Drawn from numerous sources, including papers in this journal, this concluding paper synthesizes evidence on the relationship between agricultural research for development and poverty reduction, with particular emphasis on agri-food systems perspectives in shaping programs aimed at rural prosperity. Following the introduction in section 1, we revisit the ex ante set of 18 pathways in section 2 (which were laid out in our introductory paper for this SI), posing some critical questions: Can a manageable set of impact pathways be identified? How are they inter-related?

In this paper, is explained how previous waves of innovation in South Asian agricultural and food systems have combined to create the present situation, and we suggest how alternative kinds of innovation may enable South Asian countries to escape from the triple burden of malnutrition.

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 objective of the study was to identify a viable trade-off between low data requirements and useful household-specific prioritizations of advisory messages. At three sites in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania independently, we collected experimental preference rankings from smallholder farmers for receiving information about different agricultural and livelihood practices. At each site, was identified socio-economic household variables that improved model-based predictions of individual farmers’ information preferences.

This paper addresses this gap by examining the nature of disruption to farm advisors from data-driven smart farming and identifies the challenges and opportunities. The authors aim to better theorize smart farming innovation by examining the advisory role to provide insights for technology developers, and policy directions for governments in relation to supporting uptake of farming innovations.

Most of the world's agricultural extension services are funded and delivered by the public sector with the private sector contributing approximately 5%. The low private sector engagement in provision of agricultural extension may be attributed to poor enabling environment, which has deterred rather than encouraged private sector investment. Debates on engaging private sector in agricultural extension argue that private investment in extension is bound to generate agricultural productivity. Consequently, PPPs in agriculture are considered to be drivers for modernization of the sector.

This article analyzes the politics of localizing food systems at play in the FPCs of Ghent (Belgium) and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA). The focus is on the development of urban agriculture in both cities, and includes an analysis of the politics of scale through three scalar practices of scale framing, scale negotiating, and scale matching. This analysis reveals that differences in the way in which the politics of scale are played out in both FPCs resulted in the creation of different opportunities and constraints for urban agriculture development

In this paper is presented insights from a co-design process with private farm advisers and ask: What enables farm advisers to engage with digital innovation? And, how can digital innovation be supported and practiced in smart farming contexts? Digital innovation presents challenges for farmers and advisers due to the new relationships, skills, arrangements, techniques and devices required to realise value for farm production and profitability from digital tools and services.

Situate within new institutionalism literature, this paper builds a complex system model of institutional analysis for adaptive governance. This model combines Young’s institutional environmental analysis method, elements of subsequent environmental governance projects models, and ideas of multiple institutional levels and drivers. By applying the model, policy instruments are identified that build agricultural producer livelihoods improving their adaptive capacity to respond to climate change and drought.

This study aims to describe and characterize the state of understanding about RSBs, and to fill knowledge gaps about their role and potential impact. The article will explore the historic and possible future trajectories of the RSBs at the country- and global-levels, by responding to three closely-related research questions: 1. What are the governance structures of the roundtables for sustainable beef? 2. What actions have been taken by, or are planned or likely to be taken by, the roundtables for sustainable beef, that are intended to enhance the sustainability of beef supply chains? 3.