The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.
Rendir un informe anual del trabajo realizado por el IICA es más que un compromiso con la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas; constituye también un medio para reconocer los avances de nuestros Estados Miembros en beneficio de sus pueblos. Los logros que ellos alcanzan gracias a los aportes que les brinda el Instituto los hace mantener su confianza en una organización que de hecho les pertenece.
Tool 9 provides general information and examples on the latest developments, uses and applications in the area of food biotechnology, and it focuses on genome (or gene) editing. It also provides examples that could help users of this toolkit to explain genome editing, the difference between genetic modification and genome editing and the potential benefits of these new technologies. In addition, it supports users to highlight possible research and development activities ongoing in their own country.
In this paper, presented at the 8th European IFSA Symposium ( Workshop 6: "Change in knowledge systems and extension services: Role of the new actors") in 2008, the authors discuss a conceptual framework that understands innovation processes as the outcome of collaborative networks where information is exchanged and learning processes happen. They argue that technical and economic factors used to analyse drivers and barriers alone are not sufficient to understand innovation processes.
The paper describes an attempt to improve the uptake of a new agricultural Decision Support System (aDSS). The approach was to design it with an understanding of the successes and failures of predecessors and of the changes in patterns of relevant technology use over time, the “usage context”. Even though its predecessor, IrriSatSMS, showed great potential in pilot seasons, that system failed to be commercialised successfully.
This training manual was prepared under the EU-funded project Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS), a global partnership (Agrinatura, FAO and 8 pilot countries) that aims to strengthen the capacity of countries and key stakeholders to innovate in complex agricultural systems, thereby achieving improved rural livelihoods.
Cassava is an important source of food and income in Uganda. However, it cannot be marketed over a long time and distance, thereby reducing incomes and food security to growers, consumers and traders. This in turn leads to less investments and hence low productivity. To address this challenge, the project of Extending the Shelf life of Fresh Cassava Roots for Increased Incomes and Postharvest Loss Reduction proposed to set up two packhouses in order to test their commercial viability.
Research and analysis of agricultural innovation processes and policies over the last 20 years has made a major contribution to scholarship on and the understanding of the nature of innovation. To an important, but much lesser degree this has also led to re-framing practice at the research-innovation interface. Innovation studies (for want of a better word), like many branches of science, finds that it needs to deliver solutions across the full spectrum of discovery (concepts and theories) to application in both policy and practice domains.
This paper describes a process for stimulating this engagement to develop a shared understanding of systemic problems, challenge prevalent institutional logics, and identify individual and collective actions that change agents might undertake to stimulate system innovation. To achieve this the process included (i) multiple actors from the agricultural innovation systems, (ii) steps to prompt reflexivity to challenge underlying institutional logics, (iii) an iterative process of practical experimentation to challenge current practices, and (iv) actions to encourage generative collaboration.
The paper is structured as follows. First, definitions and conceptualisations of trust are considered, before moving on review the literature on trust in rural network models of business support. Next, the empirical study design is described, which consisted of case studies of business advice programmes offered to artisanal food enterprises in Northern Ireland and displaying varying degrees of trust. The results of the empirical study are reported and then discussed, with reflections on how trust evolved in each case, and the ways in which trust was lost