In line with the Watershed Guidelines of 2008 - released by the Government of India - the Indian Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, in partnership with the German International Cooperation (GIZ), has implemented a project called ‘Strengthening Capacity Building for Decentralized Watershed Management’. The objective of the project was to improve the capacities and networking of central and state organizations to implement large public investment for decentralized watershed management programs. The project was piloted and implemented in Rajasthan, Karnataka and Uttarakhand.
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) Tools and (iv) Organisational Format.
The Andhra Pradesh sorghum coalition illustrates the valued added by working in coalition. By combining different perspectives to give rise to new, synthesised ideas, the member organisations worked at a faster pace and achieved their objectives more successfully and sustainably than they could have done if working separately. The methodology of their research was designed collaboratively. As a result, scientists carried out repeat experiments on poultry, at the request of poultry farmers and feed manufacturers, which greatly increased their confidence in the evidence.
This paper, presented at "Food 360°: International Conference-cum-Exhibition on Agribusiness and Food Processing, November 05-06, 2012, Hotel Taj Krishna, Hyderabad", focuses on Indian agriculture, which remains the most important sector for India. However, despite its importance, various indicators from the sector show that all is not well.
The USAID Building Agribusiness Capacity in East Timor (BACET) program was extended for three additional years in September 2008. Land O’Lakes gathered feedback from the Ministry of Agriculture, USAID, teachers and students and immediately initiated enhancements to improve the curriculum previously developed to reinforce practical and market-oriented skills.
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.
This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.
Improved water management offers a range of benefits to people living in the dryland tropics, where water is scarce. Watershed programmes based on active participation of the rural population bear the potential to ensure food security, contribute to economic growth and help conserve natural resources. An ICRISAT programme in India provides an example of a science-led, knowledge-based approach in this field.
Institutional innovations are critical for effective performance of agricultural research centres in natural resource management projects that often include multiple and diverse stakeholders with contrasting objectives and activities. This report shows how institutional histories of projects can be used as tools to help reveal institutional innovations thereby promoting Institutional Learning And Change (ILAC).
This paper briefly reviews three conceptual frameworks: namely, the national agricultural research system (NARS), the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) and the agricultural innovation system (AIS) concepts. Next, the paper reviews the definition of ‘innovation’ and proposes that agricultural innovation can occur at four different but interlinked domains.