking any of the options namely“Decreasing”, “Remained the same” and “Increasing”. Values assigned to these
options were 1, 2 and 3; these values were summed to obtain 6.0 and was divided
by 3 to obtain 2.0 which was regarded as the mean. Collaborations with meanscores of less than 2.0 were regarded as showing decreasing intensities over the
past five years with, while those with mean scores of above 2.0 were regarded as
showing increasing intensities over the past five years.
Section D looked at performance of the systems on the basis of innovation
generations. Respondents' were asked to indicate by tick in if they had introduced
any innovation into their farms in the past ten years. A list of innovation options
was provided.
Section E elicited information on how the respondents' perceived the domestic
environment support for climate change adaptation and food security.
Respondents' were required to tick where appropriate, the available support inAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 27

favour of climate change adaptation and food security.
3.5
Data analysis
Data relating to farmers' profile, manpower and specialization were summarizedusing percentages and mean scores. Also, mean scores and trend analysis wereused to summarize information on manpower trend, financing trend, budgetary
trend climate change trend and intensity of collaborations among key
stakeholders in the climate change /food security innovation system in the last
five years.

28 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence4. Results & Discussion
The findings of the study are presented under the following headings:
1. Manpower and Specialization (Training, experience and skills) of surveyed
Enterprises;
2. Intensity and Trends of Collaboration among key actors in the Climate
Change and Food Security Innovation System;
3. Respondents' perception of household food security situations in theirvarious countries;
4. Performance of the System on the basis of Innovation Generation and5.
Respondents' Perception of Domestic Environment support for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security
4.1 Manpower and Specialization (Training, Experience andSkills) of Surveyed Enterprises in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
4.1.1 Enterprise manpower and specialization in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
Educational qualification
Entries on Table 1 show that about 59% of the respondents in Sierra Leone, 38%
of Liberian respondents and 14% of respondents from Nigeria had no formal
education. The table further shows that 27.5%, 22.8% and 31.6% of the
respondents from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively completed
secondary school while, 17.5% of the Nigerian respondents, 0.2% and 0.7% of
respondents from Sierra Leone and Liberia had university education. On ageneral note, the data show that respondents from Nigeria were more literate
than respondents form the other two countries.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 29

Possession of Specialized Training on Climate Change Adaptation and/or
Food Security Issues
From Table 2, it is evident that only 1.8% of respondents from Nigeria, 2.5% of
respondents from Sierra Leone and 0.7% of respondents from Liberia possessed
special training on climate change adaptation and food security issues. It can beinferred from the above findings that majority of the respondents across the three
countries possessed no special training on climate change adaptation and on
food security issues.
The Table further reveals that only about 2% of family members or farm workers
from Nigeria, 1% from Sierra Leone and 0.2% from Liberia possessed a
specialized training on climate change adaptation and food security issues. On
provision of opportunities for training for staff or family members on climatechange adaptation, 3.0% of respondents in Nigeria noted to have provided suchopportunities, while 0.2% of respondents from both Sierra Leone and Liberia
agreed to have also provided such opportunities for training. The implication forthis is that there is so much work to be done by all stakeholders involved inclimate change adaptation measures, if the issue of food security is be achieved
for the teeming population across Africa and the world at large. Capacity building
at local, national and regional levels is vital to enable developing countries toadapt to climate change. It is important for stakeholders and fund raisers torecognise the role of universities, tertiary centres and centres of excellence(UNFCCC, 2007) in the training and retraining of farmers especially to boost theircapacities or resilience in adapting to the changing climate.

