This document aims at capitalizing lessons drawn from the training experience of a consortium made up of various stakeholders involved in the potato seed sector in Burundi. At the initial stages of its formation, this consortium was supported by the PAEPARD programme, as part of the tender process defined above. The experience related here should provide lessons on the factors which encourage the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships which are balanced and suited to the demand of producers.
Most cocoa farmers in Ghana do not adopt research recommendations because they cannot afford the cost, therefore, yields are low. Integrated pest management (IPM) technologies that rely on low external inputs were tried with a group of farmers. The technologies included using aqueous neem seed extracts to control capsids; removing diseased pods to reduce blackpod incidence; controlling mistletoes, epiphytes, weeds; and managing shade. Although yields increased significantly, adoption was constrained by technical, social and economic factors.
This brief puts the focus on the postharvest (PH) losses in Mozambique. According to the authors the glaring lack of data loss for major food commodities in Mozambique should move the government, development agencies, donors and research institutions to invest more on rigorous and systematic field-based studies to assess losses, and to identify matching loss mitigation innovations. The authors also assert that building local capacity and strengthening policy on PH will be of essence.
This guide is intended to assist facilitators in conducting a workshop with Extension and Advisory Service (EAS) providers for assessing their capacity needs. This guide has been compiled by the Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP) for AESA with the assistance of a research grant from the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS).
The articles in the dossier present different approaches to supporting farmer-led research, ranging from partnerships between small-scale farmer organisations and research institutions, to alliances of farmer groups, nongovernmental organisations and researchers, to constellations in which farmer organisations directly contract researchers. The articles highlight some innovations that have emerged from these processes and – more important still – show new ways of organising research so that it strengthens innovative capacities at grassroots level.
This evaluation report discusses the findings, conclusions and recommendations on the project “Strengthening Community Resilience to Change: Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research (CLIC-SR)” under the umbrella of the network Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and NRM (PROLINNOVA). This project was implemented in four Eastern African countries, namely Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Technological innovations have driven economic development and improvement in living conditions throughout history. However, the majority of smallholder farmers in sub‐Saharan Africa have seldom adopted or used science‐based technological innovations. Consequently, several scholars have been persistently questioning the effectiveness of intervention models in smallholder agriculture.
Little is known about effective ways to operationalize agricultural innovation processes. The authors of this article use the MasAgro program in Mexico (which aims to increase maize and wheat productivity, profitability and sustainability), and the experiences of middle level ‘hub managers’, to understand how innovation processes occur in heterogeneous and changing contexts. Their research shows how a program, that initially had a relatively narrow technology focus, evolved towards an innovation system approach.
Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.
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.