Early applications of the innovation systems framework to developing-country agriculture suggest opportunities for more intensive and extensive analysis. There is ample scope for empirical studies to make greater use of the theoretical content available in the literature, and to employ more diverse methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. Further, there is room to improve the relevance of empirical studies to the analysis of public policies that support science, technology, and innovation, as well as to policies that promote poverty reduction and economic growth.
Nouvel instrument communautaire mobilisant la politique de recherche et la PAC, le PEI entend susciter des partenariats entre les acteurs du développement, de l’enseignement agricole, les agriculteurs, les chercheurs et les entreprises. En cela, il reflète l’évolution récente du cadre de pensée des institutions internationales, qui voient dans l’innovation agricole moins le produit de la recherche et du transfert de connaissances que le résultat d’interactions entre acteurs au sein de réseaux plus ou moins formels.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
El presente documento se enmarca en el Proyecto “Estrategia de Extensionismo, red de instituciones nacionales e internacionales para proveer el sustento científico y tecnológico para el desarrollo de capacidades y extensionismo rural” y corresponde al entregable del Objetivo Específico 2.1, Documento con lineamientos a nivel político, estratégico y operativo que permitan avanzar en la incorporación de la perspectiva de género en las estrategias de extensionismo de la SAGARPA.
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
Innovation intermediaries are individuals and organisations that enhance connectivity amongst constituencies of national, sectoral, and regional systems of innovation, thereby facilitating knowledge spillover. This paper articulates the whole picture of Indonesia's agricultural innovation system, with a special focus on how different innovation intermediaries play different roles in technology transfer and knowledge dissemination.
This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.
This paper is a contribution to the establishment of a new capacity development (CD) 9 strategy, a process that the Consortium Office will facilitate, with external input, during 2013. The paper explores the lessons learned from CGIAR’s experience with CD and reflects the findings of a working group that was brought together in late 2012. The objective of the paper is to identify the roles that individual and institutional CD might play in CGIAR in order to increase CGIAR’s impact on the welfare of smallholder farmers and the sustainability of their farming systems.
This paper briefly reviews three conceptual frameworks: namely, the national agricultural research system (NARS), the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) and the agricultural innovation system (AIS) concepts. Next, the paper reviews the definition of ‘innovation’ and proposes that agricultural innovation can occur at four different but interlinked domains.
This is one of lead papers presented at Innovation Asia-Pacific Symposium: 4-7 May, 2009 Kathmandu, Nepal. Cases representing practical examples of what it might mean to use innovation systems interventions and recognize key features are presented. Four cases represent actions facilitating uptake of research outputs including; a crop pest bio-control method; post harvest management of coffee; isolation and commercialization of an indigenous seed variety and; a community based system to forecast armyworm plagues.