AARINENA was established to strengthen cooperation among national, regional and international agricultural research institutions and centers to ultimately support the agricultural sector in its member countries. Women farmers significantly contribute to the agricultural development in the WANA region, but often remain invisible in agricultural research and knowledge transfer.
The number of theories of innovation systems has grown considerably over the past two decades and several innovation system approaches have been developed. The focus of most has been on the development of technological innovations which create economic value.However, addressing macro-level societal problems – sociotechnical and environmental challengesin which the production, dissemination and use of social and technical knowledge and technology can potentially resolve the problem – has been overlooked.
A central concern about achieving global food security is reconfiguring agri-food systems towards sustainability. However, historically-informed trajectories of agri-food system development remain resistant to a change in direction. Through a systematic literature review, the authors identify three research domains exploring this phenomenon and six explanations of resistance: embedded nature of technologies, misaligned institutional settings, individual attitudes, political economy factors, infrastructural rigidities, research and innovation priorities.
Providing food and other products to a growing human population while safeguarding natural ecosystems and the provision of their services is a significant scientific, social and political challenge. With food demand likely to double over the next four decades, anthropization is already driving climate change and is the principal force behind species extinction, among other environmental impacts. The sustainable intensification of production on current agricultural lands has been suggested as a key solution to the competition for land between agriculture and natural ecosystems.
Governments of low-income countries and international development donors are increasing their funding for research at least in part on the assumption that research has positive impacts on socioeconomic development. Four pathways are commonly cited to describe how research will contribute to development: 1. Investment in research will drive economic growth; 2. Investment in research will increase human capital; 3. Investment in research will lead to the development of pro-poor products and technologies; 4.
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
The world’s population is likely to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) believes that 60 per cent more food will be needed by 2050 to sustain all these people. Where possible, this food should be produced where it is needed – in developing countries.
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.
This paper briefly reviews three conceptual frameworks: namely, the national agricultural research system (NARS), the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) and the agricultural innovation system (AIS) concepts. Next, the paper reviews the definition of ‘innovation’ and proposes that agricultural innovation can occur at four different but interlinked domains.
In this perspective paper the authors consider the implications of a digital transformation for agricultural knowledge, a subject which hitherto has received limited attention. They raise critical questions about how digital agriculture will intersect with established modes of knowing and decision-making.