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.
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.
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.
Du fait de leur transversalité et de leur objet, l'évaluation des politiques de développement territorial ne peut pas s'appuyer sur les outils utilisés pour évaluer les politiques sectorielles. Les questions procédurales sont très largement dominantes, les dispositifs portant essentiellement sur la gouvernance et la coordination. Pour évaluer une démarche procédurale, il convient de préciser le référentiel d’évaluation à la fois en termes du quoi et du comment évaluer.
Le développement territorial durable requiert des innovations aussi bien techniques, que sociales et institutionnelles. Favoriser ces innovations est l'objectif des récentes démarches d'ingénierie territoriale qui adaptent les processus d'innovation développés en entreprise. Dans cet article, la pertinence de cette orientation est discutée en s'appuyant sur les enseignements d'une recherche-action, menée dans un territoire « fragilisé » : l' « Alto Sertão du Piauí et du Pernambouco », dans le Nordeste brésilien.