Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar:40:100738.
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100738.

Enabling food system innovation: accelerators for change

Philip Thornton  1 , Daniel Mason D'Croz  1   2   3 , Cody Kugler  1 , Roseline Remans  4   5 , Heather Zornetzer  5 , Mario Herrero  1   2
Affiliations

Enabling food system innovation: accelerators for change

Philip Thornton et al. Glob Food Sec. 2024 Mar.

Abstract

It is widely accepted that current food systems are not on a trajectory for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by the end of the decade. Technological innovation will have a considerable role to play in different parts of the food system; many promising options exist or are in the pipeline, some of which may be highly disruptive to existing value chains. Scaling up the innovations required, at the same time as protecting those who may lose out in the short term, will require a strong enabling environment. Here we apply an existing framework of eight change accelerators to six case studies of historical agricultural innovation. We estimated the degree to which each accelerator had been addressed at some stage in the innovation process, as a measure of the gap between what was needed and what was achieved. For the innovations that are being taken to scale and widely utilized, these accelerator gaps are small. Uptake of other innovations is stalled, and for these we found large gaps for one or more of the eight accelerators. Impactful innovation processes address all eight change accelerators at some point, with different phasing of the accelerators depending on the nature of the technology and on the impact pathway being pursued. This simple framework, when used in combination with narratives of uptake based on theories of change and impact pathways, may provide an effective means of screening future innovation processes to help prioritize and guide investment that can lead to more resilient, sustainable and equitable food systems.

Keywords: Accelerator gap; Adoption; Food system; Impact; Technology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Annex Table A1Accelerators of change in the biofortified orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) innovation process.Annex Table A1AcceleratorWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What is lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Demonstrating the potential of OFSP to/with the nutrition communityAg research community, donors5-2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Studies of the social acceptability of OFSP by consumersAg and nutrition research communities5-3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”Engagement with all value chain actors and consumersAg and nutrition research communities5-4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”Development of urban (and rural) demand for the long runAg and nutrition research communities, public sector3This is still in progress5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”Development of urban demand (education, training) and the (public) seed sectorAg and nutrition research communities, public sector4Can the private sector become more involved?6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”Very uneven across the countries of SSANational ag, food and health programs2More mainstreaming in national policies needed7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Multi-season, multi-stakeholder monitoringR&D community5Is there enough evidence on the equity implications of OFSP adoption?8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”Not clear2Need to develop scaling models for local conditions and their implementation pathwaysAnnex Table A2Accelerators of change in the Golden Rice (GR) innovation process.Annex Table A2ElementWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What's lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Demonstrating the potential of GR to producer and consumer communitiesAg research community, government2Much more trust needs to be built2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Studies of the social acceptability of GRAg and nutrition research communities2Much more still to be done3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”Engagement with all value chain actors and consumersAg and nutrition research communities2Much more still to be done4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”Development of urban (and rural) demand for the long runPublic and private sectors3This is still in progress5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”Development of urban demand (education, training) and the (public) seed sectorAg and nutrition research communities, public sector3Still in progress6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”20 years of work, one country has approved to dateNational ag, food and health programs2Still in progress7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Nothing done yetR&D community0Monitoring will be required if GR starts to take off8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”Not clear1Need to develop scaling models for local conditions and their implementation pathwaysAnnex Table A3Accelerators of change in the ECF infection and treatment (ECF ITM) innovation process.Annex Table A3ElementWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What's lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Demonstrating the potential and viability of an ECF vaccineNational and international research communities4Clear articulation as to whether ECF vaccination is a private or public good2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Demonstrating the effectiveness of an ECF vaccineResearch communities, governments3Possible conflicts of interest of private agro-pharma input suppliers3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”Engagement with value chain actors on the safety of a live vaccineResearch communities4-4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”Development of a working public-private partnership platformResearch communities, GALVmed4More work needed on end-to-end solutions for poor rural livestock keepers5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”Development of a mechanism to deliver ECF vaccine cost effectively to those who need it mostGALVmed, governments2This challenge has yet to be overcome6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”Register and licence the ECF vaccine for use in multiple countries of eastern & southern AfricaResearch communities, GALVmed, governments2ECF vaccine registered and licensed in extremely few countries7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Monitor the adoption and impacts of ECF vaccineR&D community1Little has been done and there are few details available of adoption and impacts on the ground8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”Develop pathways for roll-out and uptake at scaleResearch communities, GALVmed, national vet services1Little has been doneAnnex Table A4Accelerators of change for the fodder bank (FB) innovation.Annex Table A4ElementWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What's lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Working with livestock farmers to understand their major constraintsResearch and extension organisations5-2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Demonstrations of the technology, and iterations to improve it based on farmers' testingResearch and extension orgs3-3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”Assessing whether the technology was viable in different contexts, and adjusting where possibleResearch and extension orgs, and farmers3-4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”The importance was recognised, but direct action was seen as being beyond the purview of R4D1More work needed on engaging the private sector and governments in developing a working financial model for the technology5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”The importance was recognised, but direct action was seen as being beyond the purview of R4D1A challenge that has yet to be overcome, though public-private partnerships could potentially provide solutions6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”The importance was recognised, but direct action was seen as being beyond the purview of R4D1Working with policy makers to highlight the importance of supporting feed resources and feed marketing in the region7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Limited monitoring and evaluation activitiesResearch organisations2Little has been done in recent times and there are few details available of adoption and impacts on the ground8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”R4D identified the key disenablers of uptake but went no furtherResearch organisations2The technology is relatively undisruptive, and transition pathways could be designed and targeted at e.g. women livestock farmersAnnex Table A5Accelerators of change in the Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) innovation process.Annex Table A5ElementWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What's lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Use of local trainers and radio clubsProject personnel5-2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Peer-to-peer communicationFarmers5-3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”New information dissemination channels set upProject personnel5-4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”Not clear what is happening w.r.t financing2New business models need to be developed5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”1Need to involve the private sector in the value chainNeed mechanisms to maintain local quality of the information6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”Not clear what is happening2Need to mainstream support as part of the national extension strategy – this has been done in Malawi, but not yet in Rwanda7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Multi-season monitoringProject personnel3Robust impact assessments8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”1Need to develop bundles of tech (including climate services) for local conditions and their implementation pathwaysAnnex Table A6Accelerators of change for the Shamba Shape-Up (SSU) innovation.Annex Table A6ElementWhat was done?Who did it?Contribution (0–5)What's lacking?1 Building trust amongst actors in the food system“Vision & Values”Relying on solid science for contentMediae15–2 Transforming mindsets“Acceptance”Following a long tradition of reality TV shows/edutainmentOthers5–3 Enabling social licence and stakeholder dialogue“Responsibility”Engagement with both the supply and demand side of informationMediae, funders, research organisations5–4 Ensuring stable finance“Explore & pilot”Development of strong linkages with development fundersMediae, funders3Greater diversity of funders needed for stability and sustainability5 Designing market incentives“Spread cost & risk”Difficult to identify the degree of engagement with the private sectorMediae, input suppliers3More direct engagement on input suppliers and other value chain actors would strengthen the approach6 Changing policies and regulations“Expectations of support”Unclear: the innovation system largely exists2More direct engagement with existing extension systems could help to embed the approach more firmly7 Safeguarding against undesirable effects“Monitor & correct”Annual monitoring and evaluation of each seriesMediae and M&E partners4More robust impact assessments are needed of the lasting effects on income and food security8 Developing transition pathways“How and when”Developing an expansion model for SSU in other countriesMediae3Unclear what the expansion model is for different countries1. SSU is produced by the Mediae Company (mediae.org/).

References

    1. Adam D. How far will global population rise? Researchers can't agree. Nature. 2021;597(7877):462–465. - PubMed
    1. AEC Fund . 2015. Assessing the Impacts of Shamba Shape up: A Report Commissioned by AECF and Led by University of Reading.
    1. Amole T., Augustine A., Balehegn M., Adesogoan A.T. Livestock feed resources in the west African Sahel. Agron. J. 2021;114(1):26–45. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Areal F.J., Clarkson G., Garforth C., Barahona C., Dove M., Dorward P. Does TV edutainment lead to farmers changing their agricultural practices aiming at increasing productivity? J. Rural Stud. 2020;76:213–229.
    1. Barrett C.B., Benton T., Fanzo J., Herrero M., et al. Palgrave MacMillan; Cham, Switzerland: 2022. Socio-technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation.

LinkOut - more resources