There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.
We present a model for research and development (R&D) investment in food innovations based on new plant engineering techniques (NPETs) and traditional hybridization methods. The framework combines uncertain and costly food innovation with consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for the new food. The framework is applied with elicited WTP of French and US consumers for new improved apples. NPETs may be socially beneficial under full information and when the probability of success under NPETs is relatively high. Otherwise, the traditional hybridization is socially optimal.
This paper draws lessons from selected country experiences of adaptation and innovation in pursuit of food security goals.
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 paper explores the application of the innovation systems framework to the design and construction of national agricultural innovation indicators. Optimally, these indicators could be used to gauge and benchmark national performance in developing more responsive, dynamic, and innovative agricultural sectors in developing countries.
This background note for the development of an AIS Investment Sourcebook provides a menu of tools and guidance to invest in agricultural innovation in different contexts. The content is drawn on tested good practice examples and innovative approaches with emphasis on lessons learned, benefits and impacts, implementation issues, and replicability
Based on eleven case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this report describes farmer-led research findings and their dissemination, and analyzes available evidence on the impact of farmer-led approaches to agricultural research and development on rural livelihoods, local capacity to innovate and adapt, and influence on governmental institutions of agricultural research and development.
The Guidance Note on Operationalization provides a brief recap of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework as well as a more detailed guide to operationalization of the proposed dual pathways approach. It offers also a strategy for monitoring and evaluation as well as a toolbox of select tools that may be useful at the different stages of the CD for AIS cycle.
The Conceptual Background provides an in-depth analysis of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework. It is also available in French and Spanish.
This paper has been prepared under the guidelines provided by the TAP Secretariat at the FAO, as a contribution to the G20 initiative TAP, which includes near 40 partners and is facilitated by FAO. Its purpose is to provide a Regional synthesis report on capacity needs assessment for agricultural innovation, with capacity gaps identified and analyzed, including recommendations to strengthen agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and draft policy recommendations to address the capacity gaps.