A range of approaches and financial instruments have been used to stimulate and support innovation in agriculture and resolve interlocking constraints for uptake at scale. These include innovation platforms, results-based payments, value chain approaches, grants and prizes, incubators, participatory work with farmer networks, and many more.
Innovation for sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) is challenging. Changing agricultural systems at scale normally means working with partners at different levels to make changes in policies and social institutions, along with technical practices. This study extracts lessons for practitioners and investors in innovation in SAI, based on concrete examples, to guide future investment.
Finance is a key lever for turning agriculture from a potential source of environmental harm and social inequity to a driver of conservation and social inclusiveness. Private and public sector funding for farmers to combat climate change and protect and restore nature (‘Paying for Nature’) is rapidly increasing. Yet this new funding may not reach its aims without drastically improving farm-level reward mechanisms.
By 2050, it is projected that nearly 70% of the global population will live in urban areas – up from 55% today. How can towns and cities be fed sustainably? And what does this urban growth mean for innovation priorities? A study of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA), commissioned by CoSAI, addressed these questions.
Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) is the production of plants, fish, insects or animals inside structures, such as greenhouses and buildings, in controlled conditions. In a rapidly urbanizing world, CEA can contribute to sustainable development, e.g. through reduced use of land, water and inputs. There is a need for innovation in policy, technology and business practices to scale up CEA in the Global South sustainably and equitably
Agriculture is crucial for the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss and resource degradation. The contribution of agriculture to these environmental problems has been exacerbated by subsidies, which constitute the dominant public policy to support farmers. At the same time, other economic instruments introducing more sustainable land-use practices and incentivizing better environmental and social outcomes are already being applied worldwide.
The study was designed 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)?
This shift in thinking will require major shifts in policy, research, and investment. But where should these investments go? What foundations should be strengthened? Which gaps need filling? What’s working? What’s not?
In order to answer these questions in an informed way, we need to examine the evidence that exists and identify areas where more research is needed.
But this is easier said than done.
What are the patterns of funding in agricultural innovation for the Global South1 ? Who are the key funders in this innovation and who are the key recipients? How doesthis funding split between various topics and value chains? What proportion of these funds support Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)? And how is SAI innovation funding split across different parts of the agriculture sector funding and innovation canvas?
Increasing investment and spending in agricultural innovation is not enough to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets of ending poverty and hunger because the effectiveness of investments in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries is affected by the low quality of infrastructure and services provided, and by different norms and practices that create a considerable gap between financing known technical solutions and achieving the outcomes called for in the SDGs.