Depuis plusieurs décennies, les pays de l’Afrique de l’Ouest se sont investis dans le développement et la diffusion des innovations agricoles dans le but d’accroître la productivité agricole et la production vivrière en particulier. Plusieurs mécanismes et approches ont été développés à cet effet en vue d’une utilisation efficace de ces innovations agricoles par les producteurs.
This paper is the result of a joint effort of OECD/DAC and LenCD to assemble the critical messages about training and learning that are emerging from the current international scrutiny of training and capacity development. It synthesises current wisdom on the topic, and offers a sense of direction on where the debate is going, particularly in terms of approaches to capacity development interventions at country and field levels. The paper is written primarily for the demand side, i.e.
The relationships between agriculture, the environment, and development are deep and complex. By 2050 a 70 per cent increase in production will be needed to feed an additional 2.7 billion people on an already degraded natural resource base. In light of this and amid the realities of climate change, the agricultural sector is now coming to terms with its potential role for contributing to – rather than diminishing - environmental, institutional, social and economic resilience.
World Bank Institute (WBI) works to improve the understanding, practice and results of capacity development, an important way to support development goals and priorities for aid effectiveness. WBI developed the Capacity Development and Results Framework (CDRF), as a strategic and country-led approach to capacity development that emphasizes the empowerment of local agents through learning, knowledge and innovation.
This paper traces the evolution of the innovation systems framework within the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa, and presents a conceptual framework for agricultural innovation systems. The difference between innovation ecology/ecosystems and intervention-based innovations systems is highlighted, given that these two concepts are used at different levels in promoting and sustaining agricultural innovations.
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 purpose of the paper, using a comprehensive innovation systems failure framework, is to assess the performance of agrifood innovation systems of Scotland and the Netherlands, through analysis of the key innovation actors (organisations, networks or influential individuals), and their key functions (research provider, intermediary etc), and those mechanisms that either facilitate or hinder the operation of the IS (known as inducing and blocking mechanisms, respectively).
The emergence of a globalised knowledge economy, and the contemporary views of innovation capacity that this trend enables and informs, provides a new context in which development assistance to agricultural research and development needs to be considered. The main argument in this paper, which focuses on The Netherlands, is that development assistance should use this emerging scenario to identify niches where inputs can add value to the R&D investments of others, particularly in activities that help wire up innovation systems, linking R&D to other activities and actors in society.
Recent interest in inclusive innovation to serve base-of-the-pyramid markets has so far produced relatively little evidence about the role of policy. Drawing on cases from Kenya's mobile phone sector that have successfully scaled innovations to poor consumers, we suggest that policy-making is not only present, but can also have a significant role in shaping and supporting inclusive innovation systems. In these cases, inclusive innovation has been built upon a reinforcing circle of adaptive innovation, dynamic competition, and presence of innovation intermediaries within poor communities.
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.