The latest comprehensive research agenda in the Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension was published in 2012 (Faure, Desjeux, and Gasselin 2012), and since then there have been quite some developments in terms of biophysical, ecological, climatological, social, political and economic trends that impact farming and the transformation of agriculture and food systems at large as well as new potentially disruptive technologies.
Social learning processes can be the basis of a method of agricultural innovation that involves expert and empirical knowledge. In this sense, the objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of an innovation process, understood as social learning, in a group of small farmers in the southern highlands of Peru. Innovative proposals and its permanence three years after the process finished were evaluated. It was observed that innovation processes generated are maintained over time; however, new innovations are not subsequently generated.
The success of multi-stakeholder ARD (Agricultural Research for Development) partnerships is often attributed to stakeholder interaction and knowledge exchange, collective learning and establishment of mutual trust between the partners involved. Achieving these outcomes depends very much on the leadership of the partnership, and how this leadership relates to partnership facilitation and also project coordination and/or management. This brief explores the different skills and attitudes required by leaders of ARD partnerships, and how these relate to different contexts.
Competing models of innovation informing agricultural extension, such as transfer of technology, participatory extension and technology development, and innovation systems have been proposed over the last decades. These approaches are often presented as antagonistic or even mutually exclusive. This article shows how practitioners in a rural innovation system draw on different aspects of all three models, while creating a distinct local practice and discourse. We revisit and deepen the critique of Vietnam’s “model” approach to upland rural development, voiced a decade ago in this journal.
Qu’en est-il des « activités non agricoles » ? Peuvent-elles être pensées au-delà d’une perspective de survie ? De la transformation des récoltes à la commercialisation d’artisanat culturel, en passant par le transport routier, la location de téléphone portable ou le conseil en technologies de l’information, les activités non agricoles occupent un éventail très large. Leur utilité est de plus en plus reconnue.
Dans le besoin urgent de lutter contre le changement climatique, une priorité essentielle est de renforcer la capacité de ces groupes et communautés les plus vulnérables, et déjà fortement affectés, à améliorer leur capacité à adapter leurs systèmes de subsistance.
This paper outlines key areas of intervention that are identified as the core of FAO's strategy on strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) across multiple areas of work (e.g. research and extension, agroecology, biotechnology, green jobs, resourcing etc.) for achieving sustainable rural development.
Mobile phones fit well into the lives of pastoralists in low-income countries. The technology is firmly integrated into most pastoralist communities, affecting and transforming several core activities. Most studies concerned with this relationship, however, have narrow regional and thematic foci. The complementarity or discrepancy between relevant research is unknown, and a critical assessment of the current state of research is lacking.
This research aims to add to the literature new insights about the interaction processes, which are implemented in different interactive extension approaches, by analysing how farmers attending different extension events shape a network of indirect interactions
Several posters have been created on the occasion of the 5th TAP Partners Assembly (Laos, 20-22 September 2017) to show recent activities and achievements in the eight pilot countries of the CDAIS project.