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).
Invasive species such as Ambrosia (an annual weed) pose a biosecurity risk whose management depends on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of many stakeholders. It can therefore be considered a complex policy and risk governance problem. Complex policy problems are characterised by high uncertainty, multiple dimensions, interactions across different spatial and policy levels, and the involvement of a multitude of actors and organisations. This paper provides a conceptual framework for analysing the multi-level and multi-actor dimensions of Ambrosia management.
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.
Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS) is a peer-reviewed research for development tool that has been developed, tested and used in 18 countries across 3 continents.
RAAIS supports the identification and analysis of complex agricultural problems in agrifood systems. The joint assessment of problems and identification of innovations to overcome these problems with farmers, policymakers, private sector and other stakeholders provides a starting point for collective action towards achieving development outcomes and impact.
Although much has been written on how to implement and facilitate innovation platforms efficiently, few studies support ex-ante appraisal of when and for what purpose innovation platforms provide an appropriate mechanism for achieving development outcomes, and what kinds of human and financial resource investments and enabling environments are required. Without these insights, innovation platforms run the risk of being promoted as a panacea for all problems in the agricultural sector.
This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes that address ‘competing claims’ on natural resources and their management.
Agriculture is crucial for the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss and resource degradation. The contribution of agriculture to these environmental problems has been exacerbated by subsidies, which constitute the dominant public policy to support farmers. At the same time, other economic instruments introducing more sustainable land-use practices and incentivizing better environmental and social outcomes are already being applied worldwide.
The study was designed to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI's multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
What are the patterns of funding in agricultural innovation for the Global South1 ? Who are the key funders in this innovation and who are the key recipients? How doesthis funding split between various topics and value chains? What proportion of these funds support Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)? And how is SAI innovation funding split across different parts of the agriculture sector funding and innovation canvas?