Since the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003, concerted efforts have focused on mobilizing international assistance to help developing countries build their institutional capacities in biosafety and meet their obligations under the treaty. The FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, in cooperation with the Government of Thailand, launched “Asian BioNet” – a regional initiative on capacity building in biosafety of genetically modified (GM) crops in Asia.

This Training of Trainers Manual is designed to help build the capacity of trainers in flash flood risk management, who can then disseminate the knowledge to a larger number of practitioners. The manual presents an eight-day course including a three-day field trip. Detailed lesson plans for 21 sessions are followed by resource materials that will enable the trainers to replicate the course in their own work areas.

This paper has been presented at the Fifth International Seminar on Dynamics of Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems: Socio-Institutional, Economic and Technical Context, Kathmandu, Nepal, 25-26 March 2010, organized by Farmer Managed Irrigation System Trust. International Water Management Institute, the then International Irrigation Management Institute (IWMI) began its activities in Nepal since 1986 with a Memorandum of Understanding with His Majesty's Government of Nepal, now the Government of Nepal.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) partnered with the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) in 2011 to conduct a series of policy dialogues on the prioritization of demand-driven agricultural research for development in South Asia. Dialogues were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal in mid-2012 and this report captures feedback from those dialogues.

This report documents the history of the systems of rice intensification (SRI, for short) in India in the last few years and presents some of the institutional changes and challenges that SRI throws up. The first part looks at the complex and continuing evolution of SRI in India and presents SRI as an innovation in process and not as a completed product. Farmers and other actors are continuously shaping it through their practice. Part II focuses on insights of the innovation systems framework looking closely at the nature and quality of linkages of the various actors.

This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Tools and (iv) Organisational Format.

The Andhra Pradesh sorghum coalition illustrates the valued added by working in coalition. By combining different perspectives to give rise to new, synthesised ideas, the member organisations worked at a faster pace and achieved their objectives more successfully and sustainably than they could have done if working separately. The methodology of their research was designed collaboratively. As a result, scientists carried out repeat experiments on poultry, at the request of poultry farmers and feed manufacturers, which greatly increased their confidence in the evidence.

The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.

This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.

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.