Search

eLetter Non

Book detailsHahn, Allison H., Media culture in nomadic communities. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press B.V.; 2021. 221 pp. ISBN: 978 94 63723022 (hardcover), e-ISBN: 978 90 4855030 2. DOI 10.5117/9789463723022.

Gefördert durch den Publikationsfonds der Universität Kassel

Organic seed is vital for organic agriculture. However, organic plant breeding is not keeping pace with the increasing organic production, mainly because of a lack of sufficient financial resources. Therefore, the questions arose: what are the obstacles, and how can they be removed? An analysis of the situation in Europe revealed that royalties from intellectual property rights (IPRs) such as plant variety protection are inappropriate for organic seed. New additional financing strategies were developed based on the concept of seed as a commons, and the attitude of stakeholders in the food value chain towards an open source strategy was assessed. The conclusion is that dealing with seed as a commons is an indispensable feature of organic plant breeding. New financing strategies for this offer promising potential for organic plant breeding and an alternative to IPRs-based funding. It is essential to involve stakeholders along the entire value chain, including food consumers, in financing plant breeding. The successful introduction of a food label “open source and organic” could boost commons-based organic plant breeding financing. Generally, there is no single solution; the different strategies identified are complementary. Their validation requires further practical research and development.

Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) is influenced by diverse and complex factors, and therefore requires a holistic approach to agriculture and food systems plus integration of knowledge from diverse sources in science and society. Using the results of a colloquium held at the University of Hohenheim (Germany) in September 2016 leading up to the recent High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) Note on Critical and Emerging Issues for Food Security and Nutrition, this article underlines the role of research and innovation as a social and political process and draws attention to neglected types of knowledge. It illustrates the potential of knowledge co-production and co-innovation to transform food systems in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

This study uses the perspectives of political ecology and of science and technology studies to highlight how socio-technological change over recent decades has influenced cultivation and livestock-keeping in northern Benin. The introduced agricultural technologies are negotiated and adapted in use to shift power relations to the benefit of some rural actors over others. Labour-saving technologies such as tractors and especially herbicides were traced and their effects analysed in the light of ongoing uses made by both smallholder farmers and pastoralists. Results show a renegotiation of herbicides from weeding technologies to weapons for contestation over land and natural resources. Herbicides allow farmers to expand their crop fields in a labour-constrained context and to lay claim on or maintain ownership of land. However, use of chemicals has reduced the extent of rangelands by polluting grazing lands and water resources and has increased farmer–herder conflicts. Many herders have left the region for neighbouring countries such as Togo and Ghana, with economic consequences because of decreased livestock and milk marketing. (167)

Over the years, farmers have been innovating to address various challenges such as declining crop and livestock production, poor soil health, water loss, pests and diseases, among other challenges that some farmers perceive as being partly related to climate change. The resultant innovations have great potential for improving food security, natural resource management (NRM) and livelihoods. However, formal research usually pays very little or no attention to these local innovations despite their potential to improve the livelihoods of farm families and to benefit the wider community, if these local initiatives are well supported. In responding to irregular rainfall patterns and degradation of natural resources, farmers in Machakos and Kitui semi-arid Counties of Kenya have come up with various innovations related to crops, livestock and NRM. These include finger millet nurseries, wall terraces for water harvesting, combining rock-hyrax manure with farmyard manure, and determining the sex of chicks before they hatch.This chapter presents a new approach to agricultural research and development (ARD) that is complementary to conventional ARD approaches and is implemented through the project Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research (CLIC–SR) funded by Rockefeller Foundation in Eastern Africa. The focus here is on the work in Kenya. CLIC–SR promotes a farmer co-managed mechanism known as Local Innovation Support Fund (LISF) to catalyse locally defined experimentation and innovation. This support has led to increased awareness of the important role of farmer innovation in dealing with climate change and other challenges to improving food security and NRM.

his chapter presents key results obtained by the Joint Learning in and about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA) team across its three target countries. It presents the approach used by JOLISAA for assessing innovation experiences and the diversity of experiences actually assessed. The chapter summarises the key insights into innovation processes gained from a cross-analysis of the case studies JOLISAA selected. It also provides lessons and recommendations about how best to assess and support innovation and make it more inclusive, with an emphasis on how to document and support local innovation. JOLISAA undertook its assessment in five major, partly overlapping phases: development of an analytical framework; inventory of innovation cases; collaborative case assessment; cross-analysis of cases; and development of policy recommendations. After the case assessments were completed, the cross-analysis was conducted at country level and across Benin, Kenya and South Africa.

