Unlike in many other countries, in Bulgaria there are no comprehensive analysis of the state and evolution of the system of knowledge sharing, innovation and digitalization in agriculture (AKIS). The goal of this paper is to fill the gap and analyze the state, efficiency and factors of the agricultural knowledge sharing, innovation and digitalization in Bulgaria at current stage of development.
Unlike in many other countries, in Bulgaria there are no comprehensive analysis of the state and evolution of the system of knowledge sharing, innovation and digitalization in agriculture (AKIS). The goal of this paper is to fill the gap and analyze the state, efficiency and factors of the agricultural knowledge sharing, innovation and digitalization in Bulgaria at current stage of development.
According to the literature on regime transition, niches are sources of innovation that may lead to the transformation of the dominant regime, if processes at other level of the system – the landscape and the mainstream regime - are supportive. A focus on actors involved in the transition process and the analysis of their specific role in knowledge networks can help assessing the robustness of a specific niche and its growth potential. Knowledge systems, and in particular the dynamics of local and expert knowledge, have in fact a key role in innovation models.
El objetivo de esta tesis será analizar desde la perspectiva de los productores agrarios, su relación con la innovación y los servicios intensivos en conocimiento, promovidos por el Sistema Agrario de Conocimiento e Innovación (AKIS), en la Comunitat Valenciana. A lo largo de los capítulos de desarrollo, se propone evaluar la relación entre los factores clave del comportamiento innovador de los productores (orientación al mercado, orientación al aprendizaje, actitud innovadora), la percepción del desempeño de su explotación, y la valoración de los servicios de investigación y extensión.
The French Ministry of Agriculture has called for agro-ecological transitions that reconcile farming and the environment. In this review, we examine the transformations of farmers and AKIS (Agriculture Knowledge Innovation System) actors’ work during agro-ecological transitions, and argue that the content, organization, and aim of farmers’ work are influenced by agricultural training, agricultural development, and discussions between peers, research, and regulations. Our main findings concern those transformations.
The “ONE WORLD – No Hunger” Initiative (SEWOH) by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) is part of the G7 goal to free 500 million people from hunger and malnourishment by 2030. SEWOH intends to contribute significantly to reducing poverty and hunger in developing countries in general and Cameroon in particular. The Cameroonian project is part of the framework of the global project – “Green Innovation Centres for the Agriculture and Food Sector” (ProCISA).
En este libro se detalla el procedimiento para valorar los cambios generados por los Laboratorios Territoriales de cacao, desarrollados entre el 2019 y 2021 con la participación de comunidades campesinas del departamento de Antioquia. Esta valoración se estructuró desde los debates recientes sobre la extensión rural y las estrategias para el análisis de impactos de proyectos con propósitos de transformación social.
Agriculture is crucial for the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss and resource degradation. The contribution of agriculture to these environmental problems has been exacerbated by subsidies, which constitute the dominant public policy to support farmers. At the same time, other economic instruments introducing more sustainable land-use practices and incentivizing better environmental and social outcomes are already being applied worldwide.
The study was designed to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI's multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
What are the patterns of funding in agricultural innovation for the Global South1 ? Who are the key funders in this innovation and who are the key recipients? How doesthis funding split between various topics and value chains? What proportion of these funds support Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)? And how is SAI innovation funding split across different parts of the agriculture sector funding and innovation canvas?