The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.
This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.
The universal application of the T&V model of agricultural extension in more than 50 countries is one of agricultural development’s best known failures. The approach worked well in places where it was originally developed, but proved inappropriate almost everywhere else. In this report Rasheed Sulaiman V. and Andy Hall worry that an apparently successful extension innovation piloted in India is set to suffer a similar fate.
In recent years the there has been an increasing recognition of the potential of the innovation systems concept to provide new ways of making more effective use of agricultural research and improve its impact on socially desirable outcomes. This paper documents the experiences of a group of researchers in India who experimented with this framework and tried to operationalise its principles in project design. The paper comments on some of the implications of using this approach and the challenges it presents for implementers of agricultural research projects in developing countries.
This paper was prepared to present at the Farmer First Revisited: 20 Years On conference at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, December, 2007. Its focus is the challenge of strengthening agricultural innovation systems. The paper prefaces this discussion by reflecting on an apparent paradox. While agricultural innovation has never been better studied and understood, many of our ideas about innovation have failed to fundamentally change the institutional and policy setting of public and private investment intended to promote innovation for development.
The devastation caused in Philippines by Typhoon Reming was the trigger for the Government request to FAO for the project “Strengthening Capacities for Climate Risk Management and Disaster Preparedness in Selected Provinces of the Philippines (Bicol Region)”. This technical project summary report provides a consolidated overview about the specific project activities, the implementation processes, main findings and the establishment of institutional mechanisms that were established to promote ongoing collaboration between farmers, agriculture extension workers, researchers and local governme
The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries worldwide. Bicol Region is regularly exposed to a variety of natural hazards including tropical storms, typhoons, droughts, drought spells, flash floods, floods, landslides and volcano eruptions, causing frequent destruction, damage and losses. Agriculture is among the most vulnerable sectors to extreme weather events and changing climate. People depending on agriculture are regularly facing the challenge to protect and maintain their livelihoods.
This paper, part of the Social Sciences Working Paper Series, presents studies undertaken by nine community-based, natural resource management (CBNRM)-oriented organizations in China, Viet Nam, the Philippines and Mongolia. The partner organizations, representing three broad types: academic, regional network, and community based, were brought together by a 2006 initiative in an informal network to develop and pilot methods for evaluating capacity development in community-based natural resource management.
This paper draws lessons from selected country experiences of adaptation and innovation in pursuit of food security goals.
LenCD has prepared a joint statement on results and capacity development (presented in this publication), which stresses that meaningful, sustainable results are premised on proper investments in capacity development and that these results materialize at different levels and at different times, along countries’ development trajectory. To provide evidence in support of this statement, LenCD launched a call for submission of stories.