The Government of Burkina Faso embraced innovation in agriculture many years ago, thus CDAIS could build on solid foundations. Six innovation niche partnerships were selected, each working on very different types of innovations, technically, socially or organisationally, and facing contrasting challenges for capacity development.

Results in Ethiopia show positive outcomes from CDAIS activities, proving the benefits of integrating functional capacity strengthening across individual, partnership, organisational and national levels. Common to all these levels are

There have been clear changes in Guatemala and, according to those involved, outcomes exceeded expectations. These have resulted from the strengthening of functional capacities across individual, partnership, organisational and national levels, using processes that have evolved since the CDAIS project began in 2015. Of the four selected innovation niche partnerships in the country, the conversations here explore the experiences of avocado producers in Sololá, led by AIDA, the Association for the Integral Development of the Altiplano.

The CDAIS project has been an accelerator of processes, with results that have spread from community to governmental levels. Those who have been involved consider that CDAIS was a key reason for these changes, having arrived as a springboard in 2015. Of the four partnerships in Honduras, these conversations explore the experiences of potato producers in La Esperanza, Intibucá, home to almost 70% of national potato production. Since 2015, much has changed for them: from a small group of growers, eight associations have become consolidated organisations.

The policy environment for agricultural innovation in Lao PDR has never been better. Agricultural development is high on the agenda at the most senior levels of government, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry recently published a strategy framework that lays out multiple pathways for innovation. Based on the work to date, CDAIS National Innovation Facilitators are well positioned to continue shaping the agricultural innovation process long after the project ends.

Rwanda has benefited from ‘hard’ agricultural invest­ ment projects in the past two decades, promoted by a supportive and responsive government in collaboration with various donors and development actors. CDAIS looked to increase the impacts of such investments through strengthening ‘soft’ skills in three innovation niche partnerships surrounding significant public, private or donor­funded infrastructure developments, and linking this to organisational and national levels.

This manual was produced as a resource for the National Innovation Facilitators (NIFs) across countries of the Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems Project (CDAIS). The objective of this manual is to guide the activities organization level as well as coach the national innovation facilitators. It will help them increasing their understanding of the different stages of the coaching process. This guide provides information on the general methodology of engaging, supporting and coaching actors of key national organizations to have the capacities to innovate.

During the period 2013-2019, the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network has served as a platform for collating the voices, insights, concerns, and experiences of people in the extension sphere of South Asia. Diverse professionals shared their concerns on the present and future of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in the form of blog conversations for AESA. Together, all of these individuals who are involved, interested and passionate about EAS, discussed ways to move beyond some of the seemingly intransigent problems that are hindering the professionalization of EAS.

Increasing attention is being given to evaluating the impact of advisory services in terms of their effectiveness in providing farmers with knowledge and networks for innovation as well as understanding the factors that influence this effectiveness (Prager et al, 2017). The demand and uptake of advisory services is one factor and Klerkx et al (2017) comment on the variation in farmers’ demand and the influences of variables such as farm size, asset status and education as well as stability or turbulence in the regulatory environment.