30 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceTable 2: Distribution of rural households by training, experienceand skills possessed
Training, experience and skills
Highest academic qualification
No formal education
Primary school
Secondary school
Certificate Course / Diploma
University education

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

14.3
17.3
27.5
23.5
17.5

59.0
14.8
22.8
3.2
0.2

37.5
20.5
31.6
9.6
0.7

Years of farming experience
1-10
11-20
21-30
Above 31
Mean farming experience

26.2
33.7
18.7
21.4
21.55

30.1
38.5
23.0
8.7
17.62

46.7
28.8
15.1
9.4
15.04

Do you have specialized training in Climate
Change adaptation and /or food Security issues
Yes
No

1.8
98.2

2.5
97.5

0.7
99.3

Do any members of your family or farm workers
have specialized training in Climate Change
adaptation and /or food Security issues
Yes
No

2.2
98.8

1.0
99.0

0.2
99.8

Does your farm provide opportunities for training
staff / family members
Yes
No

3.0
97.0

0.2
99.8

0.2
99.8

4.1.2 Trend in manpower structure within the farms over the past
five years
Data in Table 3 and Figure 1 show a positive growth in the manpower strength offarms in Nigeria over the past five years, while Liberia had a positive growth up till
2008 and a downward trend in the 2009. However, Sierra Leone has had an
unstable manpower trend (both upward and downward trend) over the past five
years. The data on the Table further show that the manpower structure in thefarms are dominated by farm labourers followed by management staff, withtechnical staff being the least in most cases.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 31

Table 3: Trend in manpower structure within the farms over the
past five years
Manpower
Trend
Management
No. ofTechnical staff
No. of labourers/ familymembers
Overall mean
Manpower
Trend
Management
No. ofTechnical staff
No. of labourers/ familymembers
Overall mean

2005

2006
C

A

A

B

1.32
0.85

2.13 1.12
0.00 1.21

1.37 2.05 1.16
0.84 0.00 1.21

1.39 2.05 1.21
0.96 0.00 1.25

1.89

2.19 1.36

1.92 2.01 1.40

1.80 2.17 1.58

1.35

1.44 1.23

1.38 1.35 1.26

1.38 1.41 1.35

2008

B

2007
C

A

B

2009

A

B

C

A

B

C

1.43
0.98

1.98 1.24
0.00 1.36

1.46 1.99 1.25
1.01 0.00 1.28

1.86

2.15 1.71

1.91 2.27 1.72

1.42

1.38 1.44

1.46 1.42 1.42

A = Nigeria; B = Sierra Leone; C = Liberia

32 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

C

1.5
1.45

Manpower Trend

1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1

Figure 2: Trends in manpower structure of farms in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia over the past 5 years.
4.2
Intensity and Trends of Linkages / Collaboration among
Key Actors in the Climate Change and Food Security Innovation
System
4.2.1 Existence of local and overseas collaborations in the climatechange and food security innovation system in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
Data in Figure 2 indicated the non – existence of overseas linkages / collaborationin the area of climate change and food security among majority of the rural
households across the three countries. The need for the existence of international
collaborations cannot be under emphasized as effective international
collaboration helps to enable training on, and structured dissemination ofinternational and national activities on adaptation with a view to retaining experts
working in their region and promoting the exchange of information between
experts from key sensitive sectors (UNFCCC, 2007). The presence of local
collaboration was higher in Nigeria (11.0 percent) than in Sierra Leone (2.0
percent) and Liberia (3.2 percent). Collaboration among actors in the climatechange and food security innovation system is essential for relevance, capacity
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 33

building and increase innovative performance of the actors and the system ingeneral. The extent of collaboration also suggests the level of involvement inclimate change and food security activities.

11

3.2
2
1.2
0.5

0

Nigeria

Sierra Leone
Local

Liberia
Foreign

Figure 3: Farmers' reported existence of local and overseas
collaborations on climate change and food security in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.2.2 Intensity of linkages / collaborations between farmers and otheractors in the climate change and food security innovation system in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
Data on Table 4 reveal that the intensity of linkages / collaborations existing
among actors in the enterprise domain, in the three countries, outweighs that withother domains, with higher collaborations existing among the small-scale farmers
and famers' associations. Nigeria tends to have higher linkages / collaborations
among the actors in all the domains followed by Liberia in three out of the four
major domains, while Sierra Leone only showed a higher intensity than Liberia in
the area of linkage with policy makers. Collaboration among actors in the climatechange and food security innovation system is essential for relevance, capacity
building and increase innovative performance of the actors and the system in
34 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidencegeneral. The extent of collaboration also suggests the level of cohesion and/or
involvement of the different actors in climate change and food security activities.
Table 4: Mean scores of intensity of linkages/collaborations
between farmers and other actors in the climate change andfood security innovation system
Collaborating Actors

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Mean

Standard Mean
deviation

Standard
deviation

MeanStandard
deviation

2.14

1.17

1.07

0.25

1.09

0.34

1.36
2.21

0.66
1.46

1.07
1.05

0.25
0.22

1.13
1.05

0.44
0.22

1.89
1.90

1.29
1.15

1.09
1.07

0.34
0.27

1.21
1.12

0.42
0.36

Policy Makers Domain
National agricultural research council
Policy makers
Standard setting body (e. g. NAFDAC, SON, etc.)
Overall mean

1.42
1.66
2.06
1.71

0.62
1.13
1.06
0.94

1.14
1.19
1.03
1.12

0.35
0.39
0.18
0.31

1.06
1.21
1.01
1.09

0.30
0.41
0.09
0.27

Enterprise Domain
Small – scale Farmers
Medium – large scale farmers
Farmers Association
Agricultural cooperatives
Financing/ credit/ venture capital
Input suppliers e.g. Seed companies
Agricultural machinery suppliers
Agricultural produce marketers
Consumers of agricultural products
Overall mean

2.93
2.69
2.88
2.37
2.44
2.00
1.41
2.39
2.81
2.44

1.08
1.40
1.35
1.09
1.38
1.09
0.69
1.21
1.32
1.18

1.19
1.17
1.22
1.22
1.03
1.03
1.05
1.09
1.08
1.13

0.38
0.39
0.44
0.44
0.17
0.18
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.30

1.42
1.14
1.25
1.19
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.18
1.18
1.16

0.70
0.44
0.70
0.49
0.15
0.17
0.30
0.48
0.54
0.44

1.98

1.17

1.12

0.37

1.25

0.46

1.84
2.10
1.97

0.91
1.12
1.07

1.11
1.05
1.09

0.39
0.22
0.33

1.33
1.28
1.29

0.47
0.45
0.46

R &D Agencies Domain
National agricultural research organization (e. g.
NIHORT, FIIRO, NRCRI, IAR, etc.)
Regional agricultural research organization / network
International agricultural research organization /network (e.g. IITA)
Universities
Overall mean

Extension Agencies Domain
Extension agencies (e. g. ADPs including private
extension services)
Federal / State Ministries of Agriculture
Federal / State Ministries of Environment
Overall mean

4.2.3 Linkage trends between farmers and r & d institutions in the climatechange and food security innovation system in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
Figure 3 shows the perceived linkages existing between farmers and researchand development institutions between 2005 and 2009 in the three countries. The
data reveal a perceived increase in the trend of linkage between the farmers andAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 35

the R & D institutions in Nigeria between 2007 and 2009, with a linkage index ofmore than 2. On the other hand, data from Sierra Leone and Liberia show astabilized trend in their linkage with R &D institutions over the past five years (withlinkage index of less than 2 each), with Sierra Leone showing a higher intensity oflinkage than Liberia. According to UNFCCC 2007, collaborations between
educational, training and research institution would help to enable the formal
exchange of experience and lessons learnt among different institutions of thedifferent regions.

Figure 4: Percieved trend of linkage between farmers and R &D
institutions in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.2.4 Linkage trends between farmers and policy making bodies in the
climate change and food security innovation system in Nigeria, Sierra Leone
and Liberia
Data in Figure 4 show the linkage trend between farmers and policy making
bodies in the different countries. The Figure shows a low linkage index of lessthan 2 for all the countries. However, data from Nigeria show an unstable trend
between 2005 and 2008, with an upward trend since 2008. On the other hand,data from Sierra Leone and Liberia reveal a more stable linkage between the
farmers and policy making bodies, with Sierra leone having a higher
colllaboration intersity than Liberia.

36 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence2.5

Policy making bodies linkage index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 5: Percieved trend of linkage between farmers and policy
making bodies in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.2.5 Linkage trends among actors within the enterprise domain in the
climate change and food security innovation system in Nigeria, Sierra Leone
and Liberia
Data in Figure 5 show the linkage trend among key actors (which include Small –scale farmers, medium – large scale farmers, farmers association, agricultural
cooperatives, financing/ credit/ venture capital, Input suppliers, agricultural
machinery suppliers, agricultural produce marketers and consumers ofagricultural products) within the enterprise domain. The data reveal a higher
linkage index among these actors than with other actors in the climate change
and food security innovation system across the three countries. The data also
show an increasing linkage trend among these actors in Nigeria than in Sierra
Leone and Liberia, with Sierra Leone showing a higher linkage intersity trend than
Liberia.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 37

3.0Enterprise linkage index

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 6: Percieved trend of
linkage among actors in theenterprise domain in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.2.6 Linkage trends between farmers and technology delivery institutionsin the climate change and food security innovation system in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
Figure 6 shows the linkage trends between farmers and the technology delivery
institutions across the three countries. The data reveal an increasing higher
linkage index ( of more than 2) between farmers and the technology delivery
institutions in Nigeria than in Sierra Leone and Liberia. On the other hand, datafrom Sierra Leone also shows an uneven increasing linkage trend over the past
five years, with Liberia showing a more stable linkage trend between the farmers
and technology delivery insitutions. The linkage index between farmers and thetechnology delivery insitutions in Sierra Leone and Liberia was less than 2.

38 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

3.0

2.5

Extension agencies linkage index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 7: Linkage trends between farmers and technology
delivery services in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.3
Respondents' Perception of Household Current Food
Situations
From Figure 7, it is evident that majority of the respondents from Nigeria (21.4%),
Sierra Leone (24.5%) and Liberia (25.9%) perceived the current household foodsituations as a little worse than what it was previously. About 23% of respondents
from Nigeria noted that the situation has remained the same, while 34% of rural
households from Sierra Leone and 21% from Liberia noted also that the situation
has not changed. Only 23.5% of rural households from Nigeria perceived theircurrent situation to have improved a little better than it was previously.
Respondents from Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively (33.8% and 21.2%),
noted that there has also been a little improvement on their current food situation
over time. This means that on an average note in the three countries under study,
there have not been many changes in their current food situations. In order to beef
up food security issues and self sufficiency in terms of food production in thesecountries, there is need to invest more in agricultural production so that theteeming populations food needs can be met appropriately.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 39

33.8
31.8
27.7
24.5
21.5

25.9
23.5

21.4

21.2
18.5
15.2
12.8

12.1

5

5

Much worse

A little worse
NigeriaSame

A little better

Sierra Leone

Much better

Liberia

Figure 8: Distribution of respondents by perceived household
current food situation in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.4
Performance of the System on the Basis of Innovation
Generation
Figure 8 reveals the types of innovation generated by enterprises over the pastten years in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia. In Nigeria, it is evident that new
improved crop varieties / livestock breeds (38.5%), new information (25.2%), newmarkets for products (16.1%) and upgrading of machinery were the innovation
generated over the past ten years. In Sierra Leone, the innovations generated
included new markets for products (16.1%) and upgrading of machinery (13.3%).
For Liberia, it is evident that over the past ten years, virtually nothing has been
done in the area of generating innovations by the enterprises. From this findings,
it is clear that innovations are been very poorly generated across the countries
under study. Efforts should be channelled by the relevant government bodies
e.g. Ministries of Agriculture, Research organizations etc to ensure that
innovations are generated always so that the gap between the use of primitive
methods in agricultural production and use of improved methods as found inother developed parts of the world can be bridged.
40 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

38.5

25.2
22
16.1
13.3
4.8
0.5
New
improved
crop /
livestock
breed

0

2

4.8

2.7

New
improved
technology

New
information

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

0

1

0

0

New markets
Upgradedfor products machinery or
equipment

Liberia

Figure 9: Types of innovations generated by enterprises over thelast ten years in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
4.5
Respondents' Perception of Domestic Environment Support
for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security
4.5.1 Respondents' perception of farms ability to adapt to changes in thelocal or international environment
Figure 9 reveals the respondents' perception on their farms ability to adapt tochanges in their environment. Respondents from the three countries (Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively) noted that the ability of their farms to adapt
to climate changes was not good (28.8%, 67.5% and 46.7%). On the average,
40.2%, 32.2% and 0.5% of the farmers from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
respectively agreed that their farms can adapt to these changes. This findings
show that farms in these countries have very limited capacities to adapt tochanges in the environment. This could probably be done to absence of policies
on climate change or limited adaptive measures to the changing climate. There isneed therefore to strengthen if any, existing policies on climate change
adaptation and mitigation and to also reposition research institutes in the search
for innovative adaptive measures to climate change effects.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 41

