Understanding eco-innovation is an essential endeavor to achieve global sustainable development. In this sense, further research on implementation is needed to expand knowledge beyond current boundaries. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate by conducting an original multidimensional analysis using Spanish agri-food sector data. The empirical methodology applies a combination of descriptive statistics, cluster analysis and the chi-squared test.
The last decade has seen an increasing advancement and interest in the integration of agroecology and participatory action research (PAR). This article aims to: (1) analyze the key characteristics and principles of two case studies that integrated PAR and agroecology in Central America; and (2) learn from the lessons offered by these case studies, as well as others from the literature, on how to better integrate PAR and agroecology.
Industrial agriculture and its requirement for standardized approaches is driving the world towards a global food system, shrinking the role of farmers and shifting decision-making power. On the contrary, a holistic perspective towards a new food-system design could meet the needs of a larger share of stakeholders. Long-term experiments are crucial in this transition, being the hub of knowledge and the workshop of ‘participation in’ and ‘appropriation of’ the research in agriculture over a long term.
The CDAIS Communication strategy for 2015-2018 aims to contribute to CDAIS project's core objective of making agricultural innovation systems more efficient and sustainable in meeting the demands of farmers, agribusiness and consumers. For more information on CDAIS, see: https://www.fao.org/in-action/tropical-agriculture-platform/cdais-project...
Rationale Documentation is a vital part of CDAIS project’ objective to test the theory of change in pilot countries because it will enable to record the process of capacity development in agricultural innovation systems. At the same time, documentation will help CDAIS in delivering on public information targets, complying with requirements of its main donor and provide material for communication for development.
The timeline tool is generally put to use when stakeholders embark upon the self-assessment phase of their innovation partnership. Stakeholders are asked to recall moments they feel were significant for the partnership, from its beginning to the present and to reflect upon how the partnership has evolved since it began.
This tool enables participants to become cognisant of the functional capacities discovered through the capacity scoring questionnaire, and test the limits of these capacities through simulations or role-playing (e.g. problem-solving, collaboration, information sharing, and engagement). The simulation game leads to an intuitive understanding of innovation capacities and of the importance of the enabling environment, helping participants to learn about the significance of these capacities.
This tool is a simple tool to map out the current status of the AIS, and to discover where the actors want to go. The rich picture tool can be used both to describe the current situation and to illustrate future plans. A rich picture opens up discussions and helps participants reach a broad and collective understanding of the situation.
The Action Planning is a tool that formalizes commitments and plots the route to their implementation. An action plan is intended for the use of the core actors, who will have been identified beforehand in the visioning phase. It determines who does what and when, and is therefore essential to ensuring that things get done and that the goals and visions set out in the capacity development strategy are achieved.
This tool was designed to assess innovation capacities, identify strengths and weaknesses and monitor capacity changes over time. The scoring tool makes it clear which functional capacities are going to be needed to promote, lead or successfully participate in innovation processes. The tool evaluates capacities on the basis of 21 indicators (each of which is graded on a scale from 0 (low capacity) to 3 (high capacity), and build on the key innovation capacities identified in the capacity needs assessment.