Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become proactive and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations: vouchers, competitive grants and farmer-led innovation support funds.
Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.
L'innovation est souvent présentée comme l'un des principaux leviers pour promouvoir un développement plus durable et plus inclusif. Dans les domaines de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, l'innovation est marquée par des spécificités liées à sa relation à la nature, mais aussi à la grande diversité d'acteurs concernés, depuis les agriculteurs jusqu'aux consommateurs, en passant par les services de recherche et de développement.
Dans le contexte de crise économique et environnementale qui touche la filière banane à la Guadeloupe, l'objectif de cette contribution est d'engager une réflexion sur l'organisation d'acteurs à l'origine des innovations agro-écologiques. Nous interrogeons les dynamiques d’acteurs face aux crises et perturbations qui touchent l'agriculture antillaise, par le biais de l'organisation qu'ils mettent en place pour accompagner le changement.
The purpose of this piece of work is to investigate, through a literature review, the role of intermediaries in agricultural and rural development. In the first place, a general view of the roles of intermediaries, (focusing on the two main types of intermediaries, i.e. facilitators and brokers), as depicted in literature, is provided. Following, the emergence of facilitators and brokers in agricultural literature is explored based on the turn from reductionist to systemic science as well as from the expert syndrome to participatory development.
Well-designed and supported innovation niches may facilitate transitions towards sustainable agricultural futures, which may follow different approaches and paradigms such as agroecology, local place-based food systems, vertical farming, bioeconomy, urban agriculture, and smart farming or digital farming.
Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.
This paper addresses the question how public-private partnerships (PPPs) function as systemic innovation policy instruments within agricultural innovation systems. Public-private partnerships are a popular government tool to promote innovations. However, the wide ranging nature of PPPs make it difficult to assess their effects beyond the direct impacts they generate for the partners.
As part of the EU funded AgriSpin project (www.agrispin.eu), which aimed at “creating space for innovations” in agriculture across Europe, this contribution addresses the above mentioned knowledge gaps by a. elaborating a generic typology appropriate to capture the variety of ISS, b. structuring selected innovations along the degree of technological change and coordination levels, and c.
This paper makes a contribution to understanding the impact of relational trust, as embodied within bonding, bridging and linking social capital, on rural innovation. Using cases of multi-stakeholder groups who work together on shared problems it explores how social capital and different forms of trust (companion, competence and commitment) influence rural innovation processes. Looking at both the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side of social capital, our focus is on how social capital and trust constrain and enable the process of innovation.