67.5

46.7
40.2
32.2
28.8
20.5

19.5

18.3

15.1
8.6
0.5

Not good

0.2

0AverageGood

Very good

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

1.9

0

Excellent

Figure 10: Percentage distribution of respondents by perceived
ability of farms to adapt to change environment
4.5.2 Farmers perception on domestic support for climate change
adaptation and food security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
It is evident from Table 5 that the respondents from the countries under study
perceived domestic environments support for climate change adaptation andfood security to be poor. The reason for this may be due to absence of mitigation
measures and policies on climate change that carter for the rural poor in the fightagainst the dangerous consequences of climate change.Table 5: Farmers'
perception of domestic environment support for climate change adaptation andfood security in West Africa.

42 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceTable 5: Farmers' perception of domestic environment support forclimate change adaptation and food security in West Africa
Nigeria

Statements

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Government incentives for innovation

1.73

1.06

1.16

0.44

1.18

0.41

Availability of trained and experienced scientists

1.76

1.07

1.18

0.48

1.34

0.53

Local universities responsi veness to needs ofthe sector

1.60

1.23

1.15

0.65

1.19

0.39

National R & D organizations responsiveness toneeds of the sector

1.39

0.78

1.07

0.26

1.06

0.27

Standard setting bodies and laboratory
infrastructure

1.44

0.90

1.10

0.37

1.02

0.14

Intellectual
innovation

1.50

0.99

1.14

0.43

1.01

0.11

Availability of financing / venture capital

1.51

0.90

1.23

0.57

1.02

0.20

Information and telecommunication
infrastructure

1.79

1.07

1.34

0.73

1.10

0.35

State of power supply

1.49

0.74

1.26

0.61

1.01

0.10

State of water supply

1.72

1.01

1.30

0.60

1.04

0.11

Road, rail, air and sea communication
infrastructure

1.63

0.92

1.24

0.55

1.34

0.30

Supportive polices for science and technology
and agriculture

1.61

0.98

1.16

0.48

1.07

0.68

Marketing infrastructure and supportive policy

1.59

0.94

1.12

0.37

1.24

0.35

property protection to support

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 43

5. Conclusion & Recommendations
5.1
Conclusion
The positive growth in manpower strength in Nigeria and Liberia should not betaken as the presence of special programmes or training in climate change
adaptation in the countries under study. The absence of specific trainings on
climate change adaptation and food security issues highlight the non – existenceof foreign linkages/collaborations in the three countries. The world presently isadvancing in the fight against the changing climate; the developing countries on
the other hand need key into the fight now, else, they will be left behind to
determine their own fate after the world must have gone ahead.
At the local level, there existed collaborations between farmers research anddevelopment, technology delivery institutions; but this collaboration did notreflect increase in innovations generated over a period of five years nor did it
indicate a positive/increased perception of domestic environment support forclimate change adaptation and food security by respondents. The weakdomestic environment support for climate change adaptation and food security
could possibly be a reason for poor ability of farms in the three countries studied
to adapt to the changing climate.
5.2
Recommendation
Based on the major findings of this research work, the following
recommendations were made:1.

There is need for a comprehensive information flow from research
institutions to farmers and vice versa so that agricultural information
developed or generated over time can be transferred to the end users. This44 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

portrays the need to maintain good contact among the stakeholders(extension service delivery, research institutes and farmers).
Farmers should be exposed to specialized training on climate change
adaptation and food security. This will prepare them adequately for copingwith these varying changes in the climate.
There is need for improved technical and managerial strengths/skills of
farmers to enhance their ability to manage effects of climate change.
There is need to strengthen collaborations between research, extension andfarmers so that new and sustainable adaptive climate changes measures
can be developed.
With increase in collaborations among research, extension and farmers,
there will be improved agricultural production systems which will enhance
the food security status of the countries.
Collaborations in the area of food security and climate change issues should
be encourages between countries and overseas/foreign partners.
Domestic environment should be more proactive and also concretize theirefforts in the support for climate change adaptation and food security issues
by enacting policies aimed at mitigating climate change, encouraging thevarious stakeholders involved in agricultural production systems.
Systems/stakeholders involved in innovations generation should intensify
efforts in order to ensure that there is continuous generation of innovations
so that farmers do not experience any gap in the use of new information.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 45

References
Archer, E.M. (2003). Identifying Undeserved End–User Groups in the Provision of
Climate Information. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. Vol.84. Pp. 1525-1532.
ADB (African Development Bank). (2002). Achieving the millennium
development goals in Africa: Progress, prospects, and policy implications.
<http://www.afdb.org /knowledge /publications/pdf/global_poverty_report_jun
2002.pdf >.
Adejuwon, S. A. (2004). Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change on
Crop Yields in Nigeria. Climate Change Unit, Department of Environmental
Assessment; Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja.
Agbamu J.U. (2000). Agricultural research extension systems: An international
perspective. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 106. ODI
London, UK: 7.
Agwu, A. E., Madukwe, M. C and Dimelu, M. U. (2008): Innovation systemapproach to agricultural development: Policy implications for agriculturalextension delivery in Nigeria African Journal of Biotechnology. Vol. 7 (11), pp.
1604 - 1611.
Asenso-Okyere, K. and Davis, K. (2009). Knowledge and Innovation for
Agricultural Development. IFPRI Policy Brief N0. 11
Babatunde, R.O. Omotesho, O. and Sholotan, O.S. (2007). Socio-Economic
Characteristics and Food Security Status of Farming Households in Kwara State,
North-Central Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 6., Pp.49-58.
Babatunde, R.O, Olorusanya, E.O and Adejola, A.D. (2008) Assessment of Rural
Household Poverty: Evidence from Southwestern Nigeria. American – Euroasia
Journal of Agriculture and Environment Science, Vol. 3 (6). pp. 900-905.
Blinker, L. (2006), Country Environment Profile (Cep) Sierra Leone, Freetown,
Sierra Leone: Consortium Parsons Brinckerhoff, P. 12.
46 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceChema, S., Gilbert E., and J. Roseboom. (2003). A Review of Key Issues andRecent Experiences in Reforming Agricultural Research in Africa. Research
Report 24. The Hague: ISNAR.
Clark N., Hall A., Sulaimain R., Naik G. (2003). Research as capacity building: Thecase of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Himalayan Hills.
World Development 31(11): 1845- 1863.
Edquist C. (ed.) (1997). System of Innovation Approaches: Technologies,
Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.
Egyir, I. S. (2009). The Plantain ASTI System in Ghana. Paper presented at the
CTA Training of Trainers (ToT) Regional Workshop on Agricultural Science,
Technology and Innovation (ASTI) Systems held at Sheraton Hotel and Towers,
Abuja, Nigeria 24 – 28th August 2009.
Ekboir J., Parallada G. (2002). Public-private interactions and technology policy
in innovation processes for zero tillage in Argentina. In Byerlee D, Echeverria R(eds.), Agricultural Research policy in an Era of Privatization. Oxon UK: CABI.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1999). Combating Desertification and Mitigating
the Effects of Drought in Nigeria. National Report on the Implementation of theUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification particularly in Africa (CCD),
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Freeman C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons
from Japan. London: Pinter.
Freeman C (1995). The national innovation systems in historical perspective.
Cambr. J. Econ. 19(1): 5-24.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), (2000). The Stateof Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2001). Global Forest Resources Assessment. Summary Report.
(www.fao.org/forest/fo/fra/index.jsp.)
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 47

