Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Strengthening the role of innovation brokers in the livestock advisory services system of Pakistan

H. M. Warriach https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5391-9956 A B C * , M. Ayre C , R. Nettle https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8347-6693 C , K. Height C , H. Iqbal B , A. Aziz B , K. Hayat B , A. Afzal B , S. Majeed B , A. Kumbher B and D. M. McGill A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A The Mackinnon Project, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Vic. 3030, Australia.

B Dairy-Beef Project, The University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.

C Rural Innovation Research Group, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.

* Correspondence to: hassan.warriach@uvas.edu.pk

Handling Editor: Russell Bush

Animal Production Science 64, AN23398 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN23398
Submitted: 24 December 2023  Accepted: 12 April 2024  Published: 13 May 2024

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

This article assesses development and implementation of a non-traditional training ‘whole-family extension approach’ (WFEA) that contributes to the innovation-brokering capacity of farm advisors within the current livestock advisory services system of Pakistan.

Aims

The primary objectives of the research were to explore how the WFEA training leads to improved capacity and knowledge of farm advisors and then examine these through the lens of innovation brokers and the difference they can make within the extension system, including (1) articulation of problems and possibilities, (2) network building and (3) supporting negotiation and learning in networks.

Methods

A qualitative investigation was conducted during four facilitated discussions and three field follow-up visits following project interventions to build the capacity of 50 farm advisors from across a network of 22 organisations that are part of the Pakistani’s livestock extension system. Data were collected by using the following two qualitative approaches: (1) facilitated discussions, during each of the four separate training workshops; and (2) field follow-up visits, where farm advisors were interviewed following a set of semi-structured questions. The data were analysed to assess the changes observed across the different farm advisors during the training interventions and subsequent mentoring provided by the project team.

Key results

Gaps in innovation-brokering capacity from WFEA were identified and include co-designing and more institutional support of various collaborating organisations, use of visioning tools, scenario analysis to predict possible future for the farm-advisor training and training of farm advisors on analytical skills to capture the household impacts; these should be incorporated in WFEA training.

Conclusions

A holistic extension training intervention approach (the WFEA) can positively influence the innovation-brokering capacity of farm advisors within the current livestock advisory services system of Pakistan.

Implications

This article has contributed to the literature on innovation-brokering roles in the livestock advisory systems by highlighting key additional functions of innovation-brokering in a developing-country context. Furthermore, examples from Pakistan can be used to show how farm advisors can develop skills in articulating problems and possibilities, network building and supporting negotiation and learning in networks.

Keywords: advisory services, agricultural extension, capacity building, extension approach, livelihoods, smallholders, training, whole family.

References

Ashraf E, Sharjeel HK, Babar R, et al. (2018) Perceptions of extension field staff regarding technology transfer through different extension approaches. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 34(2), 291-300.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Baig MB, Aldosari F (2013) Agricultural extension in Asia: constraints and options for improvement. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 23, 619-632.
| Google Scholar |

Cristóvão A, Koutsouris A, Kügler M (2012) Extension systems and change facilitation for agricultural and rural development. In ‘Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic’. (Eds I Darnhofer, D Gibbon, B Dedieu) pp. 201–227. (Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands)

Davidson AP, Ahmad M, Ali T (2001) Dilemmas of agriculture extension in Pakistan: food for thought. Odi, Agricultural Research & Extension Network, AGREN network Paper No. 116.

Devaux A, Horton D, Velasco C, et al. (2009) Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy 34(1), 31-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Hall AJ, Yoganand B, Sulaiman RV, et al. (2004) ‘Innovations in innovation: reflection on partnership, institutions and learning.’ (National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research: New Delhi, India)

Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C, et al. (2011) Beyond knowledge brokering: an exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7, 84-108.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C (2013) Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems 118, 65-77.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Klerkx L (2012) The role of innovation brokers in the agricultural innovation system. In ‘Agricultural innovation systems: an investment sourcebook’. pp. 237–245. (OECD Publishing oecd-ilibrary.org)

Klerkx L, Leeuwis C (2009) Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(6), 849-860.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Klerkx L, Hall A, Leeuwis C (2009) Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8(5–6), 409-438.
| Google Scholar |

Klerkx L, Schut M, Leeuwis C, et al. (2012) Advances in knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector: towards innovation system facilitation. IDS Bulletin 43, 53-60.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Knickel K, Brunori G, Rand S, et al. (2009) Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: from linear models to systemic approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15(2), 131-146.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pamphilon B, Mikhailovich K, Gwatirisa P (2017) ‘The PNG family farm teams manual.’ (The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research)

Prager K, Creaney R, Lorenzo-Arribas A (2017) Criteria for a system level evaluation of farm advisory services. Land Use Policy 61, 86-98.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Rivera WM, Sulaiman VR (2009) Extension: object of reform, engine for innovation. Outlook on Agriculture 38(3), 267-273.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

van Lente H, Hekkert M, Smits R, et al. (2003) Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition process. International Journal of Innovation Management 7, 247-279.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Warriach HM, Wynn PC, Ishaq M, et al. (2019) Impacts of improved extension services on awareness, knowledge, adoption rates and perceived benefits of smallholder dairy farmers in Pakistan. Animal Production Science 59(12), 2175-2183.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Winch GM, Courtney R (2007) The organization of innovation brokers: an international review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19(6), 747-763.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |