This book documents a unique series of 19 case studies where agricultural biotechnologies were used to serve the needs of smallholders in developing countries. They cover different regions, production systems, species and underlying socio-economic conditions in the crop (seven case studies), livestock (seven) and aquaculture/fisheries (five) sectors. Most of the case studies involve a single crop, livestock or fish species and a single biotechnology.
This article presents the results of a study conducted in Northeast Thailand on wild food plant gathering in anthropogenic areas and the implications for vulnerable households. A sub-sample of 40 farming households was visited every month to conduct seven-day recalls over a 12-month period on wild food plant acquisition events. Results show that these plants are an essential part of the diet, constituting a "rural safety net" particularly for vulnerable households.
Since the entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003, concerted efforts have focused on mobilizing international assistance to help developing countries build their institutional capacities in biosafety and meet their obligations under the treaty. The FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, in cooperation with the Government of Thailand, launched “Asian BioNet” – a regional initiative on capacity building in biosafety of genetically modified (GM) crops in Asia.
Research results and FAO National Aquaculture Sector Overview (NASO) fact sheets show that female participation rates vary by type and scale of enterprise and country. Women are frequently active in hatcheries and dominate fish processing plant labourers. Women’s work in small-scale aquaculture frequently is unrecognized, under or unpaid. Most aquaculture development projects are not gender sensitive, and aquaculture success stories often do not report gender dimensions; projects can fail if their designs do not include gender.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
This paper, using Thailand as a case study, aims at understanding the national innovation system (NIS) in developing countries which are less successful in technological catching-up. In contrast to developed countries, the development level of Thailand’s NIS does not link to its economic structural development level. As Thailand moves from agricultural to an increasingly industrial economy, its NIS remains weak and fragmented. The mismatch between the two affected Thailand’s competitiveness and partially contributed to the recent economic crisis.
LenCD has prepared a joint statement on results and capacity development (presented in this publication), which stresses that meaningful, sustainable results are premised on proper investments in capacity development and that these results materialize at different levels and at different times, along countries’ development trajectory. To provide evidence in support of this statement, LenCD launched a call for submission of stories.
The paper, prepared for the "High Level Policy Dialogue on Investment in Agricultural Research for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific" (Bangkok Thailand; 8-9 December 2015), presents the Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS).The framework is a core component of the Action Plan of the TAP, a G20 Initiative, aiming to increase coherence and effectiveness of capacity development for agricultural innovation that lead to sustainable change and impact at scale.
A complex systems approach to innovation provides rich insights into the drivers, barriers, and key elements for innovation in rural systems. Through a case study of dry direct seeding (DDS) in smallholder systems in Laos, this article reveals a “perfect storm” of challenges and opportunities resulting in rapid adoption. Labour shortage, climate variability, and machinery availability are key factors.
Private sector actors bring expertise, resources, and new perspectives to agricultural development, but the tendency to short-term approaches and market-based orientation has been unable to drive a systemic change in the development agenda. We explore how multi-stakeholder dialogues can capitalize on and trickle systemic change through private sector involvement. Analysis from the farmer-led irrigation development multi-stakeholder dialogue space (FLI-MDS) in Ghana shows the need for a physical and institutional space to cater for and merge different stakeholder interests.