| Previous | Return to table of contents | Search Reports | Next |
| « Back to weltagrarbericht.de | ||
Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 77
Table 2-3 continued
| Label | Features of Production System | Features of AKST | Direct Drivers | Indirect Drivers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic/ Low impact/ Sustainable farming in South and North | Low use of external inputs; crop nutrition and pest management; based on natural systems; focus on maintaining/building quality of soil and water resources | South Local learning, e.g., through Farmer Field Schools; documentation and dissemination of local knowledge; Cuba's model of centers to reproduce biological pest control agentsNorth producers' organizations; independent R&D institutions networking among producers; government funding for research on organic and sustainable farming |
South Social: social capital, collective effort Economic: high cost of external inputs; negative impact on yields of high input agriculture.Policy: sustainability Cognitive: farmer concern with resource/ecosystem damage Trade: high demand for organic/niche products in northern markets Institutional: emergence of local NGOs for dissemination of sustainable practices; increase in aid for low input agriculture North (EU) Cognitive: idea of "natural" and ecological farming popularized Policy: funding, subsidy and support for conversionEconomic and social: public awareness of organic products Institutional: good support structure of organizations and extension services |
South Globalization and investments: international organizations (IFOAM)Cognitive: farmer and researcher recognition of externalities of high external input agriculture North Cognitive and social: recognition of negative environmental effects of high input ag., and problems faced by family farmsGlobalization and trade: disease outbreaks leading to trade restrictions Institutional: rise of Green movements and political parties |
|
technical pool of expertise dedicated to collaboration with farmers in research and development. These IA's emphasize the centrality of primary producers, food processors and laborers in agricultural and food systems. In general, they initially capitalize volunteerism and fund-raising activities to implement farmer-led projects, but often move on to a holistic approach to development of livelihoods and welfare, community empowerment and measures to extend farmer control over agricultural biodiversity. For instance, MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc.) was established in the Philippines in 1987, after more than five years' collaboration between farmers concerned about the negative impacts of high-yield rice and associated technologies on their livelihoods, local genetic resources, and environment, and a few progressive scientists. It then rapidly developed into a large farmer-led network of people's organizations, NGOs and scientists, promoting the sustainable use and management of biodiversity through farmers' control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production and associated knowledge based on a strategy of placing command of the skills and knowledge of the agronomic sci- |
ences in the hands of small-scale producers. By 2004, MASIPAG was working with four national/regional civil society networks and organizations, seven Philippino universities and research centers and seven local government authorities and line agencies. MASIPAG's network of trial and research farms included 72 in 16 provinces in the island of Luzon, 60 in 10 provinces in Visayas and 140 in 14 provinces in Mindanao. MASIPAG today is recognized worldwide as a leading example of highly effective farmer-led and largely farmer-funded and farmer-managed, R&D and extension that is building small-scale farm modernization, resource conservation and food sector development on ecological principles (Salazar, 1992; Araya, 2000). At the other end of the spectrum, systematic testing has been carried out of user involvement in the barley breeding cycle in Syria (Ceccarelli et al., 2000). The researchers initially designed four types of trials: by farmers in their fields, with farmers on-station, by breeders in farmers' fields and by breeders on-station. Their experience of the rigor, reliability, and comparative costs and benefits of the four led them to concentrate on testing and selection by farmers in their own fields, complemented |
| Previous | Return to table of contents | Search Reports | Next |
| « Back to weltagrarbericht.de | ||