This document provides guidelines for Innovation Platform (IP) facilitation and the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of IP processes and outcomes. Although it has been written for PROGEBE (project on ‘Sustainable management of globally significant endemic ruminant livestock of West Africa) staff at the site, national and regional levels, it is believed to have wider relevance beyond this specific project and specifically applies to projects which have a similar structure.
We are facing complex societal problems such as climate change, human conflict, poverty and inequality, and need innovative solutions. Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are more and more seen as a critical way of coming to such innovative solutions. It is thought that when multiple stakeholders are able to meet, share experiences, learn together and contribute to decisions, new and innovative ways of dealing with problems are found and turned into action. Still, much remains to be understood about the role and effectiveness of social learning in multi-stakeholder settings.
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.
Innovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments.
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.
Technological innovations have driven economic development and improvement in living conditions throughout history. However, the majority of smallholder farmers in sub‐Saharan Africa have seldom adopted or used science‐based technological innovations. Consequently, several scholars have been persistently questioning the effectiveness of intervention models in smallholder agriculture.
This paper outlines key areas of intervention that are identified as the core of FAO's strategy on strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) across multiple areas of work (e.g. research and extension, agroecology, biotechnology, green jobs, resourcing etc.) for achieving sustainable rural development.
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.
Many small-scale irrigation systems are characterized by low yields and deteriorating infrastructure. Interventions often erroneously focus on increasing yields and rehabilitating infrastructure. Small-scale irrigation systems have many of the characteristics of complex socio-ecological systems, with many different actors and numerous interconnected subsystems. However, the limited interaction between the different subsystems and their agents prevents learning and the emergence of more beneficial outcomes.