This paper presents the processes, general guidelines lessons and experiences pertaining to “good practices” for organizing and forming Agricultural Innovation Platforms in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site, covering three countries (Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo) with widely differing social political environments to address agricultural development challenges.

This paper examines how the different institutional innovations arising from various permutations of linkages and interactions of ARD organizations (national, international advanced agricultural research centres and universities) influenced the different outcomes in addressing identified ARD problems.

The aim of this study was to explore the interactions that exist among agricultural stakeholders in the southwestern highlands of Uganda as a way of identifying opportunities and gaps for operation of Innovation Platforms (IPs) under the proof of concept of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) research project.

The central question in increasing productivity and generating incomes in African agriculture is how to move from technology generation to innovations that respond to constraints of agricultural production along the value chains. This question was considered in the context of subsistence agriculture, smallholder production systems, inefficient marketing and investments by the private sector, a preponderance of public interventions, and inadequate policies.

This chapter is a part of the book Integrated Agricultural Research for Development: from Concept to Practice. It focuses on the development and implementation of action plans for innovation platforms (IPs). The chapter introduces the constitution of committees, IP operationalisation, the case of IP functioning in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and post-formation issues for IPs.

The purpose of this report is to provide some of the groundwork in answering the question of how the CGIAR system and other public agricultural research organisations should adapt and respond to an era of transformation framed by the SDGs. It does this by exploring the way in which this transformation agenda reframes agricultural research and innovation.

Drawn from numerous sources, including papers in this journal, this concluding paper synthesizes evidence on the relationship between agricultural research for development and poverty reduction, with particular emphasis on agri-food systems perspectives in shaping programs aimed at rural prosperity. Following the introduction in section 1, we revisit the ex ante set of 18 pathways in section 2 (which were laid out in our introductory paper for this SI), posing some critical questions: Can a manageable set of impact pathways be identified? How are they inter-related?

This paper sets out an analytical framework for doing research on the question of how to use agricultural research for innovation and impact. Its focus is the Research Into Use programme sponsored by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID). This is one example of a new type of international development programme that seeks to find better ways of using research for developmental purposes.

RIU is a research and development programme designed to put agricultural research into use for developmental purposes and to conduct research on how to do this. The programme is funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). It follows earlier investments by DFID in agricultural and natural resources research, supported through its renewable natural resources research strategy (RRNRRS). While this strategy delivered high-quality research, the uptake of this research and its impact on social and economic progress was modest.

The purpose of this brief is to open up a conversation on this topic, to draw in a wider set of perspectives, and to explore collaboration opportunities. In particular the meeting aims (i) to identify limitations and missed impact opportunities of current agri-food innovation systems; (ii) to explore the nature of frameworks and tools needed to advance innovation and impact; and (iii) to develop a road map on how these could be co-developed to best meet the needs of different stakeholder groups