Since 2017, in line with COAG’s recommendation, the Research and Extension Unit engaged in the development of a participatory AIS assessment framework including a customizable toolbox for countries with a totally new capacity development perspective. The assessment framework is meant for actors of the national agricultural innovation systems, i.e.
Equipping agricultural extension and advisory services with nutrition knowledge, competencies and skills is essential to promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture. This report presents the results of an assessment of capacity within agricultural extension and advisory services, undertaken in Telangana State, India, with the global capacity needs assessment (GCNA) methodology developed by FAO and GFRAS. The methodology is available online at https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2069en
Multi-actors innovation platforms (MAIPs) are increasingly deployed as a model for participatory and inclusive innovation to address the challenges of sustainability in complex systems like the agri-food systems. The facilitation of co-innovation and multi-actor partnerships is critical to the success of MAIPs, as a common lesson learned across the multitude of initiatives around the world. The guideline was developed for Master Trainers to train MAIP facilitators. The guideline first gives an introduction to the definiton, principles, design, establishment and facilitation of MAIPs.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. EAS are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (for example related to investment, staffing or productivity) are no longer adequate to assess the performance of EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. Advisory services are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (e.g. related to investment, staffing or productivity) are not adequate anymore to understand whether the system is well-functioning.
This paper contends that the exclusion of millions of poor from agricultural development gains is inexorably linked to the innovation system features that have evolved over time. An oft repeated lament of the Government of India about the inadequacy of reforms in agricultural research and extension, is used to explore the structure and institutions of agricultural innovation. Three main components of the agricultural innovation system, are the agricultural research and extension actors, the farming communities, and policy making agencies.
The overall objective of the technical workshop was to present the guidelines on AIS and EAS assessments, the results at country level and to design and develop a framework of indicators to complement those assessments. Specific objectives were to:
To determine whether a farmer’s accessibility predicts the delivery of extension services, this study used banana Xanthomonas wilt (BXW) disease-management advisory as a typical case with which to collect extension-delivery information from 690 farmers, distinguished by their respective accessibility. Cost–distance analysis was applied to define each farmer’s accessibility. The results revealed that a farmer’s accessibility does not predict extension delivery to that farmer in all forms of the examined extension parameters.
The national assessment of the agricultural innovation system (AIS) in Malawi was conducted using a framework of four types of analyses: functional, structural, capacity and enabling environment analysis. The approach included five case studies that addressed three methods including the use of indigenous methods for fall armyworm (FAW) control in Farmer Field Schools (FFS), livestock transfer programs, and a horticulture marketing innovation platform in Mzimba, Ntchisi, Balaka, and Thyolo districts.