Although many agronomic researchers currently focus on designing and developing decision support systems, they rarely discuss the methodological implications of such work. In this paper, with the examples of two decision support systems, we propose methodological elements for conducting the participatory design of such tools. The authors proposition aims at building dialogue between designers and users but also between humans, tools and work situations.
Participatory plant breeding (PPB) is based on the decentralization of selection in farmers’ fields and their involvement in decision-making at all steps of the breeding scheme. Despite the evidence of its benefits to develop population varieties adapted to diversified and local practices and conditions, such as organic farming, PPB is still not widely used. There is a need to share more broadly how the different programs have overcome scientific, practical, and organizational issues and produced a large number of positive outcomes.
A central concern about achieving global food security is reconfiguring agri-food systems towards sustainability. However, historically-informed trajectories of agri-food system development remain resistant to a change in direction. Through a systematic literature review, the authors identify three research domains exploring this phenomenon and six explanations of resistance: embedded nature of technologies, misaligned institutional settings, individual attitudes, political economy factors, infrastructural rigidities, research and innovation priorities.
The private sector dominates biotechnology research in industrialized countries, but there are major market failures in developing countries in accessing the new tools and technologies. The public sector, national and international, will have to play a major role in filling this gap. This paper provides an overview of options that countries of different sizes and capacities can employ to gain access to the research tools and technologies that they need to address issues of relevance to poor producers and consumers.
The adoption of genome editing depends among others, on a clear and navigable regulatory framework that renders consistent decisions. Some countries like the United States decided to deregulate specific transgene-free genome edited products that could be created through traditional breeding and are not considered to be plant pests, while others are still challenged to fit emerging technologies in their regulatory system.
AgriFoodTech start-ups are coming to be seen as relevant players in the debate around and reality of the transformation of food systems, especially in view of emerging or already-established novel technologies (such as Artificial Intelligence, Sensors, Precision Fermentation, Robotics, Nanotechnologies, Genomics) that constitute Agriculture 4.0 and Food 4.0. However, so far, there have only been limited studies of this phenomena, which are scattered across disciplines, with no comprehensive overview of the state of the art and outlook for future research.
This synthesis report presents the outputs of the workshop organised by CTA at its headquarters in Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15-17 July 2008. The outputs are presented in two main parts, each corresponding to one of the workshop objectives, and ends with a section on the way forward as suggested by the workshop participants. It also includes a first attempt to come to a consolidated generic framework on AIS performance indicators, based on the outputs of the different working groups.
There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.
This report compiles country-reports that describe the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 in 33 countries associated to the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), which defined the European for the period from 2002 to 2006. Each country-report presents information about the main research players in 2006/2007 and about the current trends and the future needs for research topics and for the organisation of the agri-food research system.
This document provides a review of existing reports regarding the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 for 14 EU countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey) and also explores trends and needs in other EU or associated countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom).