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?
Cities are highly visible centers of mass consumption of food and vast excretion of waste; they are less often associated with the production of food. Yet closer observation of cities in the Global South reveals that they are also locations of food production. This report describes the major challenges affecting crop cultivation and animal raising as well as food consumption in and around cities, where many households are poorly fed, negatively affected by unsustainable urbanization processes, and threatened with a warming and disease-prone world.
Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) is the production of plants, fish, insects, or animals inside structures such as greenhouses, vertical farms, and growth chambers, in which environmental parameters such as humidity, light, temperature and CO2 can be controlled to create optimal growing conditions.
To meet the growing demand for food in the Global South in a sustainable manner, current funding in agricultural innovation will need to be increased exponentially. Some estimates suggest up to USD 320 billion annually is required to help meet the UN SDG Goals for food and agriculture by 2030. Current levels of funding for agriculture and agricultural innovation fall far short of this and hence efforts to induce more funding for these goals, including through the use of new financing instruments1, is critical going forward.
The only specialized multilateral development institution focused exclusively on rural development, IFAD has successfully used agriculture as a means of poverty reduction – contributing ~USD 22 billion in funding to date1. About 90% of IFAD's portfolio is focused on Low to Middle Income (LMI) countries. IFAD stands out with its nutrition and gender-sensitive lenses coupled with investments in climate-resilient agriculture – mainstreaming nutrition, gender, and climate change work in agriculture.
Le présent rapport concerne l’évaluation finale du projet «Intégration de la résilience climatique dans la production agricole et pastorale pour la sécurité alimentaire dans les zones rurales vulnérables à travers l’approche des champs-écoles des producteurs» (GCP/NER/043/LDF) financé par le Fonds pour l’environnement mondial (FEM) et exécuté conjointement par l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) et le Gouvernement du Niger de 2015 à 2021.
Social learning processes can be the basis of a method of agricultural innovation that involves expert and empirical knowledge. In this sense, the objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of an innovation process, understood as social learning, in a group of small farmers in the southern highlands of Peru. Innovative proposals and its permanence three years after the process finished were evaluated. It was observed that innovation processes generated are maintained over time; however, new innovations are not subsequently generated
Being the ultimate beneficiary of ecosystem services provided by on-farm agricultural biodiversity, the participation of farmers in its sustainable utilization and conservation is crucial. How much aware they are with the significance and conservation of agricultural biodiversity in order to improve their crop yield remains unclear, especially from the developing courtiers. Pollination is one of such ecosystem services, enormously contributed by the wild bees.
The main objective of this study was to investigate and analyse the farmers’ perceptions on criteria and indicators for sustainable management of indigenous agroforestry systems in Uttarakhand state of India. The present study was conducted to document the traditional knowledge and considered five broad categories including agriculture management, livestock management, forest sustainability, social benefits, and policy inputs along with 16 criteria and 34 indicators were identified.
Many indigenous vegetables are generally underutilized across different cultures, but they remain alternatives to exotic vegetables that often are expensive. This study investigated effects of participation in indigenous vegetable production on livelihood of farmers. Multistaged sampling was used to collect data from 222 vegetable farmers sampled from using a semi-structured questionnaire. Principal component analysis and endogenous switching regression (ESR) were employed for analysis