Farm input subsidies are often criticised on economic and ecological grounds. The promotion of natural resource management (NRM) technologies is widely seen as more sustainable to increase agricultural productivity and food security. Relatively little is known about how input subsidies affect farmers’ decisions to adopt NRM technologies. There are concerns of incompatibility, because NRM technologies are one strategy to reduce the use of external inputs in intensive production systems.
Though extension services have long since proved their value to agricultural production and farmer prosperity, their record in sub-Saharan Africa has been mixed. To study the impact of such programs on farmers' learning about agricultural technologies, we implemented a quasi-randomized controlled trial and collected detailed panel data among Malawian farmers. Based on those findings, we develop a two-stage learning framework, in which farmers formulate yield expectations before deciding on how much effort to invest in learning about these processes.
This paper draws lessons from selected country experiences of adaptation and innovation in pursuit of food security goals.
This brief discusses the benefits of innovation platforms in dealing with natural resource management issues.
This brief is part of the series of ‘practice briefs’ intended to help guide agricultural research practitioners who seek to support and implement innovation platforms. A contribution to the CGIAR Humidtropics research program, the development of the briefs was led by the International Livestock Research Institute; they draw on experiences of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, several CGIAR centres and partner organizations.
In the framework of a wide Foresight process, launched by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) and aiming to identify possible scenarios for European agriculture in a 20-year perspective, DG RTD/E of the European Commission established a high-level Consultancy Expert Group (CEG) that analysed and synthesised foresight information in order to provide research policy orientations, tacking stock of the report from the first Foresight Expert Group (FEG) published in February 2007.
This document sets out how EU Research and Innovation (R&I) policy contributes to the major global challenge of ensuring food and nutrition security (FNS). It is a first step in the further development of a more coherent approach to European R&I which aims at mobilising resources and stakeholders to set out aligned R&I agendas in response to recent international political drivers such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the COP 21 climate commitments.
The main objective of the Guidelines is to provide a non-binding complement to other guidelines and offer advice to RDP evaluation stakeholders on how to carry out the evaluation activities for answering the common evaluation questions related to innovation. Since the RDP’s effects on innovation in rural areas can be expected to take place, most likely, in the long-term, the guidelines focus in particular on those evaluation related activities, which will be reported in the AIR in 2019 and in the ex post evaluation. The Guidelines are structured in three parts:
L’agriculture familiale est le modèle d’exploitation le plus répandu en Europe. À ce titre, elle assure depuis des siècles la prospérité du secteur. L’ambitieux cadre stratégique mis en place par l’Union européenne a été conçu pour tenir compte des différents modèles d’agriculture qui coexistent sur son territoire, en ce compris les divers types d’agriculture familiale.
he European Union's long-term strategy for agricultural research and innovation was published in January 2016 following a year-long process of development, which included targeted consultations. Based on five priority areas, the strategy guides the programming of its main research and innovation programme – Horizon 2020 – not only for 2018 to 2020 but also for the period beyond 2020, to be covered by Horizon Europe.
This evaluation seeks to understand the impact which certain measures of the CAP have had on reducing GHG emissions, agriculture’s vulnerability to climate change and its ability to provide adaptation and mitigation services to society. Most of the CAP measures analysed do not have climate action as their intended purpose but may have it as a secondary purpose. Some, such as those which sustain certain forms of agricultural production responsible for emissions, exist for economic, social and sometimes other environmental reasons.