Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.
The capacity of existing monitoring and decision making tools in generating evidence about the performance of R4D with multi-stakeholder processes, such as innovation platforms (IPs), public private partnerships (PPP), participatory value chain management (PVCM) is very limited. Results of these tools are either contextual and qualitative such as case studies that can not be used by other R4D interventions or quantitative i.e. impact assessments that do not inform what works in R4D.
Capacity development (CapDev) has been identified in CGIAR’s Strategy and Results Framework as a strategic enabler of impact for CGIAR and its partners, particularly through building and sustaining capacity of national partners and beneficiaries.
Capacity development (CapDev) is increasingly acknowledged as a crucial part of agricultural development. In the CGIAR Strategic Results Framework (SRF), CapDev is included as a ‘cross-cutting issue’ and as a strategic enabler of Research for Development (R4D) impact for CGIAR and its partners. It goes far beyond the transfer of knowledge and skills through training, and cuts across multiple levels.
This film describes the role of capacity development in accelerating adoption of new technologies and innovations in the CGIAR Research Program on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics.
This case study zooms in on multi-stakeholder processes in the East and Central Africa (ECA) Action Area or Flagship that were launched on 20 May 2013 in Bukavu, DR Congo. The ECA Flagship encom-passes the Rwanda, DR Congo, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia Action Sites. More specifically, the case study describes and reflects upon the first two years of CGIAR Humidtropics in DR Congo. aiming to outline the multi-stakeholder process as it unfolded and highlight lessons that can be learned from this.
To support the multi-stakeholder process in Burundi, the national research institute ISABU (Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Bu-rundi) was requested to act as the facilitating organisation. ISABU had previously partnered with the CGIAR centres in Burundi under the CIALCA program that had supported partnerships to coordinate activities and stimulate demand-driven research. With the aim of building on existing collaboration and activities, it was decided to re-engage with former CIALCA partners, including ISABU.
Humidtropics adopts an integrated systems perspective. Instead of tar-geting one single pre-selected commodity and trying to boost its produc-tivity at farm level, Humidtropics focuses on stimulating productivity, nat-ural resource management (NRM) and institutional innovations across different levels in order to achieve more sustainable impacts. It consid-ers all farm enterprises and their interactions, as well as nutrition, social differentiation (e.g.
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.
This paper traces the evolution of the innovation systems framework within the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa, and presents a conceptual framework for agricultural innovation systems. The difference between innovation ecology/ecosystems and intervention-based innovations systems is highlighted, given that these two concepts are used at different levels in promoting and sustaining agricultural innovations.