This report provides a synthesis of all findings and information generated through a “stocktaking” process that involved a desk study of Prolinnova documents and evaluation reports, a questionnaire to 40 staff members of international organizations in agricultural research and development (ARD), self-assessment by the Country Platforms (CPs) and backstopping visits to five CPs. In 2014, the Prolinnova network saw a need to re-strategise in a changing context, and started this process by reviewing the activities it had undertaken and assessing its own functioning.
The project “Strengthening Community Resilience to Change: Combining Local Innovative Capacity with Scientific Research” (CLIC–SR), supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, was completed on 31 August 2016. During the four years since 2012, the Prolinnova Country Platforms in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda made large strides in:
The CLIC–SR project started on 1 September 2012, ended on 31 August 2016, and was implemented in four countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. This report covers the work done in the final project period: January–August 2016. The report adds a chapter that reviews the achievements of the project over the full project cycle. The report from an independent external evaluation was a major source of information for this final chapter.
This paper is the Report of the 25th Session of the Committee on Agriculture (COAG), held in Rome on 26-30 September 2016.
The Committee on Agriculture is one of FAO’s Governing Bodies providing overall policy and regulatory guidance on issues relating to agriculture, livestock, food safety, nutrition, rural development and natural resource management. Established in 1971, the Committee has over 100 Member Nations and generally meets every two years, but may hold additional sessions if needed.
This report from the Korea Center for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (WISET) and PORTIA has been published as a result of the 6th Gender Summit (Seoul, 2015) and aims to help improve efficacy of the measures used to implement the SDGs, including their cross cutting impacts, by identifying that all sources and conditions of inequality in the lives of girls, boys, women, and men.
The purpose of this report is to show how and why scientific understanding of biological and sociocultural (sex-gender) differences between women and men can enhance success of innovation policies that seek to promote socioeconomic advancements through science and technology.
This report is part of the AFRHINET project under the ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Science and Technology (S&T II). The overall aims of the project are to enhance options for sustainable integration of rainwater harvesting for irrigation through understanding adoption constraints and developing networks for capacity building and technology transfer. The African partners are Addis Ababa University and WaterAid-Ethiopia in Ethiopia, University of Nairobi and ICRAF-Searnet in Kenya, Eduardo Mondlane University in Mozambique, and University of Zimbabwe and ICRISAT-Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe.
Agriculture is among the most risk-prone sectors in the economies of Central Asia. Production shocks from weather, pests and diseases and adverse movements in agricultural product and input prices not only impact farmers and agri-business firms, but can also strain government finances. Some of these risks are small and localized and can be managed by producers. Others are the result of more severe, exogenous shocks outside agriculture that require a broader response.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the challenges and the practical successes that a selected number of countries are experiencing in moving towards 'climate-smart' agriculture while also meeting the food requirements of a growing population, broader economic development and green growth objectives. It complements papers prepared in 2010 on technologies and policy instruments, research, and farmers' perspectives.
In Ethiopia, village surveys were conducted in six villages and two expert workshops were organized to discuss the organization of the study and to evaluate the draft results. Based on household surveys, focus group discussions, and institutional stakeholder interviews, we assessed household vulnerability, analyzed the strategies households adopt to reduce the hazards faced, and evaluated the assistance households receive from institutions. Vulnerability profiles were formulated, which show that household vulnerability differs substantially among and within villages.