The French Ministry of Agriculture has called for agro-ecological transitions that reconcile farming and the environment. In this review, we examine the transformations of farmers and AKIS (Agriculture Knowledge Innovation System) actors’ work during agro-ecological transitions, and argue that the content, organization, and aim of farmers’ work are influenced by agricultural training, agricultural development, and discussions between peers, research, and regulations. Our main findings concern those transformations.
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM.
The frequency of natural disasters, especially storms and floods, has been increasing globally over the last several decades. Developing countries are especially vulnerable to such disasters but are often the least capable of coping with the associated impacts because of their limited adaptive capacity. Despite the increased interest in strengthening institutional capacity, it remains a challenge for many developing countries. Institutional capacity for disaster management and risk reduction can be built through various mechanisms.
The study was designed to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI's multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
This shift in thinking will require major shifts in policy, research, and investment. But where should these investments go? What foundations should be strengthened? Which gaps need filling? What’s working? What’s not?
In order to answer these questions in an informed way, we need to examine the evidence that exists and identify areas where more research is needed.
But this is easier said than done.
If you are a research or innovation manager or a funder of innovation in the agrifood sector, in the private or public sphere, these Principles are for you. Investment in research and innovation today will shape the agrifood systems of the future. The choices that you make during an innovation process will affect the future benefits and drawbacks of the innovations you help to create: for example, what types of people gain and lose, and what the effects are on the environment. Too often, these choices are not made consciously, and important issues are overlooked until it is too late.
The challenges faced by agricultural innovation systems (A.I.S.) are complex to solve, however, the authors consider that understanding the processes of innovation and development (R&D), sustainability, use of information and communication technologies, training, and outreach, as the focus of discussion in this review, have great potential to close the gaps in the system; as well as exploring strategies, projects and best practices that dynamize the operation of the system. The objective of this article is to review the literature on A.I.S.A.
The aim of this article is to show the relevance of the sociology of market agencements (an offshoot of actor-network theory) for studying the creation of alternative agri-food networks. The authors start with their finding that most research into alternative agri-food networks takes a strictly informative, cursory look at the conditions under which these networks are gradually created. They then explain how the sociology of market agencements analyzes the construction of innovative markets and how it can be used in agri-food studies.
This paper is a case study of a network that combined participatory approaches to propose best suited knowledge management (KM) interventions for its member countries. A five-step exercise used existing elements of the alliance’s strategy, a KM survey and a face-to-face participatory validation of the analysis, to identify gaps in current KM approaches and to collectively point to immediate opportunities for improvement. The KM survey, also referred to as a scan, provided a neutral space for reflection.