Conventional approaches to agricultural extension based on top–down technology transfer and information dissemination models are inadequate to help smallholder farmers tackle increasingly complex agroclimatic adversities. Innovative service delivery alternatives, such as field schools, exist but are mostly implemented in isolationistic silos with little effort to integrate them for cost reduction and greater technical effectiveness.
The quality of rural extension and advisory services is a crucial element in fostering innovation and rural development. This article aims to clarify the concept of quality of rural extension and to develop a preliminary theoretical framework. An ample literature review was conducted in search of articles on service quality and quality of rural extension and advisory services. The first part presents the main results of the literature search on quality of extension services. The definition of quality is not universal.
Since the Green Revolution, worldwide agriculture has been characterized by a typical top–down approach. The degree of autonomy, creativity, and responsibility of farmers has been limited by the continuous external inputs of chemicals, machinery, advice, subsidies and knowledge. The issue of sustainability has brought complexity and uncertainty to this mainly linear process of innovation, steering agriculture toward alternative models. Agroecology represents an innovative paradigm of agriculture in which external inputs are minimized, and the assets of the farm are greatly valued.
The well-being of the rural population globally has been associated with the performance and resilience of the agriculture sector. The sector continually requires new needs-based knowledge and technologies. It has become necessary to empower the rural communities through a wider bottom-up system that directly addresses their needs. This paper explores the application of little-used Participatory Livelihood Analysis for the adoption and up-scaling of its use in the assessment of agricultural-extension-needs for disadvantaged rural communities.
Participation of actors is essential for achievement of the United Nation’s (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With respect to sustainable agriculture the UN has introduced a collaborative framework for food systems transformation encompassing: 1) food system champions identification; 2) food systems assessment; 3) multi-stakeholder dialogue and action facilitation; and, 4) strengthen institutional capacity for food systems governance. The last two actions are the focus of this thesis.
En el marco del convenio 4600004063 “Fortalecimiento Institucional de las entidades que prestan el servicio de asistencia técnica municipal en la transferencia de tecnología y extensión agropecuaria en el Departamento de Antioquia”, realizado entre la Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural del departamento de Antioquia y la Universidad de Antioquia, el cual tuvo como finalidad el fortalecimiento de la Asistencia Técnica Directa Rural en el departamento durante el segundo semestre del año 2015; se realizó un proceso de capacitación orientado al fortalecimiento de técnicos y líderes rur
We look at the trade-off between smallholder cocoa intensification and the ecosystem in Indonesia and investigate the determinants of environmental efficiency in cocoa production. In our analysis, we apply a distance output function that includes cocoa production and the abundance of native rainforest plants as outputs. Our data set, based on a household and environment survey conducted in 2015, allows us to analyze 208 cocoa producers with both measured and self-reported data. We find that the intensification of cocoa farms results in higher ecosystem degradation.
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.
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.
The concept of an innovation platform is increasingly used in interventions inspired by agricultural innovation systems thinking, as a way of bringing stakeholders from a sector together to enable transformative change. An essential role on such innovation platforms is thought to be that of the ‘innovation champion’, but this role has so far not been unravelled.