This article therefore analyses whether agricultural advisors representing companies that do not sell pesticides (independent advisors) are more likely to recommend reduced pesticide use than agricultural advisors who represent companies with an economic interest in selling pesticides (supplier-affiliated advisors). However, we would not necessarily expect a crude relationship between economic incentive and higher pesticide recommendations. After all, advisors have to justify their recommendations to their customers, the farmers.
Adoptions of improved technologies and production practices are important drivers of agricultural development in low-income countries like Nepal. Adopting a broad class of such technologies and practices is often critical for meeting the multifaceted goals of efficiency, profitability, environmental sustainability, and climate resilience.
mNutrition was a five-year global initiative supported by the Department for International Development (DFID) between 2013 and 2018, organised by GSMA and implemented by in-country mobile network operators (MNOs) and other providers. The evaluation was carried out by a consortium of researchers from Gamos, the Institute of Development Studies, and the International Food Policy Research Institute. This briefing summarises key evaluation findings and presents lessons learned on three key topics: 1.
The primary aim of this research was to examine the factors influencing behavioral intention of farmers to use ICTs for agricultural risk management. The past research reveals that many researchers had tried to determine factors affecting behavioural intentions of the respondents and TPB has been applied as technology acceptance model in various contexts. However, predicting behavioral intentions to use ICTs for agricultural risk management has not been evaluated from the actual field. Therefore, the data were collected from 360 farmers through multistage cluster sampling technique.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. Advisory services are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (e.g. related to investment, staffing or productivity) are not adequate anymore to understand whether the system is well-functioning.
Ce guide technique sur le «consentement préalable, donné librement et en connaissance de cause» (CPLCC) établit des mesures concrètes permettant aux organisations gouvernementales de respecter et de protéger le CPLCC et aux organisations de la société civile, aux utilisateurs des terres et aux investisseurs privés dans le monde de s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités envers le CPLCC, conformément à ces Directives.
Given the diversity and context-specificity of innovation systems approaches, in March 2007 the World Bank organized a workshop in which about 80 experts (representing donor agencies, development and related agencies, academia, and the World Bank) took stock of recent experiences with innovation systems in agriculture and reconsidered strategies for their future development. This paper summarizes the workshop findings and uses them to develop and discuss key issues in applying the innovation systems concept. The workshop’s recommendations, including next steps for the wider
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.
This report on actors and issues in rural advisory services (RAS) aims to provide the required background information and analysis that will – together with other ongoing validation activities – enable GFRAS, the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, to develop its long-term strategies and work plans in order to fulfil its mission and functions. The report on actors and issues in rural advisory services (RAS) is based on a review of primary and secondary documentation about RAS and their stakeholders, undertaken in 2010.