La co-conception de systèmes agricoles innovants est une piste prometteuse pour répondre au défi de l’innovation, notamment pour les exploitations agricoles familiales africaines confrontées à de multiples changements. Mais il faut penser à la place et aux rôles tenus par de multiples acteurs (agriculteurs, conseillers, chercheurs) pour produire les changements souhaités par toutes les parties, et donc réfléchir à la question du partenariat dans le processus.
This editorial paper brings together different streams of research providing novel perspectives on co-design and co-innovation in agriculture, including methods, tools and organizations.
How do systemic intermediaries obtain legitimate roles for themselves in innovation systems and transition processes? This is still an understudied question in the study of systemic intermediaries. This study started from the observation that roles, or positions, are not given, but emerge in interactions as a negotiated set of rights and obligations.
Intermediary actors have been proposed as key catalysts that speed up change towards more sustainable socio-technical systems. Research on this topic has gradually gained traction since 2009, but has been complicated by the inconsistency regarding what intermediaries are in the context of such transitions and which activities they focus on, or should focus on. This study briefly elaborates on the conceptual foundations of the studies of intermediaries in transitions, and how intermediaries have been connected to different transition theories.
Les politiques publiques en faveur du développement rural se matérialisent au travers d’instruments incitatifs, de règlements particuliers, ou encore par l’accompagnement des initiatives particulières. Ceux-ci répondent en général à la mise en place d’une stratégie nationale d’appui à une filière agricole. Dans le cas du quinoa cultivé au Chili, chaque région de production observe un développement propre.
Well-designed and supported innovation niches may facilitate transitions towards sustainable agricultural futures, which may follow different approaches and paradigms such as agroecology, local place-based food systems, vertical farming, bioeconomy, urban agriculture, and smart farming or digital farming.
This paper addresses the question how public-private partnerships (PPPs) function as systemic innovation policy instruments within agricultural innovation systems. Public-private partnerships are a popular government tool to promote innovations. However, the wide ranging nature of PPPs make it difficult to assess their effects beyond the direct impacts they generate for the partners.
This paper makes a contribution to understanding the impact of relational trust, as embodied within bonding, bridging and linking social capital, on rural innovation. Using cases of multi-stakeholder groups who work together on shared problems it explores how social capital and different forms of trust (companion, competence and commitment) influence rural innovation processes. Looking at both the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side of social capital, our focus is on how social capital and trust constrain and enable the process of innovation.
This paper makes a contribution to understanding the impact of relational trust, as embodied within bonding, bridging and linking social capital, on rural innovation. Using cases of multi-stakeholder groups who work together on shared problems it explores how social capital and different forms of trust (companion, competence and commitment) influence rural innovation processes. Looking at both the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ side of social capital, our focus is on how social capital and trust constrain and enable the process of innovation.
On-farm agricultural innovation through incorporation of new technologies and practices requires access to resources such as knowledge, financial resources, training, and even emotional support, all of which require the support of different actors such as peers, advisors, and researchers. The literature has explored the support networks that farmers use and the overall importance ranking of different support actors, but it has not looked in detail at how these networks may differ for different farmers.