According to the authors of this paper, actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus would not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect.
This publication “School feeding and possibilities for direct purchases from family farming in Latin American countries” contributes to the articulation of the sectors involved with school feeding, in the search for alternatives for the institutionalization and strengthening of school feeding policies in the countries; it is also hoped that in the medium and long term SFPs can contribute to the human right to food (HRF) and to sustainable human development.
This paper introduces Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS). RAAIS is a diagnostic tool that can guide the analysis of complex agricultural problems and innovation capacity of the agricultural system in which the complex agricultural problem is embedded. RAAIS focuses on the integrated analysis of different dimensions of problems (e.g. biophysical, technological, socio-cultural, economic, institutional and political), interactions across different levels (e.g.
Parasitic weeds such as Striga spp and Rhamphicarpa fistulosa in smallholder rice production systems form an increasing problem for food and income security in sub-Saharan Africa. In this paper we implement the Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS) as a diagnostic tool to identify specific and generic entry points for innovations to address parasitic weeds in rain-fed rice production in Tanzania. Data were gathered across three study sites in Tanzania where parasitic weeds are eminent (Kyela, Songea Rural and Morogoro Rural districts).
The timeline tool is generally put to use when stakeholders embark upon the self-assessment phase of their innovation partnership. Stakeholders are asked to recall moments they feel were significant for the partnership, from its beginning to the present and to reflect upon how the partnership has evolved since it began.
The capacity-focused problem tree pinpoints a core capacity issue, along with its causes and effects. It helps clarify the precise capacity-development objectives that the intervention aims to achieve. The focus should be on functional capacity, but room should be left to acknowledge technical capacity issues too.
This tool enables participants to become cognisant of the functional capacities discovered through the capacity scoring questionnaire, and test the limits of these capacities through simulations or role-playing (e.g. problem-solving, collaboration, information sharing, and engagement). The simulation game leads to an intuitive understanding of innovation capacities and of the importance of the enabling environment, helping participants to learn about the significance of these capacities.
This tool is a simple tool to map out the current status of the AIS, and to discover where the actors want to go. The rich picture tool can be used both to describe the current situation and to illustrate future plans. A rich picture opens up discussions and helps participants reach a broad and collective understanding of the situation.
The Action Planning is a tool that formalizes commitments and plots the route to their implementation. An action plan is intended for the use of the core actors, who will have been identified beforehand in the visioning phase. It determines who does what and when, and is therefore essential to ensuring that things get done and that the goals and visions set out in the capacity development strategy are achieved.
This tool was designed to assess innovation capacities, identify strengths and weaknesses and monitor capacity changes over time. The scoring tool makes it clear which functional capacities are going to be needed to promote, lead or successfully participate in innovation processes. The tool evaluates capacities on the basis of 21 indicators (each of which is graded on a scale from 0 (low capacity) to 3 (high capacity), and build on the key innovation capacities identified in the capacity needs assessment.