This article presents a multi-stakeholder framework for intervening in root, tuber, and banana seed systems and in other VPCs. These crops are reproduced not with true seed but with vegetative planting material (e.g., roots,tubers, vines, stems, and suckers), called “seed” in this article. Seed systems for VPCs need to be designed differently than those for true seed, and coordination among stakeholders in seed systems is crucial
Sustainable intensification of agriculture will have to build on various innovations, but synergies between different types of technologies are not yet sufficiently understood. We use representative data from small farms in Kenya and propensity score matching to compare effects of input-intensive technologies and natural resource management practices on household income. When adopted in combination, positive income effects tend to be larger than when individual technologies are adopted alone.
This paper argues that Dutch-funded capacity development projects in developing countries for tertiary agricultural education organisations as they are currently carried out are not able to successfully achieve the sustained changes required. That is, changes in how an organisation functions, its cultural norms and rules, and also in how it interacts within wider networks. Rather, long-term institutional change is needed.
Multi-stakeholder (MS) platforms, such as innovation platforms (IP), public-private partnerships (PPP) are becoming more common but what they can achieve in innovation and scaling is limited and depends on different factors. This poster and the broader research paper provide evidence what MS platforms can and cannot achieve in their early phases and give insights about effectiveness and efficiency of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) interventions such as CGIAR research programs (CRPs) in low and middle income countries.
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 booklet grew out of a study on what makes for responsible scaling in the context of agrifood systems, thinking along the same lines as ideas that gave rise to the concept of responsible research and innovation. In our initial exploration, we brought together a number of angles on the topic area (Wigboldus and Leeuwis, 2013; Wigboldus et al. 2016).
This toolbox has been developed to collate different tools and methods that can be used for food system analysis.
It is specifically based on systems thinking for food system analysis, with the aim to formulate actionable recommendations that can bring about systemic change.It describes both the process of a food system analysis, as well as a set of tools that can be used at different stages.
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion in the scientific literature on the advantages and disadvantages of privatization of extension and advisory services and the shift from thinking in terms of the traditional Agricultural Knowledge System towards a broader Agricultural Innovation System.
This paper identifies the stakeholders of System of Rice Intensification (SRI), their roles and actions and the supporting and enabling environment of innovation in the state as the elements of the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in SRI in Tripura state of India and studies the relationship matrix among the stakeholders. Methodology: A descriptive research design was followed to study the agricultural innovation system in SRI.
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.