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.
This paper describes the learning selection approach to enabling innovation that capitalizes on the complexity of social systems at different scales of analysis. The first part of the paper describes the approach and how it can be used to guide the early stages of setting up a “grassroots” innovation process. The second part of the paper looks at how the learn selection model can be used “top-down” to guide research investments to trigger large-scale systemic change.
This paper (Part I) present a case study of work conducted by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) to adapt network mapping techniques to a rural and developing country context. It reports on work in Colombia to develop a prototype network diagnosis tool for use by service providers who work to strengthen small rural groups. It is complemented by a further paper in this issue by Louise Clark (Part II) which presents work to develop a network diagnosis tool for stakeholders involved in agricultural supply chains in Bolivia.
There have been repeated calls for a ‘new professionalism’ for carrying out agricultural research for development since the 1990s. At the centre of these calls is a recognition that for agricultural research to support the capacities required to face global patterns of change and their implications on rural livelihoods, requires a more systemic, learning focused and reflexive practice that bridges epistemologies and methodologies.
Although it is not always acknowledged, power differences between partners fundamentally affect Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships. In referring to its African-European ARD partnerships, PAEPARD has often alluded to aspects of power without naming them as such. The project was established to create “equitable and balanced partnerships” between: a) researchers and research users, and b) African and European partners.
Inclusion is a key issue for Agricultural Research for Development (ARD). Development goals in and of themselves call for better livelihoods and opportunities for the less privileged actors working in agriculture. They also call for greater equity and balanced representation of the population at an institutional level. This brief focuses on how ARD processes can more sensitively address gender relations and youth issues. Women and young people have distinctive needs and interests which can be less visible within broader “Producer Organizations”, for example.
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.
Tomando el caso de la agricultura holandesa como ejemplo, en este documento se hace un análisis del surgimiento y el papel de los gestores sistémicos de innovación en el estímulo de la interacción al interior del sistema de innovación agrícola y el desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación, además de reflexionar sobre su posible función en la agricultura de los países en vías de desarrollo y emergentes así como en la forma en que se puede promover su surgimiento y operación.
This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Toolsand (iv) Organisational Format.
This note presents an outline of the main strands of the innovation systems research associated with the ARISA project. It begins by locating this in the current discourse on concepts and policy perspectives on innovation and capacity building before setting out key areas of research inquiry and research activities