The inadequate linkage of knowledge generation in agricultural research organizations with policy-making and economic activity is an important barrier to sustainable development and poverty reduction. The emerging fields of sustainability science and innovation systems studies highlight the importance of “boundary management” and “innovation brokering” in linking knowledge production, policy-making, and economic activities. This paper analyzes how the Papa Andina Partnership Program, based at the International Potato Center, functions as an innovation broker in the Andean potato sector.
El proyecto "Innovación para la seguridad y la soberanía alimentaria en la región andina" - IssAndes, se inició en marzo del 2011 y culminó en marzo del 2015. El proyecto fue ejecutado en Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú y Colombia, con socios de agricultura, salud y educación en cada país. Fue coordinado por el Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) y financiado por la Unión Europea a través del Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDA).
Este artículo analiza algunos conceptos sobre el desarrollo de cadenas de valor como un tipo de intervención que promueve el crecimiento agrícola y apunta a mejorar los ingresos de los productores mediante el fortalecimiento de los vínculos entre las empresas y los pequeños productores.
El EPCP es un enfoque flexible que involucra a pequeños productores, agentes del mercado, investigadores y otros proveedores de servicios, en un proceso colectivo que identifica y aprovecha potenciales oportunidades de negocio, que puedan beneficiar equitativamente a los diversos actores de la cadena de mercado. Este enfoque fue desarrollado y aplicado primero en los Andes, para mejorar la competitividad de las cadenas de mercado de papa y mejorar los ingresos de los pequeños productores.
Papa Andina began as a regional research program focusing on the Andean potato sectors of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, but later shifted its focus to facilitating pro-poor innovation. To accomplish this shift, a number of approaches were developed to foster innovation, by facilitating mutual learning and collective action among individuals and groups with differing, often conflicting, interests.
he purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to take stock of the current state of knowledge about inclusive value-chain development (VCD) in the context of international agricultural research; and second, to draw out the implications for future research and action.
This paper is based on a review of recent research papers authored by professionals affiliated with international agricultural research centers and their partners in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. EAS are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (for example related to investment, staffing or productivity) are no longer adequate to assess the performance of EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. Advisory services are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (e.g. related to investment, staffing or productivity) are not adequate anymore to understand whether the system is well-functioning.