Une analyse de trajectoires d’innovations agricoles au Bénin observées dans la longue durée permet d’en identifier les facteurs de diffusion à grande échelle. Beaucoup d’innovations passent inaperçues sur de longs tronçons de leur trajectoire, étant endogènes ou impliquant des acteurs non « conventionnels » et pas d’organisations de recherche. Les innovations qui passent à grande échelle sont en fait des faisceaux d’innovations technologiques, institutionnelles ou organisationnelles qui s’enchaînent les unes en réponse aux contraintes des autres.
Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.
in the context of the EU-funded JOLISAA (JOint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture) project, four local innovation processes involving smallholders in Benin were selected for in-depth assessment: innovation in hwedo agrofishing, integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), rice parboiling and soy value chains. Stakeholders directly involved in the innovation process were interviewed.
Agricultural extension in sub-Saharan Africa has often been criticised for its focus on linear knowledge transfer, and limited attention to systemic approaches to service delivery. Currently, the region is experiencing a new-ICT revolution and there are high expectations of new-ICTs to enhance interaction and information exchange in extension service delivery. Using an innovation systems perspective, we distinguish the roles demand-articulation, matching demand and supply, and innovation process management for innovation-intermediaries.
Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) have been playing an increasing role in interventions aiming to generate and scale innovations in agricultural systems. However, the contribution of MSPs in achieving innovations and scaling has been varied, and many factors have been reported to be important for their performance. This paper aims to provide evidence on the contribution of MSPs to innovation and scaling by focusing on three developing country cases in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda.
Esta revisión de la literatura muestra la diversidad de puntos de vista en la caracterización del AIS (visión estructural, visión funcional, visión ba-sada en procesos, visión basada en capacidades). Estas diferentes visiones del AIS se basan en diferentes hipótesis y abarcan diferentes métodos de análisis del AIS. Los académicos consideran que estos puntos de vista son complementarios y útiles para una evaluación operativa del AIS. Debido a esta multiplicidad de puntos de vista analíticos, se ha desarrollado un gran número de métodos.
Tomando el caso de la agricultura holandesa como ejemplo, en este documento se hace un análisis del surgimiento y el papel de los gestores sistémicos de innovación en el estímulo de la interacción al interior del sistema de innovación agrícola y el desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación, además de reflexionar sobre su posible función en la agricultura de los países en vías de desarrollo y emergentes así como en la forma en que se puede promover su surgimiento y operación.
How do the innovation platforms and facilitated networks currently deployed in the Global South help trigger dynamics of collaborative innovation that can be useful for the agroecological transition? What are the difficulties encountered and how can they be overcome? This chapter throws lights on these questions. The first part justifies the interest in studying the ecologisation of agriculture through the prism of collaborative innovation and of its paradoxes.
Research for development (R4D) projects increasingly engage in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (IPs) asan innovation methodology, but there is limited knowledge of how the IP methodology spreads from one contextto another. That is, how experimentation with an IP approach in one context leads to it being succesfully re-plicated in other contexts.
Multi-stakeholder platforms have become mainstream in projects, programmes and policy interventions aiming to improve innovation and livelihoods systems, i.e. research for development interventions in low-and middle-income contexts. However, the evidence for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions and their added value is not compelling. This paper focuses on stakeholder participation as one of the channels for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions, i.e.