Le gouvernement de Lula a considérablement amplifié et diversifié le Programme d’Appui à l’Agriculture Familiale (PRONAF), créé par le gouvernement Fernando Henrique Cardoso en 1995. Ce choix affirmé sur la longue durée pour l’agriculture familiale, peut surprendre dans un Brésil qui a toujours, tout au long de son histoire, privilégié l’agriculture « d’entreprise » : latifundia et entreprises agricoles.
Le semis direct est un système de production fondé sur le non-travail du sol. Il intègre une série de pratiques agricoles qui permettent de protéger les sols cultivés de l’érosion, de réduire les consommations de carburants, voire d’augmenter les rendements. Le large succès du semis direct au Brésil, contribue à la compétitivité et à la forte croissance de ses productions tout en préservant les sols. Le système complet du semis direct sous couvert est fondé sur trois principes : le non-labour, la couverture permanente du sol et des rotations culturales.
L’ouest du Rio Grande do Sul est dominé par la culture du soja, du riz et par l’élevage bovin. Dans la partie sableuse, le milieu est affecté par des phénomènes d’érosion produisant des modelés éoliens spectaculaires (arenização) rappelant dans l’imaginaire ceux des déserts. La production agricole est importante ce qui engendre des prélèvements d’eau pour l’irrigation du riz, mais aussi l’utilisation de pesticides pour l’ensemble des cultures. La gestion durable des ressources en eau et en sol de cette région nécessite la mise en place d’action de conservation.
The increasing complexity of technology development and adoption is rapidly changing the effectiveness of scientific and technological policies. Complex technologies are developed and disseminated by networks of agents. The impact of these networks depends on the assets they command, their learning routines, the socio-economic environment in which they operate and their history.
This report is concerned with the ‘who?’ ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of pro-poor extension. It builds on the analytical framework proposed in the Inception Report of the same study (Christoplos, Farrington and Kidd, 2001), taking it forward by fleshing out the analysis with empirical information gathered from several countries during the course of the study (from primary data in Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda and Vietnam, and from secondary sources in a range of other countries, including India), and drawing conclusions on the scope for action by governments and donors in a range of contexts.
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.
This report on actors and issues in rural advisory services (RAS) aims to provide the required background information and analysis that will – together with other ongoing validation activities – enable GFRAS, the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, to develop its long-term strategies and work plans in order to fulfil its mission and functions. The report on actors and issues in rural advisory services (RAS) is based on a review of primary and secondary documentation about RAS and their stakeholders, undertaken in 2010.
This publication represents a synthesis of assessments of national agricultural innovation systems in countries of Central Asia, South Caucasus and Turkey. The first chapter gives an introduction of the project “Capacity Development for Analysis and Strengthening of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Turkey”, out of which the current publication reports about one of the project outputs achieved.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
In this paper, presented at the 8th European IFSA Symposium ( Workshop 6: "Change in knowledge systems and extension services: Role of the new actors") in 2008, the authors discuss a conceptual framework that understands innovation processes as the outcome of collaborative networks where information is exchanged and learning processes happen. They argue that technical and economic factors used to analyse drivers and barriers alone are not sufficient to understand innovation processes.