Increasing attention is being given to evaluating the impact of advisory services in terms of their effectiveness in providing farmers with knowledge and networks for innovation as well as understanding the factors that influence this effectiveness (Prager et al, 2017). The demand and uptake of advisory services is one factor and Klerkx et al (2017) comment on the variation in farmers’ demand and the influences of variables such as farm size, asset status and education as well as stability or turbulence in the regulatory environment.

Agricultural machinery manufacturers historically referred to the intermediate players for selling, maintenance, customer service and/or training of equipment appear to interact with farmers and end-users. Intermediate players have therefore faced the burden to master the technology, in constant evolution, and the associated training needs at the interface between sophisticated equipment and the end-user and its sociological characteristics (age, education, background, etc.).

During the period 2013-2019, the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network has served as a platform for collating the voices, insights, concerns, and experiences of people in the extension sphere of South Asia. Diverse professionals shared their concerns on the present and future of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in the form of blog conversations for AESA. Together, all of these individuals who are involved, interested and passionate about EAS, discussed ways to move beyond some of the seemingly intransigent problems that are hindering the professionalization of EAS.

The need of Farmer Producer organizations (FPo) was felt to overcome the problems of unorganized small farmers who lack access to resources and services. FPos emerged as an interface between small farmers and the external world by providing forward and backward linkages, giving them required voice, market access, bargaining power, economy of scale and better prices. Among different tangible and intangible benefits, marketing related benefits like access to different market channels, decrease in risk, decrease in transaction cost, economy of scale etc.

This document is accompanyng the volume Public Agricultural Research in an Era of Transformation: The Challenge of Agri-Food System Innovation (available in TAPipedia here), which provides 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.

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.

Drawn from numerous sources, including papers in this journal, this concluding paper synthesizes evidence on the relationship between agricultural research for development and poverty reduction, with particular emphasis on agri-food systems perspectives in shaping programs aimed at rural prosperity. Following the introduction in section 1, we revisit the ex ante set of 18 pathways in section 2 (which were laid out in our introductory paper for this SI), posing some critical questions: Can a manageable set of impact pathways be identified? How are they inter-related?