The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good Practice draws on four decades of documented experience provided by both bilateral and multilateral donors, as well as academic specialists, to help policy makers and practitioners think through effective approaches to capacity development and what challenges remain in the drive to boost country capacity. The analysis is underpinned by a conceptual framework which guides practitioners to view capacity development at three interrelated levels: individual, organisational and enabling environment levels.

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.

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.

The Sourcebook is the outcome of joint planning, continued interest in gender and agriculture, and concerted efforts by the World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. The purpose of the Sourcebook is to act as a guide for practitioners and technical staff inaddressing gender issues and integrating gender-responsive actions in the design and implementation of agricultural projects and programs. It speaks not with gender specialists on how to improve their skills but rather reaches out to technical experts to guide them in thinking through how to integrate gender dimensions into their operations.

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 project “Strengthening Community Resilience to Change: Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research” (CLIC–SR), supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was completed on 31 August 2016. During the four years since 2012, the Prolinnova Country Platforms in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda made large strides in:

This presentation on the innovation system approach was presented to the Oromiya BoARD meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26 July 2007.

The Synthesis Document provides a synthesis of concepts and principles of the Common Framework developed under the Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP). The objective of the TAP Common Framework is to promote better coherence and greater impact of capacity development in support of agricultural innovation in the Tropics. Developed in 2015 through a highly participatory process, it was agreed that the Framework should provide conceptual underpinnings and practical guidance.

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.