Search

eLetter Non

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Metadata only record This book describes innovations in African agriculture that were pioneer not by researchers or scientists, but the farmers themselves. These innovations are often overlooked, and this book was written to bring the light these innovations that have resulted from shared knowledge between community members.

A. Waters-Bayer & W. Bayer — Relations entre eleveurs immigrants peuls et paysans autochtones dans la zone subhumide du Nigeria.La diversite des formes d'utilisation du sol par les pasteurs peuls temoigne de la faculte d'adaptation de ce groupe ethnique a des environnements differents. Cet article traite de la dynamique historique et des strategies communement utilisees par les eleveurs dans la zone subhumide du Nigeria, zone vers laquelle ils ont migre et dans laquelle ils s'installent depuis plusieurs dizaines d'annees. Les auteurs attirent particulierement l'attention sur les relations fructueuses qui se sont nouees entre les immigrants peuls et les paysans autochtones kaje et kamantan de la zone subhumide, relations qui se sont traduites par l'apparition d'une integration de l'agriculture et de l'elevage. Les auteurs insistent egalement sur les accords conclus entre les Peuls et les autochtones en matiere de partage des droits d'usage sur la terre et analysent les causes de conflits et les moyens de les resoudre. Enfin, les enseignements qui en sont tires sur le plan des politiques de developpement visent a encourager une utilisation rationnelle et pacifique de la terre a la fois par les eleveurs et les paysans.

Metadata only record An important component of the "agricultural revolution" of 18th-century Europe was the introduction of forages into crop rotations. These increased animal production and, in turn, crop yields were raised through improvements in soil fertility due to higher manure output, and through the effects of the forage ley. In the tropics, this type of mixed farming is seldom found: most smallholders do not grow forage crops, and may not even keep any large animals. In many areas, cropping and livestock-keeping are practiced by specialist ethnic groups. In view of this, European-oriented observers often tend to conclude that crops and livestock are not interlinked in tropical farming systems.

Metadata only record In Pastoral Network Newsletter No. 23, mention was made of a workshop on Holistic Resource Management (HRM) held 15-17 December 1986 in Uppsala, Sweden. The workshop was organized on behalf of SIDA by the consulting firm Terra Nova and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Participants were mainly from Swedish universities and development agencies, but also included a few individuals form Denmark, Norway, USA and Germany. The sole lecturer was Mr. Allan Savory, the founder and director of the Centre for Holistic Resource Management in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. As the applicability of his resource management approach to the Sahelian zone in Africa was announced as a central question of the three-day workshop, a report about it may be of interest to a wider audience within the Pastoral Network. HRM has three major features: 1. a thought model; 2. an assumption that four missing keys to understanding rangelands and environmental degradation have been found; and 3. a method of grazing management called the Savory Grazing Method (SGM). Our purpose in this brief paper (9 pg) is to examine these features critically, from the standpoint of their general applicability in Africa. Available in SANREM office, FS, ES

This paper asks: What have been the impacts of farmer- or community-led (informal) processes of research and development in agriculture and natural resource management in terms of food security, ecological sustainability, economic empowerment, gender relations, local capacity to innovate and influence on formal agricultural research and development institutions? An innovative conceptual framework was applied to a diverse set of farmer-led research initiatives in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to explore approaches, outcomes and impacts of informal agricultural research and development (ARD) facilitated by civil society organisations. Findings include the following: locally appropriate technical innovations emerging from these processes are readily taken up by other farmers; the most common channels of dissemination are farmer to farmer through informal networks and spaces created for farmer-researchers and other farmers to meet and exchange, such as innovation fairs; livelihood impacts are broad and substantial; local capacity to innovate is strengthened and institutionalisation through the formal sector has been limited. Lessons are drawn for future partnerships in promoting and supporting farmer-led research involving formal and informal ARD actors working with smallholder communities.