Innovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments.

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.

An innovation platform is a space for learning and change. It is a group of individuals (who often represent organizations) with different backgrounds and interests: farmers, traders, food processors, researchers, government officials etc. The members come together to diagnose problems, identify opportunities and find ways to achieve their goals. They may design and implement activities as a platform, or coordinate activities by individual members. This brief explains what innovation platforms are and how they work, and it describes some of their advantages and limitations.

Policy processes are formal and informal negotiations in which heterogeneous groups of stakeholders seek to influence policy agenda setting and the development and implementation of policy. Innovation platforms can help balance the vested interests of market actors, civil society and other stakeholders to support policy processes. They can bring together different types of expertise, experience and interests, and facilitate learning between policymakers and market and civil society actors to develop negotiated and implementable policies and regulations.

The markets and value chains approach has recently become fashionable in agricultural development interventions. So too have innovation platforms. This brief shows how innovation platforms can be a useful vehicle to promote market development. It is available in Chinese, English, Hindi, Thai and Vietnamese.

This is the first chapter of the book "Innovation platforms for agricultural development: Evaluating the mature innovation platforms landscape". It introduces the background, case study competition process, case study characterization and readers’ guide, and book outline. Characterization of the case studies includes their geographical spread, age and life stage of the platforms, and specific information on the multi-stakeholder processes, the content matter, platform support functions, and outcomes and impacts.

This is a chapter of the book Innovation platforms for agricultural development edited by Iddo Dror, Jean-Joseph Cadilhon, Marc Schut, Michael Misiko and Shreya Maheshwari.

Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.

Innovation Platforms (IPs) have become a popular vehicle in agricultural research for development (AR4D). The IP promise is that integrating scientific and local knowledge results in innovations that can have impact at scale. Many studies have uncovered how IPs work in various countries, value chains and themes. The conclusion is clear: IPs generate enthusiasm and can bring together stakeholders to effectively address specific problems and achieve ‘local’ impact.

This paper reportson the implementation of a conceptual framework to carry out an impact evaluation of multi-stakeholder innovation systems using the NLA as the object of study. The assessment focused on the business relationship constructs of trust and capacity development. Survey interviews, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions collected data from agribusiness stakeholders linked with the NLA and from a control group of stakeholders involved with other networks. The quantitative data were analysed through factor and regression analyses