Farmers' innovation and selection of barley varieties were studied in the Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia. Two districts each in the central and southern zones and three districts in the eastern zone of Tigray were randomly selected for this study, which sought to understand the current status of local barley varieties and to measure their relative preference by farmers. Household surveys were conducted covering 240 households to elicit farmers' views on the values, constraints, and opportunities of growing local varieties of barley. This was supported by focus-group and informal discussions with elders, key informants, and women's groups. Case studies were made of local farmers whom the community recognized as barley breeders. Twenty-four barley varieties and their major descriptors were recorded. Seed and varietal-selection criteria depended on the environmental and varietal characteristics. Investigation of intrahousehold decision making indicated that, while men tended to decide on the type of variety to grow, seed storage and processing were exclusively the responsibility of women. Farmers undertook preharvest and postharvest selection, giving emphasis mainly to earliness and spike characteristics. The distinct varietal-selection and seed-renewal procedures revealed their potential for use in further plant breeding. The case-study analysis of farmer-developed varieties provided knowledge that, if combined with scientists' knowledge, could lead to identification and development of valuable cultivars with a wide potential for use in semiarid areas of Tigray and other parts of Ethiopia.

The European-funded Framework Programme 7 project, Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA), assessed agricultural innovation experiences focused on smallholders in Benin, Kenya, and South Africa. Fifty-six cases were characterized through review of grey literature and interviews with resource persons, according to a common analytical framework inspired by the innovation systems (IS) perspective. Thirteen of the cases were assessed in greater depth through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and multistakeholder workshops. The cases covered a wide diversity of experiences in terms of types, domains, scales, timelines, initiators of innovation and stakeholders involved. Findings revealed multiple triggers and drivers of innovation. For external stakeholders, key triggers included likelihood of offering a technological fix to an existing problem and availability of funding. For local people, access to input and output markets was a powerful trigger and driver. Market types and dynamics varied greatly. Developing functional value chains and accessing markets proved particularly challenging, especially for poorer and weakly organized farmers. Over long periods, determinants of innovation changed dynamically and often unpredictably, including motivations of key stakeholders, triggers, drivers and stakeholder arrangements. The direction of innovation evolved, often moving from a technology entry point to more organizational or institutional issues. A recurring challenge for fostering innovation is whether and how to build on local initiatives and knowledge, and how to sustain externally driven innovation processes beyond the project time frame. A major conclusion from JOLISAA is that innovation has to be seen as a continuously evolving process of ‘innovation bundles’ (a combination of different types of innovation) of various kinds, rather than as a pre-planned, and usually, narrowly-defined technical intervention. Consequently, open-ended, flexible approaches to innovation are needed with the potential to engage meaningfully over a long time with local stakeholders and bearers of local innovation dynamics, so that they take full charge of the innovation process and direction.

Local innovation in agriculture and natural resource management is the process through which individuals or groups discover or develop new and better ways of managing resources, building on and expanding the boundaries of their existing knowledge. Prolinnova (Promoting Local Innovation) is a NGO-led global partnership programme that is being built from the bottom up, to develop and institutionalise partnerships and methodologies that promote such local innovation. The focus is on building national-level platforms where the different stakeholders in agricultural research and development meet and work out their particular country programmes together. The nine countries involved in the Prolinnova programme at presen have analysed their diverse experiences in building multi-stakeholder partnerships and noted some basic prerequisites for effective partnerships: internal motivation, sincere commitment from all partners; good facilitation; shared responsibility; openness and transparency. A fundamental challenge...

Economic projections into the year 2020 (Delgado et al., 1999) indicate that the global demand for animal products will increase sharply, particularly in developing countries, and suggest that the bulk of the increased production to meet this demand will come from large-scale, industrial production. Many smallholders in developing countries depend at least partly on livestock as a source of livelihood; for pastoralists, livestock are by definition the main source of livelihood.

