Diversity of experimentation by farmers engaged in agroecology

International audienceAbstractAgroecology questions the production of generic knowledge. Rather than searching for the best practices for large-scale transfer, it would be more efficient to help farmers find their own solutions. A promising activity for farmers is experimentation because it answers their needs and helps them learn. However, how agroecological practices are tested by farmers in their own experiments is still poorly known. In this study, we examined the short-term experimental activity, i.e., experiments carried out at a yearly scale in pre-defined fields. Seventeen farmers in south eastern France were surveyed. The farmers practiced conventional or organic farming and cultivated either arable or market garden crops. Experiments on agroecological practices were characterized, located along a timeline, and discussed with them. To conduct the interviews with the farmers, each experiment was described in three stages: (1) designing the experiment, (2) managing it in real time, and (3) evaluating the results of the experiment. The data collected in the interviews were first analyzed to build a descriptive framework of farmers’ experiments, after which hierarchical cluster analysis was used to analyze the diversity of the farmers’ experiments. Here, we propose for the first time a generic framework to describe farmers’ experiments at a short time scale based on the consistency between the Design, Management, and Evaluation stages. We used the framework to characterize the diversity of farmers’ experiments and identified four clusters. The originality of this work is both building a descriptive framework resulting from in-depth analyses of farmers’ discourse and using statistical tools to identify and interpret the groups of experiments. Our results provide a better understanding of farmers’ experiments and suggest tools and methods to help them experiment, a major challenge in the promotion of a large-scale agroecological transition

Study on impacts of farmer-led research supported by civil society organizations

The CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) program, together with the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), asked Prolinnova — an NGO-led multistakeholder international network that promotes local innovation processes in agriculture and natural resource management — to help them explore the approaches, outcomes and impacts of informal research and development facilitated by CSOs. Basing their research on 11 case studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America, which were drawn from over 100 cases that were identified and vetted, the study team assessed the extent to which farmer-led processes of research and innovation in agriculture and natural resource management led to improvements in rural livelihoods. This report describes farmer-led research findings and their dissemination, and analyzes available evidence on the impact of farmer-led approaches to agricultural research and development on rural livelihoods, local capacity to innovate and adapt, and influence on governmental institutions of agricultural research and development. It then draws lessons for pursuing this type of approach and for future partnerships between actors in both formal and informal agricultural research and development who seek common goals in serving smallholder communities

Exploring the impact of farmer-led research supported by civil society organizations

This paper asks: What have been the impacts of farmer- or community-led (informal) processes of research and development in agriculture and natural resource management in terms of food security, ecological sustainability, economic empowerment, gender relations, local capacity to innovate and influence on formal agricultural research and development institutions? An innovative conceptual framework was applied to a diverse set of farmer-led research initiatives in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to explore approaches, outcomes and impacts of informal agricultural research and development (ARD) facilitated by civil society organisations. Findings include the following: locally appropriate technical innovations emerging from these processes are readily taken up by other farmers; the most common channels of dissemination are farmer to farmer through informal networks and spaces created for farmer-researchers and other farmers to meet and exchange, such as innovation fairs; livelihood impacts are broad and substantial; local capacity to innovate is strengthened and institutionalisation through the formal sector has been limited. Lessons are drawn for future partnerships in promoting and supporting farmer-led research involving formal and informal ARD actors working with smallholder communities