Your search found 9 records
1 Fisher, M. J.; Harding, Amanda; Kemp-Benedict, E. 2014. The Challenge Program on Water and Food [CPWF]: a new paradigm for research in the CGIAR. In Harrington, Larry W.; Fisher, M. J. (Eds.). Water scarcity, livelihoods and food security: research and innovation for development. Oxon, UK: Routledge - Earthscan. pp.1-14. (Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management)
Research programmes ; Research organizations ; Development ; Water productivity ; River basins ; Agriculture ; Living standards ; Food security ; Poverty ; CGIAR
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: 333.91 G000 HAR, e-copy SF Record No: H046783)
2 Douxchamps, S.; Debevec, Liza; Giordano, Meredith; Barron, Jennie. 2017. Monitoring and evaluation of climate resilience for agricultural development: a review of currently available tools. World Development Perspectives, 5:10-23. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2017.02.001]
Agricultural development ; Adaptation ; Monitoring ; Climate change ; Transformation ; Indicators ; Economic evaluation ; Food security ; Disaster risk management ; International organizations ; Development organizations ; Nongovernmental organizations ; Research organizations ; Assessment
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H048037)
Building climate resilience, defined as the ability to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from climate change in a timely and efficient manner, is becoming a major priority of development across multiple sectors. However, there is still no consensus on how resilience should be assessed despite the release of numerous theoretical papers on the topic. Various measurement frameworks and recommendations have emerged, but their applicability is yet to be critically assessed. Using a comprehensive review and a systematic selection approach, we review resilience assessment tools developed for the context of climate change and agricultural development, and their linkages to theoretical frameworks, with a particular focus on the choice of indicators and the scale and methods of measurement. Fifteen tools originating from diverse organizations were selected and evaluated according to a measurement framework. Our study finds that, while some of the tools remain embedded in classical approaches, by simply adding a resilience lens to previous tools and by recycling indicators, others demonstrate a true attempt to re-think in order to account for resilience dimensions. We conclude that for the use of resilience assessment tools, a major challenge is to ensure that simple and operational tools can address complexity. Full baseline should comprise both quantitative and qualitative data collection, and include more systemic indicators as well as indicators of stability and shocks. Changes should be tracked with regular monitoring and evaluation using simple tools based on key variables that capture short-term adaptive processes and changes in states, at the appropriate system level. Clear pathways to human well-being, including transformation, should be discussed through system-oriented approaches, to discard potential undesired resilient states. Finally, robust outcome and impact records from the use of these tools are needed to demonstrate whether the resilience concept is useful over time in driving development into more desirable paths.
3 Douthwaite, B.; Apgar, J. M.; Schwarz, A.-M.; Attwood, S.; Senaratna Sellamuttu, Sonali; Clayton, T. 2017. A new professionalism for agricultural research for development. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(3):238-252. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1314754]
Agricultural research ; Research and development ; Professionalism ; Research organizations ; CGIAR ; Research programmes ; Aquatic environment ; Agricultural systems ; Participatory approaches ; Community involvement ; Partnerships ; Stakeholders ; Scientists ; Farmers ; Capacity building ; Gender equity ; Green revolution ; Case studies ; Monitoring ; Evaluation
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H048130)
(1.39 MB)
There have been repeated calls for a ‘new professionalism’ for carrying out agricultural research for development since the 1990s. At the centre of these calls is a recognition that for agricultural research to support the capacities required to face global patterns of change and their implications on rural livelihoods, requires a more systemic, learning focused and reflexive practice that bridges epistemologies and methodologies. In this paper, we share learning from efforts to mainstream such an approach through a large, multi-partner CGIAR research program working in aquatic agricultural systems. We reflect on four years of implementing research in development (RinD), the program’s approach to the new professionalism. We highlight successes and challenges and describe the key characteristics that define the approach. We conclude it is possible to build a program on a broader approach that embraces multidisciplinarity and engages with stakeholders in social-ecological systems. Our experience also suggests caution is required to ensure there is the time, space and appropriate evaluation methodologies in place to appreciate outcomes different to those to which conventional agricultural research aspires.
4 Meinzen-Dick, R.; Janssen, M. A.; Kandikuppa, S.; Chaturvedi, R.; Rao, K.; Theis, S. 2018. Playing games to save water: collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development, 107:40-53. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.006]
Groundwater management ; Water conservation ; Collective action ; Game theory ; Human behaviour ; Experimentation ; Groundwater table ; Crops ; Stakeholders ; Nongovernmental organizations ; Research organizations ; Communities ; Models / India / Andhra Pradesh
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H048587)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18300445/pdfft?md5=edf7de8abb3f4dffd9577674b0b40969&pid=1-s2.0-S0305750X18300445-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H048587.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H048587.pdf
(0.93 MB) (952 KB)
Groundwater is one of the most challenging common pool resources to govern, resulting in resource depletion in many areas. We present an innovative use of collective action games to not only measure propensity for cooperation, but to improve local understanding of groundwater interrelationships and stimulate collective governance of groundwater, based on a pilot study in Andhra Pradesh, India. The games simulate crop choice and consequences for the aquifer. These were followed by a community debriefing, which provided an entry point for discussing the interconnectedness of groundwater use, to affect mental models about groundwater. A slightly modified game was played in the same communities, one year later. Our study finds communication within the game increased the likelihood of groups reaching sustainable extraction levels in the second year of play, but not the first. Individual payments to participants based on how they played in the game had no effect on crop choice. Either repeated experience with the games or the revised structure of the game evoked more cooperation in the second year, outweighing other factors influencing behavior, such as education, gender, and trust index scores. After the games were played, a significantly higher proportion of communities adopted water registers and rules to govern groundwater, compared to other communities in the same NGO water commons program. Because groundwater levels are affected by many factors, games alone will not end groundwater depletion. However, games can contribute to social learning about the role of crop choice and collective action, to motivate behavior change toward more sustainable groundwater extraction.
