Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 138 Document Number: D05764
Notes:
Extension Methods 1. From AgroInsight, Ghent, Belgium. 1 page., Summary of research suggesting that the attitude of the extension staff when working with farmers can be as important as the extension method itself. 1 page.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C29789
Notes:
Pages 134-135 in Ian Scoones and John Thompson (eds.), Farmer First revisited: innovation for agricultural research and development. Practical Action Publishing, Warwickshire, U.K. 357 pages.
Chataway, Joanna (author), Robbins, Peter (author), and Smith, James (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2010
Published:
Kenya
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08703
Notes:
Pages 194-202 in Gordon Wilson, Pamela Furniss and Richard Kimbowa (eds.), Environment, development and sustainability: perspectives and cases from around the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. 290 pages.
International: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 146 Document Number: D11569
Notes:
22 pages., Presentation at the annual conference of the South African Society for Agricultural Extension (SASAE), June 3-7, 2013, in Bloemfontein, South Africa. 22 pages., Presenter concluded that new innovative capacities are needed at all levels of capacity development. Recommendations included continuous adaptation to change, linking stakeholders in the innovation system, and considering farmers' own innovative processes.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D01213
Notes:
Pages 325-330 in Waters-Bayer (eds.), Farmer innovation in Africa: a source of inspiration for agricultural development. Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England. 362 pages.
9 pages., via online journal., High-quality weather and climate services (WCS) can be critical for communicating knowledge about current and future weather and climate risks for adaptation and disaster risk management in the agricultural sector. This paper investigates the structure and performance of weather and climate services for farmers from a governance perspective. Empirically the paper compares the institutional design and operations of agro-meteorological services in Maharashtra/India and Norway through a ‘most different case study’ approach. The two cases were selected to represent great diversity in location, scale and institutional design. A governance approach based on semi-direct interviews and policy and institutional analysis was combined with local survey data of farmers’ perceptions and use of the services. Despite the fact that the context for the two agromet advisory services was very different from a climate-weather, eco-agriculture and socio-institutional angle, the analysis reveals great similarities in the services structures and critical governance challenges. In both countries the agromet services communicated knowledge that was largely perceived not to be well tailored to farmers’ needs for decisions in specific crops- and farm operations, spatially too coarse to address local issues, and, often unreliable or inaccurate in terms of the quality of data. Farmers did, however, respond positively to specific and locally relevant information on e.g., warnings about high rainfall and spread of pests. Observing such similarities across very diverse contexts enhances the generalization potential, precisely because they evolved under very different circumstances. Similar observations find support in the wider WCS literature. Based on the empirical findings, we propose a more deliberate approach to institutional design of WCS in order to enhance governance performance and co-creation of the services at local, district and national scales. It is suggested that greater participation of farmers and agricultural extension agents in the co-creation of these services is a necessary means of improving the services, supported by the WCS literature. However, we insist that greater participation is only likely to materialize if the deficiencies in institutional design and knowledge quality and relevance are addressed to greater extent than done today. The comparison between the two services shows that Norway can learn from India that a more ambitious scope and multiple forms of communication, including the use of social media/WhatsApp groups, can facilitate greater awareness and interest among farmers in multi-purpose agromet services for multi-way communication. India can learn from Norway that a more integrated and decentralized institutional design can strengthen the network attributes of the services, foster co-creation, and improve participation of both poor and large-scale farmers and extension agents.
