This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.

Grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers to facilitate innovation are a promising agricultural policy instrument. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, and to engage with research, extension and business development services providers. However, evidence on impact and effectiveness of these grants is scarce. Partly, because attribution of changes in practices and performance to the grant alone is challenging, and the grant is often invested in innovation processes that benefitted from other support in the past.

Though research on communication and innovation during the last decade brought better understanding on the innovation process, this has not influenced the underlying paradigm and practice of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in most countries. At the same time there have been few initiatives that tried to experiment with new ways of developing capacities for extension and innovation.

The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.

Explicitly integrating reflection in the learning process of multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) increases the likelihood that purposeful change will occur. When reflectivity is made part of learning in MSPs, learning will become clearer and better articulated and it will contribute more strongly to purposeful change in a complex context. MSP facilitators should deliberately include reflective learning sessions and tools in the process design and implementation.

This chapter deals with capacity development (CD), which has been a core issue in international development cooperation policies and practices for decades. The first section outlines what CD entails, why is it important and why at the same time it is so difficult to grasp. A distinction is made between capacity at the individual, organisational/institutional and societal level. The unequal relationship between donors and recipients, which has often led to unsatisfactory progress and results in CD, is briefly discussed.

This guide is mainly for researchers already involved in natural resource management (NRM). It assumes some familiarity with the often complex and chaotic reality of NRM projects, and tries to provide a systematic treatment of all the issues that may need to be considered. While many issues are considered in the guide, only a subset of them have to be dealt with in any specific NRM project. This booklet will also be of interest to implementers of NRM projects, as many of the elements and strategies are common to research and implementation. 

In 2011, ICRISAT and Agro-Insight made 10 farmer-to-farmer videos on the control of striga, a parasitic weed endemic to sub-Saharan Africa. As the weed can destroy entire cereal crops, particularly on poor soils, both striga and soil fertility management need to be tackled together, hence the need to develop this comprehensive “Fighting Striga” series. The videos have been translated into 21 languages and over 50,000 copies of the “Fighting Striga” DVD have been printed, with all 10 videos on it.

Many capacity development (CD) programs and processes aim at long‐term sustainable change, which depends on seeing many smaller changes in at times almost invisible fields (rules, incentives, behaviours, power, coordination etc.). Yet, most evaluation processes of CD tend to focus on short‐term outputs focused on clearly visible changes.

This paper reviews the current policies and programmes of EIARD members in relation to capacity development and makes recommendations on future directions. The main issues and recommendations will be incorporated into a policy brief in which specific policy options or guidelines will be presented. The goal of EIARDs strategy is to reduce poverty (i.e. MDGs); to promote economic growth, food security, and sustainable management of natural resources in developing & emerging economy countries and to contribute to global development issues and knowledge generation.