Part 1: Introducing the Farmer Innovation Approach and Some Remarkable Innovators - Entering Research and Development in Land Husbandry through Farmer Innovation * The Career and Influence of Barthelemy Kameni Djambou in Cameroon * Ayelech Fikre: an Outstanding Woman Farmer in Amhara Region, Ethiopia * Pits for Trees: How Farmers in Semi-arid Burkina Faso Increase and Diversify Plant Biomass * Part 2: Building Partnerships for Innovation in Land Husbandry - Forging Partnerships Between Farmers, Extension and Research in Tanzania * Joining Forces to Discover and Celebrate Local innovation in Land Husbandry in Tigray, Ethiopia * Part 3: Farmer Innovation: Process, Evidence and Analysis - An Initial Analysis of Farmer Innovators and their Innovations * Why do Farmers Innovate and why don't they Innovate More? Insights from a Study in East Africa * Chain of Innovations by Farmers in Cameroon * Women and Innovation: Experiences from Promoting Farmer Innovation in East Africa * Innovators in Land Husbandry in Arid Areas of Tunisia * Women's Innovations in Rural Livelihood Systems in Arid Areas of Tunisia * Namwaya Sawadogo: the Ecologist of Touroum, Burkina Faso * Outwitters of Water: Outstanding Irob Innovation in Northern Ethiopia * A Challenge and an Opportunity: Innovation by Women Farmers in Tigray * Part 4: Farmers' Evaluation and Extension of Local Innovations - Community Assessment of Local Innovators in Northern Ethiopia * Stimulating Creativity Among East Africa Farmers: from Isolated Individuals to Interactive Groups * Facilitating Farmer-to-farmer Communication about Innovation in Tigray * Innovation and Impact: a Preliminary Assessment in Kabale, Uganda * Part 5: Stimulating and Supporting Joint Experimentation - Participatory Technology Development on Soil Fertility Improvement in Cameroon * Farmer-led Experimentation in the Dryland of Central Tigray * Farmer Innovation and Plant Breeding the Case of Maize K525 Created by Emmanuek Kamgoue of Bandjous, West Cameroon * Joint Analysis of the Sustainability of a Local SWC Technique in Burkina Faso * Sowing Maize in Pits: Farmer Innovation in Southern Tanzania * Part 6: Raising Awareness, Policy Lobbying and Mainstream - Understanding and Influencing Policy Progress For SWC.* A Bridge Between Local Innovation, Development and Research: the Regional Radio of Gafsa * Mainstream Participatory Approaches to SWC in Zimbabwe * Liberating Local Creativity: Building on the 'Best Farming Practices' Extension Approach from Tigray's Struggle for Liberation * Impact of the Farmer Innovation Approach on the Attitude of Stakeholders in Agriculture Development in Tunisia * An Encouraging Beginning * Index

Promoting rural development in Africa involves learning to clap with two hands, that is to say, creating effective interaction between local knowledge and development initiatives, on the one hand, and the knowledge and initiatives of formal agricultural research and extension, on the other. Farmer innovators ‐men and women farmers who take their own initiative to change local agriculture ‐ are key allies in rural development, as shown by the experience of the ISWC programme in Africa. Focusing on Ethiopia and Tanzania, the authors describe how formal research and extension services are made aware of farmers’ innovative work and are encouraged to document the results, promote their spread, and support further development efforts by farmer innovators. A modified Participatory Technology Development (PTD) approach is thus emerging, which starts not with problem analysis but rather by linking up with local problem‐solving initiatives. While the learning process on this approach continues, dialogue ha...

Livestock make substantial contributions to the livelihoods of poor women in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, yet the factors that enhance or constrain livestock-related opportunities for women have received relatively little empirical analysis. This review applies a gender lens to a conceptual framework for understanding the role of livestock in pathways out of poverty, using a livelihoods approach that centralizes the importance of assets, markets, and other institutions. The three hypothesized livestock pathways out of poverty are (1) securing current and future assets, (2) sustaining and improving the productivity of agricultural systems in which livestock are important, and (3) facilitating greater participation of the poor in livestock-related markets. While these three pathways are distinct, with each requiring particular strategies and interventions to be successful, they are not mutually exclusive. The chapter summarizes what is known for each pathway and what these pathways imply for programmatic and policy interventions.

