Agricultural innovation systems are complex, multi-layered, and can be difficult to define and analyse. In this paper, we provide examples of ‘systems analysis’: describing the context, what was done, and how the outcomes informed broader research and development activities. The five cases describe analyses of: i) agricultural systems in North-West Vietnam; ii) household food security in Central Vietnam; iii) agricultural innovation systems in Central Africa; iv) wheat commodity systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, and v) the national agricultural research system in Papua New Guinea.

Although it is not always acknowledged, power differences between partners fundamentally affect Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) partnerships. In referring to its African-European ARD partnerships, PAEPARD has often alluded to aspects of power without naming them as such. The project was established to create “equitable and balanced partnerships” between: a) researchers and research users, and b) African and European partners.

Inclusion is a key issue for Agricultural Research for Development (ARD). Development goals in and of themselves call for better livelihoods and opportunities for the less privileged actors working in agriculture. They also call for greater equity and balanced representation of the population at an institutional level. This brief focuses on how ARD processes can more sensitively address gender relations and youth issues. Women and young people have distinctive needs and interests which can be less visible within broader “Producer Organizations”, for example.

The purpose of this report is to provide some of the groundwork in answering the question of how the CGIAR system and other public agricultural research organisations should adapt and respond to an era of transformation framed by the SDGs. It does this by exploring the way in which this transformation agenda reframes agricultural research and innovation.

This paper presents the common framework on CD for AIS developed by TAP and points to the relevance of meta-learning and the importance of “functional capacities”, if higher education institutions and their graduates are to become active players in the agricultural innovation system. The Framework was developed through an inclusive, participatory and multi-stakeholders approach with contributions by TAP Partners, including FARA and the Global Conference on Higher Education and Research in Agriculture.

The Applied Research and Innovation Systems in Agriculture project (ARISA) started in December 2014 with the aim of increasing net farm income for 10,000 smallholder farming households in eastern Indonesia. The project was designed to address a key challenge in agricultural research for development: how to ensure that proven research outputs1 are available and accessible for use in farming communities.

This brief discusses the emergence of Asia as a hotpot of innovation and the implications for Australia's own innovation capacity

This paper reflects on the experiences of the Applied Research and Innovation Systems in Agriculture (ARISA) project to caralyse agricultural innovation by bringing RIs and private sector (PS) actors together in partnerships. Facilitating partnerships to caralyse innovation requires capacity building of individuals as well as institutional change. This paper examines the approaches to parnering for innovation, successes, challenges and lessons learned

This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Toolsand (iv) Organisational Format.

The study explored the nature of innovation response capacity and the building of policy-relevant innovation capacity in the context of livestock-related emergencies in East Africa.