This paper addresses the question how public-private partnerships (PPPs) function as systemic innovation policy instruments within agricultural innovation systems. Public-private partnerships are a popular government tool to promote innovations. However, the wide ranging nature of PPPs make it difficult to assess their effects beyond the direct impacts they generate for the partners.
Despite efforts over recent years to improve the status of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, little change has been noted, due partially to the fact that efforts have come from individual entities, which had short-term funding or lacked the necessary expertise to scale up research outputs. Disconnect between researchers and end-users has further hindered the success of such efforts.
In terms of macroeconomic and geopolitical instability, in order to increase the competitiveness of agro-food complex of the Russian Federation in world food markets, a scientifically based choice of institutional solutions is required to increase innovative activity in the agricultural sector and to ensure the transfer of technologies used in industries related to agriculture.
Le secteur agricole est le premier employeur au niveau mondial et les actifs familiaux forment l'essentiel de cette force de travail. L'agriculture familiale produit plus de 70 % de la production alimentaire et gère une proportion considérable des ressources naturelles. Ce modèle d'agriculture caractérisé par sa diversité et sa résilience, a la capacité de proposer des réponses adaptées aux défis alimentaires, sociaux et environnementaux. La reconnaissance et le soutien aux agricultures familiales sont indispensables pour lutter contre la pauvreté et construire un développement durable.
How we eat has a major impact on our individual health status, our quality of life and our well-being. Many of the foods we eat have a major social, environmental, climate and animal welfare footprint. This expertise defines policies to promote sustainability in food consumption as policies that integrate all four target dimensions: human health, social aspects, the natural environment (including climate) and animal welfare. Achieving greater sustainability in food consumption poses great challenges.
The purpose of this paper is to map some elements that can contribute to an IFAD strategy to stimulate and support pro-poor innovations. It is an initial or exploratory document that hopefully will add to an ongoing and necessary debate, and is not intended as a final position paper. The document is organized as follows.
Innovation in Vidzeme Planning Region is realized in the frame of National innovation system, the elements of which correspond to innovation and innovation system theories, and the best practices of which are applied in the most innovative countries of the world. Nevertheless, innovation in Vidzeme Planning Region is fragmented and is being introduced slowly, and its impact on economic development is faintly visible. It witnesses a problem, which was identified, analysed and its solutions searched by the authors.
How do systemic intermediaries obtain legitimate roles for themselves in innovation systems and transition processes? This is still an understudied question in the study of systemic intermediaries. This study started from the observation that roles, or positions, are not given, but emerge in interactions as a negotiated set of rights and obligations.
Los artículos reunidos en este volumen se basan en las ponencias presentadas por los expertos que participaron en el seminario internacional “Políticas para la agricultura en América Latina y el Caribe: competitividad, sostenibilidad e inclusión social”, realizado en la sede de la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) en Santiago los días 6 y 7 de diciembre de 2011.
This article analyzes the politics of localizing food systems at play in the FPCs of Ghent (Belgium) and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA). The focus is on the development of urban agriculture in both cities, and includes an analysis of the politics of scale through three scalar practices of scale framing, scale negotiating, and scale matching. This analysis reveals that differences in the way in which the politics of scale are played out in both FPCs resulted in the creation of different opportunities and constraints for urban agriculture development