This policy brief presents, explains and illustrates the five key recommendations that came out of the joint learning process during the JOLISAA project: 1. Build on innovation “in the social wild”; 2. Combine local and external knowledge and ideas to enhance innovative capacity; 3. Encourage access to diverse value chains to lower the innovation risks; 4. Support unpredictable innovation processes; 5. Address the multiple dimensions of innovation.
This article aims to analyse some of the possibilities and barriers that local communities face in promoting endogenous industrial development in an increasingly globalised economy. The analysis is based on the view that regionalisation is an important aspect of the globalisation trend and, therefore, a crucial economic trend in the international economy. In the second section, some theoretical issues are introduced and some policy background and dilemmas set out.
The Guidance Note on Operationalization provides a brief recap of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework as well as a more detailed guide to operationalization of the proposed dual pathways approach. It offers also a strategy for monitoring and evaluation as well as a toolbox of select tools that may be useful at the different stages of the CD for AIS cycle.
The Conceptual Background provides an in-depth analysis of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework. It is also available in French and Spanish.
This paper has been prepared under the guidelines provided by the TAP Secretariat at the FAO, as a contribution to the G20 initiative TAP, which includes near 40 partners and is facilitated by FAO. Its purpose is to provide a Regional synthesis report on capacity needs assessment for agricultural innovation, with capacity gaps identified and analyzed, including recommendations to strengthen agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and draft policy recommendations to address the capacity gaps.
Agriculture is central to Ethiopian economy but its sustainable development faces enormous challenges. Low innovation capacity, low productivity, dwindling natural resources and climate change, small-scale subsistence farming, and low levels of market integration and value addition have all made agricultural development more complex. In spite of the decades of research and development efforts, the rate of growth for both crop and livestock productivity has remained low.
In the framework of a wide Foresight process, launched by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) and aiming to identify possible scenarios for European agriculture in a 20-year perspective, DG RTD/E of the European Commission established a high-level Consultancy Expert Group (CEG) that analysed and synthesised foresight information in order to provide research policy orientations, tacking stock of the report from the first Foresight Expert Group (FEG) published in February 2007.
The paper describes the existing mechanisms of innovation diffusion particularly focusing on the initial phase to introduce the results of innovative projects into the government system of Uzbekistan. The paper aims to analyze the existing bureaucratic, legal and political matrix for the introduction of ZEF project innovations into practice. The innovations developed by the staff of the ZEF/UNESCO project in Uzbekistan range from their content and purpose of use from technological to institutional ones. The innovations considered in this paper are mainly technological ones.
The purpose of this article is to investigate the functions of design process outputs (such as design briefs, scale models, visualizations, animations) as boundary objects in the implementation of novel agricultural production system concepts.
Agricultural innovation in low-income tropical countries contributes to a more effective and sustainable use of natural resources and reduces hunger and poverty through economic development in rural areas. Yet, despite numerous recent public and private initiatives to develop capacities for agricultural innovation, such initiatives are often not well aligned with national efforts to revive existing Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS).