Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems. The Indicator Framework provides overarching guidance on EAS systems assessment, including a list of 40 indicators (10 core and 30 complementary) which cover all major aspects of EAS from inputs to impact. This Indicator Framework provides much needed structure to EAS assessment, taking into account contemporary, pluralistic services and is complemented by FAO’s instruments for participatory data collection in EAS, including quantitative and qualitative data.

Cite this content as:
Sulaiman V, R., Chuluunbaatar, D., Djamen, P.,  Grovermann, C. and Holley, A. 2022.
Indicator framework for national extension and advisory service systems – Metrics for performance and outcome measurement. Rome, FAO.

Equipping agricultural extension and advisory services with nutrition knowledge, competencies and skills is essential to promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture. This report presents the results of an assessment of capacity within agricultural extension and advisory services, undertaken in Telangana State, India, with the global capacity needs assessment (GCNA) methodology developed by FAO and GFRAS. The methodology is available online at https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2069en

Systemic, multi-actor, user-centric approaches are increasingly used and promoted by innovation policies to meet complex societal challenges that, often, require socio-technical systems transitions or transformations, and for which there are no ‘one size fits all’ innovations (Ingram et al. 2020; Fieldsend et al. 2021). Integration of different knowledge and perspectives is crucial to catalyse transformative forms of innovation, able to promote more sustainable and resilient development pathways aimed at addressing problems, opportunities and challenges. (Beers, Sol, and Wals 2010; Moschitz et al. 2015).

Multi-actor approaches involve a diversity of actors, including end users of innovation, who engage in iterative learning for change processes (Ingram et al. 2020). These processes demand, in many cases, co-production of knowledge and contact with a range of actors in numerous settings and networks at different scale levels (Leeuwis and Arts 2011). Indeed, transformative changes occur when local bottom-up initiatives are aligned with changes in innovation systems at multiple spatial or institutional scales (Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano 2015).

The need to urgently transition food systems to net-zero, nature-positive that can nourish all people, leaving no one behind is more critical than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic has furthered deepened complex challenges we already face from hunger and nutrition, climate and nature, and societal inequity. Innovation offers a profound opportunity to achieve these transitions and help unlock challenges across food systems. The white paper ‘Transforming Food Systems: Pathways for Country-led Innovation’, published by the World Economic Forum Food Systems Initiative and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), presents an action-oriented roadmap for countries looking to accelerate and scale inclusive innovation that meet the needs of all stakeholders in the food system and support countries to invest in their capability to innovate. The roadmap builds on the work of the Innovation Lever of Change, a key component of the UN Food Systems Summit, hosted by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in September 2021. The Innovation Lever convened a diverse community of nearly 80 organizational partners representing the public, private and social sectors who promoted the adoption of a wider, more holistic view of innovation – one that is inclusive of local and traditional knowledge; mobilizes national innovation ecosystems, catalyzes institutional and social innovation; and employs fit for purpose technologies such as the power of data and digital solutions.

Assessing or understanding the agriculture innovation system (AIS) is an essential step to better understand the needs, new skills and functions needed by the actors and the system. To accelerate the uptake of innovation and progress towards eradicating poverty, there is an urgent need for well-coordinated, demand-driven, and market-oriented information, knowledge, technologies and services.

This document includes a set of information, templates and resources that aim to assist agricultural Innovation systems actors, stakeholders, producers, farmers to develop and share impactful stories. It guides actors and organizations across all sectors in the innovation system to collect and document case studies, success stories, good practices and lessons learned from the project initiatives, trainings and others actions. It highlights scaling-up elements so that other actors can replicate these innovations with a view to scale-up, particularly the stakeholders and actors involved in the DeSira project, through knowledge exchange and sharing.

The traditional linear technology transfer model has limited effectiveness in promoting the uptake of technologies and innovations. It fails to account for complexity within the agri-food system, is too simplistic and does not fully consider forward and backward feedback loops in the food system or pay adequate attention to context. There is, therefore, an increasing interest in investors and decision-makers making use of alternative instruments (such as innovation platforms or accelerators) to support innovation processes.

CoSAI commissioned this study to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI’s multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
(3) What advice can be given to innovation investors and practitioners about the instruments selected for different objectives and contexts, and how can selected instruments be designed to achieve better impacts?

The COVID-19 lockdown policies that began in 2020 caused an unprecedented shock to developing countries’ agricultural activities, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. To reduce some of the impacts of COVID-19 events, agricultural extension and advisory personnel created an avenue to assist farmers in these developing countries. However, since COVID-19 protocols restricted public gatherings and close contact activities, agricultural extension activities had to be performed using unconventional ways such as mobile phones, radio, and television. This paper highlights some of the challenges agricultural extension and advisory service personnel encountered using these unconventional means of communication for their activities. We also present some solutions to these challenges that can enable policymakers to enhance agricultural extension activities performed unconventionally.

Transforming food systems requires more effective and efficient research and innovation approaches – for example, to efficiently co-create innovations with end-users. A study commissioned by CoSAI compared 12 approaches and instruments intended to improve agri-food research and innovation, including innovation platforms, prizes, incubators and farmer field schools.

There is considerable literature on various technical and natural sciences aspects of digitalization in agriculture. Most efforts in this area have focused on robotics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, big data, internet of things, systems design, and other topics related to technical optimization of farm production and food systems. Ethical innovation issues and principals have also been areas for international research in this emerging field of agricultural technology (Bronson 2019, Eastwood et al. 2019, Fleming et al. 2019, Klerkx et al. 2020, and Lajoie-O’Malley et al. 2020). There is now a growing need for the empirical assessment of responsible and ethical practices to examine their societal and sustainability impact.

Several ethical issues have been raised by researchers and agricultural practitioners regarding the digital farming technology development processes and outcomes. For instance, the changing role of actors in the food supply chain and its impact on innovation systems and public-private partnership, issues related to governance such as accountability, oversight, and information sharing, concerns regarding fairness, transparency, and reliability of data-driven farm technologies, and the need for best practices that foster inclusiveness, trust, equal opportunity and diversity are only some concerns that have been highlighted by researchers and practitioners. These and many other considerations illustrate the need for practices that consider responsible innovation that foster building agriculture technologies that are relevant, robust, trustable, and socially desirable. This is where this special issue will contribute – by bringing together a collection of papers that report novel approaches and empirical experiences in this realm.

The authors employ a systems perspective to investigate how coloniality is manifested in the current academic knowledge system and how we can make progress toward the ‘decolonisation of knowledge.’ We reflect on how individual scholars, located in Western donor countries, who benefit from the coloniality of the current knowledge system, can undermine and contest this coloniality with their research and activism. Although we recognise that decolonisation is an ethical issue, we contend that cognitive diversity represents progress and improvements to our pool of knowledge.