, Brussels, Belgium.
The European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development is a multi-actor platform which
provides opportunity for dialogue on issues of strategic importance for European agricultural and
research and non-research actors. Each year, the platform members meet to discuss strategies for
possible (re)alignment of EFARD’s priorities with those of key partners such as the European
Commission (EC), the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) and partners in the South.
The
inclusiveness of Central and Eastern European countries and transformative learning is the focus of
this year’s meeting.
While the COVID pandemic has posed many challenges for network organisations in the AR4D arena
such as EFARD, we believe that now is a good moment to re-energize the EFARD community. During
the past 1.5 years the EFARD management has carried out consultations amongst its members and
the AR4D community at large to better define EFARD’s comparative advantage and potential role in a
new evolving AR4D environment.
- Introduction of GFAR and Collective Action – Hildegard Lingnau, Executive
Secretary, GFAR
- Presentation of the Collective Action on Transformative Learning – Jan Stas, Czech
University of Life Sciences and lead organisation on behalf of EFARD
- Discussion Collective Action on Transformative Learning including previous
experience in higher education transformation – Moderator Nathalie Doré, GFAR
- Closing Remarks – Dietrich Darr, Chair, EFARD
The meeting started with an introductory presentation by prof. Dr Hildegard Lingnau and Alessandro Meschinelli, during which the global context and the aims of this meeting, together with the mandate of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation (GFAR) were explained. GFAR members pointed out the notion of innovation as the result of a social process – based on the interaction of diverse actors as holders of knowledge. The key requirements for the CA to be implemented successfully were mentioned as follows:
1. Better definition of the new roles played by advisory services and researchers (tasks/ToRs)
2. Identification of new competencies and skills
3. Work towards developing the appropriate learning approaches and contents
This should lead to creating the conditions for the diverse families of actors to come together on the same ground, to connect them into one “multistakeholder group”, which will support selected universities and their partners to reflect and act upon the higher innovation transformation requirements to meet the emerging professional needs of researchers and extensionists. Alessandro Meschinelli also pointed out that the CA could be planned following two approaches: the minimalist approach would aim at developing a manifesto, as a joint declaration of intentions and a vision for Higher Education Transformation. In contrast, the maximalist approach would include (further) developing and implementing new HEI curricula in several model universities.
The second part was presented by Ing. Jan Staš from the Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (FTA, CZU). Within his presentation, a more specific/detailed context of the CA and the role of universities in the CA was explained, mentioned that a university can and should be at the nexus of the initiative, leading it in close collaboration with other (networks of) universities, e.g., RUFORUM, AGRINATURA, etc. and under the guidance of EFARD and GFAR.
The main objectives of the CA were explained as follows:
1. Collaborative Management of Innovation, which includes:
a. the capacity to understand the diversity of cultures, innovation logics, processes and models;
b. to support approaches of co-experimentation and co-validation of innovation among diverse actors;
c. to manage multi-actor innovation processes/teamwork leading to partnerships, including achieving community engagement;
d. the capacity should build trust among actors;
e. to promote joint ownership of the innovation process;
f. to equal the playing field between actors with unequal power;
g. to manage conflicts; set shared goals and objectives;
h. to define joint strategies and support collaborative planning;
i. to monitor the process and learn from the collaborative endeavour…and others
2. To train the youth to prepare them as drivers of new agriculture and agribusiness enterprises and rural transformation through skills*, entrepreneurship and vocational training (and transformational learning processes) and by promoting Soft/Life/Relational/Transdisciplinary skills of students to engage in co-research and co-innovation as a collective modality of generating knowledge for pro-poor and by-poor development
3. Transformation of formal higher education set-ups and contents need to match the new skills required for conducting the type of transdisciplinary work which is implied by co-research and co-innovation processes
4. Capacity building along the agricultural value chains (production, input supply, value addition, marketing, but also credit provision, enabling policy environment)
* Leadership, Versatility and agility, Communication skills, Sense for synthesis and problem analysis (come to the core of a problem 0), Entrepreneurship, Business Management, Leadership, Marketing Empathy, Problem-solving, Logical thinking, Understanding technology and processing, but also understanding and critical use of social media, critical analysis and understanding of (in)formal information sources (at all value chain levels, but also for social interaction), use of social media in communication and interaction with stakeholders along the whole value chain, etc.
Also, the term “Model graduate” was described as a continuously learning person who is proactive, ethical and capable of conceptualising new business and investment opportunities and engaging with communities and the industry while aware of the constantly changing socio-economic and political environment. These graduates will develop abilities to leverage diverse, innovative skills to address complex, interrelated challenges, analyse gaps and solve problems. Master how to do all that as a team member, be capable of negotiation and conflict management and fully understand group dynamics and what is needed to work with socio-economically diverse, gendered, and international groups. The model graduate should be the “product” of the learning institution, which uses the approach called “University without walls” in other words, this learning institution offers dynamic packages – and not only one - of experiential problem-driven/solving learning, joint multi-stakeholder student mentorship, entrepreneurial grants, internships, conferences and seminars, arts, theatre and music, lab experimentations, community engagement and service, and others.
