Book of Abstract (incl. addendum) - IFSA symposium 2012

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Workshop 2.3 Systems thinking and practice in rural innovation: advances in concept, methodologies and interventions Re-orienting rural innovation Paul Swagemakers, Ton Baars and Han Wiskerke University Vigo, Spain Paul.Swagemakers@uvigo.es The modernization of agriculture is resulting in an increasing disconnection between farming, nature and society, creating a series of social, economic and ecological crises in the food chain. Rural innovation starts where innovative practitioners successfully adapt their farm in a step-by step innovation process. From a radical prospect on the role and functioning of the farm it gradually unfolds as a productive farm that matches changing societal needs. This type of systemic configurations unfolds in different contexts but shares the common characteristic that the adaptations – conceptualized as novelties – are guided by a re-orientation towards the local (ecological and socio-economic) resource base. Promising farm practices can be further strengthened when scientists explore, test and verify the interrelations between novelties whilst politicians and policy makers pursue an objectives-led policy (instead of implementing prescriptive measures) that allows for and stimulates the exchange of novelties between producers and promotes scientific research on promising novelties. Toward a reflexive framework to compare collective design methods for farming system innovation Elsa Berthet, Julie Labatut and Nathalie Girard Mines ParisTech, France Elsa.Berthet@agroparistech.fr Faced with strong environmental issues, the agricultural sector has to revise deeply its aims and performance criteria. Theories and methods are urgently needed to foster the design of innovative farming systems reconciling production with other ecosystem services, while taking into account heterogeneous stakeholder viewpoints in situations of high uncertainty (Voβ et al, 2006; Leeuwis, 2004). Numerous methods have been proposed over the past decades to facilitate collective learning for environmental management (Reed, 2008). Most of them promote problem-solving or scenario-based approaches to tackle issues such as common goods management, with in particular methods grounded on Role-Playing Games (Hartig et al., 2010; Vieira Pak & Castillo Brieva, 2010). By integrating existing knowledge and stakeholders’ perspectives, such simulation approaches have proved to be efficient in crossing disciplinary boundaries and understanding systems’ complexity. However scenarios and models are often based on consensus or established knowledge. Considering that the design of innovative farming systems requires interplay between exploitation of existing knowledge and exploration of innovative futures (March, 1991), we question the relevance of simulation approaches to go beyond incremental innovation. In this paper, we compare participative methods such as the Forage Rummy (Martin et al, 2011) and the Companion Modelling approach (Etienne, 2011) with a method based on C-K theory (Hatchuel & Weil, 2009), developed in the industrial sector to manage collective exploration for radical innovation. As organisers and observers of design workshops using these methods, we analyse for each of them how existing and induced knowledge is managed and gaps are identified, how conceptual exploration is conducted, and how relations between participants are taken into account. Finally, we discuss how these methods could be combined to foster radical innovation in the field of farming system design. 44
Workshop 2.3 Systems thinking and practice in rural innovation: advances in concept, methodologies and interventions Key lessons from a cross-analysis of innovation experiences in Africa Bernard Triomphe, Geoffrey Kamau, Simplice Davo Vodouhe, Brigit Letty and Teresiah Nganga CIRAD, France Bernard.Triomphe@cirad.fr Within the context of the FP7 JOLISAA project (JOint Learning in and about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), an inventory of innovation experiences was developed covering three African countries: Kenya, South Africa and Benin, and focusing on diverse innovation experiences in which at least 3 different types of stakeholders were involved, and being at least three years old. The inventory was made according to a common analytical framework and guidelines to ensure cross-comparison across cases and countries. The inventory consists of two interrelated templates: (1) an MS Excel © template which covers semi-qualitative characteristics, and (2) a MS Word © template, which offers a short qualitative description. National teams used two major avenues to identify cases: literature