Search

Reversing the alarming trend of rising food insecurity requires transformations towards just, sustainable and healthy food systems with an explicit focus on the most vulnerable and fragile regions.

The 4th Global Food Security conference highlighted four major developments: the shift from food security to food systems; a focus on diets and consumption patterns; the importance of unknown futures and inherent uncertainties and risks; and the central role of multi-level connections between local- and global-oriented research. These shifts highlight the importance for research to contribute to dialogue and collective intelligence through evidence-based brokerage, and to move beyond polarization of debates. These shifts also call for the involvement of scientists in multi-stakeholder arrangements to strengthen innovation and learning at different levels, and for their participation in foresight studies to help navigate plausible futures. Delegates discussed five scientific challenges to be addressed through both research investments and by improving science-policy interfaces.

Over the last decade, societal pressure has increased on public research agencies to provide evidence that their research contributes to achieve development goals. To address this challenge, the French Agricultural Research Center for International Development (Cirad), developed an ex-post impact assessment method based on the impact pathway approach, called Impact of Research in the South (ImpresS). The reconstruction of the impact pathway identifies and assesses research outputs, outcomes, and impacts on development over long-time spans, taking into account the contribution of other stakeholders, projects, and contextual factors. By applying mixed methods and participatory approaches, ImpresS involves key actors in assessing the contribution of research to impacts in innovation processes. Such a participatory approach raises, however, questions about the advantages and disadvantages of participation in impact assessment. This article examines whether and how participation affects the results of an evaluation and the methodological challenges this poses. The analysis is based on 13 case studies covering different innovation processes, countries, and time spans. The main results show that participation, combined with triangulation of information including quantitative and qualitative data, strengthens the explanation of the causal relationships among outputs, outcomes, and impacts. It helps reveal a large and diversified list of impacts based on the perception of actors, especially uncovering positive and negative impacts unexpected by researchers. However, participation may render other impacts less visible, especially those related to environmental and political issues. Furthermore, participatory evaluation entangles challenges linked to expectations, divergent perceptions, power dynamics, and social inequality, which must be carefully addressed to provide robust and transparent evaluation results.

Biodiversity is the driving force of ecosystem services and has been the foundation of agriculture for many, many years. The drastic evolution of agriculture over the past century in industrialised and some developing countries, based on improved varieties and synthetic inputs, greatly increased production but has led to the artificialisation of agroecosystems and great losses of specific and genetic diversity. In turn, these losses have hampered food systems in different ways: degraded ecosystem services affecting crop yields and resilience, reduced crop biodiversity, and highly specialised industrialised food processing, which has decreased the diversity of the food supply and its nutritional value.

The way food systems have evolved over past decades means that they now face major risks, which in turn threaten the future of food systems themselves. Food systems have seriously contributed to climate change, environmental destruction, overexploitation of natural resources and pollution of air, water and soils. Despite the global average improvement in calorie production and major development of the food and agricultural product markets, huge inequalities in food access and repartition of the added value have emerged, leading to new serious nutritional and social problems. Based on a review of the most recent scientific knowledge, this report paints a gloomy picture with an emphasis on Low-Income and Lower Middle-Income countries where the population faces greater challenges than elsewhere. Different threats are adding up and there are few options to adapt or mitigate these combinations of risks. This is a call for all those - businesses, policy makers, consumers, funding agencies - who are engaged in food systems transformations to bear in mind their systemic aspects and their multiple outcomes and risks in order to be able to fashion more sustainable and equitable food systems.

A healthy environment is essential for the proper functioning of both natural and cultivated ecosystems and, as such, plays a major role in food systems. Many different sources, including the agricultural sector itself, emit and accumulate pollutants in different environmental compartments (soil, water and air). When there are excessive pollutant levels, ecological functioning is hampered by eroded biodiversity, disrupted nutrient cycling, toxicity and depleted soil fertility, and can lead to reduced yields and contaminated food products. Many pollutants end up in water through leaching and run-off and have negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems, reducing fish and seafood stocks. Pollutants can also contaminate the food chain and cause food toxicity risks, and this is particularly true when pollutants undergo gradual biological concentration along the food chain.

In a context of a severe funding crisis, donors and policymakers expect increased accountability from research organizations and convincing proof that public investments in research have significant and positive societal impacts. This article takes stock of the lessons learned from the use of a method (ImpresS) designed by CIRAD to analyze the impact of research undertaken in partnership with a range of different actors in a developing-country context. The method uses a case study approach, and relies on the evaluation of the impact pathway and on contribution analysis. Thirteen case studies were selected to represent the diversity of partnerships, research activities and types of innovation. The results confirm the diversity and complexity of the innovation processes encompassing the non-linearity of changes over extended periods, the diversity of impacts, the shifting roles of actors engaged in the innovation process, and the diversity of activities carried out by the research community to contribute to outcome and impact generation. Interactions between researchers and other actors throughout the innovation process appeared to play key roles along the impact pathway. Based on the 13 case studies, we identified four generic models through which research contributes to impact: participatory transfer of knowledge and technologies, co-design of innovation, support for the innovation process, and promotion of open innovation. Our results underline the need for research institutions to recognize and accept the diversity of functions fulfilled by researchers if they want to contribute in an effective manner to the generation of impacts. Another challenge is to learn how to take advantage of clusters of projects embedded in innovation pathways in order to sustain research activities over a long timeframe. Significance statement Impact evaluation is increasingly being requested from the research community as a measure of accountability by both donors and civil society. Conducting it properly is challenging, especially in the context of developing countries. Quantitative studies are often biased toward expected and tangible impacts. Complementary qualitative approaches are focused on understanding causality and are more in line with the actors' participation in impact evaluation. CIRAD has developed a method and used it to assess 13 case studies involving research conducted in partnership in widely differing environments. Some main lessons learned include the long timeframe needed for impacts to be achieved, the diversity of impacts the research community needs to consider, and the multiple roles played by the research community in co-developing outcomes with diverse stakeholders. Results show that the research community can contribute to impacts by using several models of intervention.

Over the past decade, renewed societal demands on public research have been structured by various generic issues, while others are specific to the context of developing countries. In the first part of this article, after reviewing those issues, we examine how they reshape the analytical frameworks that structure the understanding of causal relationships between research activities, innovation processes, and the consequences of both for development. We used an impact pathway framework to assess innovation processes by looking at 13 case studies on research in agricultural and food sectors of developing countries. The results show the diversity of outcomes related to human capital, social capital, and knowledge infrastructure. Moreover, they show the systemic interaction between outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Based on this assessment, we demonstrate that the way impact pathways are framed and analysed needs to be improved to better consider the complex interactions between the diverse actors involved in innovation processes. Through a discussion of our results, we propose an analytical framework to help improve impact assessment methods for research activities.

