This paper argues that Dutch-funded capacity development projects in developing countries for tertiary agricultural education organisations as they are currently carried out are not able to successfully achieve the sustained changes required. That is, changes in how an organisation functions, its cultural norms and rules, and also in how it interacts within wider networks. Rather, long-term institutional change is needed.

This book contains a collection of papers that discuss the experience of an Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) capacity building program in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The program was the AusAID-funded Agricultural Research and Development Support Facility (ARDSF), which ran for fi ve years from 2007 to 2012, and which sought to improve the delivery of services by agricultural research organisations to smallholder farmers. 

The book documents a diversity of approaches for and results from the development of innovation processes (endorsing the definition proposed by FARA) through a review of twelve agricultural platforms in sub-Saharan Africa. These cases are far from exhaustive but nevertheless bring up a wealth of experiences. The authors do not pretend to present a model or template for the perfect innovation platform. To the contrary – they do not believe this is possible.

This book describes how the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has been trying to improve markets for staple foods in Africa through its Market Access Programme. It describes 13 projects from eight countries (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) that the programme has supported. The book does not attempt to describe the cases in detail. Rather, it focuses on particular aspects in order to derive lessons from which the project managers, AGRA and other development organizations can learn.

The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.

This flyer is a GFRAS good practice note for extension and advisory service focused on Farmer Field Schools (FFS). It cover the following aspects: Philosophy and principles, Implementation, Capacity required, Costs, Strenghts and Weaknesses, Governance and Management, Potential Impact.

This note is part of the Global Good Practices Initiative, which aims to provide information about extension approaches and methods in easy-to-understand formats. It focuses on Innovation Platforms, examining in particular two case studies: the Ghana Oil Palm platform and the Research Into Use (RIU) programme in Tanzania.

This paper looks at the process of agricultural innovation and the contribution agricultural research can make. To be able to analyse the process of agricultural innovation, three dimensions are distinguished: 1) opportunity assessment to identify ‘entry points for change’, defined drawing on the expertise and experience of many actors; 2) experimentation under realistic circumstances, leading to ‘tested and tried promising new practices’; and 3) bringing into routine use for ‘impact at scale’, which invariably incurs in further adaptation to fit a diversity of ‘local realities’.

A growing variety of public and private rural advisory services are available today, leading to increasingly “pluralistic service systems” (PSS), in which advisory services are provided by different actors and funded from different sources. However, these PSS and the way they operate are still poorly understood. In particular, how PSS can effectively respond to demands of heterogeneous farmers in contexts where small-scale agriculture increasingly needs to exploit value addition and adapt to market requirements.

A growing variety of public and private agricultural advisory services are available today, leading to increasingly ‘pluralistic service systems’ (PSS) where advisory services are provided by different actors and funded from different sources. This is generally regarded as an important step forward, as it steers away from relying on purely state-led or privatised service systems. PSS hold the potential to overcome constraints related to funding, staffing and expertise, and to make advisory services more demand-driven.