The objective of this piece of work is to explore innovation support in the case of Greece which is a particular one given the demise, on the one hand, of the country's public extension service in the early 1990's - and since then the absence of any kind of organized extension intervention in the country, and, on the other hand, of the agricultural cooperatives; thus the extremely weak and fragmented nature of the Greek Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System which seems to be rather unique in the European Union
Innovation platforms (IPs) are a way of organizing multistakeholder interactions, marshalling ideas, people and resources to address challenges and opportunities embedded in complex settings. The approach has its roots in theories of complexity, the concept of innovation systems and practices of participatory action research. IPs have been widely adopted across Africa and beyond in recent years as a “must have” tool in a range of “for development” modes of agricultural research.
Motivated by donor interest in innovative thinking on food security, the authors conducted an interdisciplinary, triangulation analysis of four divergent conceptual frameworks, each relevant to diagnosing food insecurity in developing countries. They found notable tensions as well as synergistic interactions between agroecology, agricultural innovation systems, social–ecological systems, and political ecology. Cross-framework interactions enhance our understanding of how sectoral and macro-economic development strategies impact on livelihoods, availability, and access.
The purpose of this piece of work is to investigate, through a literature review, the role of intermediaries in agricultural and rural development. In the first place, a general view of the roles of intermediaries, (focusing on the two main types of intermediaries, i.e. facilitators and brokers), as depicted in literature, is provided. Following, the emergence of facilitators and brokers in agricultural literature is explored based on the turn from reductionist to systemic science as well as from the expert syndrome to participatory development.
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.