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.
Despite the well-known importance of innovation to productivity growth in the agri-food sector, very few studies have attempted to measure farm-level innovation. This article contributes to the literature by developing an agricultural innovation index that goes beyond measuring innovation through adopted technologies. Based on this index, drivers and barriers of innovation are assessed. The findings reveal that innovation efforts differ between farm systems.
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.
Innovation learning platforms have their roots in the agricultural innovation systems (AIS) approach. AIS emphasizes a systems view of agricultural innovations and conceptualizes an innovation system as all individuals and organizations that keep on interacting in producing and using knowledge and the institutional context of knowledge sharing and learning. Research creates knowledge and technology; but innovation process goes further to include putting that knowledge into use.
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).
Heat-tolerant wheat varieties, developed by ICARDA and Sudan’s Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), are helping farmers adapt to the heat stress, however, bringing higher and more stable yields. Farmers across the wheatproducing regions of Sudan are now achieving up to six t/ha over successive growing seasons.
This paper reviews the experience of the Biodiversity Consortium at the Philippine site in conducting research to develop tools and approaches to improve biodiversity conservation with the active involvement of the communities that live near the Mt. Kitanglad Range Nature Park. The following section discusses the global setting of Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDP) , highlights some of the key lessons learned so far, and proposes a theoretical framework.
According to the authors of this paper, actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus would not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect.
This study aims to assess if AKIS are effectively disseminating integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) knowledge by comparing results from two sites in Kenya and Ghana, which differ in the uptake of ISFM. Social network measures and statistical methods were employed using data from key formal actors and farmers. Their results suggest that the presence of weak knowledge ties is important for the awareness of ISFM at both research sites.