The paper takes a critical look at two key interventions identified to deliver the PAEPARD capacity strengthening strategy. Firstly, the training of a pool of agricultural innovation facilitators (AIF) to broker relations between relevant stakeholders for the consolidation of effective consortia. PAEPARD envisaged the role of AIF as to support both the face-to-face and virtual (via skype, email or social media) engagement of partners in capacity strengthening processes.
Ce document analyse de façon critique deux interventions majeures identifiées pour mettre en œuvre la stratégie de renforcement des capacités de PAEPARD. La première intervention est la formation d’un vivier de facilitateurs de l’innovation agricole (FIA) pour assurer une médiation entre les acteurs concernés et, ainsi, consolider des consortiums efficaces. PAEPARD prévoyait que les FIA encouragent l’engagement virtuel (par l’intermédiaire de Skype, d’e-mails ou des réseaux sociaux) et en personne des partenaires dans des processus de renforcement des capacités.
This paper highlights lessons learned from the development of PAEPARD-supported consortia, which illustrate various impacts of brokerage. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations may appear obvious at first sight, but will be useful for informing the implementation of brokerage activities until PAEPARD activities come to an end in December 2017.
Ce document met en évidence les enseignements tirés de la constitution de consortiums appuyés par PAEPARD, qui illustrent les différents impacts de la médiation. Les conclusions et recommandations préliminaires peuvent sembler évidentes à première vue, mais seront utiles pour informer de la mise en œuvre des activités de courtage jusqu'à la fin des activités de PAEPARD en décembre 2017.
This paper argues that impact assessment research has not made more of a difference because the measurement of the economic impact has poor diagnostic power. In particular it fails to provide research managers with critical institutional lessons concerning ways of improving research and innovation as a process. Paper's contention is that the linear input-output assumptions of economic assessment need to be complemented by an analytical framework that recognizes systems of reflexive, learning interactions and their location in, and relationship with, their institutional context.
In the post-harvest area and in agriculture research in general, both in India and internationally, policy attention is returning to the question of how innovation can be encouraged and promoted and thus how impact on the poor can be achieved. This publication assembles several cases from the post-harvest sector. These provide examples of successful innovation that emerged in quite different ways. Its purpose is to illustrate and analyze the diversity and often highly context-specific nature of the processes that lead to and promote innovation.
This paper reviews a recent donor-funded project concerning the introduction of post-harvest technology to poor hill farmers in India. Rather than conform to conventional development aid projects of either a “research” or an “interventionist” nature, it combines both approaches in a research-action program, which has more in common with a business development approach than a formal social science one. An important conclusion is that the work (and apparent success) of the project is consistent with an understanding of development that emphasizes the importance of innovation systems.