This report is concerned with the ‘who?’ ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of pro-poor extension. It builds on the analytical framework proposed in the Inception Report of the same study (Christoplos, Farrington and Kidd, 2001), taking it forward by fleshing out the analysis with empirical information gathered from several countries during the course of the study (from primary data in Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda and Vietnam, and from secondary sources in a range of other countries, including India), and drawing conclusions on the scope for action by governments and donors in a range of contexts.
This paper presents an overview of current opportunities and challenges facing efforts to increase the impact of rural and agricultural extension. The starting point for this analysis is in recognition that the days when agricultural extension was synonymous with the work of public sector agencies are over.
This Guide to Evaluating Rural Extension has been developed by the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS). The purpose is to support those involved in extension evaluation to choose how to conduct more comprehensive, rigorous, credible and useful evaluations. The Guide supports readers to understand different types of evaluation, to make decisions on what is most appropriate for their circumstances, and to access further sources of theoretical and practical information.
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
Numerous innovation platforms have been implemented to encourage the adoption of agricultural innovations and stakeholder interactions within a value chain. Yet little research has been undertaken on the design and implementation of innovation platforms focussing on issues other than market access and aiming to encourage agro-ecological intensification.
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.
in the context of the EU-funded JOLISAA (JOint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture) project, four local innovation processes involving smallholders in Benin were selected for in-depth assessment: innovation in hwedo agrofishing, integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), rice parboiling and soy value chains. Stakeholders directly involved in the innovation process were interviewed.
Esta revisión de la literatura muestra la diversidad de puntos de vista en la caracterización del AIS (visión estructural, visión funcional, visión ba-sada en procesos, visión basada en capacidades). Estas diferentes visiones del AIS se basan en diferentes hipótesis y abarcan diferentes métodos de análisis del AIS. Los académicos consideran que estos puntos de vista son complementarios y útiles para una evaluación operativa del AIS. Debido a esta multiplicidad de puntos de vista analíticos, se ha desarrollado un gran número de métodos.