This paper examines the role of postsecondary agricultural education and training (AET) in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of the region’s agricultural innovation systems. Specifically, the paper looks at how AET in sub-Saharan Africa can contribute to agricultural development by strengthening innovative capacity, or the ability of individuals and organisations to introduce new products and processes that are socially or economically relevant, particularly with respect to smallholder farmers who represent the largest group of agricultural producers in the region.
Natural hazards have become more frequent and intense in the last few decades, increasing the often significant negative impacts on the gross domestic product of countries in southern Africa and undermining development efforts. Forecasts are negative as a result of climate change, which is increasingly linked to more frequent and severe weather patterns that are expected to have a dramatic impact on these countries‘ economies and environments.
Drawing on a systematic review of over 500 documents, this study finds that, although FFS (farm field schools) projects have changed practices and raised yields in pilot projects, they have not been effective when taken to scale. The FFS approach requires a degree of facilitation and skilled facilitators, which are difficult to sustain beyond the life of the pilot programmes. FFS typically promotes better use of pesticides, which requires hands-on experience to encourage adoption. As a result, diffusion is unlikely and has rarely occurred in practice.
The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach has been very successful and witnessed a strong expansion in many areas beyond crop production. Notwithstanding this success, the adoption of FFS in national extension often remains problematic and FFS activities have often been implemented in the margin of national institutions with strong reliance on donor funding. The creation of an enabling environment for institutional support is essential for expanding the effort, improving quality, and strengthening impact and continuity of the FFSs.
The first phase in the development of the Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation systems (CD for AIS) consisted of the review of the existing literature, building up a repository of relevant documentation on agricultural innovation in general and AIS and CD for AIS. This report summarizes this first phase. In particular, Section 1 covers this brief introduction. Sections two and three focus on the review of relevant literature, presenting the methodology used and the structure of the repository itself.
As the name suggests, the original aim of the Rural Knowledge Network (RKN) was to make more information available specifically about markets, to smallholder farmers. The core idea was to provide information to farmers and traders about current market prices in different markets around the country. This was done by building a network of entrepreneurs who regularly collected the price information and sent it to a central collecting Internet platform facility.
This report describes the 2012 NAIS Assessment was piloted in 4 countries: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire, open-ended interview questions, and data mining of secondary sources. A team led by a national coordinator took charge of data collection from various partner organizations in each country.
The project “Strengthening Community Resilience to Change: Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research” (CLIC–SR), supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was completed on 31 August 2016. During the four years since 2012, the Prolinnova Country Platforms in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda made large strides in:
Afghanistan-ICARDA programs have field tested a range of rural development approaches and practices. Many of these are ripe for scaling-up at national level and can contribute to the EU-Afghanistan National Priority Programs (NPP) 2017-2021.
According to the authors of this paper, actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus would not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect.