In 2012, the Food Systems Innovation (FSI) initiative was set up between four Australian organisations working to improve the impact of agriculture and food security programs in the Indo-Pacific region. The author was assigned to facilitate a stream of work in the partnership, working as an internal partnership broker in one of the four partner organisations, the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
Innovation platforms (IPs) form a popular vehicle in agricultural research for development (AR4D) to facilitate stakeholder interaction, agenda setting, and collective action toward sustainable agricultural development. In this article, the authors analyze multilevel stakeholder engagement in fulfilling seven key innovation system functions. Data are gathered from experiences with interlinked community and (sub)national IPs established under a global AR4D program aimed at stimulating sustainable agricultural development in Central Africa.
This paper describes the research path followed by a team of researchers who had investigated the nitrate problem in a case study area, and who became aware of the low impact of their data on the policy debate and on the practices that – as the research team saw it – had given rise to the problem in the first place. They embarked on a series of interactions first with participatory action researchers from the SLIM project (see Fig.
This paper characterises some of the main issues confronting water-catchment managing in a climate-changing world and addresses wide-spread concerns about the lack of connectivity between science, policy making and implementation. The paper’s arguments are ‘framed’ within a paradigm of systemic and adaptive governing, regulating, planning and managing understood as a nested systemic hierarchy. It is argued that climate change adaptation is best understood as a coevolutionary dynamic, principally, but not exclusively between human beings and the biophysical world.
Innovation platforms (IPs) are a way of organizing multistakeholder interactions, marshalling ideas, people and resources to address challenges and opportunities embedded in complex settings. The approach has its roots in theories of complexity, the concept of innovation systems and practices of participatory action research. IPs have been widely adopted across Africa and beyond in recent years as a “must have” tool in a range of “for development” modes of agricultural research.
The DURAS Project, which ran from 2004 to 2008, established a truly pioneering means of integrating innovation from science with that from communities themselves. At the heart of DURAS has been its innovative competitive grants system. Following an original selection and evaluation process that placed a premium on multi-stakeholder partnerships, 12 projects were funded in Africa and Asia over a period of three years, each involving an array of disciplines and partners.
In recent years, the notion of doing research with multiple partners has become an important concept in international development. This reflects the belief that partnerships are important for solving complex problems, reducing costs and competition for the same resources, increasing efficiency and ownership, and ensuring greater accountability.
In order for agricultural development to fulfill its potential role as a source of growth and reducer of poverty, it must be constantly renewed through knowledge and innovation. Getting resources into the hands of innovators and providing incentives for producers, agricultural service providers, and entrepreneurs to collaborate in developing and applying new methods and technologies is a priority among institutions concerned with agricultural knowledge.
The relationship between motivation and participation in five agricultural research and development innovation platforms (IPs) in Africa’s Great Lakes Region is examined. We analyze data from surveys and in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions. Although farmers prioritized new knowledge and skills, these were not sufficient to consistently foster active participation. Anticipated economic (markets, income, and credit) and material (agricultural inputs) livelihood benefits did encourage active farmer participation.
This paper describes the learning selection approach to enabling innovation that capitalizes on the complexity of social systems at different scales of analysis. The first part of the paper describes the approach and how it can be used to guide the early stages of setting up a “grassroots” innovation process. The second part of the paper looks at how the learn selection model can be used “top-down” to guide research investments to trigger large-scale systemic change.