In the post-harvest area and in agriculture research in general, both in India and internationally, policy attention is returning to the question of how innovation can be encouraged and promoted and thus how impact on the poor can be achieved. This publication assembles several cases from the post-harvest sector. These provide examples of successful innovation that emerged in quite different ways. Its purpose is to illustrate and analyze the diversity and often highly context-specific nature of the processes that lead to and promote innovation.

This paper is a reflection on a research project that defied the conventional technology transfer approach and adopted an approach based on innovation system principles to address fodder scarcity. Fodder scarcity in the project was conceptualized not as lack of technical capacity, but as lack of innovation capacity. This project tried to enhance innovation capacity by promoting appropriate configurations of stakeholders. However, translating this theory and principles into action was fraught with numerous challenges.

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 policy brief sets out the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of a learning-orientated monitoring and evaluation approach known as Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) and discusses options for learning-oriented interventions and policy research. 

Rural Advisory Services (RAS) are increasingly recognised as critical to agricultural and rural development. They provide rural communities with wide range of skills and knowledge and facilitate their interactions among the different actors to help them access support and services required for improving their livelihoods. Family Farmers are one of the important clients of RAS as they are the most predominant type of farmers worldwide.

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.

This paper reviews a recent donor-funded project concerning the introduction of post-harvest technology to poor hill farmers in India. Rather than conform to conventional development aid projects of either a “research” or an “interventionist” nature, it combines both approaches in a research-action program, which has more in common with a business development approach than a formal social science one. An important conclusion is that the work (and apparent success) of the project is consistent with an understanding of development that emphasizes the importance of innovation systems.

This guide is intended to assist facilitators in conducting a workshop with Extension and Advisory Service (EAS) providers for assessing their capacity needs. This guide has been compiled by the Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP) for AESA with the assistance of a research grant from the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS).

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 three system CGIAR research programs on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics, Dryland Systems and Aquatic Agricultural Systems have included “capacity to innovate” as an intermediate development outcome in their respective theories of change. The wording of the intermediate development outcome is “increased systems capacity to innovate and contribute to improved livelihoods of low-income agricultural communities.” This note captures the CGIAR's collective thinking about this intermediate development outcome from a systems perspective to clarify it and inspire other programs.