Francis, J. (2006). National Innovation System – Relevance for Development.
Training of Trainers (TOT) Workshop for ACP Experts on Agricultural Science,
Technology and Innovation (ASTI) Systems. 2nd – 6th October 2006 Accra,
Ghana.
Hall, A., and Yoganand B. (2002). New institutional arrangements in agricultural
R&D in Africa: Concepts and case studies. Paper presented at the Workshop on
Targeting Agricultural
Research for Development in the Semi- Arid Tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa heldat Nairobi, Kenya, 1-3 July 2002.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), Climate Change
2007, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Annex I., M.L.
IPCC (2007). Adaptation and mitigation options. In (book section): Summary for
Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K
and Reisinger, A. (eds.)). Print version: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. This version:
IPCC website. ISBN 9291691224. Retrieved 2010 04-26.
Johnson B., Segura-Bonilla O. (2001). Innovation Systems and Developing
Countries: Experiences from the SUDESCA Project. DRUID Working Paper No.
01-12. Aalborg: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, University of
Aalborg.
Lundvall B. (1985). Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction. Aalborg,
Denmark: Aalborg University Press.
McMichael, A.J et al (2004), “Climate Change: Comparative Quantification of
Health Risks”, WHO, Geneva
Metcalfe JF (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy. In P.
Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological
Change :409-512. Oxford: Blackwell.
48 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical EvidenceMorlai, T. A., Mansaray, P. and Vandy, G. (2010) Enhancing Agricultural Yields by
Small-holder Farmers through Integrated Climate Change Adaptation
Programme in Sierra Leone. Grant No.: ATPS CP0109/13.
National Bureau of Statistics (2006). Socio–Economic Survey on Nigeria, Abuja.
Partz, J.A et al (2005), “Impacts of Regional Climate Change on Human Health”,
Nature 438:310-17.
Philips, D.R and Verhasselt, Y. (1994): 'Health and Development', Routledge.
Roseboom J. (2004). Adopting an Agricultural Innovation system perspective:
Implication for ASARECA'S strategy ASARECA strategic planning paper No. 7:14.
Roling, N. (2007). Conceptual and methodological developments in innovation
Samberg, J. (2005). Systems of innovation theory and the changing architectureof agricultural research in Africa. Food Pol. 30: 21-41.
Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M.
Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin (2007).
Executive summary. In (book chapter): Chapter 19: Assessing Key Vulnerabilities
and the Risk from Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F.
Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.). Print version:
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. This version: IPCC website. ISBN
9780521880107. Retrieved 2010-04-06.
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. T .J. and Wandel, J. (2000). An anatomy of adaptation
to climate change and variability. Climate Change 45:223–251.
Speilman, D. J. (2005). Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing Country
Agriculture: A Critical Review. ISNAR Discussion Paper 1: 10-40.
Todd, B. (2004). Africa's Food and Nutrition Survey Situation, where are we andhow did we get here? IFPRI 2020 discussion paper 37. New York.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence | 49

Tugrul T., Ajit M. (2002). The cotton supply chain in Azerbaijan. ISNAR. The
Hague, Netherlands.
United Nations Agency for International Development (USAID) (1999). USAID
Report on agricultural activities in Liberia.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2004). Desk study on theEnvironment in Liberia.
UNFCCC (2007). Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in
Developing Countries. Retrieved from , 2010.
Warren, R. et al (2006): 'Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate Change'.
Available at: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp90.pdf
Ziervogel, G., Nyong, A., Osman, B., Conde, C., Cortes, S. and Downing, T.
(2006). Climatic Variability and Change Implications for Household Food
Security. AIACC working paper. No 20. An electronic publication of the AIACC
project. Retrieved from: www.aiacc project.org.
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/forum/31//31_REVIEW_OF_PAST_
AGRICULTURAL_POLICIES _IN_SIERRA_LEONE-FINAL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming

50 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia: Empirical Evidence

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.

African Technology
Policy Studies Network
Contact the Executive Director at
The Chancery, 3rd Floor, Valley Rd.
P O Box 10081, 00100-Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 020) 2714092, 2714168,
2714498, 2723800
Fax: (254 020) 2714028
http://www.atpsnet.org

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

ISBN: 978-9966-030-15-3