The national assessment of the agricultural innovation system (AIS) in Malawi was conducted using a framework of four types of analyses: functional, structural, capacity and enabling environment analysis. The approach included five case studies that addressed three methods including the use of indigenous methods for fall armyworm (FAW) control in Farmer Field Schools (FFS), livestock transfer programs, and a horticulture marketing innovation platform in Mzimba, Ntchisi, Balaka, and Thyolo districts. 

This report introduces the reader to the concept of agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and the TAP-AIS project being implemented by FAO in nine countries, including Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). The results of the AIS assessment for Lao PDR are presented, highlighting key barriers and opportunities for agricultural innovation in the country.

To keep yield advances, farmers in Mato Grosso (MT) have been adopting several technological innovations. Therefore, agricultural production systems in MT have become complex and dynamic since farmers have to consider the increase of decision variables when planning and implementing their farming practices. These variables are widely spread across many distinct topics, bringing them together and summarizing information from diverse fields of research has become a difficult task in farmers’ decision-making process.

Organic agriculture has experienced remarkable growth in recent decades as societal interest in environmental protection and healthy eating has increased. Research has shown that relative to conventional agriculture, organic farming is more e cient in its use of non-renewable energy, maintains or improves soil quality, and has less of a detrimental e ect on water quality and biodiversity. Studies have had more mixed findings, however, when examining the impact of organic farming on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change.

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

In theory, under the federal structure agricultural extension services can serve communities better as it aims to be client responsive and accountable to its consumers at the village level. However, poor understanding of federalism that has only recently emerged from the persisting centralized and feudal conceptions, limited practices of democratic norms and values primarily due to the lack of understanding of local governance, and limited commitment of political actors and policy makers to federalism, may derail the good intentions behind federalism.

In early 2020, GFRAS provided support to the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network and the Bangladesh Agricultural Extension Network (BAEN) in order to customize one of the NELK Modules in the context of Bangladesh. The BAEN Executive Committee selected the GFRAS NELK Module 7 on ‘Facilitation for Development’ for customization. AESA and BAEN jointly implemented the development of the customized module for Bangladesh. The process of customization consisted of five phases spread over a span of six months.

This training manual, which is based on a methodology developed by FAO’s Research and Extension Unit (OINR), presents a training course on assessing AIS consisting of eight modules.

This collection of posters from the TAP-AIS project illustrates key achievements of the project towards strengthening national agricultural innovation systems (AIS) in Africa (Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal), Latin America (Colombia), Asia and the Pacific (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Pakistan). For each of these nine countries, and for their respective regions, the posters provide: i) thematic focus and context; ii) constraints in the AIS; iii) capacity development interventions; iv) outcomes; v) the way forward.