The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.

Capacity development for too long has endured the stereotypical characterization of “just training and technical assistance” that has undermined its broader legitimacy. We need to shift to a new and bolder vision of capacity development, one that seeks to catalyze domestic collective capacity for change by inspiring, connecting and empowering transformative leaders and coalitions for change.

Many countries are using innovation funds in the agricultural sector to support innovators and their links to public institutions, private entrepreneurs, and other actors, such as groups of rural producers. These funds create platforms for innovative activity by providing incentives for quality and collaboration. This report synthesizes experience with the two main innovation funds that the World Bank has used to fund agricultural innovation—competitive research grants and matching grants—and offers lessons and guidelines for designing and implementing them.

Research results and FAO National Aquaculture Sector Overview (NASO) fact sheets show that female participation rates vary by type and scale of enterprise and country. Women are frequently active in hatcheries and dominate fish processing plant labourers. Women’s work in small-scale aquaculture frequently is unrecognized, under or unpaid. Most aquaculture development projects are not gender sensitive, and aquaculture success stories often do not report gender dimensions; projects can fail if their designs do not include gender.

We are facing complex societal problems such as climate change, human conflict, poverty and inequality, and need innovative solutions. Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are more and more seen as a critical way of coming to such innovative solutions. It is thought that when multiple stakeholders are able to meet, share experiences, learn together and contribute to decisions, new and innovative ways of dealing with problems are found and turned into action. Still, much remains to be understood about the role and effectiveness of social learning in multi-stakeholder settings.

Recent experiences in participatory video-making raise the question of how best to use this medium for enhancing local seed innovation systems. Embedded in a mini-process of participatory action research, two styles of participatory video—scripted and scriptless—were tested and assessed together with farmers and facilitators in Bogra District, Bangladesh.

Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the contents of this book are organised around a number of case studies, grouped into two main chapters.

The universal application of the T&V model of agricultural extension in more than 50 countries is one of agricultural development’s best known failures. The approach worked well in places where it was originally developed, but proved inappropriate almost everywhere else. In this report Rasheed Sulaiman V. and Andy Hall worry that an apparently successful extension innovation piloted in India is set to suffer a similar fate.

This paper is based on the 8th GLOBELICS International Conference: Making Innovation Work for Society (1 - 3 November 2010, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). The paper presents three projects of the Research Into Use Program, located in South asia, which are applying three agriculture value chain development oriented knowledge for wider use. Practical aspects of the process and roles played by different types of ageincies in the innovation are discussed.

This ‘Tourist Guide’ is a resource document charting the emerging landscape of systems studies on rural innovation. Note that the term ‘rural innovation’ is used rather than ‘agricultural innovation’ in recognition of the wider scope of knowledge applications that are important in contemporary rural livelihoods. There is a growing body of literature dealing with rural innovation with some research groups developing ideas over the last 20 odd years on the topic.