Within the context of the European-funded JOLISAA FP7 project (JOint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), several agricultural innovation experiences focused on smallholders were assessed in Benin, Kenya and South Africa. Fifty-six cases were characterised through review of grey literature and interviews with resource persons according to a common analytical framework inspired by the innovation systems perspective. Of these, 13 were assessed in greater depth through semistructured interviews, focus-group discussions and multistakeholder workshops. The cases cover a wide diversity of experiences in terms of types, domains, scales, timelines, initiators of innovation and stakeholders involved. Findings indicate that innovation triggers and drivers were multiple. For external stakeholders, likelihood of offering a technological fix to an existing problem and availability of funding were key triggers. For local people, access to input and output markets was a powerful trigger and driver. Market types and dynamics varied greatly. Developing functional value chains and accessing (often erratic) markets proved challenging especially for poorer and weakly organised farmers. Over long periods, many determinants of innovation change dynamically and often unpredictably during the process, including motivations of key stakeholders, triggers, drivers and stakeholder arrangements. The direction of innovation evolves, usually moving from a technology entry point to more organisational or institutional innovation. A recurring challenge for making interventions is whether and how these build on local initiatives and knowledge before engaging in innovation development. Another challenge lies in sustaining innovation processes that have been externally initiated and conducted within a protected environment, once the project stops. The conclusion is that innovation has to be seen as a continuously evolving bundle of innovations of various kinds, rather than as a pre-planned and usually narrowly defined intervention. Consequently, open-ended, flexible approaches to innovation development are needed with the potential to engage meaningfully over a long time with local stakeholders, so that they take full charge of the innovation process and direction.

Within the context of the European-funded JOLISAA FP7 project (JOint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), several agricultural innovation experiences focused on smallholders were assessed in Benin, Kenya and South Africa. Fifty-six cases were characterised through review of grey literature and interviews with resource persons according to a common analytical framework inspired by the innovation systems perspective. Of these, 13 were assessed in greater depth through semistructured interviews, focus-group discussions and multistakeholder workshops. The cases cover a wide diversity of experiences in terms of types, domains, scales, timelines, initiators of innovation and stakeholders involved. Findings indicate that innovation triggers and drivers were multiple. For external stakeholders, likelihood of offering a technological fix to an existing problem and availability of funding were key triggers. For local people, access to input and output markets was a powerful trigger and driver. Market types and dynamics varied greatly. Developing functional value chains and accessing (often erratic) markets proved challenging especially for poorer and weakly organised farmers. Over long periods, many determinants of innovation change dynamically and often unpredictably during the process, including motivations of key stakeholders, triggers, drivers and stakeholder arrangements. The direction of innovation evolves, usually moving from a technology entry point to more organisational or institutional innovation. A recurring challenge for making interventions is whether and how these build on local initiatives and knowledge before engaging in innovation development. Another challenge lies in sustaining innovation processes that have been externally initiated and conducted within a protected environment, once the project stops. The conclusion is that innovation has to be seen as a continuously evolving bundle of innovations of various kinds, rather than as a pre-planned and usually narrowly defined intervention. Consequently, open-ended, flexible approaches to innovation development are needed with the potential to engage meaningfully over a long time with local stakeholders, so that they take full charge of the innovation process and direction.

International audience; Within the context of the FP7 JOLISAA project (JOint Learning in and about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), an inventory of agricultural innovation experiences was developed in three African countries: Kenya, South Africa and Benin. The main objective was to assess a broad diversity of multi-stakeholder agricultural innovation processes involving smallholders. National teams used literature searches and interactions with a range of institutions and networks engaged in agricultural innovation to identify cases. Interviews with resource persons and field visits were also conducted to supplement the available / accessible documentation. The inventory was made according to a common analytical framework and guidelines inspired by the Innovation System perspective to allow for an analysis across cases and countries. The completed inventory includes 57 documented cases, covering a wide diversity of experiences, in terms of types, domains, scales and timelines of innovation. The 57 cases confirm previously documented features, such as the diversity of stakeholders involved in innovation, the diversity of innovation triggers, or also the frequent occurence of market driven innovation. It also illustrates more original features: the typically long time frames of innovation processes; the common occurrence of "innovation bundles" (a combination over time of technological, social and/or institutional innovations); and an often close relationship between innovation and externally-funded projects. National teams faced several challenges during the inventory process, including a common understanding and consistent use of key innovation-related concepts, and a difficult access to relevant information related partly to restrictions put by several case holders on sharing openly their experience. Out of the inventory, JOLISAA has selected thirteen cases which will undergo a subsequent phase of collaborative assessment. The assessment will strive to assess issues the inventory could not tackle, such as the actual roles and contributions of the various stakeholders, the dynamics of the innovation process, and the influence of the enabling environment on the innovation process and outcome.

Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become proactive and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations: vouchers, competitive grants and farmer-led innovation support funds. The synthesis covers, among others, innovation grant systems in Malawi (Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme), Latin America (several Challenge Funds for Farmer Groups), Uganda (National Agricultural Advisory Services ), and Colombia (Local Agricultural Research Committees - CIAL).

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. Menée de manière participative par des équipes mixtes de chercheurs, d'étudiants et d'acteurs locaux, elle s'est fondée sur des entretiens semi-structurés, des focus groupes et des ateliers multi-acteurs. Les 13 cas portent sur une diversité d'expériences en termes de domaines, types, échelles, durée, initiateurs de l'innovation et acteurs concernés. Les résultats montrent la multiplicité et le rôle des acteurs impliqués dans l'innovation, la nature des déclencheurs et moteurs de l'innovation. Ils montrent aussi l'importance de la prise en compte du temps long pour comprendre les processus d'innovation. Ils montrent enfin l'influence tant positive que parfois problématique des interventions externes sur les processus d'innovation, et en particulier les difficultés à institutionnaliser l'innovation au-delà des interventions ou à interagir avec les dynamiques locales d'innovation. L'article propose diverses voies pour améliorer tant l'évaluation que l'accompagnement des processus d'innovation. Cela concerne en particulier la conception et le financement des interventions externes. Cela concerne aussi l'acquisition des compétences et capacités indispensables à la mise en oeuvre dans la durée d'approches ouvertes et souples de conception, renforçant chaque fois que possible les initiatives existantes des acteurs locaux.

Studies of local knowledge and farmer participatory research tend to focus on raising crops and livestock. Little attention is given to processing and marketing farm products, an important source of income for rural households, particularly women.

International audience; Novel mechanisms for funding agricultural research for development (ARD) are emerging which strive to give smallholders a central role in deciding what types of innovation they want to explore and develop and how to do this. This paper reports on international experiences with one such mechanism, the Local Innovation Support Fund (LISF), which is being piloted in eight countries across Asia and Africa under the umbrella of the PROLINNOVA international partnership programme. The ways of setting up the LISFs vary greatly between countries, in response to country-specific conditions, experiences and opportunities, but all share certain structural elements: ensuring farmers' effective control over fund governance; making calls for proposals that farmers can easily understand and respond to; developing and applying effective screening criteria; and monitoring and evaluating systematically how the funds are used, the outcomes of the work and the impacts on farmers' lives, including their ability to influence ARD decision-making. After presenting the general rationale for the LISF pilot, the paper examines the diverse results obtained across countries in terms of structure and process of grant administration; number, size and types of grants; thematic foci; monitoring and impact assessment. Some critical issues are discussed: the importance of understanding concepts and its implications for LISF implementation, the purposes for which farmers use the funds, the pros and cons of supporting farmers' own experimentation versus farmer-led joint experimentation, and the perspectives for sustainability and scaling-up of the LISF approach within and beyond the eight countries in which it has been piloted.

This book brings together 12 cases from different corners of the world that were prepared for the "Advancing Participatory Technology Development" (Advancing PTD) study initiated by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) in the Philippines and ETC Ecoculture in the Netherlands. The present book includes a selection of 12 selected cases of "institutionalising" PTD approaches in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term "institutionalisation" refers to integrating PTD into the day-to-day operations, decision-making and culture not only of large formal institutions of agricultural research, extension, development and education, but also of NGOs, farmer organisations and artisan associations. All of thesestudies were originally written for the workshop in 2001. In some but not all cases, theauthors were able to update the cases by reporting on developments in the ensuing twoyears.