What are key characteristics of rural innovators? How are their experiences similar for women and men, and how are they different? To examine these questions, this study draw on individual interviews with 336 rural women and men known in their communities for trying out new things in agriculture. The data form part of 84 GENNOVATE community case studies from 19 countries. Building on study participants’ own reflections and experiences with innovation in their agricultural livelihoods, we combine variable-oriented analysis and analysis of specific individuals’ lived experience.
There is widespread need for gender-responsive agricultural research, yet the question of how this kind of research can be implemented and its success measured needs further interrogation. This paper presents a framework, developed on the basis of literature and validated by experts, for tracking the gender responsiveness of agricultural research throughout the research cycle, from the research plan to the dissemination of research findings. The framework was tested in Uganda and Rwanda on 14 research projects considered to be gender-responsive.
This paper employs the concepts of gender norms and agency to advance understanding of inclusive agricultural innovation processes and their contributions to empowerment and poverty reduction at the village level. Is presented a community typology informed by normative influences on how people assess conditions and trends for village women and men to make important decisions (or to exercise agency) and for local households to escape poverty.
Capacity development interventions are considered critical entry points for advancing gender equality in agricultural research systems. However, the impacts of capacity development programs are often difficult to track. Academic reviews highlight that insufficient attention is paid to the suitability of gender training programs to increase capacity and limited evidence is available on their longer-term impacts.
The slow rate of agricultural development in Africa can largely be blamed on lack of functional relationships between technology/innovation generation centers, local farming communities, financial institutions and markets. The result has been low penetration of promising innovations/technologies thus, low adoption levels and/ or partial adoption; and limited or no access to markets and financial services by farmers. In general, most of the innovation/technologies developed have not been extensively out-scaled; some of which are not even packaged in user friendly formats.
This book examines how agricultural innovation arises in four African countries – Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda – through the lens of agribusiness, public policies, and specific value chains for food staples, high value products, and livestock. Determinants of innovation are not viewed individually but within the context of a complex agricultural innovation system involving many actors and interactions.
This synthesis report presents the outputs of the workshop organised by CTA at its headquarters in Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15-17 July 2008. The outputs are presented in two main parts, each corresponding to one of the workshop objectives, and ends with a section on the way forward as suggested by the workshop participants. It also includes a first attempt to come to a consolidated generic framework on AIS performance indicators, based on the outputs of the different working groups.
Since the early 1990s, Uganda has implemented a number of reforms in the agricultural sector. However, in the past 10 years, the performance of the sector has lagged behind other sectors particularly services and industry. There are concerns among researchers and policy analysts that institutional constraints in agriculture play a central role in the lacklustre agricultural performance registered during the 2000s. This study examines the institutional constraints affecting agricultural production in Uganda.
The purpose of this paper is to map some elements that can contribute to an IFAD strategy to stimulate and support pro-poor innovations. It is an initial or exploratory document that hopefully will add to an ongoing and necessary debate, and is not intended as a final position paper. The document is organized as follows.
There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.