The frequency of natural disasters, especially storms and floods, has been increasing globally over the last several decades. Developing countries are especially vulnerable to such disasters but are often the least capable of coping with the associated impacts because of their limited adaptive capacity. Despite the increased interest in strengthening institutional capacity, it remains a challenge for many developing countries. Institutional capacity for disaster management and risk reduction can be built through various mechanisms.
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)?
This shift in thinking will require major shifts in policy, research, and investment. But where should these investments go? What foundations should be strengthened? Which gaps need filling? What’s working? What’s not?
In order to answer these questions in an informed way, we need to examine the evidence that exists and identify areas where more research is needed.
But this is easier said than done.
If you are a research or innovation manager or a funder of innovation in the agrifood sector, in the private or public sphere, these Principles are for you. Investment in research and innovation today will shape the agrifood systems of the future. The choices that you make during an innovation process will affect the future benefits and drawbacks of the innovations you help to create: for example, what types of people gain and lose, and what the effects are on the environment. Too often, these choices are not made consciously, and important issues are overlooked until it is too late.
Investment in research and innovation today will shape the agrifood systems of the future. The choices that you make during an innovation process will affect the future benefits and drawbacks of the innovations you help to create: for example, what types of people gain and lose, and what the effects are on the environment. Too often, these choices are not made consciously, and important issues are overlooked until it is too late.
The challenges faced by agricultural innovation systems (A.I.S.) are complex to solve, however, the authors consider that understanding the processes of innovation and development (R&D), sustainability, use of information and communication technologies, training, and outreach, as the focus of discussion in this review, have great potential to close the gaps in the system; as well as exploring strategies, projects and best practices that dynamize the operation of the system. The objective of this article is to review the literature on A.I.S.A.
Agrifood value chains of small and medium-sized producers in the Near East and North Africa region have the potential to generate more value through improved access to high-value markets. Limited logistics capacity in the region, coupled with lack of access to continuous cold chain, has resulted in weak supply chain management, high level of food loss, lack of compliance with food quality and safety standards; information asymmetries; and unfair value distribution, affecting income and livelihood of small and medium-sized producers.
This article examines differences in the research approaches of farmers and scientists and analyzes how these differences are related to the conditions under which both groups engage in experimental work. Theoretical considerations as well as practical experiences are presented to emphasize the great potential of farmer–researcher collaboration for rural innovation.
The creation of Competitive Research Grants (CRGs) is globally recognized as an institutional innovation for improving the effectiveness of agricultural research. Unlike block grants for research, CRGs are expected to bring in many top-quality proposals from a wide range of actors, selecting the best out of them and thus getting more value for money.