Search

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.

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).

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is increasingly promoted in Africa as an alternative for coping with the need to increase food production on the basis of more sustainable farming practices. CA is specifically seen as a way to address the problems of soil degradation resulting from agricultural practices that deplete the organic matter and nutrient content of the soil. It aims at higher crop yields and lower production costs. Yet, success with adopting CA on farms in Africa has been limited. 'Conservation Agriculture to Africa' (CA2Africa) is a European Commission-funded project (www. ca2africa.eu) seeking to understand why CA techniques have not been adopted widely throughout Africa. The objective of the project is to examine the agronomic, agro-ecological, socio-economic and institutional conditions that determine success or failure of CA. It brings together the major research players involved with CA in Africa to share, assess and learn together with practitioners from past and ongoing experiences on CA in five regions across Africa on the basis of selected case studies: Eastern Africa (Kenya/Tanzania); Southern Africa (Zimbabwe/Malawi/Zambia); Western Africa (Burkina-Faso/Benin); Northern Africa (Morocco/Tunisia) and Madagascar. CA is analysed and understood using a conceptual framework that distinguishes three scales of analysis: field, farm/village and regional scale. The relative importance of the different determinants of adoption operating at each scale is determined for each case study and guides the assessments and type of analysis. From a biophysical, technical point of view, crop/soil models are used to assess the performance of CA at field scale. At farm and village scales, trade-offs in the allocation of resources become important in determining how CA may fit into a given agroecosystem. Trade-off analysis is done using bio-economic household models. At a regional scale, a qualitative expert assessment tool kit has been developed to determine the specific regional socio-economic, cultural and institutional settings that determine adoption of CA. This contribution will present the overall project philosophy, its conceptual and methodological approaches as well as results from testing selected modelling tools for selected case studies across Africa. These results show the importance of different driving forces and inhibiting forces for CA adoption.

This paper presents an analysis of smallholder dairy systems in an industrial milk supply chain and proposes a methodology of technical support based on the use of a simulation tool to explore scenarios for the sustainable evolution of the farm. The study was conducted in the Brazilian Unaí- MG region, where dairy production is a good opportunity for economic development of small-scale farms. However, some producers starting dairy production meet difficulty in developing their system and achieving an economically viable activity threshold. The first step was an analysis of six smallholder farms. Individual interviews and monthly visits were conduced over a one-year period to understand farmer-decision-making processes and collect quantitative data about herd management and fodder production. In a second step, a simulation model representing the dairy farming system was developed. Individual interviews showed that farmers usually accept the mainstream production model developed and diffused by the various stakeholders of the milk supply chain. However many producers do not apply it entirely, and hence follow diverse evolution pathways. The main factors explaining the observed discrepancies are (1) desynchronization between public, collective and individual investments (2) lack of fodder resources and (3) unsuitable adoption of model practices. The simulation model integrates crop, herd, feeding system and economic components. It underlines the break point of fodder resources availability for the growing herd. The simulation sessions realized with the six farmers allowed them to explore different scenarios of evolution. We want now to confirm this positive experience with larger sample to propose a technical support tool to relevant services.

Metadata only record The book begins, in Chapter 1, by tracing the movement of velvetbean and the knowledge of its uses from Asia to northern Honduras and noting the conditions under which velvetbean practice has waxed and waned in various parts of the world. Basic botanical features of Mucuna spp. and their historical uses in the United States and elsewhere are described.

Chapitre 2; International audience

Chapitre 3; International audience