searches and interactions with a range of institutions and networks engaged in agricultural innovation. Interviews with resource persons and field visits were also conducted to supplement the available / accessible documentation. The completed inventory includes 50 documented cases, covering a wide diversity of experiences, including different types, domains, scales and timelines of innovation, with different degrees of success or impact in terms of improving smallholder-livelihoods. The 50 cases share a number of key features: the common occurrence of “innovation bundles” (a combination of technological, social and/or institutional innovation); the non-linearity of the innovation process; the strategic importance of market linkages in triggering or driving many of the innovations; and a usually close relationship between innovation and externally-funded projects. NAtional terams faced several challenges during the inventory process, including a proper understanding and consistent use of key innovaiton-related concepts. Facilitating agricultural innovation in vicious non-systemic development circles: Lessons from agricultural development projects Ataharul Huq Chowdhury, Helen Hambly Odame and Cees Leeuwis University of Guelph, Canada Atahar77@yahoo.com Enormous changes have been taking place in theory and conducts of agricultural extension in developing countries because of the rapidly evolving nature of agricultural innovation. These changes require new ways of conducting extension activities that involve facilitation of interactive communication among multiple stakeholders and a wide range of intermediation tasks within (and between) stakeholders operating in different social speheres. More so, key extension stakeholders need to deepen their understanding about innovation that goes beyond informaiton and knowledge disseminaiton to a process of embedding new knowledge into social and economic changes. This has led to recognizing that extension stakeholders require new capacities as individuals, organizations and systems. In the new agricultural innovation landscape, how is conventional role of extension being reinvented in rural areas, especially among those people primarily dependent on smallholder agriculture? Drawing on lessons from several projects we intend to discuss current extension institutional functions and associated barriers in achieving performance of innovation systems and collective actions. The findings of this study suggest that agricultural extension projects still miss the opportunity to deliver extension services as collective and systemic functions. We argue that this is due to institutions that curb the agricultural innovation system function within the linear paradigm of technology transfer, under-estimation and depreciation of intermediary roles of extension personnel (e.g. brokering, negotiating, convening), and inability to foresee facilitation of learning in conjuction with institutional adaptation process. We conclude that effective functioning of agricultural innovation 45
Page 1 and 2: Content: Producing and reproducing
Page 3 and 4: Overall programme Producing and rep
Page 5 and 6: Producing and reproducing farming s
Page 7 and 8: Abstract of plenary sessions: Produ
Page 9 and 10: Abstract of plenary sessions: Produ
Page 11 and 12: Workshop 1.1 Knowledge flows in plu
Page 21 and 22: Workshop 1.2 Family Farms as Educat
Page 27 and 28: Workshop 1.3 Understanding agricult
Page 39 and 40: Workshop 2.2 Comparing the impacts
Page 41 and 42: Workshop 2.3 Systems thinking and p
Page 43: Workshop 2.3 Systems thinking and p
Page 53 and 54: Workshop 3.1 Farming Systems’ ada
Page 59 and 60: Workshop 3.2 Succession in farming
Page 61 and 62: Workshop 3.2 Succession in farming
Page 63 and 64: Workshop 3.3 Restructuring family f
Page 69 and 70: Workshop 4.1 ‘Civic food networks
Page 79 and 80: Workshop 4.2 Sustainable local publ
Page 81 and 82: Workshop 4.2 Sustainable local publ
Page 83 and 84: Workshop 5.1 The landscape as the b
Page 89 and 90: Workshop 5.2 European realities - a
Page 95 and 96:
Workshop 5.3 Research-Education-Act
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Workshop 6.1 Balancing and communic
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Workshop 6.2 Merging the unmergeabl
Page 113 and 114:
Workshop 6.2 Merging the unmergeabl
Page 115 and 116:
Workshop 6.3 Organics: their dynami
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Workshop 6.4 Integrated simulation
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
WS 1.3 Producing and reproducing fa
Page 133 and 134:
Producing and reproducing farming s
show all

Book of Abstract (incl. addendum) - IFSA symposium 2012

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?