This research note explains the results of social experiment designed with three primary objectives. These include (1) to mitigate the digital divide concerning the accessibility of forecasted weather information and crop advisories for women farmers in Bangladesh and (2) to assess the potential impact of a digital climate advisory tool on the agricultural practices of climate-smart agriculture facilitated by digital advisory tools for stakeholders in the value chain, such as microfinance institutions offering crop loans in areas facing higher weather-related risks.
The OECD Mission Action Lab critically examines the practice of missions and mission-oriented policies as well as their suitability to different problem contexts. Addressing complex challenges comes first, methods come second. The Lab is, thus, not promoting "missions" as the one and only instrument to address complex problems or societal transitions. Rather, we aim to understand when and how mission as an approach to public policies is useful and, sometimes more importantly, when it is not.
Despite the concept's widespread popularity, the terminology surrounding missions can come across as convoluted. This is understandable, given that the term - which denotes ambitious, time bound, cross-sectoral and measurable policy objectives to address grand societal challenges such as climate change mitigation, biosphere restoration or tackling health inequities - has proven to be both deceptively intricate and remarkably versatile.
The global food supply is increasingly facing disruptions from extreme heat and storms. It is also a major contributor to climate change, responsible for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.This tension is why agriculture innovation is increasingly being elevated in international climate discussions.
This study draws on social-psychology in an attempt to identify the various motivations for technology adoption (TA), including both economic and non-economic, and to gain insights into how and why Brazilian innovative beef farmers make decisions about whether or not to adopt particular technologies.
Since 2017, in line with COAG’s recommendation, the Research and Extension Unit engaged in the development of a participatory AIS assessment framework including a customizable toolbox for countries with a totally new capacity development perspective. The assessment framework is meant for actors of the national agricultural innovation systems, i.e.
In this blog, Bhuvana N and Aditya K S argue that to achieve sustainable transformation of global food systems, there is a need to promote systems thinking at all levels, research, extension, education and policy.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. EAS are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (for example related to investment, staffing or productivity) are no longer adequate to assess the performance of EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. Advisory services are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (e.g. related to investment, staffing or productivity) are not adequate anymore to understand whether the system is well-functioning.