The project “Strengthening Community Resilience to Change: Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research” (CLIC–SR), supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was completed on 31 August 2016. During the four years since 2012, the Prolinnova Country Platforms in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda made large strides in:
The CLIC–SR project started on 1 September 2012, ended on 31 August 2016, and was implemented in four countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. This report covers the work done in the final project period: January–August 2016. The report adds a chapter that reviews the achievements of the project over the full project cycle. The report from an independent external evaluation was a major source of information for this final chapter.
The CDAIS Communication strategy for 2015-2018 aims to contribute to CDAIS project's core objective of making agricultural innovation systems more efficient and sustainable in meeting the demands of farmers, agribusiness and consumers. For more information on CDAIS, see: https://www.fao.org/in-action/tropical-agriculture-platform/cdais-project...
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.
This paper is the Report of the 25th Session of the Committee on Agriculture (COAG), held in Rome on 26-30 September 2016.
The Committee on Agriculture is one of FAO’s Governing Bodies providing overall policy and regulatory guidance on issues relating to agriculture, livestock, food safety, nutrition, rural development and natural resource management. Established in 1971, the Committee has over 100 Member Nations and generally meets every two years, but may hold additional sessions if needed.
This paper examines the level of heterogeneity of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), regarding their potential and performance as Agricultural Sectoral Innovation Systems (ASIS). The main objective is the classification of the ASIS in an OECD context; based on a series of indicators that correspond to their productivity, competitiveness, social, economic and institutional conditions, as well as their capacities and innovation results.
A growing variety of public and private agricultural advisory services are available today, leading to increasingly ‘pluralistic service systems’ (PSS) where advisory services are provided by different actors and funded from different sources. This is generally regarded as an important step forward, as it steers away from relying on purely state-led or privatised service systems. PSS hold the potential to overcome constraints related to funding, staffing and expertise, and to make advisory services more demand-driven.
The challenges of providing food security for the developing world have perhaps never been so extreme, with the introduction of new technologies being matched by land degradation, water concerns and the often uncertain impacts of a changing climate. In short, we will need to produce more food on less land. Adding to the problem is the distrust and fear around some new technologies – particularly biotechnologies – that have created a divide between scientists and farmers, decision makers and the public. There have been many attempts to bridge these divides, but few success stories.
This booklet grew out of a study on what makes for responsible scaling in the context of agrifood systems, thinking along the same lines as ideas that gave rise to the concept of responsible research and innovation. In our initial exploration, we brought together a number of angles on the topic area (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013; Wigboldus et al. 2016).