Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) is a collection of institutions enabling agricultural and food system transformation in a country. Any attempt to engage in emergency interventions by institutions and bounce back with higher levels of resilience requires strong organizational and human capacity as a prerequisite. What role do these institutions play in emergencies such as COVID-19 and how can they bounce back after such a crisis is over? What can be done to help these institutions build resilience capacity for such recovery?
Agricultural research continues to be a good investment. The studies show that investments in international and national agricultural research account for almost all of the total factor productivity (TFP) growth in SSA and large shares of agricultural growth globally. The existing agricultural research institutions have, on average, delivered rates of return to public investment above 30-40%, which is much higher than the 5-10% available to other public investments or the 2-5% cost of borrowing public funds.
Agricultural education, research, and extension can contribute substantially to reducing rural poverty in the developing world. However, evidence suggests that their contributions are falling short in Sub-Saharan Africa. The entry of new actors, technologies, and market forces, when combined with new economic and demographic pressures, suggests the need for more innovative and less linear approaches to promoting a technological transformation of smallholder agriculture.
Historically, farmers have been some of the most innovative people in the world. However, agriculture lags behind other sectors in its uptake of new information technologies for the control and automation of farming systems. In spite of decades of research into innovation, generally we still do not have a good understanding as to why this is the case. This paper reviews two theories of innovation and offers a new approach to thinking about agricultural ICT (e-Agriculture). It firstly explores the problem of ICT adoption in agriculture.
This paper is an attempt to take stock of the authors' work. In Section 2, the authors reflect upon the emergence and fairly rapid diffusion of the concept ‘national system of innovation’ as well as related concepts. In Section 3, they describe how the Aalborg-version of the concept evolved by a combination of ideas that moved from production structure towards including all elements and relationships contributing to innovation and competence building.
This paper reviews the NIS literature chronologically, showing how this shift in emphasis has diminished somewhat the importance of both institutions, particularly governments, and the political processes of institutional capacity building.
Processes of designing for systemic innovation for sustainable development (SD) through the lens of three long-term case studies are reported. All case studies, which originated from the SLIM (Social Learning for the Integrated Management and Sustainable Use of Water at Catchment Scale) Project, funded within the EU Fifth Framework Program (2001–2004), constitute inquiry pathways that are explored using a critical incident approach.
Well-designed and supported innovation niches may facilitate transitions towards sustainable agricultural futures, which may follow different approaches and paradigms such as agroecology, local place-based food systems, vertical farming, bioeconomy, urban agriculture, and smart farming or digital farming.
Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.
Although agricultural innovation systems (AIS) have recently received considerable attention in academic and development circles, links between an AIS's regional specifications and structural-functional analysis have been neglected. This paper aims to understand how regional and structural dimensions determine systemic problems and blocking mechanisms that, in turn, hinder a regional AIS's function.