International audience; The impacts of agricultural research for development are long-term and very diverse – positive, unexpected, sometimes negative. To assess and understand these impacts, ImpresS, a participatory evaluation method that incorporates the viewpoints of actors on the ground, was tested on 13 research case studies conducted by CIRAD and its partners in diff erent countries. The central conclusion is that research institutions and their funders need to change their practices if they wish to achieve long-term impacts at scale. For research, this means accepting to play multiple roles, collaborating with innovation and policy actors, fostering learning, and developing explicit hypothetical but plausible ex ante impact pathways. For sponsors and funders, it implies considering a wider range of impacts, planning action in the long term, fostering articulation between projects with similar goals, and supporting adaptive learning and management.; Los impactos de la investigación agrícola para el desarrollo se van construyendo a largo plazo y son muy variados — positivos, inesperados o posiblemente negativos. El método ImpresS que sirve para evaluar estos impactos, toma en cuenta el punto de vista de los actores sobre el terreno y ha sido probado en 13 proyectos de investigación del Cirad y de sus socios. El destacado mensaje que se saca de ello es el de animar a los organismos de investigación y sus financiadores a que modifiquen sus prácticas si quieren contribuir de manera más segura a los impactos. Los investigadores tendrían que aceptar desempeñar una diversidad de funciones, actuar con los actores de la innovación y los actores políticos, impulsar el aprendizaje, explicar ex ante las hipótesis de ruta de impacto de los proyectos. Por su parte, los comanditarios y financiadores tendrían que tomar en cuenta una amplia gama de impactos, proveer apoyos a largo plazo, impulsar las articulaciones entre los proyectos, hacer que se puedan reajustar los proyectos a lo largo de su seguimiento.; Les impacts de la recherche agricole pour le développement se construisent sur le temps long et sont très diversifiés — positifs, inattendus, négatifs. Pour évaluer ces impacts, la méthode ImpresS, qui intègre le point de vue des acteurs de terrain, a été testée sur 13 projets de recherche du Cirad et de ses partenaires. Le message fort qui en découle est d’inciter les institutions de recherche et leurs bailleurs de fonds à modifier leurs pratiques s’ils veulent contribuer plus sûrement aux impacts. Côté recherche : accepter des rôles multiples, agir avec les acteurs de l’innovation et les acteurs politiques, favoriser l’apprentissage, expliciter ex ante les hypothèses de chemin d’impact des projets. Côté commanditaires et bailleurs de fonds : considérer une large gamme d’impacts, inscrire l’action dans le temps long, favoriser les articulations entre projets, permettre de réajuster les projets au fil de leur suivi.

Pour saisir les ressorts de la montee de l'agroecologie dans ses differentes acceptions _scientifiques, politiques et sociales –, ce texte s'interroge sur la phase ou une demarche scientifique se construit sur la base d'un questionnement societal et ou se cherchent les articulations entre des preoccupations qui renvoient au politique et une argumentation scientifique destinee a la fois a leur donner consistance et legitimite et a les traduire en pistes d'action pour une diversite d'acteurs, des agriculteurs aux consommateurs. Dans ses grandes lignes, l'argumentation scientifique de l'agroecologie exploite l'idee d'un ressourcement de l'agronomie dans les principes de l'ecologie pour mieux internaliser l'ensemble des consequences d'envergure des choix agricoles. Cette quete de rupture avec l'agronomie " classique " interroge la capacite de l'interdisciplinarite a provoquer (puis justifier ?) une evolution des perspectives a travers les concepts de sobriete, d'efficience, de resilience ou de robustesse. De plus, la necessaire adaptation des systemes agricoles et alimentaires aux conditions et aux besoins locaux conduit a souligner la dimension eminemment territoriale de l'agroecologie. Ceci induit la necessite d'un elargissement de l'interdisciplinarite aux sciences de la societe. Les difficultes du politique proviennent de cette recherche de rupture, des reorientations des politiques publiques qu'elle exige et des freins a lever. (Resume d'auteur)

The concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) has consistently been positioned between science and policy. CSA has given rise to a lively debate in both the scientific community and civil society although it addresses the pressing need for an efficient strategy to manage agriculture and food systems facing climate change (CC). CSA formally targets the simultaneous fulfilment of three criteria: (i) CC mitigation, (ii) adaptation to CC and (iii) food security. Yet, the review of scientific literature on CSA displays a clear discrepancy between these three objectives, underlining the fact that CSA is regularly perceived as addressing only adaptation, and not mitigation and food security. On the other hand, research on agroecology (AE) reveals an extensive knowledge about food security and adaptation, often at scales which can be considered complementary to those of CSA. A better use by CSA of AE research results may help CSA focus on two currently overlooked dimensions, i.e. (i) mitigation and (ii) trade-offs and synergies between the three criteria. CSA does not have a specific blueprint for climate-smart practices and has rather a strong focus on policies, institutions and financing. Hence AE actually responds to the needs of CSA in terms of site-specificity and potential for adoption by farmers because it is strongly based on local practices. We argue that an eco- and socio-logical approach to CSA represents a sine qua non condition if CSA is to promote inclusive development and participate to collective efforts to manage agriculture and food systems under climate change. (Resume d'auteur)

