Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:29:31.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMENT ON ‘DE ROO ET AL. (2019). ON-FARM TRIALS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT? THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH AND THE SCALING OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

PATRICK C. WALL Open the ORCID record for PATRICK C. WALL [Opens in a new window] ,
CHRISTIAN L. THIERFELDER ,
ISAIAH NYAGUMBO ,
LEONARD RUSINAMHODZI  and
WALTER MUPANGWA
PATRICK C. WALL*
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
CHRISTIAN L. THIERFELDER
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
ISAIAH NYAGUMBO
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
LEONARD RUSINAMHODZI
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
WALTER MUPANGWA
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In their recent paper ‘On-farm trials for development impact? The organization of research and the scaling of agricultural technologies’, de Roo, Andersson and Krupnik report on three case studies, each undertaken by one of the authors, of projects conducting on-farm research. They reach conclusions on the limitations of the projects themselves and the effects of ‘donor dependency’, and propose a strategy to overcome these issues. However, the description of the philosophy, strategies and conduct of the projects reviewed in the southern African case study is incomplete and misleading, and shows that the case study author did not understand or overlooked important project components. Due to this the conclusions reached, insofar as this case study is concerned, are largely either invalid or already contemplated in the project activities. Here, we describe more fully the philosophy and strategies followed by the series of projects on which the case study was conducted, which were designed to facilitate, through the upscaling of project methodologies, the eventual outscaling and widespread adoption of more sustainable farming systems by smallholder farmers in eastern and southern Africa. We propose these methodologies as a valid comprehensive approach to the organization of agricultural research for development for the successful development, scaling-up and scaling-out of agricultural technologies.

Type
Review
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Special Issue 2: Themed Issue: Contested Agronomy , April 2019 , pp. 185 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current addresses: La Cañada 177, Sector O, Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico.

References

REFERENCES

Affholder, F., Jourdain, D., Quang, D. D., Tuong, T. P., Morize, M. and Ricome, A. (2010). Constraints to farmers’ adoption of direct-seeding mulch-based cropping systems: a farm scale modeling approach applied to the mountainous slopes of Vietnam. Agricultural Systems 103 (1):51–62.Google Scholar
Andersson, J. A. and D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187:116–132. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167880913002685 [Accessed July 14, 2014].Google Scholar
Arslan, A. et al. (2014). Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187:72–86. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.017.Google Scholar
Bolliger, A., Damgaard Hansen, K. and Fowler, R. (2005). Constraints limiting smallholder adoption of conservation agriculture: some observations based on three South African smallholder-orientated programmes. In Proceedings of the III World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 3–7 October 2005. p. On CD.Google Scholar
Corbeels, M., de Graaff, J., Ndah, T. H., Penot, E., Baudron, F., Naudin, K., Andrieu, N., Chirat, G., Schuler, J., Nyagumbo, I., Rusinamhodzi, L., Traore, K., Mzoba, H. D. and Adolwa, I. S. (2013). Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187:155–170.Google Scholar
Crawford, P. and Bryce, P. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management 21 (5):363–373.Google Scholar
de Roo, N., Andersson, J. A. and Krupnik, T. J. (2019). On-farm trials for development impact? The organization of research and the scaling of agricultural technologies. Experimental Agriculture 52 (2):163–184.Google Scholar
Derpsch, R. (2008a). No-tillage and conservation agriculture: a progress report. In: No-Till Farming Systems, 7–39 (Eds Goddard, T., Zoebisch, M., Gan, Y., Ellis, W., Watson, A. and Sombatpanit, S.). Bangkok, Thailand: World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWC).Google Scholar
Derpsch, R. (2008b). Critical steps to no-till adoption. In No-Till Farming Systems, 479–495 (Eds Goddard, T., Zoebisch, M., Gan, Y., Ellis, W., Watson, A. and Sombatpanit, S.). Bangkok, Thailand: World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWC).Google Scholar
Ehui, S. and Pender, J. (2005). Resource degradation, low agricultural productivity, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: pathways out of the spiral. Agricultural Economics 32:225–242.Google Scholar
Ekboir, J. (2002). Developing no-till packages for small-scale farmers. In World Wheat Overview and Outlook, 1–38 (Ed Ekboir, J.). Mexico City, Mexico: CIMMYT, Int..Google Scholar
Mwangi, M. and Kariuki, S. (2015). Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 6 (5):208–216Google Scholar
Ndah, H. T., Schuler, J., Uthes, S., Zander, P., Traore, K., Gama, M.-S., Nyagumbo, I., Triomphe, B., Sieber, S. and Corbeels, M. (2014). Adoption potential of conservation agriculture practices in sub-Saharan Africa: results from five case studies. Environmental Management 53 (3):620–635.Google Scholar
Nyamangara, J., Chikowo, R., Rusinamhodzi, L. and Mazvimavi, K. (2013). Conservation agriculture in southern Africa. In Conservation Agriculture. Global Prospects and Challenges, 339–351 (Eds Jat, R. A., Sahrawat, L. and Kassam, A. H.). UK: CABI.Google Scholar
Perrin, R. K., Winkelmann, D., Moscardi, E. R. and Anderson, J. R. (1976). From agronomic data to farmer recommendations. An Economics Training Manual. Mexico:CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Rossing, T., Otzelberger, A. and Girot, P. (2014). Scaling up the use of tools for community-based adaptation. Issues and challenges. In Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change: Scaling it Up, 103–121 (Eds Lisa, E., Schipper, F., Ayers, J., Reid, H., Huq, S. and Rahman, A.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Sartas, M., Lamers, D., Campbell, M. M. C., Ogbonna, I., Kaushik, P., Atta-Krah, K. and Leeuwis, C. (2016). Innovation platforms: experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Experimental Agriculture 52 (4):537–561.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J. (2005). Constraints to the adoption of agricultural innovations – is it time for a re-think? Outlook on Agriculture 34:7–10.Google Scholar
Tripp, R. and Rohrbach, D. (2001) Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy 26 (2):147–161.Google Scholar
Wall, P. C. (2007). Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries : an analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19:137–155.Google Scholar
Wall, P. C., Thierfelder, C. T., Ngwira, A., Govaerts, B., Nyagumbo, I. and Baudron, F. (2014). Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern Africa. In Conservation Agriculture. Global Prospects and Challenges, 263–292 (Eds Jat, R. A., Sahrawat, L. and Kassam, A. H.), UK: CABI.Google Scholar