This paper is a case study of capacity strengthening activities carried out at the Agricultural Research Corporation in Sudan between July 2008 and March 2011. These activities were undertaken through the project ‘Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development (SCARDA)’ which was implemented in the East and Central Africa region by the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa.
This document aims to guide a small team tasked to assess the capacity for agricultural innovation in a multi-stakeholder context. The context might be an actual or potential “innovation platform” such as the three commodity-based platforms selected for the piloting capacity assessment methods, or it might be a project or programme that is more generally focused on strengthening of innovation within a subsector of agriculture within a country, such as livestock or horticulture.
This review is an information resource for development practitioners, development agencies and funders of development activities who have an interest in assessing capacity for agricultural innovation in developing countries, including the developing regions of sub-Saharan Africa. In the context that further investment in the agricultural capacity of developing countries is recognised as a development priority, the review explores what is known about the “tools” (i.e. concepts and methods) which are available to guide assessment of innovation capacity in these countries.
Numerous innovation platforms have been implemented to encourage the adoption of agricultural innovations and stakeholder interactions within a value chain. Yet little research has been undertaken on the design and implementation of innovation platforms focussing on issues other than market access and aiming to encourage agro-ecological intensification.
Innovation Platforms (IPs) have become a popular vehicle in agricultural research for development (AR4D). The IP promise is that integrating scientific and local knowledge results in innovations that can have impact at scale. Many studies have uncovered how IPs work in various countries, value chains and themes. The conclusion is clear: IPs generate enthusiasm and can bring together stakeholders to effectively address specific problems and achieve ‘local’ impact.
This report reviews the evidence of impact of capacity strengthening on agricultural research for development (AR4D) in developing countries. The study was commissioned by DFID as part of the documentation process of the project Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa (SCARDA).
This Working Paper on Capacity Building is one of a series of 10 papers published alongside DFID's Research Strategy 2008-2013. It presents the case for DFID-funded research on Capacity Building - drawing on the responses given during a global consultation that DFID convened in 2007 about its future research.
This sourcebook outlines some of the key tools used by those involved in institutional development. While there are an increasing number of tools and techniques,the focus here is on those that are used or have been used in DFID’s own institutional work.
Governments of low-income countries and international development donors are increasing their funding for research at least in part on the assumption that research has positive impacts on socioeconomic development. Four pathways are commonly cited to describe how research will contribute to development: 1. Investment in research will drive economic growth; 2. Investment in research will increase human capital; 3. Investment in research will lead to the development of pro-poor products and technologies; 4.
The study evaluates the Department for International Development’s partnership with the World Health Organisation. It provides an assessment of both the relevance and appropriateness of the partnership and of the efficiency and effectiveness of DFID’s activities under the partnership. The study discusses the concept of partnership creating baselines for future monitoring and evaluation. The report is structured around the five evaluation criteria of relevance, appropriateness, unity, efficiency, and effectiveness.