5 Lobell, D. B. 2020. Viewpoint: principles and priorities for one CGIAR. Food Policy, 3p. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101825]
International organizations ; Research organizations ; CGIAR ; Agricultural research ; Prioritization ; Crop production ; Breeding ; Precision agriculture ; Climate change
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049483)
(3.18 MB)
6 Haddad, L. 2020. Viewpoint: a view on the key research issues that the CGIAR should lead on 2020-2030. Food Policy, 4p. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101824]
Research organizations ; International organizations ; CGIAR ; Research programmes ; Agricultural research for development ; Food systems ; Food consumption ; Nutrition ; Public health ; Income
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049484)
(1.82 MB)
How should the CGIAR's research programme be focused to make it as impactful as possible given the changes being faced by the world's population over the next 10 years? This viewpoint suggests a firm emphasis on research needed to unlock the potential of food systems to deliver improved nutrition, environmental sustainability and stronger livelihoods, with a focus on the tradeoffs and synergies therein.
7 Barrett, C. B. 2020. On research strategy for the new one CGIAR: editor’s introduction. Food Policy, 91:101844. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101844]
Research organizations ; International organizations ; CGIAR ; Institutional reform ; Agricultural research
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049530)
(0.45 MB)
8 Hernandez-Chea, R.; Mahdad, M.; Minh, Thai Thi; Hjortso, C. N. 2021. Moving beyond intermediation: how intermediary organizations shape collaboration dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Technovation, 108:102332. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102332]
Entrepreneurship ; Collaboration ; Agroindustrial sector ; Universities ; Research organizations ; Technology transfer ; Resource management ; Innovation ; Markets ; Economic aspects ; Case studies / East Africa / Kenya / Uganda / Nairobi / Kampala
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H050495)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221001139/pdfft?md5=03f877de6e61ce069201db34c9c885d5&pid=1-s2.0-S0166497221001139-main.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050495.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050495.pdf
(0.99 MB) (0.99 MB)
Recently, increasing attention has been paid to entrepreneurial ecosystems and the process of their formation and function. Researchers have noted the important role that intermediary organizations such as incubators play in connecting various actors within ecosystems. Yet our understanding of this role is limited to a few empirical insights. Using resource dependence and embeddedness as theoretical lenses, the present research examines the role of incubators in entrepreneurial ecosystem formation and function, and analyzes how intermediation activities shape collaboration patterns embedded within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Our findings are based on an empirical investigation of two entrepreneurial ecosystems, one in Kenya and one in Uganda. Our analysis of 38 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurial actors in these ecosystems reveals the underlying structural, operational, and relational conditions that influence the actors’ interaction with each other. We propose three collaboration patterns that emerge among actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems under these conditions: one-sided dependency-based, joint dependency-based, and mutual dependency-based collaborations. We discuss these patterns in detail and identify the circumstances in which each is most likely to occur. This empirical setting clearly shows that beyond their primary roles of providing space, network, and advice to entrepreneurs, intermediary organizations in entrepreneurial ecosystems play a significant role in orchestrating collaborations. Finally, we reflect on the limitations of this study and offer implications for future research.
9 Wigboldus, S.; McEwan, M. A.; van Schagen, B.; Okike, I.; van Mourik, T. A.; Rietveld, A.; Amole, T.; Asfaw, F.; Hundayehu, M. C.; Iradukunda, F.; Kulakow, P.; Namanda, S.; Suleman, I.; Wimba, B. R. 2023. Understanding capacities to scale innovations for sustainable development: a learning journey of scaling partnerships in three parts of Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(8):8197-8231. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02394-4]
Agricultural innovation systems ; Partnerships ; CGIAR ; Sustainable development ; Research organizations ; Institutions ; Policies ; Farmers ; Stakeholders / Africa
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H052291)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10668-022-02394-4.pdf?pdf=button%20sticky
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H052291.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H052291.pdf
(1.20 MB) (1.20 MB)
Finding out how to scale innovations successfully is high on the agendas of researchers, practitioners and policy makers involved in agricultural development. New approaches and methodologies seek to better address related complexities, but none of them include a systematic perspective on the role of capacity in (partnerships for) scaling innovations. We posit that this has left an important topic insufficiently addressed in relation to partnerships for scaling innovations. The need to address this gap became apparent in the context of the CGIAR Roots, Tubers, and Bananas (RTB) Scaling Fund initiative. This paper presents how we explored ways forward in relation to this by combining three methodological approaches: The Five-Capabilities, Scaling Readiness, and the Multi-Level Perspective on socio-technical innovation. This combined approach—dubbed Capacity for Scaling Innovations (C4SI)—was applied in three projects related to scaling innovations for sweet potato, cassava and banana, involving five countries in Africa. It then discusses implications for a partners-in-scaling perspective, the contribution of scaling innovations to sustainable development, the importance of research organisations considering their own capabilities in partnerships for scaling, and the extent to which C4SI was helpful in the three cases—for example, in decision making. The paper concludes that a capacity perspective on the scaling of innovations should be an essential part of a ‘science of scaling’. Finally, it provides recommendations for using the approach or parts of it in research and intervention practice for scaling, pointing in particular to the need for context-specific adaptation.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
