The organisation of sector and multi-stakeholder consultations was an integral part of the first phase of the PAEPARD II programme, covering the period 2009–2013. These consultations contributed to the overall objective of the programme, the reorientation of scientific and technical collaboration between Africa and Europe in the area of agricultural research for development (ARD), in order to promote thecreation of multi-stakeholder partnerships that are demand-oriented and mutually beneficial.
L’organisation de consultations sectorielles et multiacteurs a fait partie intégrante de la première phase du programme PAEPARD II, qui a couvert la période 2009-2013. Ces consultations se sont inscrites dans l’objectif général du programme, soit la réorientation de la collaboration scientifique et technique entre l’Afrique et l’Europe dans le domaine de la Recherche agricole pour le développement (RAD) afin de favoriser la mise en place de partenariats multi-acteurs orientés vers la demande et mutuellement bénéfiques.
This paper presents the processes, general guidelines lessons and experiences pertaining to “good practices” for organizing and forming Agricultural Innovation Platforms in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site, covering three countries (Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo) with widely differing social political environments to address agricultural development challenges.
This paper examines how the different institutional innovations arising from various permutations of linkages and interactions of ARD organizations (national, international advanced agricultural research centres and universities) influenced the different outcomes in addressing identified ARD problems.
The central question in increasing productivity and generating incomes in African agriculture is how to move from technology generation to innovations that respond to constraints of agricultural production along the value chains. This question was considered in the context of subsistence agriculture, smallholder production systems, inefficient marketing and investments by the private sector, a preponderance of public interventions, and inadequate policies.
The evidence base on agri-food systems is growing exponentially. The CoSAI-commissioned study, Mining the Gaps, applied artificial intelligence to mine more than 1.2 million publications for data, creating a clearer picture of what research has been conducted on small-scale farming and post-production systems from 2000 to the present, and where evidence gaps exist.
A range of approaches and financial instruments have been used to stimulate and support innovation in agriculture and resolve interlocking constraints for uptake at scale. These include innovation platforms, results-based payments, value chain approaches, grants and prizes, incubators, participatory work with farmer networks, and many more.
A huge increase in investment in innovation for agricultural systems is critical to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement. Most of this increase needs to come from reorienting existing funding for innovation. However, understanding whether an investment will fully promote environmentally sustainable and equitable agri-food systems can be difficult.
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)?
This shift in thinking will require major shifts in policy, research, and investment. But where should these investments go? What foundations should be strengthened? Which gaps need filling? What’s working? What’s not?
In order to answer these questions in an informed way, we need to examine the evidence that exists and identify areas where more research is needed.
But this is easier said than done.