International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) partnered with the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) in 2011 to conduct a series of policy dialogues on the prioritization of demand-driven agricultural research for development in South Asia. Dialogues were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal in mid-2012 and this report captures feedback from those dialogues.
This paper explores the application of the innovation systems framework to the design and construction of national agricultural innovation indicators. Optimally, these indicators could be used to gauge and benchmark national performance in developing more responsive, dynamic, and innovative agricultural sectors in developing countries.
There is renewed attention on the importance of advisory services and extension in rural development processes. This paper, based on the publication ‘Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension', focuses on five opportunities to mobilise the potential of extension and advisory services. The five areas are: (1) focusing on best-fit approaches; (2) embracing pluralism; (3) using participatory approaches; (4) developing capacity; and (5) ensuring long-term institutional support.
The present case study investigated a policy-induced agricultural innovation network in Brandenburg.
This report has the aim of contributing to the PRO AKIS overall goal of exploring and identifying the possibilities, conditions and requirements of rural networks to enhance the farmers’ ability to create, test, implement and evaluate innovation in cooperation with other actors.In particular, the report presents two cases: the Small Fruit Cluster (SFC) and the Drosophila Suzukii Monitoring (DSM) network. The SFC is a nationwide, multi-actor network composed of several actors, interacting in the small fruit sector in Portugal.
This report provides a synthesis of all findings and information generated through a “stocktaking” process that involved a desk study of Prolinnova documents and evaluation reports, a questionnaire to 40 staff members of international organizations in agricultural research and development (ARD), self-assessment by the Country Platforms (CPs) and backstopping visits to five CPs. In 2014, the Prolinnova network saw a need to re-strategise in a changing context, and started this process by reviewing the activities it had undertaken and assessing its own functioning.
The articles in the dossier present different approaches to supporting farmer-led research, ranging from partnerships between small-scale farmer organisations and research institutions, to alliances of farmer groups, nongovernmental organisations and researchers, to constellations in which farmer organisations directly contract researchers. The articles highlight some innovations that have emerged from these processes and – more important still – show new ways of organising research so that it strengthens innovative capacities at grassroots level.
This PROLINNOVA report to the 3rd GFAR Programme-Committee meeting is composed of two parts.
The past 1 entitles ‘ PROLINNOVA genesis and growth’ describes historical background and
PROLINOVA in general while the part 2 entitles ‘2007 accomplishments’ narrates specific
accomplishments of PROLINNOVA during the period January-November 2007 . Further, the annex 1
lists contact addresses.
The overall objective of the Comprehensive Assessment of the Agricultural Sector (CAAS) is to provide an evidence base to enable appropriate strategic policy responses by the Government of Liberia (GoL) and its development partners in order to maximize the contribution of the agriculture sector to the Government's overarching policy objectives. Given the strong relationship between growth in agricultural productivity and poverty reduction, future efforts in Liberia need to focus on productivity enhancing measures with a pro-poor focus that increase incomes.
In Ethiopia, village surveys were conducted in six villages and two expert workshops were organized to discuss the organization of the study and to evaluate the draft results. Based on household surveys, focus group discussions, and institutional stakeholder interviews, we assessed household vulnerability, analyzed the strategies households adopt to reduce the hazards faced, and evaluated the assistance households receive from institutions. Vulnerability profiles were formulated, which show that household vulnerability differs substantially among and within villages.