Increasing attention is being given to evaluating the impact of advisory services in terms of their effectiveness in providing farmers with knowledge and networks for innovation as well as understanding the factors that influence this effectiveness (Prager et al, 2017). The demand and uptake of advisory services is one factor and Klerkx et al (2017) comment on the variation in farmers’ demand and the influences of variables such as farm size, asset status and education as well as stability or turbulence in the regulatory environment.
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 profound changes in European policy for farms advisory services (FAS) require a period of experimentation and results observation before the new CAP 2021-2027. This paper focuses on Measure 2 of Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020. The paper is focused on the description of case studies in three Italian regions: Campania, Emilia-Romagna and Veneto. Different Measure 2 – sub-measure 2.1 models are analyzed through a qualitative approach, using a conceptual framework adapted by Birner et al. (2009).
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?
Increasing investment and spending in agricultural innovation is not enough to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets of ending poverty and hunger because the effectiveness of investments in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries is affected by the low quality of infrastructure and services provided, and by different norms and practices that create a considerable gap between financing known technical solutions and achieving the outcomes called for in the SDGs.