Little is known about effective ways to operationalize agricultural innovation processes. The authors of this article use the MasAgro program in Mexico (which aims to increase maize and wheat productivity, profitability and sustainability), and the experiences of middle level ‘hub managers’, to understand how innovation processes occur in heterogeneous and changing contexts. Their research shows how a program, that initially had a relatively narrow technology focus, evolved towards an innovation system approach.
This policy brief consolidates lessons learned from an in-depth literature review on small-scale farmer (SSF) innovation systems and a two-day expert consultation on the same topic, hosted in Geneva by Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in May 2015. This review draws together published literature on the evolution of the concept, how on-farm innovation systems function in practice, and the roles of outside actors in supporting them.
Poor farmers seldom benefit from new agricultural technologies. In response, research and extension approaches based on agricultural innovation systems are popular. Often agricultural research organisations are the network brokers, facilitating the emergence of the innovation system. Based on an analysis of the Sustainable Modernization of Traditional Agriculture (MasAgro) initiative in Mexico, this viewpoint suggests that such organisations are more often suitable network brokers when the objective is the development and scaling out of a technology by itself.
This paper looks at brokerage functions in a project on building innovation capacity through improved networking. Innovation capacity influences how actors respond to changes in their environments. In such dynamic environments well connected sets of actors are at an advantage in that they can combine skills to address the emerging opportunities and challenges. However, policy and cultural barriers especially in African innovation systems raise the transaction costs of networking leading to weak connectivity among actors thus poor innovation capacity.
Various authors have identified the potential relevance of innovation system approaches for inclusive innovation, that is, the means by which new goods and services are developed for and by the poor. However, it is still a question how best to operationalize this. Innovation platforms (IPs) represent an example of putting an inclusive innovation system approach into practice by bringing different types of stakeholders together to address issues of mutual concern and interest with a specific focus on the marginalized poor.
Capacity development is regarded by CGIAR as an effective vehicle for sustainable development, when embedded within broader CGIAR Research Programs (CRP). This document offers guidelines on how CGIAR and boundary partners (or those partners who take up and adapt research results for the next level of users) can successfully develop and implement strategies which support this process of integration.
Farmers and businesses need to adapt constantly if they are to survive and compete in the rapidly evolving environment associated with the contemporary agricultural sector. Rethinking agricultural research as part of a dynamic system of innovation could help to design ways of creating and sustaining conditions that will support the process of adaptation and innovation. This approach involves developing the working styles and practices of individuals and organizations and the incentives, support structures and policy environments that encourage innovation.
Multi-stakeholder or innovation platforms are increasingly seen as a promising vehicle for agricultural innovation and development. In the field of agricultural research for development (AR4D), such platforms are an important element of a commitment to more intentional, structured and long-term engagement among sector stakeholders.
The capacity of existing monitoring and decision making tools in generating evidence about the performance of R4D with multi-stakeholder processes, such as innovation platforms (IPs), public private partnerships (PPP), participatory value chain management (PVCM) is very limited. Results of these tools are either contextual and qualitative such as case studies that can not be used by other R4D interventions or quantitative i.e. impact assessments that do not inform what works in R4D.
This article presents the results of a study conducted in Northeast Thailand on wild food plant gathering in anthropogenic areas and the implications for vulnerable households. A sub-sample of 40 farming households was visited every month to conduct seven-day recalls over a 12-month period on wild food plant acquisition events. Results show that these plants are an essential part of the diet, constituting a "rural safety net" particularly for vulnerable households.