Ethiopian agriculture is changing as new actors, relationships, and policies influence the ways in which small-scale, resource-poor farmers access and use information and knowledge in their agricultural production decisions. Although these changes suggest new opportunities for smallholders, too little is known about how changes will ultimately improve the wellbeing of smallholders in Ethiopia. The authors of this paper examine whether these changes are improving the ability of smallholders to innovate and thus improve their own welfare.

Though research on communication and innovation during the last decade brought better understanding on the innovation process, this has not influenced the underlying paradigm and practice of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in most countries. At the same time there have been few initiatives that tried to experiment with new ways of developing capacities for extension and innovation.

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.

Agricultural education, research, and extension can contribute substantially to reducing rural poverty in the developing world. However, evidence suggests that their contributions are falling short in Sub-Saharan Africa. The entry of new actors, technologies, and market forces, when combined with new economic and demographic pressures, suggests the need for more innovative and less linear approaches to promoting a technological transformation of smallholder agriculture.

In an effort to raise incomes and increase resilience of smallholder farmers and their families in Feed the Future1 (FTF) countries, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded the Developing Local Extension Capacity (DLEC) project. This project is led by Digital Green in partnership with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), CARE International (CARE) and multiple resource partners.

Over the past quarter century, Vietnam’s agricultural sector has made enormous progress. Vietnam’s performance in terms of agricultural yields, output, and exports, however, has been more impressive than its gains in efficiency, farmer welfare, and product quality. Vietnamese agriculture now sits at a turning point. The agricultural sector now faces growing domestic competition - from cities, industry, and services - for labor, land, and water. Rising labor costs are beginning to inhibit the sector’s ability to compete globally as a low cost producer of bulk undifferentiated commodities.

This report seeks to understand the successes, challenges and opportunities of Cambodia’s agricultural transformation over the past decade to derive lessons and insights on how to maintain future agricultural growth, and particularly on the government’s role in facilitating it. It is prepared per the request of the Supreme National Economic Council and the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries and is based on the primary farm data surveys from 2005 and 2013, and the secondary data from various sources.

This is the first investment climate assessment (ICA) for Myanmar. The main objectives of this ICA are to: (i) provide an up-to-date and fact-based analysis of the business environment for the government and other stakeholders in Myanmar to help prioritize and contextualize the reform agenda, and (ii) to offer a baseline for future assessments of progress in terms of the investment climate reform agenda. As requested by the government, the Myanmar ICA will directly support the ongoing reform program.

Botswana has been one of the worlds fastest growing economies over the past 50 years, allowing the country to move from being among the poorest to upper middle income status - this has had the effect of pulling the majority of the population out of poverty. While Botswana is rightly praised for its management of resource wealth, it is apparent that the high levels of investment by government (in health, education, and infrastructure) are not delivering quality outcomes, making it increasingly difficult to meet the objectives of growth, diversification, and poverty elimination.