The nature of the issues around which Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships are formed requires a different way of conceptualizing and thinking to that commonly found in many agricultural professionals. This brief clarifies the components of a system of interest to an ARD partnership.
Although it is not always acknowledged, power differences between partners fundamentally affect Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships. In referring to its African-European ARD partnerships, PAEPARD has often alluded to aspects of power without naming them as such. The project was established to create “equitable and balanced partnerships” between: a) researchers and research users, and b) African and European partners.
Inclusion is a key issue for Agricultural Research for Development (ARD). Development goals in and of themselves call for better livelihoods and opportunities for the less privileged actors working in agriculture. They also call for greater equity and balanced representation of the population at an institutional level. This brief focuses on how ARD processes can more sensitively address gender relations and youth issues. Women and young people have distinctive needs and interests which can be less visible within broader “Producer Organizations”, for example.
Networks and organizations need to find ways to be more effective in pursuing their objectives and thus seek to “learn” to be able to respond, innovate and adapt to complex, changing social and environmental conditions, thus bringing about social change. An essential capacity for ARD (Agricultural Research for Development) partnerships is therefore the ability to reflect and learn. Learning is not simply about increasing knowledge and skills or changing attitudes; it is about making sense of complexity to act more effectively.
This brief illustrates the different forms of knowledge, and the ways to create and manage it.
The international workshop on Agricultural Innovation Systems in Africa (AISA) was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on 29–31 May 2013. Its main objectives were to learn jointly about agricultural innovation processes and systems in Africa, identify policy implications and develop policy messages, and explore perspectives for collaborative action research on smallholder agricultural innovation.The workshop focused on sharing experiences in trying to understand and strengthen multi-stakeholder innovation processes and the role of smallholders in innovation, and identifying and discussing priorities an
Cet article présente les résultats clés tirés de l’analyse transversale de 13 expériences d’innovation agricole menées au Bénin, au Kenya et en Afrique du Sud. L’évaluation a utilisé un cadre analytique commun inspiré de l’approche systèmes d’innovation pour comprendre comment l’innovation a évolué au fil du temps via les interactions entre différents acteurs et sous l’effet d’éléments déclencheurs et moteurs internes et externes.
The current study sought to analyse the livelihood impact of innovation platforms on small holders in the study areas based on the previous studies that identified successful Innovation Platforms in Eastern and Western Kenya. The study concentrated on four successful innovation platforms that were identified in a previous study In that study, fifteen innovation platforms were ranked based on a given criterion out of which the four innovation platforms were purposively chosen.
The study was conducted in Kirinyaga County on rice and bananas and in Kisumu County on rice. Was used qualitative and quantitative methods and interviewed 247 farmers comprising 182 rice and 60 banana farmers respectively. Ten key informant interviews were conducted in Ahero and nine in Mwea Rice Schemes and the surrounding areas. One focus group discussion was held with Mwea Jua Kali/Valley bottom farmers. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and cross tabulations.
This report is divided in 3 studies that acess the status of the agricultural innovation in Kenya.