Farmer innovation in the Solomon Islands in response to uncertainties of subsistence agriculture farmers

Since their introduction in 1946, conventional government-run agricultural extension services have notably failed to deliver improved agricultural practices in rural Solomon Islands. This is due to several problems, some of which include the remoteness and isolation of farming communities, lack of transportation, government financial management, lack of operational guidelines, and a lack of proper offices and staff accommodation.Coupled with this, in 1998, the single agricultural research station for the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock was destroyed in an intercultural conflict and research capacity was never fully re-established. Consequently, there is very limited research activity to generate agricultural innovation. This contributes to the continuing failure of extension services throughout the country. While the extension delivery system remains weak and is absent from most rural areas, farmers have compensated by introducing their own innovations without technical or extension support.The aim of the study was to investigate the farmer innovation process in the Solomon Islands. Four research questions guided the study. What are the drivers of change and how do these factors promote innovation? What uncertainties do farmers face on their farms? What are the processes that farmers employ when they conduct an informal experiment? What agricultural practices, including climate-smart agriculture have been developed by innovative farmers? How do farmers disseminate their new agricultural practices and related information to other farmers? Three case studies were conducted on three islands including Kolombangara, Guadalcanal, and Malaita, with twenty innovative farmers identified at each site, with the assistance of village leaders. Data collection methods were focus groups, in-depth interviews, and participant observation. The results indicated that in all three cases, some of the major drivers of innovation included climate change, soil infertility, pests and diseases, a shortage of arable land, social obligations, weeds, and swampy land. The results also highlighted minor drivers such as the oversupply of farm produce, a lack of farm tools, a lack of fertilisers such as lack of chicken manure, and the cost of labour. The findings also identified some key uncertainties associated with the drivers of innovation including changes to the growing seasons, changes in temperature and rainfall, soil infertility as a result of fixed gardening practices, and the poor quality and quantity of crops due to pests and diseases.While there was some variation in the farmer experimentation process between the three case studies commonalities existed such as,  the decision to experiment, identification of solutions, planning and preparation, the conducting of the experiment, managing and making observations, making judgments on the results, confirmation or rejection, repetition, and the adoption of agricultural practice.Agricultural practices developed by the farmers through the process of experimentation included the use of coconut (Cocos nucifera) fronds for mulch under tomato crops to prevent fungus, the planting of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) to take up water on swampy land, the growing of watercress (Nasturtium officinale) on fishing net structures over streams, drains around gardens to trap giant African snails (Achatina fulica), heavy mulching between rows of potato (Ipomoea batatas) mounds and rows of taro (Colocasia esculenta), and the horizontal planting of potato (Ipomoea batatas) and cassava (Manihot esculenta).Various communication channels were also used by farmers to disseminate this information to other farmers. These included formal organised learning and sharing, informal learning and sharing, group sharing, sharing at public meetings, the mass media, and sharing through farmer networks.The research contributes to knowledge in several ways and suggests that farmers have a high degree of agency and that Solomon Islands farmers are not dependent on extension services to provide innovation, learning, and the sharing of new farming methods. This challenges the dominant discourse of extension where it is deemed necessary to introduce knowledge and technology to farmers. Farmers in this case study generated their own agricultural knowledge to resolve their own production problems. Further, the farmers identified their own farming needs and learned from one another, through a combination of social processes without the requirement for extension services. It is further suggested that drivers and uncertainties are the basis for farmer experimentation, on which the development of new practices are based. This process appears to have replaced the agricultural extension approach to identifying farmers’ needs and had informed the development of agricultural extension programs. The study implies that international and government extension in the Pacific Islands, including the Solomon Islands, should be re-orientated to support farmer agency and conceptualise the development of extension systems to support farmer innovation and capacity in order to promote problem focused solutions.