This article therefore analyses whether agricultural advisors representing companies that do not sell pesticides (independent advisors) are more likely to recommend reduced pesticide use than agricultural advisors who represent companies with an economic interest in selling pesticides (supplier-affiliated advisors). However, we would not necessarily expect a crude relationship between economic incentive and higher pesticide recommendations. After all, advisors have to justify their recommendations to their customers, the farmers.

The development of future food systems will depend on normative decisions taken at different levels by policymakers and stakeholders. Scenario modeling is an adequate tool for assessing the implications of such decisions, but for an enlightened debate, it is important to make explicit and transparent how such value-based decisions affect modeling results.

There has been an increasing interest in science, technology and innovation policy studies in the topic of policy mixes. While earlier studies conceptualised policy mixes mainly in terms of combinations of instruments to support innovation, more recent literature extends the focus to how policy mixes can foster sustainability transitions.

Invasive species such as Ambrosia (an annual weed) pose a biosecurity risk whose management depends on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of many stakeholders. It can therefore be considered a complex policy and risk governance problem. Complex policy problems are characterised by high uncertainty, multiple dimensions, interactions across different spatial and policy levels, and the involvement of a multitude of actors and organisations. This paper provides a conceptual framework for analysing the multi-level and multi-actor dimensions of Ambrosia management.

Precision Agriculture (PA) has been advocated as a promising technology and management philosophy that provides multidimensional benefits for producers and consumers while being environmentally friendly. In Europe, private stakeholders (farm advisors, farm equipment producers, decision support providers, farmers) and research institutions have been trying to develop, test and demonstrate adoption of precision agriculture solutions with governments financing big projects in these areas. Despite these efforts, adoption is still lagging behind expectations.

Organic farming is recognized as one source for innovation helping agriculture to develop sustainably. However, the understanding of innovation in agriculture is characterized by technical optimism, relying mainly on new inputs and technologies originating from research. The paper uses the alternative framework of innovation systems describing innovation as the outcome of stakeholder interaction and examples from the SOLID (Sustainable Organic Low-Input Dairying) project to discuss the role of farmers, researchers and knowledge exchange for innovation.

This synthesis report presents the outputs of the workshop organised by CTA at its headquarters in Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15-17 July 2008.  The outputs are presented in two main parts, each corresponding to one of the workshop objectives, and ends with a section on the way forward as suggested by the workshop participants. It also includes a first attempt to come to a consolidated generic framework on AIS performance indicators, based on the outputs of the different working groups.

The 2014 Annual workshop of the CGIAR Consortium CapDev Community of Practice was held from September 10–12, 2014 at CGIAR Consortium Headquarters, Montpellier, France.The workshop was planned by a CapDev Convening Committee comprised of Iddo Dror (ILRI), Diana Brandes (Livestock & Fish), Per Rudebjer (Bioversity), Simone Staiger (CIAT), Mehmood Hassan (ICRAF), Javier Ekboir (ILAC), Alain Vidal/Luis Solorzano (Consortium Office) and a facilitator Nadia Manning-Thomas.

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.

There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.