The capacity of existing monitoring and decision making tools in generating evidence about the performance of R4D with multi-stakeholder processes, such as innovation platforms (IPs), public private partnerships (PPP), participatory value chain management (PVCM) is very limited. Results of these tools are either contextual and qualitative such as case studies that can not be used by other R4D interventions or quantitative i.e. impact assessments that do not inform what works in R4D.

Capacity development is regarded by CGIAR as an effective vehicle for sustainable development, when embedded within broader CGIAR Research Programs (CRP). This document offers guidelines on how CGIAR and boundary partners (or those partners who take up and adapt research results for the next level of users) can successfully develop and implement strategies which support this process of integration.

Farmers and businesses need to adapt constantly if they are to survive and compete in the rapidly evolving environment associated with the contemporary agricultural sector. Rethinking agricultural research as part of a dynamic system of innovation could help to design ways of creating and sustaining conditions that will support the process of adaptation and innovation. This approach involves developing the working styles and practices of individuals and organizations and the incentives, support structures and policy environments that encourage innovation.

Multi-stakeholder or innovation platforms are increasingly seen as a promising vehicle for agricultural innovation and development. In the field of agricultural research for development (AR4D), such platforms are an important element of a commitment to more intentional, structured and long-term engagement among sector stakeholders.

This policy brief consolidates lessons learned from an in-depth literature review on small-scale farmer (SSF) innovation systems and a two-day expert consultation on the same topic, hosted in Geneva by Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in May 2015. This review draws together published literature on the evolution of the concept, how on-farm innovation systems function in practice, and the roles of outside actors in supporting them.

This paper argues that Dutch-funded capacity development projects in developing countries for tertiary agricultural education organisations as they are currently carried out are not able to successfully achieve the sustained changes required. That is, changes in how an organisation functions, its cultural norms and rules, and also in how it interacts within wider networks. Rather, long-term institutional change is needed.

This chapter documents the learning process within the framework of innovation of soil fertility management practices that emerged from the implementation of Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) as part of service delivery reorientation within the Limpopo Department of Agriculture in South Africa.The chapter gives a narrative description of what transpired during the interaction between researchers, extension officers and farmers, the processes involved, the lessons and the conclusion.

The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.

This manual describes a number of tools that can be used in courses to facilitate the process of reflecting on the knowledge and experiences participants acquire, with the aim of making their leaning more explicit and articulated and contribute to their professional performance in their own working context. 

We are facing complex societal problems such as climate change, human conflict, poverty and inequality, and need innovative solutions. Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are more and more seen as a critical way of coming to such innovative solutions. It is thought that when multiple stakeholders are able to meet, share experiences, learn together and contribute to decisions, new and innovative ways of dealing with problems are found and turned into action. Still, much remains to be understood about the role and effectiveness of social learning in multi-stakeholder settings.