The universal application of the T&V model of agricultural extension in more than 50 countries is one of agricultural development’s best known failures. The approach worked well in places where it was originally developed, but proved inappropriate almost everywhere else. In this report Rasheed Sulaiman V. and Andy Hall worry that an apparently successful extension innovation piloted in India is set to suffer a similar fate.
The aim of WP5 is to answer the question: What governs Small Farm and Small Food Business activities? The specific aim of this report (and the related task 5.1) is to identify and assess the forms of governance that influence, both positively and negatively, the contribution of small farms and small food businesses (SF/SFB) to Sustainable Food and Nutritional Security (FNS). In doing so, the work proceeds around the following objectives:
The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.
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 study analyses the impact of the transfer of technological information (among other a priori identified factors) on the uptake of innovative crop technologies using structural equation modelling of data from a representative survey of Scottish crop farmers. The model explains 83% of the variance in current technological uptake behaviour and 63% of the variance in intentions to uptake new technologies.
This report represents findings on the role of women in small-scale farming (defined as farms up to 5 ha or 8 ESU), particularly in relation to governance frameworks associated with food and nutrition security. It follows SALSA Deliverable 5.1, which assesses the governance arrangements which impact upon small-scale farms and small food businesses. Both reports utilise the data collected in SALSA WP3 (In-depth assessment of food systems in 30 regions).
Deliverable 5.3 is based on an internal report produced under Task 5.3 'Enabling governance frameworks' (UPV team), and Task 5.4 'Governance Framework analysis'. Task 5.3 provided further analysis of 3 governance forms that were identified in Deliverable 5.1. (The Governance of Small Farms and Small Food Businesses to support food and nutritional security) as most enabling small farms and small food business to contribute to food and nutrition security. These were: 1. Cooperative arrangements and associations; 2. State subsidies and financial assistance; and, 3.
It is clear that any definition of a small farm needs to be based on national and regional realities. Definitions involving only the criterion of farm size have universal appeal as they are relatively easy to apply and allow simple comparisons across countries and world regions. However, they don't capture all the complexities of farming. Definitions involving additional criteria to farm size are more meaningful, particularly those including indicators of the farm economic output, but data availability is often a limitation (Ruane, 2016).
This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Tools and (iv) Organisational Format.
Farmers and businesses need to adapt constantly if they are to survive and compete in the rapidly evolving environment associated with the contemporary agricultural sector. Rethinking agricultural research as part of a dynamic system of innovation could help to design ways of creating and sustaining conditions that will support the process of adaptation and innovation. This approach involves developing the working styles and practices of individuals and organizations and the incentives, support structures and policy environments that encourage innovation.