This report provides an overview of the Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP) since its inception in 2012, when it was officially launched by FAO at the first G20 Meeting of Agriculture Chief Scientists (MACS) in September 2012 in Mexico, until December 2017. The G20 Agriculture Deputies agreed on this stock taking exercise that started under the 2018 Argentinian G20 Presidency.
Purposes of the exercise are the following:
Most agencies supporting agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) provide funds for discrete projects over specific periods of time, usually a maximum of three years. Research topics identified for calls for proposals are not always well aligned with users’ needs. In particular, research topics may not reflect the priorities of organizations - such as farmer organizations and private agribusinesses, with interests in the research outcomes; they are not generally supported to play a significant role as project partners.
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?
This study was set out to describe the operation of the agricultural multi-stakeholder platforms and assess the impact of their activities on the production and revenue of the different beneficiaries. The required data was collected from 285 stakeholders using structured questionnaires. The econometric approach based on the Local Average Treatment effect (LATE) was used to identify the impact of the participation in the MSP activities on the revenue and yield of the producers
The United Nations predicts that we need to increase food production globally by 70 percent to feed 9.6 billion people by 2050. But at the same time, given the climate crisis, we need to significantly reduce the use of energy, water, and land needed to produce food and lower its carbon footprint. In other words, we must figure out how to produce and distribute more food using fewer resources and emissions. We must learn to do farming better with less.
The presentation was given for the SEARCA Forum-workshop on Platforms, Rural Advisory Services, and Knowledge Management: Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development, Los Banos, 17-19 May 2016. It introduced agricultural innovation systems and their main features, examined the evolution of approaches to the resolution of agricultural problems, and provided an overview of the various participatory tools.
For most development organisations and funders, innovation remains a sprawling collection of activities, often energetic, but largely uncoordinated. To a dregree, this has also been the case for Iceland's development co-operation. Iceland, a comparatively small but energetic player in the international development co-operation system, provided the equivalent of 0.28% (roughly 67 million Euro) of it 2021 gross national income towards Official Development Assistance.
This paper argues that impact assessment research has not made more of a difference because the measurement of the economic impact has poor diagnostic power. In particular it fails to provide research managers with critical institutional lessons concerning ways of improving research and innovation as a process. Paper's contention is that the linear input-output assumptions of economic assessment need to be complemented by an analytical framework that recognizes systems of reflexive, learning interactions and their location in, and relationship with, their institutional context.
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.
This volume presents a state-of-the-art overview of the rapidly evolving field of agribusiness, highlighting the most current issues, concepts, trends and themes in research, practice and policy. With a particular emphasis on technology, product and process innovation, the authors cover a wide array of topics relating to such issues as research and development, technology transfer and patents and licensing, with particular respect to the roles of academic institutions, private organizations and public agencies in generating and disseminating knowledge.