Los impactos de la investigacion agricola para el desarrollo se van construyendo a largo plazo y son muy variados — positivos, inesperados o posiblemente negativos. El metodo ImpresS que sirve para evaluar estos impactos, toma en cuenta el punto de vista de los actores sobre el terreno y ha sido probado en 13 proyectos de investigacion del Cirad y de sus socios. El destacado mensaje que se saca de ello es el de animar a los organismos de investigacion y sus financiadores a que modifiquen sus practicas si quieren contribuir de manera mas segura a los impactos. Los investigadores tendrian que aceptar desempenar una diversidad de funciones, actuar con los actores de la innovacion y los actores politicos, impulsar el aprendizaje, explicar ex ante las hipotesis de ruta de impacto de los proyectos. Por su parte, los comanditarios y financiadores tendrian que tomar en cuenta una amplia gama de impactos, proveer apoyos a largo plazo, impulsar las articulaciones entre los proyectos, hacer que se puedan reajustar los proyectos a lo largo de su seguimiento.

Transition towards ecological intensification in agriculture is a knowledge intensive process that should not be perceived as the promotion of old traditional practices. The science supporting such an option is relatively young and its analytical framework has not been tested over many years. It is therefore important to identify and address what we poorly know, that is understanding bio-ecological mechanisms at work in agro-systems, using agro-biodiversity as leverage for intensification, exploring the multiple and complex links between the technical dimension of practices and socio-economic and political changes. This means revisiting the notion of performance in agriculture. This also leads to orchestrating research partnerships, at local and global levels, and implement multi-stakeholders’ original learning approaches that embed scientific knowledge into local innovation systems. After describing the specificity of knowledge gaps, this contribution identifies the main knowledge gaps and explores new research approaches, arrangements and roles.

International public agricultural research for development is increasingly requested to contribute to solving societal challenges related to food security, ecological transitions, climatic change and inequalities in development, among others. At the same time, in one strand of the scientific communities modalities and criteria to assess research are shifting towards demonstrating and explaining the causal link between research outputs and development impacts (Gaunand et al;, 2015). This paper describes a novel approach for impact assessment of agricultural research conducted in a developing country context adapted from the “impact pathways” and ASIRPA approaches (e.g. Douthwaite and Gummert 2010; Joly et al., 2015). A key methodological choice was to give an active role in the assessment to the multiple stakeholders involved in innovation and/or impacted by it. This was considered essential to identify impacts and indicators that evaluation teams might not have thought of by themselves, and to understand the complexity of innovation processes eventually leading to impact, particularly in a developing country context for which accountability towards end-users of research is weak and availability of or access to reliable quantitative data is a challenge. The resulting participatory methodology, called “Impress” (IMPact of RESearch in the South) focuses on establishing and explaining the relationships between the outputs produced by research, the outcomes that involve and affect the actors directly or indirectly interacting with research and ultimately the primary and secondary impacts for development. After developing it iteratively over several years, CIRAD is currently testing it by assessing 13 case studies throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. Cases cover a wide diversity of innovation domains (plant breeding, post-harvest processing, pest and disease management, value chains, etc.), research approaches (from transfer of technology to action-research) and innovation trajectories, some of which were assessed ex-post and others in itinere). The perimeter of each case study includes suites of consecutive or closely related research or R&D projects which took place around a common theme in a given area over time. Evidence and indicators of impact are being identified, measured and validated through multi-stakeholders workshops, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and surveys with key concerned stakeholder groups. Initial results show a wide diversity of mostly positive impact types, including increases in production and incomes, improvement of the natural resources base, increased access to remunerative markets and at times changes in regulatory frameworks and policies, among others. Some impacts and indicators thereof were identified by the case stakeholders themselves, vindicating the choice of a participatory approach. Impacts seem linked among others to the development of and access to new knowledge and the strengthening of partnerships among stakeholders. Developing the capacities of stakeholders and of smallholder farmers in particular, also seems to have had a significant effect, which may have contributed to scaling out of some innovations. After cross-analysing this round of case studies and addressing the methodological lessons and challenges, CIRAD will release by end of 2016 an improved, user-friendlier version of IMPRESS which may be used within and outside CIRAD. It also hopes to encourage its researchers and Triomphe et al. Towards a generic, comprehensive and participatory approach... 3Southern partners to adopt an “impact culture” so that they can adjust their research planning and practices in an ex-ante fashion, and in doing so, improve the probability their future research work will indeed contribute to more and better impact.

Présentation de l'éditeur : Agriculture is the primary human activity: it involves 1.3 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world's population and half of its labour force. The cultivated area, i.e., the area where humans plan and directly control the vegetation cover, now represents over 20% of the landmass. Faced with the challenges of demography and poverty, agricultural systems, in all their diversity, are being called upon to intensify and enhance the production of goods and services. At the same time, they are expected to be able to cope better with climatic and other risks and uncertainties. How can biodiversity contribute to the transformation of these agricultural systems? The diversity of living organisms has served agriculture since its origins in the Neolithic Era. But modern farming has aimed for ever increasing and consistent yields, relying on massive use of synthetic inputs and fossil energy to do so. Indeed, we seem to have forgotten how much plant, animal and microbial biodiversity are the engine of all production processes and the basis for the regulation of ecosystems, both cultivated and natural. We will have to understand biodiversity better, remobilize it, enrich it and plan it - in one word cultivate it - in order to intensify production in a sustainable manner and ensure global food security. This will put agriculture in the developing world at the centre of discussions on possible transformations of agricultural systems. This book approaches these issues from various angles and shows how these transformations are not limited to the plot and its crop but also concern the profound links between rural communities and their living heritage, their ways to conserve this agrobiodiversity and their innovative ways for benefitting from it. Contents: 1. Introduction (Étienne Hainzelin). 2. The diversity of living organisms: the engine for ecological functioning (Étienne Hainzelin, Christine Nouaille). 3. From artificialization to the ecologization of cropping systems (Florent Maraux, Éric Malézieux, Christian Gary). 4. Rethinking plant breeding (Nourollah Ahmadi, Benoît Bertrand, Jean-Christophe Glaszmann). 5. Ecological interactions within the biodiversity of cultivated systems (Alain Ratnadass, Éric Blanchart, Philippe Lecomte). 6. Conserving and cultivating agricultural genetic diversity: transcending established divides (Sélim Louafi, Didier Bazile, Jean-Louis Noyer). 7. Towards biodiverse agricultural systems: reflecting on the technological, social and institutional changes at stake (Estelle Biénabe)

The diversity of living organisms has long been the mainstay of agricultural activity and its innovations. However, since the late nineteenth century, particularly in industrialized countries, increases in yields have been based on radically new technologies which deny the biological reality of agriculture and end up artificializing environments. This greatly intensified agriculture is primarily based on fossil fuels (mainly petroleum). It now finds itself at an impasse because of its impacts on ecosystems and the dramatic increase in the prices of inputs and energy. Social inequalities and massive rural exoduses that it has caused are further reasons for concern. Scientists, politicians and NGOs have striven, mainly over the last 20 years, to come up with alternative approaches for developing countries to overcome these energy, economic and environmental crises, and in order to ensure food security for the most vulnerable populations. There is now a widespread conviction that these countries must develop the capacity to ensure sustainable food security. The intensification of their production is therefore essential but has to be based on new approaches. Often grouped under the all-encompassing term ‘agroecology’, these new approaches rely on both the most modern advances in agricultural sciences and the traditional know-how of rural populations.

