The paper takes a critical look at two key interventions identified to deliver the PAEPARD capacity strengthening strategy. Firstly, the training of a pool of agricultural innovation facilitators (AIF) to broker relations between relevant stakeholders for the consolidation of effective consortia. PAEPARD envisaged the role of AIF as to support both the face-to-face and virtual (via skype, email or social media) engagement of partners in capacity strengthening processes.
Ce document analyse de façon critique deux interventions majeures identifiées pour mettre en œuvre la stratégie de renforcement des capacités de PAEPARD. La première intervention est la formation d’un vivier de facilitateurs de l’innovation agricole (FIA) pour assurer une médiation entre les acteurs concernés et, ainsi, consolider des consortiums efficaces. PAEPARD prévoyait que les FIA encouragent l’engagement virtuel (par l’intermédiaire de Skype, d’e-mails ou des réseaux sociaux) et en personne des partenaires dans des processus de renforcement des capacités.
Despite efforts over recent years to improve the status of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, little change has been noted, due partially to the fact that efforts have come from individual entities, which had short-term funding or lacked the necessary expertise to scale up research outputs. Disconnect between researchers and end-users has further hindered the success of such efforts.
Malgré les efforts déployés ces dernières années pour améliorer la situation de l’agriculture en Afrique subsaharienne, peu de changements ont été observés. Cet insuccès est dû, en partie, au fait que ces efforts ont été consentis par diverses entités de petite taille, aux capacités de financement à court terme et sans l’expertise nécessaire pour diffuser les résultats de leurs travaux de recherche. De plus, ces initiatives ont aussi pâti de la déconnexion entre la recherche et les utilisateurs finaux.
The nature of the issues around which Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships are formed requires a different way of conceptualizing and thinking to that commonly found in many agricultural professionals. This brief clarifies the components of a system of interest to an ARD partnership.
Networks and organizations need to find ways to be more effective in pursuing their objectives and thus seek to “learn” to be able to respond, innovate and adapt to complex, changing social and environmental conditions, thus bringing about social change. An essential capacity for ARD (Agricultural Research for Development) partnerships is therefore the ability to reflect and learn. Learning is not simply about increasing knowledge and skills or changing attitudes; it is about making sense of complexity to act more effectively.
This brief illustrates the different forms of knowledge, and the ways to create and manage it.
Poor farmers seldom benefit from new agricultural technologies. In response, research and extension approaches based on agricultural innovation systems are popular. Often agricultural research organisations are the network brokers, facilitating the emergence of the innovation system. Based on an analysis of the Sustainable Modernization of Traditional Agriculture (MasAgro) initiative in Mexico, this viewpoint suggests that such organisations are more often suitable network brokers when the objective is the development and scaling out of a technology by itself.
IFPRI’s flagship report reviews the major food policy issues, developments, and decisions of 2016, and highlights challenges and opportunities for 2017 at the global and regional levels. This year’s report looks at the impact of rapid urban growth on food security and nutrition, and considers how food systems can be reshaped to benefit both urban and rural populations. Drawing on recent research, IFPRI researchers and other distinguished food policy experts consider a range of timely questions:
■ What do we know about the impacts of urbanization on hunger and nutrition?
Accountability pressure to demonstrate how research for development projects will bridge the ‘output - outcome gap’ and achieve impacts ‘at scale’ has increased. Consequently, efforts to develop ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) and impact pathways that steer programs and projects to outcomes have grown within Australia’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) strategy. In response, the cross agency Food Systems Innovation (FSI) initiative piloted the use of ToC thinking within Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).