paradigm of knowledge generation and transfer (knowledge production—enlightenment—adoption)   towards   a   para­digm of interactive knowledge networks involving multiple stakeholders who contribute to problem definition, research conception, execution and provision of results to a range of end-users for whom the research is in some way deemed to be relevant. In this way AKS can contribute better to soci­ety's wider agenda (e.g., increasing concern with aspects of nutritional policy, food safety, animal welfare and other eth­ical aspects of food production and natural resource use). It is therefore essential that providers of advisory, higher edu­cation and research services become more engaged in build­ing networks and coalitions to address newer objectives in such areas as global competitiveness, agricultural sustain-ability,  rural  development  and  multifunctional  systems. Moreover, governments can help ensure that organizational and structural arrangements do not impede but rather en­courage these cooperative efforts among components of the AKS (OECD, 1995b).
     The AKS concept was  further developed in collab­orative work undertaken by the FAO and the World Bank which stressed the integrative nature of Agricultural Knowl­edge and Information Systems (AKIS), linking people and organizations to promote mutual learning and to generate, share and use agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information (FAO and World Bank, 2000). More re­cently, there have been noteworthy advances in applying an "Innovation Systems Concept" to agriculture, especially in approaching hunger and poverty issues in developing countries. Like AKS/AKIS, it stresses interactive knowledge networks, but recognizes an even broader range of actors/ stakeholders and disciplines in a wider set of relationships that can potentially foster innovation. Innovation system analysis recognizes that creating an enabling environment to support the use of knowledge is as important as making that knowledge available through research and dissemina­tion mechanisms (World Bank, 2007)

6.3.1.1  Promote stakeholder interaction
Stakeholder interaction in AKST is required to reinforce two recent trends: a shift from stakeholder management strate­gies to stakeholder involvement strategies; and a broadening of the types of stakeholders involved. Stakeholder manage­ment strategies are aimed at recognizing ways stakeholders can influence decisions and at limiting their ability to affect the process in ways contrary to the interests of the decision-makers (Eden and Ackermann, 1998). For the public sec­tor, stakeholder management strategies have the long-term effect of alienating stakeholders as they come to recognize that their voice is not being heard and their input ignored, further isolating decision-makers. Even in the private sec­tor, where stakeholder management is the norm, this can have similar adverse effects (Daft, 1998). When faced with a novel, complex problem, decision-makers are often unable to assess reliably the states of consensus in disciplines, in­competent in the face of burgeoning literature and prone to mistaken agreements (Fischer, 2005). Broader stakeholder involvement reflecting the multiple functions of agriculture can help improve the decision-making process.
     NAE-AKST has been particularly successful at involv-

ing the dominant pre farm-gate and farm interests within the prioritization process and in recent decades the domi­nant post farm-gate food processing interests have also be­come effectively involved. Some, in fact, would argue that farmers and their organizations have possibly been heard too well. In the development of AKST, NAE has however been less successful in involving other interests. Tradition­ally, stakeholders are classified into eight kinds based on the legitimacy of their claims, their power and the urgency of their claims (Grimble and Wellard, 1997). Legitimacy re­fers to the perceived validity of the stakeholder's claim to a stake. Power refers to the ability or capacity of a stakeholder to produce an effect. Urgency refers to the degree to which the stakeholder's claim demands immediate attention. The stakeholders successfully involved in NAE-AKST are ones with legitimacy, power and urgency and these are sometimes referred to as definitive stakeholders. This kind of stake­holder is the easiest to involve and maintain. NAE-AKST has been less effective at involving stakeholders with little power to assert their interests when the definitive stakehold­ers and the AKST system do not recognize their legitimacy or urgency. For many years organic farmers felt they were in this category and many other stakeholder groups in society still feel as though they are. New stakeholder involvement methods could assist in developing methods to establish standards for legitimacy for inclusion in the development of NAE AKST, especially given the increasingly multifunc­tional importance of agriculture and the diversity of inter­ests that must be serviced by rural areas (De Groot et al., 2002; Chiesura and de Groot, 2003).
     Stakeholder involvement strategies aim to engage stake­holders in the decision-making process, either through rep­resentative or participatory processes (Grimble and Wellard, 1997). Stakeholder involvement processes can be costly and ineffective unless appropriately focused. The use of represen­tative or participatory processes during stakeholder analysis depends on the cultural context and specific circumstances. A participatory process is one where the relevant stakehold­ers are involved directly, without the assumptions or struc­tures to ensure that they are representing a broader group of like-minded stakeholders. While participatory processes are used when there are small numbers and types of stake­holders, a representative process is generally used when the number of stakeholders is large. Cost-effective participatory processes at larger scales as well as smaller scales of aggrega­tion can be developed. The Danish Consensus Conferences and its variants (e.g., Joss, 1998; Einsiedel and Easlick, 2000), are examples of such cost-effective, large-scale par­ticipatory processes that have been successfully exported to other places. Much can be learned from these experiences.

6.3.1.2 Recognize the importance of indigenous and traditional knowledge
In recent decades, the importance of traditional and indig­enous knowledge in agriculture has been newly recognized for its present and potential value. In a sense, all agricul­ture and AKST is built upon the traditional and indigenous systems that developed through the domestication and de­velopment of crop varieties and through the development of myriad cultivation techniques integrated within society