CZU suggested the 2-tier practical implementation of the CA:
1. firstly, on the institutional level, there is a need to secure policy/governmental support of the responsible ministries/education authorities and community buy-in. Here, the success will depend on partnerships with other universities, the business community, the governments and the local communities and organisations, which should continuously exchange experiences, complementarity, knowledge, resources, etc.
2. secondly, on the learner’s level, where the internships will increase the employability of the graduate, students will be working directly with farmers/producers but also with all other operators along the agricultural value chain, gaining an understanding of their lives and challenges, acting as advisers based on their learning but also gaining themselves from the knowledge of farmers and experimenting together to find solutions to real-world problems
Lastly, the proposed implementation plan was explained by CZU as follows (with GFAR potentially supporting further consultations leading to the full design of the Collective Action):
1. Initial consultancies/workshops and equitable dialogues building on the ideas developed by the ‘representative platform of higher education stakeholders’ (created in 2017) summarized by GFAR in its initial Concept Note together with representatives from GFAR x RUFORUM to better identify priorities and areas of focus;
2. A continent-wide internet survey about willingness to participate in CA’s activities
3. Upon analysis and synthesis of the findings, and in collaboration with EFARD, RUFORUM and GFAR, a core group of representatives/stakeholders will elaborate a practical plan of operations/full design of the CA that will, amongst others, define the concrete countries x institutions where the pilot activities will be put on the ground.
4. At the end of the project, a final workshop – bringing together all major stakeholders who will consolidate experiences and lessons learned and prepare a concrete plan for scaling out the model to other partners in the regions
5. Facilitation and concrete implementation through CZU’s day-to-day project management
6. This will be assisted by a steering committee, consisting of representatives of CZU, GFAR, EFARD, RUFORUM and the multiple stakeholder platform (1 per organisation), which will regularly meet and discuss progress against operations plan x milestones discussed
After the second presentation, the poll was launched about the experiences (involvement) of the audience with the “Higher Education Transformation”. From the results obtained, 57% of the participants answered YES, which means that more than half have already some experience with this mentioned topic. Next, another poll was launched to see if the audience feels this Collection Action is addressing the right priorities. Over 70% of participants said YES.
After the answers were collected from the chat, the discussion was launched. Participants could write the questions in the conversation or ask them directly and participate in break-out rooms.
The fruitful debate raised answered several topics like understanding the spirit of the Collective Action where resource mobilization/raising funds depends also on the partners themselves; the need to involve other faculties, not only agriculture/life sciences; the importance of training professors inside the higher education system towards supporting “innovation brokers” dynamics; the relevance of reaching an agreement on a common lexicon regarding terms such as co-creation, transformative, transformational learning that lend themselves to diverse interpretations; the fundamental involvement of youth also in the decision making processes that determine the transformation; the relevance of the transdisciplinary approach..
It was generally agreed that it would be optimal to identify/review similar previous activities and valorize them in a logic of “connectin the dots” relying on “champions” that are already spearheading the transformation discussed and hence creating a network around them. Examples given included the Agrinovia Master course in Burkina Faso on co-innovation, where students learnt how to design and implement research protocols in a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary way, taking into account diverse stakeholders points of view and practices; the experience of Future Food Institute, with food and climate shapers and the Booth Camps, as an intergenerational and transdisciplinary approach combining in an unconventional campus diverse teaching and learning experiences; GCHERA project on Transforming Higher Education in Mexico and Haiti. It was recommended to compile some of the best practices and make the dispersed knowledge and expertise available consolidated.
Another poll was launched to ask the participants about their willingness to participate in joining the core group. 92% of the people said YES. 8% said maybe, but they would like to have more information. For those interested ones, the following steps, how to join, were explained by Alessandro Meschinelli.
Overall, several interventions highlighted the need to better focus the Collective Action (which appears to be too encompassing, with too many priorities), on specific outcomes/tangible results which could be reached over a period ranging from 6 months to 3 or 4 years.
As examples of what to aim at, the following objectives as possible main areas of focus were mentioned: change attitudes within higher education actors and farmers working with them; change mindsets among individual faculty members; transform students into agents of change; influence faculties, programmes, universities; raise awareness on the need for change; create a handbook on co-creation methodologies for professors and students; generate model curriculum; offer training sessions for university principals and chairpersons; produce a policy paper.
Finally, positive, motivative closing words were said by Dr Dietrich Darr.
Regarding the final satisfaction poll, 69% were very satisfied, and 31% were satisfied.
Who to reach out to if someone would like to join this CA?
Contacts:- Dietrich Darr: Dietrich.Darr@hochschule-rhein-waal.de
- Alessandro Meschinelli: Alessandro.Meschinelli@fao.org
- Patrick Van Damme: van_damme@ftz.czu.cz
- Jan Staš: stas@ftz.czu.cz
.PNG)
A moderated panel discussion and question-and-answer session brought together the two perspectives, exploring how regulatory systems, scientific evidence and local agricultural conditions interact. The central message was that biopesticides cannot be scaled successfully through technological innovation alone. Their effective deployment requires coordinated efforts involving researchers, regulatory authorities, agricultural extension services, private-sector developers and farmers.
