Though research on communication and innovation during the last decade brought better understanding on the innovation process, this has not influenced the underlying paradigm and practice of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in most countries. At the same time there have been few initiatives that tried to experiment with new ways of developing capacities for extension and innovation.
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.
In an effort to raise incomes and increase resilience of smallholder farmers and their families in Feed the Future1 (FTF) countries, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded the Developing Local Extension Capacity (DLEC) project. This project is led by Digital Green in partnership with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), CARE International (CARE) and multiple resource partners.
Bien que l’appui apporté aux communautés rurales en matière de renforcement de la vulgarisation et de conseil, ait fait l’objet de nombreux débats ces dernières années, l’on sait peu de choses sur la façon de renforcer les capacités nécessaires dans les services de vulgarisation et de conseil (SVC), et sur le rôle que ces services jouent dans le système d’innovation agricole (SIA).
The Worldwide Extension Study provides empirical data on the human and financial resources of agricultural extension and advisory systems worldwide, as well as other important information on: the primary extension service providers in each country (e.g.: public, private and/or non-governmental); which types and groups of farmers are the primary target groups (e.g.: large, medium, and/or small-scale farmers, including rural women) for each extension organization; how each organization’s resources are allocated to key extension and advisory service functions; each organization’s information a
Ethiopian agriculture is changing as new actors, relationships, and policies influence the ways in which small-scale, resource-poor farmers access and use information and knowledge in their agricultural production decisions. Although these changes suggest new opportunities for smallholders, too little is known about how changes will ultimately improve the wellbeing of smallholders in Ethiopia. The authors of this paper examine whether these changes are improving the ability of smallholders to innovate and thus improve their own welfare.
This paper presents the processes, general guidelines lessons and experiences pertaining to “good practices” for organizing and forming Agricultural Innovation Platforms in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site, covering three countries (Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo) with widely differing social political environments to address agricultural development challenges.
This paper examines how the different institutional innovations arising from various permutations of linkages and interactions of ARD organizations (national, international advanced agricultural research centres and universities) influenced the different outcomes in addressing identified ARD problems.
This chapter is a part of the book Integrated Agricultural Research for Development: from Concept to Practice. It focuses on the development and implementation of action plans for innovation platforms (IPs). The chapter introduces the constitution of committees, IP operationalisation, the case of IP functioning in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and post-formation issues for IPs.
The chapter is a part of the book Integrated Agricultural Research for Development: from Concept to Practice.