This study provides a model that supports systematic stakeholder inclusion in agricultural technology. Building on the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) literature and attempting to add precision to the conversation around inclusion in technology design and governance, this study develops a framework for determining which stakeholder groups to engage in RRI processes. We developed the model using a specific industry case study: identifying the relevant stakeholders in the Canadian digital agriculture ecosystem.
This publication is providing a glimpse into how Katalyst is realising systemic change by making market systems more inclusive. As a result of the systemic changes, farmers are empowered to increase their incomes and improve their livelihoods, private companies are changing their business models as they recognize the buying power of small farmers and cater to their needs, and the public sector fulfills its role of supporting the poor more effectively by creating conducive enabling environments.
According to the authors of this paper, actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus would not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect.
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 nature of the issues around which Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships are formed requires a different way of conceptualizing and thinking to that commonly found in many agricultural professionals. This brief clarifies the components of a system of interest to an ARD partnership.
Ce guide est principalement destiné aux membres des services opérationnels des organismes de développement internationaux et régionaux et des administrations nationales qui sont chargés de concevoir et d’exécuter des projets de financement, ainsi qu’aux praticiens qui conçoivent des programmes thématiques et des programmes d’assistance technique.
Pendant des siècles, les agriculteurs, éleveurs, pêcheurs et sylviculteurs ont développé des systèmes agricoles diversifiés, adaptés à leurs conditions locales, en employant des techniques et des pratiques ingénieuses, éprouvées au fil du temps, afin de fournir un ensemble vital de services sociaux, culturels, écologiques et économiques à l'humanité. Ces «Systèmes ingénieux du patrimoine agricole mondial» (SIPAM) sont des paysages d'une beauté remarquable associant la biodiversité agricole à des écosystèmes résilients et à un précieux patrimoine culturel.
L'article propose d'utiliser le concept de sécurisation alimentaire pour étudier les actions et processus qui améliorent une situation alimentaire, plutôt que celui de sécurité alimentaire qui se réfère avant tout à la satisfaction de besoins alimentaires. Dans une première partie, ces deux concepts sont précisés et discutés. La sécurité alimentaire est caractérisée selon plusieurs dimensions : disponibilités, conditions d'accès, qualités des aliments, stabilité, mais aussi objectifs sociaux et politiques.
Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach for fully co-creating research into environmental problems with the public. The paper argues this is mostly done for manifest environmental problems that clearly threaten livelihoods and have highly predictable impacts. But the conventional PAR approach is not suitable when the impacts are poorly understood and pose a low threat to livelihoods. Such latent environmental problems do not have a clear conflict to be resolved; instead, the community’s inertia should be overcome.
During the period 2013-2019, the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network has served as a platform for collating the voices, insights, concerns, and experiences of people in the extension sphere of South Asia. Diverse professionals shared their concerns on the present and future of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in the form of blog conversations for AESA. Together, all of these individuals who are involved, interested and passionate about EAS, discussed ways to move beyond some of the seemingly intransigent problems that are hindering the professionalization of EAS.