Innovation platforms as catalysts for multi-stakeholder agricultural extension in Caribbean small island developing states

Introduction

Caribbean SIDS face limited arable land, extreme weather vulnerability, high input costs, and fragmented markets [1,2] . Jamaica, with over 200,000 farmers on an average 1.2 hectares, exemplifies these challenges [3] . Extension services have followed top-down approaches that do little to facilitate broader stakeholder coordination [4] . Innovation platforms create structured spaces where farmers, researchers, suppliers, buyers, and policy makers interact to identify shared problems and develop coordinated solutions [5,6] . African evidence suggests IPs accelerate technology adoption and improve market access [7,8] , but Caribbean SIDS experience remains undocumented. This research assessed: (a) the comparative performance of IP and non-IP communities across six extension-related functions; (b) the structure and density of stakeholder networks within IP communities; and (c) the mechanisms through which IPs generated value for participating smallholders [9,10] .

Materials and Methods

Materials

Six IP communities were matched with six non-IP communities across St. Elizabeth, Manchester, St. Ann, and Portland parishes between April 2022 and October 2023. IPs had been active for at least 18 months. Matching was based on parish, crop type, farm size, and market distance. The sample included 128 IP and 119 non-IP households (n = 247). The 48-item survey measured platform functions, network ties, and household characteristics. Semi-structured interviews with 24 IP members and 12 facilitators provided qualitative depth. Ethics approval: UWI Ethics Committee (Protocol UWI-FFA-2022-023, March 2022).

Methods

Platform function performance was measured through six composite indices (4-5 items each) on a 5-point scale. Between-group comparisons used independent t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Stakeholder network analysis mapped ties between seven stakeholder categories in each community using density, centrality, and clustering metrics. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using framework analysis with codes derived from innovation systems theory. All quantitative analyses used SPSS 28.0 and UCINET 6.0 at P<0.05. www.extensionjournal.com Network analysis revealed stark structural differences. IP communities had 2.8 times more inter-stakeholder ties (18.4 vs. 6.6), substantially higher network density (0.71 vs. 0.28), and greater farmer betweenness centrality (0.38 vs. 0.12), indicating that IPs position farmers more centrally within agricultural information and service networks.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

Interview data illuminated how IPs generated their advantages. Participants consistently described the value of face-to-face interaction with stakeholders they would not normally encounter. Farmers reported that direct engagement with market buyers reduced information asymmetry and improved bargaining positions, while input suppliers described more efficient distribution through collective purchasing arrangements. Platform facilitators emphasized that the most productive IP sessions were those where genuine negotiation occurred between stakeholders with competing interests, suggesting that productive friction rather than forced consensus drives IP value.

Discussion

Strong IP advantages across all functions support the proposition that multi-stakeholder platforms address systemic constraints more effectively than linear models [5,6] . Large effects on knowledge exchange and market linkage align with East African evidence [7,11] , while the weaker input access effect reflects established commercial supply chains that IPs supplement [12] . The 2.8-fold difference in inter-stakeholder ties suggests IPs fundamentally restructure information flow [13] . Non-IP networks were sparse and farmer-agent dominated, while IP communities showed dense multiplex networks connecting farmers to researchers, buyers, and policy actors, a transformation particularly valuable where institutional resources are limited [2,14] . Elevated farmer betweenness centrality indicates IPs reposition farmers from peripheral recipients to central network nodes, underpinning improved market linkage and collective action outcomes [15] .

Ethical Considerations

Evaluating community-level interventions raises questions about fairness and potential harm to comparison communities. Non-IP communities were informed that research findings would inform future extension programming and that IP establishment in their communities was planned for the subsequent program cycle. Individual informed consent was obtained from all survey respondents. Platform meeting observations followed established community protocols, and sensitive information about market relationships and income was collected confidentially. Research findings were shared with all participating communities, including non-IP communities, through community feedback sessions conducted in accessible formats. The research team included Jamaican researchers familiar with local agricultural and social dynamics.

Limitations

References

1. FAO. The state of food security and nutrition in small island developing states. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019. 132 p.
2. Lowitt K, Hickey GM, Saint Ville A, Raeburn K, Thompson-Colon T, Laszlo S, Phillip LE. Challenges and opportunities for more integrated food security policy in the Caribbean. Global Food Security. 2015;6:1-8.
3. STATIN. Agricultural production survey 2020. Kingston (Jamaica): Statistical Institute of Jamaica; 2021. 94 p.
4. Davis K, Sulaiman R, Muthuraman S, Doss C, Babu SC. Extension in the Caribbean: historical background, current status, and future outlook. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2012;1178:1-42.
5. Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems. 2013;118:65-77.
6. Schut M, Klerkx L, Sartas M, Lamers D, Campbell MM, Ogbonna I, Kaushik P, Khanh TT, Campbell BM. Innovation platforms: experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Experimental Agriculture. 2016;52(4):537-561.
7. Ayele S, Duncan A, Larbi A, Khanh TT. Enhancing innovation in livestock value chains through networks: lessons from fodder innovation case studies in developing countries. Science and Public Policy. 2012;39(3):333-346.
8. Nederlof ES, Wongtschowski M, Van Der Lee F. Putting heads together: agricultural innovation platforms in practice. Amsterdam (Netherlands): KIT Publishers; 2011. 192 p.
9. Hermans F, Stuiver M, Beers PJ, Kok K. The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems. 2013;115:117-128.
10. Swaans K, Boogaard B, Leeuwis C. Operationalizing inclusive innovation: lessons from innovation platforms in livestock value chains. Innovation and Development. 2014;4(2):299-314.
11. Makini FW, Kamau GM, Makelo MN, Adekunle AA, Mburathi GK, Misiko M, Pali P, Dixon J. Operational field guide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation platforms. Nairobi (Kenya): KARI-FARA; 2013. 86 p.
12. Beckford CL. Decision-making and innovation among small-scale yam farmers in central Jamaica. Journal of Small Enterprise Development. 2002;13(2):1-15.
13. Spielman DJ, Davis K, Negash M, Ayele G. Rural innovation systems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values. 2011;28(2):195-212.
14. Cadilhon JJ, Pham ND, Maass BL. The tuna value chain in Central Vietnam. Journal on Chain and Network Science. 2006;6(2):161-176.
15. Burt RS. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge (MA, USA): Harvard University Press; 1992. 313 p.
16. Klerkx L, Aarts N, Leeuwis C. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems. 2010;103(6):390-400.
17. Hall A, Mytelka L, Oyeyinka B. Innovation systems: implications for agricultural policy and practice. CGIAR ILAC Brief. 2005;2:1-4.