This briefing note sets out, at the start of this collaborative learning journey, the authors understandings of collaborations and capacity development and how these relate to activities within the network. The final section outlines the main elements of our approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL)
Despite typically beingregarded as ‘low-tech,’ the Food Manufacturing and Technology Sectoris increasingly turning to open innovation practices involving collaboration with universities in order to innovate. Given the broad range of activities undertaken by this sector and thefact that it utilises analytical, synthetic, and symbolic knowledge for innovation, it makes an interesting case study on the factors that influence the formation of University-Industry links.
There is a broad consensus that farmers are not simply recipients of promoted techniques: rather, they are also an important source of agricultural innovations. They invent farm tools and equipment, develop new crop varieties, and add value to externally promoted technologies. When scouting, documenting and promoting such farmer-generated innovations, the thorny issue of intellectual property rights (IPRs) often emerges.
Agricultural research and extension systems are central to unlock the potential of agricultural innovation and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Public agricultural research, extension and advisory services are essential for increasing productivity and promoting sustainable agricultural growth and alleviating poverty.
How do the innovation platforms and facilitated networks currently deployed in the Global South help trigger dynamics of collaborative innovation that can be useful for the agroecological transition? What are the difficulties encountered and how can they be overcome? This chapter throws lights on these questions. The first part justifies the interest in studying the ecologisation of agriculture through the prism of collaborative innovation and of its paradoxes.
This chapter reports on the different functions fulfilled by existing mechanisms for supporting collective innovation in the agricultural and agrifood sectors in the countries of the Global South in order to identify the potential contributions the research community can make to strengthen them. The authors show that a variety of mechanisms are needed to create enabling conditions for innovation and to provide a step-by-step support to innovation communities, according to their capacities and learning needs.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will vary for different groups of rural population, with the highest impact expected to be on farmers and other vulnerable groups, especially women and youth. Targeted support is feasible only by activating a network of actors or organizations within agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and promoting customized technologies and practices suitable for location specific contexts.
The innovation systems (IS) approach—developed by Richard Nelson, Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Ake Lundvall, amongst others—has become perhaps the dominant approach in the academic literature for the study of innovation. It has also exerted considerable influence on policy. This paper examines both the theory underpinning the IS approach, which bears considerable affinities with Austrian economics, and also its policy implications.
This study analysed Swedish stakeholders’ views on future developments of organic production and consumption based on Organic 3.0, a strategic initiative by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). Focus group discussions were carried out with actors representing different parts of the organic value chain in Sweden. These identified a number of tensions, four of which represented an unresolved dichotomy in the way forward for the organic movement and its relevance for organic production in most settings.
The dynamic nature of climate and its impacts on agriculture is rendering most of the existing adaptation and coping strategies unsupportive in many regions.