This presentation sets out a future research agenda for research on agricultural extension and advisory services, under influence of sustainability transitions and disruptive technologies such as digital agriculture technology, and synthetic foods. For a recording of the presentation see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03V7zSD63pw
This publications is a review and compilation of technologies and management practices for smallholder organic farmers. This manual is a joint activity between the Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC) and the Technologies and practices for smallholder farmers (TECA) Team from the Research and Extension team AGDR of FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy.
This training manual was prepared under the EU-funded project Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS), a global partnership (Agrinatura, FAO and 8 pilot countries) that aims to strengthen the capacity of countries and key stakeholders to innovate in complex agricultural systems, thereby achieving improved rural livelihoods.
Change in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is not easily understood in terms of Western innovation discourses. In fact, innovations in the sense of modern and growth-oriented technologies are common sources for the erosion of TEK. This article brings together current literatures on TEK and innovation studies in addressing questions about the governance of socio-ecological change
This paper represents a guidance to USAID on elements to incorporate into a strategy to improve agricultural research, and a technical brief to guide USAID investments in NARS strengthening. The paper is the final output from a one-day Roundtable which was held on March 5, 2013 and that brought together some 30 specialists in agricultural research and agricultural research systems to discuss which USAID interventions would best strengthen NARS in developing countries.
This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes that address ‘competing claims’ on natural resources and their management.
The usual linear top-down approach of the innovation process has been transformed into an 'ecological vision' in which regions make up the appropriate scale for the elaboration of agricultural innovation systems (AIS). Interfaces such as institutional arrangements have been created in industrial countries. However, there is still a lack of interaction among parties involved in innovation for the agricultural sector, especially in the outermost regions and in developing countries.
Intermediary actors have been proposed as key catalysts that speed up change towards more sustainable socio-technical systems. Research on this topic has gradually gained traction since 2009, but has been complicated by the inconsistency regarding what intermediaries are in the context of such transitions and which activities they focus on, or should focus on. This study briefly elaborates on the conceptual foundations of the studies of intermediaries in transitions, and how intermediaries have been connected to different transition theories.
Presented at the ‘Building Livelihoods Resilience in a Changing Climate’ conference, Kuala Lumpur, 3-5th March 2011, this paper focuses on the Local Adaptive Capacity framework (LAC), developed under the Africa Climate Change Alliance Project (ACCRA), as an innovative initiative that attempts to move towards a better understanding of its core features through isolating five characteristics of adaptive capacity. Demonstrated through findings from field research across three African countries (Ethiopia, Mozambique and Uganda), this paper argues that frameworks for understanding and supporting
The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality.