Matrices de thèmes pour la formation des facilitateurs CEAP
This collection of posters from the TAP-AIS project illustrates key achievements of the project towards strengthening national agricultural innovation systems (AIS) in Africa (Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal), Latin America (Colombia), Asia and the Pacific (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Pakistan). For each of these nine countries, and for their respective regions, the posters provide: i) thematic focus and context; ii) constraints in the AIS; iii) capacity development interventions; iv) outcomes; v) the way forward.
Innovation portfolio management enables not only commercial actors but also public sector organisations to systematically manage and prioritise innovation activities according to concurrent and diverse purposes and priorities. It is a core component of a comprehensive approach to innovation management and a condition to assess the social return of investment across an entire portfolio. The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has worked in this space for a number of years.
L’approche Champs-Écoles Producteurs (CEP) est introduite au Ghana en 1996, au Niger en 1999 et au Sénégal en 2000 via le projet « Gestion intégrée de la Production et des Déprédateurs (GIPD) » soutenu par la FAO.
The video (in Vietnamese language- English subtitles) tackles how to mainstream Gender and Social Inclusion (GSI in setting up a Climate-Smart Village (CSV). GSI should be integrated in the eight guide steps in establishing a CSV, such as: determining the purpose and scope of CSV; identifying the climate risk in the target area/s; locating the CSV in a small landscape; consulting the stakeholders; evaluating the CSA options; developing portfolio; scaling-up; and monitoring and evaluating uptake and outcome.
Since 2017, in line with COAG’s recommendation, the Research and Extension Unit engaged in the development of a participatory AIS assessment framework including a customizable toolbox for countries with a totally new capacity development perspective. The assessment framework is meant for actors of the national agricultural innovation systems, i.e.
Equipping agricultural extension and advisory services with nutrition knowledge, competencies and skills is essential to promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture. This report presents the results of an assessment of capacity within agricultural extension and advisory services, undertaken in Telangana State, India, with the global capacity needs assessment (GCNA) methodology developed by FAO and GFRAS. The methodology is available online at https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2069en
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation for sustainable agricultural development. To strengthen this role, appropriate investment and conducive policies are needed in EAS, guided by evidence. It is therefore essential to examine EAS characteristics and performance in the context of modern, pluralistic and increasingly digital EAS systems. In response to this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed guidelines and instruments for the systematic assessment of national EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. EAS are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (for example related to investment, staffing or productivity) are no longer adequate to assess the performance of EAS systems.
Extension and advisory services (EAS) play a key role in facilitating innovation processes, empowering marginalized groups through capacity development, and linking farmers with markets. Advisory services are increasingly provided by a range of actors and funded from diverse sources. With the broadened scope of EAS and the growing complexity of the system, the quantitative performance indicators used in the past (e.g. related to investment, staffing or productivity) are not adequate anymore to understand whether the system is well-functioning.