Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a set of farming methods, and also a grassroots peasant movement, which has spread to various states in India. It has attained wide success in southern India, especially the southern Indian state of Karnataka where it first evolved. The movement in Karnataka state was born out of collaboration between Mr Subhash Palekar, who put together the ZBNF practices, and the state farmers association Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS), a member of La Via Campesina (LVC).
It is now widely acknowledged that biotechnology will have significant implications for development. While biotechnology’s potential for low income economies is still the subject of controversy, this paper argues that it is precisely in these countries that food and agriculture related biotechnology could efficiently contribute to the achievement of development objectives. To date, however, biotechnological advances have been realized predominantly in industrialized countries.
Cross bred cow adoption is an important and potent policy variable precipitating subsistence household entry into emerging bulk markets. This paper focuses on the design of policies that create and sustain milk-market expansion among a sample of households in the Ethiopian highlands. In this context it is desirable to measure a household's `proximity' to market in terms of the level of deficiency of an essential input. This problem is compounded by four factors.
Mainstream agricultural research has focused primarily on technical and biological aspects and is aimed at controlling or manipulating nature through the use of external inputs, such as
agricultural chemicals or super seed. In developing countries, the results of this research have benefited some resource-rich farmers in well-endowed areas, were suitable to only a limited
extent for poorer farmers in the more favourable areas, and were - in most cases - completely inappropriate for small-scale farmers in marginal areas, e.g. in the mountains or the drylands.
Following the remarkable success of performance testing in the commercial sector, the Agricultural Research Council's Animal Improvement Institute (ARC–AII) initiated a beef cattle performance testing scheme for smallholder farmers in 1996. The scheme, which became known as Kaonafatsho ya Dikgomo (Sotho for animal improvement), has been running well in the Northern and North West Provinces and is set to spread gradually to the rest of the country.
This report is concerned with the ‘who?’ ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of pro-poor extension. It builds on the analytical framework proposed in the Inception Report of the same study (Christoplos, Farrington and Kidd, 2001), taking it forward by fleshing out the analysis with empirical information gathered from several countries during the course of the study (from primary data in Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda and Vietnam, and from secondary sources in a range of other countries, including India), and drawing conclusions on the scope for action by governments and donors in a range of contexts.
The aim of this paper is to show the importance of monitoring genetic improvement programmes using the examples of an improvement programme for the Sahiwal breed in Kenya and a progeny testing scheme for Friesian cattle in Kenya. The paper is based on reports by Rege et al. (1992) and Rege and Wakhungu (1992) for the Sahiwal project and Rege (1991a and 1991b) for the progeny testing scheme for Friesian cattle.
This paper develops a quantitative, graph-theoretic method for analysing systems of institutions. With an application to the agricultural innovation system of Azerbaijan, the method is illustrated in detail. An assessment of existing institutional linkages in the system suggests that efforts should be placed on the development of intermediary institutions to facilitate quick and effective flow of knowledge between the public and the private components of the system.
The paper explores the implications of rural livelihood diversity for agricultural innovation policies. It summarises literature on the nature of rural poverty, with particular emphasis on the relative roles of farm and non-farm income. It also reviews the various roles, direct and indirect, that agricultural innovation can play in rural poverty reduction. Finally, it uses an agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) perspective to argue for a differentiated approach to targeting agricultural innovations, based on an analysis of rural assets.
In times of market liberalization and structural adjustment, the agricultural sectors of developing countries face profound changes. To seize new market opportunities, farmers need to innovate. In order to innovate, farmers need new technologies and information on how to access and manage them, as well as better support services for the delivery of inputs and knowledge, and better infrastructure for delivering produce to the market.