Como parte del proyecto insignia del IICA “Productividad y sustentabilidad de la agricultura familiar para la seguridad alimentaria y la economía rural” se realizó un ejercicio participativo para identificar y validar innovaciones que contribuyan a la mejora de los sistemas de agricultura familiar.
El presente documento sistematiza, en forma didáctica y sencilla, un temario elemental de contenidos que constituyen una “Guía de capacitación” para que agricultores familiares dedicados a la producción lechera fortalezcan sus capacidades técnicas y organizativas, y que así, con autogestión y participación activa, conviertan los conocimientos en una herramienta para su desarrollo productivo, económico y social.
This project report from Wageningen UR (as a contribution to the CGIAR Humid Tropics research program) examines critical issues for reflection when designing and implementing research for development in innovation platforms’. The current document therefore aims to increase awareness about the complexity of research in innovation. The underlying idea is that innovation platforms can facilitate institutional changes and support system innovations through increased interaction, negotiation and learning between stakeholders, including (new) roles of research(ers).
Innovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments.
Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.
The three system CGIAR research programs on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics, Dryland Systems and Aquatic Agricultural Systems have included “capacity to innovate” as an intermediate development outcome in their respective theories of change. The wording of the intermediate development outcome is “increased systems capacity to innovate and contribute to improved livelihoods of low-income agricultural communities.” This note captures the CGIAR's collective thinking about this intermediate development outcome from a systems perspective to clarify it and inspire other programs.
Rapid appraisal of agricultural innovation systems (RAAIS) is a participatory, diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex agricultural problems. RAAIS facilitates interaction between different groups of stakeholders in collecting and analysing data. The poster briefs what RAAIS is, when to use it, what is available and where it has been used.
Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.
The purpose of this report is to provide some of the groundwork in answering the question of how the CGIAR system and other public agricultural research organisations should adapt and respond to an era of transformation framed by the SDGs. It does this by exploring the way in which this transformation agenda reframes agricultural research and innovation.
Drawn from numerous sources, including papers in this journal, this concluding paper synthesizes evidence on the relationship between agricultural research for development and poverty reduction, with particular emphasis on agri-food systems perspectives in shaping programs aimed at rural prosperity. Following the introduction in section 1, we revisit the ex ante set of 18 pathways in section 2 (which were laid out in our introductory paper for this SI), posing some critical questions: Can a manageable set of impact pathways be identified? How are they inter-related?