Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
Public-private partnerships are a new way of carrying out research and development (R&D) in Latin America's agricultural sector. These partnerships spur innovation for agricultural development and have various advantages over other institutional arrangements fostering R&D. This report summarizes the experiences of a research project that analyzed 125 public-private research partnerships (PPPs) in 12 Latin American countries. The analysis indicates that several types of partnerships have emerged in response to the various needs of the different partners.
Agricultural transformation and development are critical to the livelihoods of more than a billion small-scale farmers and other rural people in developing countries. Extension and advisory services play an important role in such transformation and can assist farmers with advice and information, brokering and facilitating innovations and relationships, and dealing with risks and disasters.
Les Nations unies ont désigné 2014 comme l’Année internationale de l’agriculture familiale. À l’échelle de la planète, la population agricole est estimée à 2,6 milliards de personnes, soit 40 % de la population totale. Avec 1,3 milliard d’actifs, l’agriculture demeure le premier secteur d’emploi au niveau mondial. Dans les pays en développement, là où 70% de la population reste liée aux activités agricoles, l’alimentation des familles dépend essentiellement de la production vivrière et des marchés locaux. Aujourd’hui, défendre l’agriculture familiale ne suffit plus.
En matière de semences, on oppose souvent un modèle orienté vers le business à un modèle orienté vers l’agriculture paysanne. Ces deux modèles ont des implications socio-économiques différentes, aussi bien en termes d’emplois, que d’autonomie des agriculteurs ou de biodiversité. Les agricultures paysannes des pays du Sud ont-elles le poids et l’influence politique nécessaires pour faire prévaloir leurs modèles semenciers ? C’est la question que nous explorons dans ce dossier.
Early applications of the innovation systems framework to developing-country agriculture suggest opportunities for more intensive and extensive analysis. There is ample scope for empirical studies to make greater use of the theoretical content available in the literature, and to employ more diverse methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. Further, there is room to improve the relevance of empirical studies to the analysis of public policies that support science, technology, and innovation, as well as to policies that promote poverty reduction and economic growth.
This paper traces the evolution of the innovation systems framework within the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa, and presents a conceptual framework for agricultural innovation systems. The difference between innovation ecology/ecosystems and intervention-based innovations systems is highlighted, given that these two concepts are used at different levels in promoting and sustaining agricultural innovations.
Argentine agriculture has undergone significant transformations over the past three decades. After a long period of stagnant production and productivity, starting in the early 1970s, a number of independent but interconnected events fostered a new technological cycle that induced rapid growth in cereals and oilseeds production. Zero tillage and the introduction of genetically modified soybean varieties were key elements of this change. Argentina reached a leading position across agricultural commodity markets.
This Thematic Research Note reviews the evolution of collective action among smallholders. It assesses determinants of their success such as incentives, capacities, and social impediments. The Note also discusses lessons and options for future action. These include lessons from collective action for market participation by African smallholders, value chain penetration by developed country farmers, and natural resources management among pastoralist communities.
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.