Ethiopian agriculture is changing as new actors, relationships, and policies influence the ways in which small-scale, resource-poor farmers access and use information and knowledge in their agricultural production decisions. Although these changes suggest new opportunities for smallholders, too little is known about how changes will ultimately improve the wellbeing of smallholders in Ethiopia. The authors of this paper examine whether these changes are improving the ability of smallholders to innovate and thus improve their own welfare.
Though research on communication and innovation during the last decade brought better understanding on the innovation process, this has not influenced the underlying paradigm and practice of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in most countries. At the same time there have been few initiatives that tried to experiment with new ways of developing capacities for extension and innovation.
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.
Agricultural education, research, and extension can contribute substantially to reducing rural poverty in the developing world. However, evidence suggests that their contributions are falling short in Sub-Saharan Africa. The entry of new actors, technologies, and market forces, when combined with new economic and demographic pressures, suggests the need for more innovative and less linear approaches to promoting a technological transformation of smallholder agriculture.
In an effort to raise incomes and increase resilience of smallholder farmers and their families in Feed the Future1 (FTF) countries, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded the Developing Local Extension Capacity (DLEC) project. This project is led by Digital Green in partnership with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), CARE International (CARE) and multiple resource partners.
The international workshop on Agricultural Innovation Systems in Africa (AISA) was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on 29–31 May 2013. Its main objectives were to learn jointly about agricultural innovation processes and systems in Africa, identify policy implications and develop policy messages, and explore perspectives for collaborative action research on smallholder agricultural innovation.The workshop focused on sharing experiences in trying to understand and strengthen multi-stakeholder innovation processes and the role of smallholders in innovation, and identifying and discussing priorities an
Bien que l’appui apporté aux communautés rurales en matière de renforcement de la vulgarisation et de conseil, ait fait l’objet de nombreux débats ces dernières années, l’on sait peu de choses sur la façon de renforcer les capacités nécessaires dans les services de vulgarisation et de conseil (SVC), et sur le rôle que ces services jouent dans le système d’innovation agricole (SIA).
Cet article présente les résultats clés tirés de l’analyse transversale de 13 expériences d’innovation agricole menées au Bénin, au Kenya et en Afrique du Sud. L’évaluation a utilisé un cadre analytique commun inspiré de l’approche systèmes d’innovation pour comprendre comment l’innovation a évolué au fil du temps via les interactions entre différents acteurs et sous l’effet d’éléments déclencheurs et moteurs internes et externes.
La recherche et le développement dans le secteur agricole et agroalimentaire sont de plus en plus interpellés dans leurs capacités à répondre à la demande sociale et à contribuer au développement durable ou à la lutte contre la pauvreté.
Une analyse de trajectoires d’innovations agricoles au Bénin observées dans la longue durée permet d’en identifier les facteurs de diffusion à grande échelle. Beaucoup d’innovations passent inaperçues sur de longs tronçons de leur trajectoire, étant endogènes ou impliquant des acteurs non « conventionnels » et pas d’organisations de recherche. Les innovations qui passent à grande échelle sont en fait des faisceaux d’innovations technologiques, institutionnelles ou organisationnelles qui s’enchaînent les unes en réponse aux contraintes des autres.