This paper examines the design and implementation of a package of capacity strengthening interventions undertaken between March 2007 and March 2011, which aimed to enhance the performance of the national agricultural research system (NARS) in Lesotho. It also identifies some initial outcomes from these interventions and makes recommendations to sustain the process of organisational and institutional change and build on the results that have been achieved.
This paper discusses a range of approaches and benchmarks that can guide future design of value chain impact evaluations. Twenty studies were reviewed to understand the status and direction of value chain impact evaluations. A majority of the studies focus on evaluating the impact of only a few interventions, at several levels within the value chains. Few impact evaluations are based on well-constructed, well-conceived comparison groups. Most of them rely on use of propensity score matching to construct counterfactual groups and estimate treatment effects.
This paper is a contribution to the establishment of a new capacity development (CD) 9 strategy, a process that the Consortium Office will facilitate, with external input, during 2013. The paper explores the lessons learned from CGIAR’s experience with CD and reflects the findings of a working group that was brought together in late 2012. The objective of the paper is to identify the roles that individual and institutional CD might play in CGIAR in order to increase CGIAR’s impact on the welfare of smallholder farmers and the sustainability of their farming systems.
This paper briefly reviews three conceptual frameworks: namely, the national agricultural research system (NARS), the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) and the agricultural innovation system (AIS) concepts. Next, the paper reviews the definition of ‘innovation’ and proposes that agricultural innovation can occur at four different but interlinked domains.
This paper shares the first results of an ongoing collaborative action research in which ten development organisations explored different Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) approaches with the aim of dealing more effectively with complex processes of social change. There are four reasons why we think this paper may be of interest: 1) The paper illustrates a practical example of action research whereby the organisations themselves are becoming the researchers.
This is one of lead papers presented at Innovation Asia-Pacific Symposium: 4-7 May, 2009 Kathmandu, Nepal. Cases representing practical examples of what it might mean to use innovation systems interventions and recognize key features are presented. Four cases represent actions facilitating uptake of research outputs including; a crop pest bio-control method; post harvest management of coffee; isolation and commercialization of an indigenous seed variety and; a community based system to forecast armyworm plagues.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS) are in transition in many countries from a linear, top-down approach towards more flexible and interactive arrangements. This transition to a system more responsive to changing demands seeks to improve the adoption of innovation in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the agri-food sector. This article focuses on the research and innovation components of the AKIS to analyse the main developments of recent years and their drivers.
In this paper the authors present the development of an analytical framework to study agricultural innovation systems. They divide the agricultural sector into four levels and expand the innovation system approach to study innovation processes.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the use of food insecurity as coercive tool or a weapon during conflict, providing a case study on Gaza. The authors aim at proving that Food insecurity in Gaza is not merely a product of conflict, but rather a systematic policy of control. The paper includes the presentation of community-based innovations that were created in the extremely intricate case of Gaza, in order to retain certain economic and political agency over food and farming systems.