L'agriculture brésilienne a connu depuis les années 1950, une période d'intense modernisation, très liée à l'industrialisation et l'urbanisation du pays. L'augmentation vigoureuse de nombreuses productions est certes liée à la conquête de nouveaux espaces comme les cerrados, mais il est remarquable que le Brésil soit devenu, pendant les 20 dernières années, un des premiers producteurs et exportateurs de produits agricoles du monde, aussi grâce à des efforts de productivité. Une très large part (80%) des exploitations agricoles est cependant restée en dehors de ce processus de modernisation, en particulier dans les régions Nord et Nordeste. L'analyse des revenus des exploitations, avec ou sans la prise en compte des amortissements du capital, montre que la rémunération du travail est extrêmement faible dans la majorité des exploitations. La viabilité à terme de ces exploitations est en cause. Face à cette situation, la recherche doit relever plusieurs défis technologiques et méthodologiques et l'histoire des coopérations entre la France et le Brésil dans ces domaines peut donner quelques pistes pour l'avenir.

Agroecology is essentially based on the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural production, and thus represents a true rupture from the way agriculture has been seen and analysed by mainstream science for over a century. Agroecology does not have a consensual definition; it represents a conceptual space to think about agricultural sustainability through strong interactions between science and society with a wealth of new concepts, questions and tools. Among the diverse 'incarnations' of agroecology, the lowest common denominator is found at plot level. The basic and common principle is to increase biomass production by enhancing the services provided by living organisms and by taking the optimal advantage of natural resources, especially those which are abundant and free (e.g. solar radiation, atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, rainfall). Agroecology aims to manage, and in some cases to increase, production in a sustainable and resilient way that will maintain and improve the natural capital in the long term. It will enhance the ecological processes and interactions of functional biodiversity above- and below-ground, over space and in time, by both intensifying biological cycles for nutrients, water and energy, and controlling the aggressors of crops. Because ecosystem services are involved, agroecology has long been working on larger scales (i.e. farms, landscapes, watershed basins, value chains, food systems). Agroecology has had a deep engagement with interdisciplinary research, in particular focusing on some of the drivers of agricultural development such as food industries and distribution, consumer health, public policies, etc. Because agroecology strongly depends on locally available natural resources including agrobiodiversity, it cannot prescribe ready-to-use technical packages to farmers. Rather, agroecological models and solutions are built by mingling scientific and traditional knowledge and by strongly relying on local learning and innovation processes. With the many challenges ahead, agroecology represents a true alternative avenue for agricultural transformation; while it questions the role and practices of agricultural research and calls for a significant renewal.

