Le gouvernement de Lula a considérablement amplifié et diversifié le Programme d’Appui à l’Agriculture Familiale (PRONAF), créé par le gouvernement Fernando Henrique Cardoso en 1995. Ce choix affirmé sur la longue durée pour l’agriculture familiale, peut surprendre dans un Brésil qui a toujours, tout au long de son histoire, privilégié l’agriculture « d’entreprise » : latifundia et entreprises agricoles.
Le semis direct est un système de production fondé sur le non-travail du sol. Il intègre une série de pratiques agricoles qui permettent de protéger les sols cultivés de l’érosion, de réduire les consommations de carburants, voire d’augmenter les rendements. Le large succès du semis direct au Brésil, contribue à la compétitivité et à la forte croissance de ses productions tout en préservant les sols. Le système complet du semis direct sous couvert est fondé sur trois principes : le non-labour, la couverture permanente du sol et des rotations culturales.
L’ouest du Rio Grande do Sul est dominé par la culture du soja, du riz et par l’élevage bovin. Dans la partie sableuse, le milieu est affecté par des phénomènes d’érosion produisant des modelés éoliens spectaculaires (arenização) rappelant dans l’imaginaire ceux des déserts. La production agricole est importante ce qui engendre des prélèvements d’eau pour l’irrigation du riz, mais aussi l’utilisation de pesticides pour l’ensemble des cultures. La gestion durable des ressources en eau et en sol de cette région nécessite la mise en place d’action de conservation.
The building of sustainable innovation capabilities in Africa requires an innovation system capable of producing, disseminating and using new knowledge. This paper assesses the process of constructing the National Innovation System (NIS) in Rwanda. It is posited that consensus on and acceptance of the concept of NIS among stakeholders is crucial in the early process of constructing an efficient and dynamic innovation system. Primary empirical data are presented for the case of Rwanda and analyzed in a regional context.
This paper calls for a better integration of place-based, evidence-based and inclusive dimensions in the implementation of the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) plans and industrial policies in sub-Saharan Africa. To this end, the analysis contrasts with and takes inspiration from the recent and ongoing international experiences in the elaboration of Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (S3).
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.