L’agriculture est aujourd’hui interpellée par la société, qui exige bien plus qu’une simple production alimentaire : aliments de qualité, services environnementaux, insertion de populations marginalisées, revitalisation des territoires ruraux, habitabilité des milieux urbains, développement de productions énergétiques… Cette ouverture des futurs agricoles incite les acteurs ruraux à expérimenter de nouveaux systèmes de production et valorisation, faisant ainsi preuve de créativité et d’obstination pour exister face aux modèles de développement dominants.
Du fait de leur transversalité et de leur objet, l'évaluation des politiques de développement territorial ne peut pas s'appuyer sur les outils utilisés pour évaluer les politiques sectorielles. Les questions procédurales sont très largement dominantes, les dispositifs portant essentiellement sur la gouvernance et la coordination. Pour évaluer une démarche procédurale, il convient de préciser le référentiel d’évaluation à la fois en termes du quoi et du comment évaluer.
Le développement territorial durable requiert des innovations aussi bien techniques, que sociales et institutionnelles. Favoriser ces innovations est l'objectif des récentes démarches d'ingénierie territoriale qui adaptent les processus d'innovation développés en entreprise. Dans cet article, la pertinence de cette orientation est discutée en s'appuyant sur les enseignements d'une recherche-action, menée dans un territoire « fragilisé » : l' « Alto Sertão du Piauí et du Pernambouco », dans le Nordeste brésilien.
Agriculture is crucial for the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss and resource degradation. The contribution of agriculture to these environmental problems has been exacerbated by subsidies, which constitute the dominant public policy to support farmers. At the same time, other economic instruments introducing more sustainable land-use practices and incentivizing better environmental and social outcomes are already being applied worldwide.
The study was designed to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI's multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
What are the patterns of funding in agricultural innovation for the Global South1 ? Who are the key funders in this innovation and who are the key recipients? How doesthis funding split between various topics and value chains? What proportion of these funds support Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)? And how is SAI innovation funding split across different parts of the agriculture sector funding and innovation canvas?
Increasing investment and spending in agricultural innovation is not enough to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets of ending poverty and hunger because the effectiveness of investments in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries is affected by the low quality of infrastructure and services provided, and by different norms and practices that create a considerable gap between financing known technical solutions and achieving the outcomes called for in the SDGs.
Cities are highly visible centers of mass consumption of food and vast excretion of waste; they are less often associated with the production of food. Yet closer observation of cities in the Global South reveals that they are also locations of food production. This report describes the major challenges affecting crop cultivation and animal raising as well as food consumption in and around cities, where many households are poorly fed, negatively affected by unsustainable urbanization processes, and threatened with a warming and disease-prone world.