The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries worldwide. Bicol Region is regularly exposed to a variety of natural hazards including tropical storms, typhoons, droughts, drought spells, flash floods, floods, landslides and volcano eruptions, causing frequent destruction, damage and losses. Agriculture is among the most vulnerable sectors to extreme weather events and changing climate. People depending on agriculture are regularly facing the challenge to protect and maintain their livelihoods.

This paper presents an overview of current opportunities and challenges facing efforts to increase the impact of rural and agricultural extension. The starting point for this analysis is in recognition that the days when agricultural extension was synonymous with the work of public sector agencies are over.

The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach has been very successful and witnessed a strong expansion in many areas beyond crop production. Notwithstanding this success, the adoption of FFS in national extension often remains problematic and FFS activities have often been implemented in the margin of national institutions with strong reliance on donor funding. The creation of an enabling environment for institutional support is essential for expanding the effort, improving quality, and strengthening impact and continuity of the FFSs.

This publication represents a synthesis of assessments of national agricultural innovation systems in countries of Central Asia, South Caucasus and Turkey. The first chapter gives an introduction of the project “Capacity Development for Analysis and Strengthening of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Turkey”, out of which the current publication reports about one of the project outputs achieved.

This paper develops a quantitative, graph-theoretic method for analysing systems of institutions. With an application to the agricultural innovation system of Azerbaijan, the method is illustrated in detail. An assessment of existing institutional linkages in the system suggests that efforts should be placed on the development of intermediary institutions to facilitate quick and effective flow of knowledge between the public and the private components of the system.

This paper, presented at "Food 360°: International Conference-cum-Exhibition on Agribusiness and Food Processing, November 05-06, 2012, Hotel Taj Krishna, Hyderabad",   focuses on Indian agriculture, which remains the most important sector for India. However, despite its importance, various indicators from the sector show that all is not well.

The Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) is a network of organizations, enterprises and individuals that focuses on bringing new products, processes and forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and performance. In the small North East Indian state of Tripura, System of Rice Intensification (SRI) has grown to develop into an innovation system where various stakeholders have come together to make the state self-sufficient in food grains.

The purpose of this paper is to map some elements that can contribute to an IFAD strategy to stimulate and support pro-poor innovations. It is an initial or exploratory document that hopefully will add to an ongoing and necessary debate, and is not intended as a final position paper. The document is organized as follows.

There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.

This paper, using Thailand as a case study, aims at understanding the national innovation system (NIS) in developing countries which are less successful in technological catching-up. In contrast to developed countries, the development level of Thailand’s NIS does not link to its economic structural development level. As Thailand moves from agricultural to an increasingly industrial economy, its NIS remains weak and fragmented. The mismatch between the two affected Thailand’s competitiveness and partially contributed to the recent economic crisis.