A bilateral project between the Swiss Agency for Cooperation and Development (SDC) and the Nepalese government, which ran from 2016 to 2020 and covered 61 municipalities in provinces 1, 3 (Bagmati) and 6 (Karnali), with technical support from the Swiss NGO Helvetas, aimed to promote a multi-stakeholder approach to agricultural services in Nepal.
Evaluation provides effective feedback for development plans and programs. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the outputs of agricultural extension and education projects are compatible with the ones expected. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to evaluate agricultural extension model sites approach from actors’ perspectives and to analyze their gaps via the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model.
The creation of commercialization opportunities for smallholder farmers has taken primacy on the development agenda of many developing countries. Invariably, most of the smallholders are less productive than commercial farmers and continue to lag in commercialization. Apart from the various multifaceted challenges which smallholder farmers face, limited access to extension services stands as the underlying constraint to their sustainability.
Conventional approaches to agricultural extension based on top–down technology transfer and information dissemination models are inadequate to help smallholder farmers tackle increasingly complex agroclimatic adversities. Innovative service delivery alternatives, such as field schools, exist but are mostly implemented in isolationistic silos with little effort to integrate them for cost reduction and greater technical effectiveness.
Participation of actors is essential for achievement of the United Nation’s (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With respect to sustainable agriculture the UN has introduced a collaborative framework for food systems transformation encompassing: 1) food system champions identification; 2) food systems assessment; 3) multi-stakeholder dialogue and action facilitation; and, 4) strengthen institutional capacity for food systems governance. The last two actions are the focus of this thesis.
The challenges faced by agricultural systems call for an advance in risk management (RM) assessments. This research identifies and discusses potential improvements to RM across 11 European Union (EU) farming systems (FS). The paper proposes a comprehensive, participatory approach that accounts for multi-stakeholder perspectives relying on 11 focus groups for brainstorming and gathering suggestions to improve RM.
The publication is a part of the FAO work to assist the member countries in reforming their national Extension and Advisory Services (EAS). It highlights the main elements and provide concrete guidelines for the policy makers to coordinate pluralism in extension and advisory services (EAS), i.e. ensuring that multiple EAS providers from public, private sector and NGOs/donors, provide quality services that contribute to national agricultural priorities and wellbeing of rural producers, collaborate and exchange information to maximise synergies and minimise gaps and duplications.
Human nutrition is vital for agriculture. Many smallholder farmers are food-insecure and suffer chronic or acute forms of malnutrition. This can permanently harm the physical and cognitive growth of children, while reducing productivity as household members are less able to carry out agricultural work.
Agriculture is vital for human nutrition. Nutrition has long been considered mostly a health issue. However, agriculture plays an essential role in ensuring nutritional wellbeing not only for rural populations, but also for society as a whole.
Over the past few decades, some countries in Asia have been more successful than others in addressing poverty and malnutrition. The key question is what policies, strategies, legislation and institutional arrangements have led to a transformed agricultural sector, effectively contributing to poverty alleviation and addressing malnutrition. The great majority of national policymakers within and outside the Asia-Pacific region are keen to understand the causes of agricultural development and transformation in successful countries in Asia.
The privatization of agricultural advisory and extension services in many countries and the associated pluralism of service providers has renewed interest in farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors. Understanding farmers’ use of advisory services is important, given the role such services are expected to play in helping farmers address critical environmental and sustainability challenges. This paper aims to identify factors associated with farmers’ use of fee-for service advisors and bring fresh conceptualization to this topic.