Over the years, there has been an evolution of systemic thinking in agricultural innovation studies, culminating in the agricultural innovation systems perspective. In an attempt to synthesize and organize the existing literature, this chapter reviews the literature on agricultural innovation, with the threefold goal of (1) sketching the evolution of systemic approaches to agricultural innovation and unravelling the different interpretations; (2) assessing key factors for innovation system performance and demonstrating the use of system thinking in the facilitation of processes of agricultural innovation by means of innovation brokers and reflexive process monitoring; and (3) formulating an agenda for future research. The main conclusion is that the agricultural innovation systems perspective provides a comprehensive view on actors and factors that co-determine innovation, and in this sense allows understanding the complexity of agricultural innovation. However, its holism is also a pitfall as it allows for many interpretations, which complicates a clear focus of this research field and the building of cumulative evidence. Hence, more work needs to be done conceptually and empirically.

Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions

Low-income, food-deficit countries have become especially concerned about the global and national food situation over the past three years. While the proximate cause of this heightened concern was the surge in food prices that began in 2006 and peaked in mid-2008, concerns remain for other reasons, among them the higher market-clearing price levels that now seem to prevail, continuing price volatility, and the risk of intermittent food shortages occurring repeatedly far into the future. For lower-income Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, ongoing contributing factors include persistently low productivity, difficulty adapting to climate change, financial difficulties (inability to handle the burden of high food or fuel prices or a credit squeeze), and increased dependence on food aid. Yet there is an additional, often-forgotten factor that exacerbates food insecurity: postharvest losses (PHL). They can and do occur all along the chain from farm to fork, which reduces real income for all consumers. This especially affects the poor; as such a high percentage of their disposable income is devoted to staple foods. This report is based on the desk study undertaken by experts of the U.K. Natural Resources Institute (NRI). Data were collected by direct contact (e-mail or telephone), with authorities holding information on past and current projects; by searching the Internet for details about projects; and by reviewing published and 'gray' literature. Data were also collected from the personal experiences of the NRI review team who had worked on numerous and diverse projects to reduce grain PHL in SSA over the last 30 years and from experts in the field. These experts were identified and asked to complete a questionnaire that would draw out their experiences to indicate the weakest links in the postharvest chain, the interventions that deserve to be prioritized for future action, and those that should be avoided. Of about 40 invited respondents, a total of 20 returned completed (or partially completed) questionnaires.

Missing food : the case of postharvest grain losses in Sub-Saharan Africa

We present a framework for prioritizing adaptation approaches at a range of timeframes. The framework is illustrated by four case studies from developing countries, each with associated characterization of uncertainty. Two cases on near-term adaptation planning in Sri Lanka and on stakeholder scenario exercises in East Africa show how the relative utility of capacity vs. impact approaches to adaptation planning differ with level of uncertainty and associated lead time. An additional two cases demonstrate that it is possible to identify uncertainties that are relevant to decision making in specific timeframes and circumstances. The case on coffee in Latin America identifies altitudinal thresholds at which incremental vs. transformative adaptation pathways are robust options. The final case uses three crop–climate simulation studies to demonstrate how uncertainty can be characterized at different time horizons to discriminate where robust adaptation options are possible. We find that impact approaches, which use predictive models, are increasingly useful over longer lead times and at higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. We also find that extreme events are important in determining predictability across a broad range of timescales. The results demonstrate the potential for robust knowledge and actions in the face of uncertainty.

/pdf/addressing-uncertainty-in-adaptation-planning-for-22ug1cyrz8.pdf

Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture

How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review

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. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the implementation and institutionalisation of IPs in present AR4D programmes. We use experiences from sub-Saharan Africa to demonstrate how the adoption and adaptation of IPs creates both opportunities and challenges that influence platform performance and impact. Niche-regime theory is used to understand challenges, and anticipate on how to deal with them. A key concern is whether IPs in AR4D challenge or reinforce existing technology-oriented agricultural innovation paradigms. For example, stakeholder representation, facilitation and institutional embedding determine to a large extent whether the IP can strengthen systemic capacity to innovate that can lead to real paradigm change, or are merely ‘old wine in new bottles’ and a continuation of ‘business as usual’. Institutional embedding of IPs and – more broadly – the transition from technology-oriented to system-oriented AR4D approaches requires structural changes in organisational mandates, incentives, procedures and funding, as well as investments in exchange of experiences, learning and capacity development.

/pdf/innovation-platforms-experiences-with-their-institutional-2gkij1d8w1.pdf

Innovation platforms: experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development

Conventional approaches to technology transfer within small-scale farming systems have frequently failed. Household food security remains precarious for many smallholder farmers, and food production levels show little or no increase. Post-harvest service provision and research have focused on technology development, with less attention being given to understanding delivery-system constraints, to distinguishing between the needs and priorities of diﬀerent households or to exploring farmers’ own research capabilities. Recent approaches to scaling up technologies – both products and processes – point to the dependence of up-scaling on the activities and interactions of a diversity of key players and organizations, all together referred to as the innovation system (see Figure 12.1) (Arnold and Bell, 2001; Hall et al, 2003; Lundy et al, 2004). Here, institutional arrangements (or institutions) refer to ‘the mechanisms, rules and customs by which people and organizations interact with each other’ (North, 1990). The key challenge to eﬀecting impact is perceived less in terms of devising new technologies – doing diﬀerent things – and more in terms of improving the working of the innovation system – doing things diﬀerently – to overcome institutional constraints. Translating ideas into social and economic use requires appropriate technologies (hardware innovation), compatible mindsets (software innovation) and favourable institutional settings (system-ware innovation).

Doing things differently: Post-harvest innovation learning alliances in Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Do diatomaceous earths have potential as grain protectants for small-holder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa? The case of Tanzania

Diatomaceous earths, are soft whitish powders formed from the fossils of tiny organisms (planktons) which live in oceans, rivers and lakes. When diatomaceous earths come into contact with insects they absorb the wax from the skin of the insect, the insect then looses water, dehydrates and dies. By mixing diatomaceous earths with grain, we can kill the insects that try and attack the grain. Diatomaceous earths have extremely low toxicity to mammals and are therefore very safe to mix with food.

/pdf/small-scale-farmer-utilisation-of-diatomaceous-earths-during-3a8yyn22s8.pdf

Small-Scale Farmer Utilisation of Diatomaceous Earths During Storage

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/R8179ProjectNewsletter1.pdf

Small-scale farmer utilisation of diatomaceous earths during grain storage.

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/R8179couldfossildustsbetheanswer.pdf

W. Riwa

Papers

Doing things differently: Post-harvest innovation learning alliances in Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Do diatomaceous earths have potential as grain protectants for small-holder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa? The case of Tanzania

Small-Scale Farmer Utilisation of Diatomaceous Earths During Storage

Small-scale farmer utilisation of diatomaceous earths during grain storage.

Could fossil dusts be an option for increasing food security in sub-Saharan Africa?