Présentation de l'éditeur : L'agriculture est la première activité humaine avec 1,3 milliard d'actifs, soit près du quart de la population mondiale et la moitié de la population active. L'espace cultivé, c'est-à-dire l'espace où l'homme planifie et pilote directement le couvert végétal, représente aujourd'hui plus de 20 % des terres émergées. Face aux défis de la démographie et de la pauvreté, les systèmes agricoles, dans toutes leurs diversités, sont appelés à s'intensifier et à renforcer leur production de biens et de services, tout en se préparant à mieux affronter les risques et les incertitudes. Comment la biodiversité peut-elle contribuer à la transformation de ces agricultures ? La diversité du vivant a servi l'agriculture depuis ses débuts au néolithique. Mais l'activité agricole moderne a visé des rendements toujours croissants et homogènes, à force de recours massifs aux intrants et à l'énergie fossile. Cela avait fait oublier à quel point la biodiversité végétale, animale et microbienne est le moteur de tous les processus de production et de régulation des écosystèmes, tant cultivés que naturels. Mieux connaître et comprendre, remobiliser et planifier, en un mot, cultiver la biodiversité pour intensifier durablement la production et assurer la sécurité alimentaire mondiale remet les agricultures des pays du Sud au coeur des réflexions sur les transformations possibles. Cet ouvrage aborde la question sous différents angles et montre à quel point ces transformations ne sont pas limitées à la parcelle et à sa culture. Elles touchent en fait aux liens profonds entre les communautés paysannes et leur patrimoine vivant, dans leur façon de conserver cette agrobiodiversité et d'innover pour en tirer profit. Sommaire : Remerciements. Préface (Gilles Boeuf). Introduction (Étienne Hainzelin) : La biodiversité depuis toujours au coeur de l'activité agricole ; Les enjeux de la transformation de l'agriculture ; Intensifier les processus écologiques pour transformer les performances agricoles ; L'agrobiodiversité, principal levier de cette intensification écologique ; L'intensification écologique, une des priorités stratégiques du Cirad ; Un ouvrage en six regards. 1. La diversité du vivant, moteur du fonctionnement écologique (Étienne Hainzelin, Christine Nouaille) : Diversité et unité du vivant, les révolutions successives des sciences biologiques ; Une histoire intimement liée à celle de l'homme ; Les risques documentés de l'érosion de l'agrobiodiversité ; Pourquoi vouloir " cultiver " la biodiversité ? Comment mieux comprendre l'extraordinaire complexité du vivant et des agroécosystèmes ? L'agrobiodiversité, enjeu de développement ? 2. De l'artificialisation à l'écologisation des systèmes de culture (Florent Maraux, Éric Malézieux, Christian Gary) : Les impasses de l'artificialisation des systèmes de culture ; Les opportunités et les limites de systèmes de culture qui valorisent la biodiversité ; Vers de nouveaux systèmes de culture " écologiquement innovants ". 3. Repenser l'amélioration des plantes (Nourollah Ahmadi, Benoît Bertrand, Jean-Christophe Glaszmann) : L'amélioration des plantes d'hier et d'aujourd'hui ; Les inflexions et les évolutions récentes ; Les défis de l'agriculture écologiquement intensive ; Les leviers pour relever les défis de l'intensification écologique. 4. Interactions écologiques au sein de la biodiversité des systèmes cultivés (Alain Ratnadass, Éric Blanchart, Philippe Lecomte) : Biodiversité et régulation des bioagresseurs ; La diversité cachée du sol : quelles potentialités pour l'agriculture ? Biodiversité et interactions agriculture-élevage. 5. Conserver et cultiver la diversité génétique agricole : aller au-delà des clivages établis (Sélim Louafi, Didier Bazile, Jean-Louis Noyer) : Historique de la conservation des ressources génétiques en agriculture ; Stratégies et politiques internationales en faveur de la mobilisation de la diversité génétique ; Nécessité de la conservation in situ et compl

L'agriculture brésilienne a connu depuis les années 1950 une période d'intense modernisation, très liée à l'industrialisation et l'urbanisation du pays. L'augmentation vigoureuse de nombreuses productions est certes liée à la conquête de nouveaux espaces comme les cerrados, mais il est remarquable que le Brésil soit devenu, pendant les 20 dernières années, un des premiers producteurs et exportateurs de produits agricoles du monde, aussi grâce à des efforts de productivité. Une très large part (80%) des exploitations agricoles est cependant restée en dehors de ce processus de modernisation, en particulier dans les régions Nord et Nordeste. L'analyse des revenus des exploitations, avec ou sans la prise en compte des amortissements du capital, montre que la rémunération du travail est extrêmement faible dans la majorité des exploitations. La viabilité à terme de ces exploitations est en cause. Face à cette situation, la recherche doit relever plusieurs défis technologiques et méthodologiques et l'histoire des coopérations entre la France et le Brésil dans ces domaines peut donner quelques pistes pour l'avenir.

This paper presents an initial cross-analysis of impact pathways identified in 13 cases studies on agricultural innovation in a developing country context. The aim was to understand better how research actually contributes to impact generation. The results were obtained by applying a common impact assessment approach called ImpresS (Impact of research in the South), which was developed by CIRAD over the past few years. ImpresS includes a set of theory driven, participatory and comprehensive evaluation tools and uses contribution analysis to establish causality links between inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts. After an overview of the approach used for the cross analysis, we present three case studies, exemplifying different roles researchers play in the generation of impact pathways and especially in that of outputs and outcomes. We then characterize in more generic terms three patterns of impact pathways that are useful for organizing learning. Two key results are outlined as a result of the cross analysis of impact pathways and stakeholders. (1) Research contributes to impact pathways according to three main patterns (2). knowledge across cases can be structured within each of them enabling different kind of learning to inform future research projects.