IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/231356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Training and Capacity Building: An Essential Strategy for Development at an International Research Center

Author

Listed:
  • John, Ryan
  • Habib, Ibrahim
  • Afif, Dakermanji
  • Abdoul, Aziz Niane

Abstract

In order to be meaningful, agricultural research has to provide solutions to problems, especially in the international agricultural research system which is designed to contribute to enhanced food production and improved rural livelihoods in the lesser-developed world. Training and human resource development, whether at the technical support or research scientists/managerial level, is fundamental to an effective agricultural research and technology transfer system. By comparison with the developed world, the national agricultural research systems (NARS) in developing countries are weak, often with ineffective extension programs, as typified by the West Asia-North Africa (WANA) region, which is served by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Despite the potential benefits of enhancing human skills, training and human resource development activities are often under-valued and under-funded in international research centers that serve developing countries. By highlighting training at ICARDA and its mandate countries, we sought to give renewed focus on this important component of the mission of the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In this article, we considered ICARDA’s philosophy and concepts on training, collaborating institutions, educational materials, categories of training, development of training courses, significant outcomes of training, shifting paradigms, and future directions. ICARDA’s innovative collaborative approach is a model to be emulated not only by the Centers but by other international institutions involved in agricultural and rural development in the developing countries. At this crucial time of restructuring of the CGIAR, renewed emphasis on training has never been more urgent.

Suggested Citation

  • John, Ryan & Habib, Ibrahim & Afif, Dakermanji & Abdoul, Aziz Niane, 2012. "Training and Capacity Building: An Essential Strategy for Development at an International Research Center," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 1(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:231356
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.231356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/231356/files/sar-v1n2-P57_57-71_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.231356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich Hoffmann, 2011. "Assuring Food Security In Developing Countries Under The Challenges Of Climate Change: Key Trade And Development Issues Of A Fundamental Transformation Of Agriculture," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 201, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    2. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    3. Obafèmi P. Koutchadé & Alain Carpentier & Fabienne Femenia, 2021. "Modeling Corners, Kinks, and Jumps in Crop Acreage Choices: Impacts of the EU Support to Protein Crops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1502-1524, August.
    4. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Jie Cai & Xianli Xia & Haibin Chen & Ting Wang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Decomposition of Fertilizer Use Intensity and Its Environmental Risk in China’s Grain Production Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Gaurav Chugh & Kadambot H. M. Siddique & Zakaria M. Solaiman, 2021. "Nanobiotechnology for Agriculture: Smart Technology for Combating Nutrient Deficiencies with Nanotoxicity Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    12. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    13. Chopin, Pierre & Blazy, Jean-Marc & Guindé, Loïc & Wery, Jacques & Doré, Thierry, 2017. "A framework for designing multi-functional agricultural landscapes: Application to Guadeloupe Island," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 316-329.
    14. Johnston, Robyn M. & Hoanh, Chu Thai & Lacombe, Guillaume & Noble, Andrew D. & Smakhtin, Vladimir & Suhardiman, Diana & Kam, Suan Pheng & Choo, P. S, 2009. "Scoping study on natural resources and climate change in Southeast Asia with a focus on agriculture. Final report," IWMI Research Reports H042414, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    16. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    17. Sarah Rotz & Evan Fraser, 2015. "Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 459-473, September.
    18. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    19. Xiaohui Wang & Hao Jia & Xiaolong Wang & Jiaen Zhang & Fu Chen, 2024. "Spatial Distribution of the Cropping Pattern Exerts Greater Influence on the Water Footprint Compared to Diversification in Intensive Farmland Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:231356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.