This paper was prepared to present at the Farmer First Revisited: 20 Years On conference at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, December, 2007. Its focus is the challenge of strengthening agricultural innovation systems. The paper prefaces this discussion by reflecting on an apparent paradox. While agricultural innovation has never been better studied and understood, many of our ideas about innovation have failed to fundamentally change the institutional and policy setting of public and private investment intended to promote innovation for development.
This study has been produced with the overall goal to document and analyse exisiting best practices in the field of RWHI management in sub-Saharan Africa, with a special focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This is meant to determine the suitability of RWHI management under multivariate biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. The best practices include specific information and know-how on the performance, cost-efficiency and impacts of RWHI technologies.
These recommendations are a compilation of 2 regional studies at sub-Saharan Africa level which focused on research and technology transfer in the field of rainwater harvesting irrigatio nmanagement on one hand (section 3), and effective policy recommendations on the use of rainwater for off-season small-scale irrigation on the other (section 4). The regional studies upon which this transnational study is based come from the analysis of national studies in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
These training materials have been produced to foster the capacity of key members of local communities to practically implement RWHI systems in a cost-efficient manner. The specific target group of these capacity building materials are local community members who are directly involved in the replication and scale-up of RWHI technologies and practices, i.e.
Over the last 10 years much has been written about the role of the private sector as part of a more widely-conceived notion of agricultural sector capacity for innovation and development. This paper discusses the emergence of a new class of private enterprise in East Africa that would seem to have an important role in efforts to tackle poverty reduction and food security. These organisations appear to occupy a niche that sits between mainstream for-profit enterprises and the developmental activities of government programmes, NGOs and development projects.
This book contains a collection of papers that discuss the experience of an Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) capacity building program in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The program was the AusAID-funded Agricultural Research and Development Support Facility (ARDSF), which ran for fi ve years from 2007 to 2012, and which sought to improve the delivery of services by agricultural research organisations to smallholder farmers.
This paper sets out to explore the nature of new organisational and institutional vehicles for managing innovation in order to put research into use for social gain. It has reviewed four classes of such vehicles found in South Asia.
This paper sets out an analytical framework for doing research on the question of how to use agricultural research for innovation and impact. Its focus is the Research Into Use (RIU) Programme sponsored by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). This is one example of a new type of international development programme that seeks to find better ways of using research for developmental purposes.
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.