January 2008
|
Last year we commented in the LINK LOOK on the growing number of agriculture and rural development projects, conferences and strategies that use the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovation systems’. What should we expect from this trend? LINK LOOK starts off the new year with a round-up of 10 innovation initiatives to watch in 2008.
innovation INITIATIVES TO WATCH OUT FOR IN 2008 1. The new face of Development Studies?
2. Breakthrough year for ILAC?
3. Into use at last?
4. Innovation in capitalism?
5. GFAR: Rebirth?
6. The SSA CP: Proof in the pudding?
After getting bogged down in 2007 with negotiation with the Science Council of the CGIAR over the design of a statistically-supported proof of concept (www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/pubications/pdf/SSA%20Ext.%20Rev%20-%20no%20cover.pdf), the programme has finally been given the green light. Let’s hope the data collection for modelling the proof of concept doesn’t distract from the main task of developing a new way of organising agricultural research for development in Africa. 7. Research for innovation?
8. Convergence for innovation?
This involved taking a systems approach across the whole spectrum of activities, and particularly with respect to the boundaries between different disciplines — hence the title Convergence of Science. 9. IAASTD: A multifunctional agriculture?
Considering that it involved writing a complex report ‘by committee’, those involved in the assessment have still come away rather excited and energised. Firstly the IAASTD turned out to be an unparalleled networking activity for anybody interested in agriculture. And secondly, a draft report of the international assessment that circulated briefly for public comment last year, far from being a series of compromised statements as can so often be the product of collective processes, was bold and different. Flagging the increasing multifunctionality of current and future agriculture and the need for multiple innovation narratives to inform the research support to the sector, the draft assessment seems to resonate with contemporary views on innovation. Look forward in 2008 to heated discussions before the assessment is finalised as it is rumoured that North American stakeholders are unhappy with much of the draft document’s wording. 10. Reform of the CGIAR: A leap year surprise?
The LINK LOOK is an update of recent initiatives, projects, programmes and meetings that have moved on from a technology transfer focus and are grappling with the wider innovation perspective — and the capacity building agenda it implies. We invite contributions to this feature. |
The Innovation, Knowledge and Development (IKD) Centre is the Open University’s new inter-faculty research centre, bringing together expertise from the faculties of business, education, language, social sciences, and technology to form nine research groups. Over the last few years the Open University appears to have been strengthening its expertise in the area of innovation and development. Will the multidisciplinary approach of the IKD Centre bring about the overdue redefinition of development studies as a more pragmatic discipline that recognises that innovation takes places place at the interface of society, business and technology? 
The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) initiative began life five years ago as an informal network of dissenting scientists dissatisfied with ability of conventional impact assessment approaches to improve the performance of the CGIAR. Taking inspiration from innovation systems ideas, ILAC explored ways of mainstreaming learning-based approaches to changing the way CGIAR centres worked. Intellectual energy was initially high, but tangible change has been limited. Under the leadership of Bioversity International, the ILAC initiative has now secured €4 million in July 2007 from The Netherlands government for a project that sought to spread the ILAC mission beyond the CGIAR. Plans of how the initiative is to proceed are yet to become available, although we hear rumours of resource books, learning laboratories and international conferences. Hopefully, 2008 is the breakthrough year for shifting from ideas to action.
In April 2006 NR International won the contract to run the £40 million, 5-year Research Into Use (RIU) programme on behalf of DFID. The programme builds on 10 years’ investment in agricultural research by DFID through its Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS). RIU seeks to put existing research products into use as well as generate lessons on how innovation processes can be strengthened. The programme will engage in influencing policy and institutional change to that end. RIU has made much of its use of the innovation systems concept as its guiding principle. With the second anniversary of the programme fast approaching many are wondering if the planning phase will ever end. 2008 is the year for RIU to prove its critics wrong and show that it can make a useful contribution to the practice and discussions about enabling agricultural innovation. 
Bill Gates announced a pledge of US$306 million on agriculture during the World Economic Forum in Davos. As he outlined his strategy he talked of the need not for technology innovation alone but for system innovation as well (www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/Speeches/Co-ChairSpeeches/BillgSpeeches/ BGSpeechWEF-080124.htm). The system he referred to was a new economic system that dealt better with the unmet demands of the poor, which Gates argued the market was insensitive to. This new breed of philanthropists is clearly going to play the development game by its own rules. Let’s hope space opens up to engage them in debate about what is already known about innovation and development. 
The Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) was another organisation that made a recent public announcement about its adoption of the innovation systems concept as a guiding principle. Along with a new strategy, a new executive secretary was also appropriated, Dr Mark Holderness (www.egfar.org/egfar/website/action/GFARnews/newsitem?contentId=1868&languageId=0). Dr Holderness was prominent in the IAASTD exercise (see below) and a strong proponent of the innovation perspective. The year 2008 may well prove to be a defining one for both GFAR and its new executive secretary, with pressure from donors and stakeholders to reconfigure the manner in which it supports an increasingly complex global agricultural sector. The tussle between agricultural research and agricultural innovation may well be the battleground on which GFAR’s reinvention is won or lost. 
The Forum for Agricultural Research for Africa (FARA) and its partners have spent the last four years developing the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme. Its centrepiece is the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development approach (IAR4D), an approach that draws on much of the contemporary thinking on innovation, participation and social learning. 
DFID has announced that it is to spend £1 billion on research over the next 4 years (www.research4development.info/features.asp?FeatureID=58). The funding will cover both health and agriculture. This unprecedented level of funding seems to underline DFID’s growing commitment to leveraging science, technology and knowledge in the development process. However, spending such a large amount of money will present its own problems. With much talk about mainstreaming innovation thinking, let’s see how DFID’s research strategies shape up in the next 12 months.
The Innovation and Communication group at Wageningen in The Netherlands has, for many years, been at the core of Dutch and international efforts to explore and promote new ideas in agricultural innovation. Over the past five years the group has undertaken a novel programme of research in West Africa, referred to as the Convergence of Science programme. The programme focused on pest management issues, but attempted to address these by applying existing knowledge about innovation processes. 
The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has spent the last four years reflecting on the state of agricultural science, technology and knowledge and contemplating what the future might hold. The assessment involved both regional assessments and a global assessment with panels of authors selected to reflect national and organisational diversity. 
Discussion with donor representatives returning from the CGIAR AGM meeting in Beijing (www.cgiar.org/meetings/agm07/index.html) suggested that reform of the CGIAR had finally been agreed on and that change would soon be evident. The fact that donors are still talking about this topic reveals that they may still think reform of the CGIAR is still needed. Will it happen this year? Since 2008 is a leap year, perhaps we should expect the unexpected.