The World Bank Group has a unique opportunity to match the increases in financing for agriculture with a sharper focus on improving agricultural growth and productivity in agriculture-based economies, notably in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The aim of the rapid assessment is to support the transition from emergency post conflict recovery to a development approach. The completion of the water, sanitation, and hygiene, or WASH strategic framework in 2011 was intended to mark the beginning of this transition in the water resources sector. Among other things, the transition involved the adjustment of policy and strategy and possibly a rethinking of approaches as the government shifts from primarily supply-driven emergency and recovery assistance to sustainable development.
Agricultural investments made by developing countries and multilateral development banks (MDBs) have declined in recent decades. This decline is associated with a slowdown in the growth of agriculture productivity. Most development institutions have recognized the damage caused by this past neglect, in part evident in rising food prices, and renewed attention to agriculture and agribusiness is emerging. But this renewed interest will need to deliver results, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the MDBs have had the least success but where the needs and opportunities are enormous.
Poverty reduction is a long-standing development objective of many developing countries and their aid donors, including the World Bank. To achieve this goal, these countries and organizations have sought to improve smallholder agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader rural development agenda aimed at providing a minimal basket of goods and services in rural areas to satisfy basic human needs. These goods and services include not only food, health care, and education, but also infrastructure.
In order for agricultural development to fulfill its potential role as a source of growth and reducer of poverty, it must be constantly renewed through knowledge and innovation. Getting resources into the hands of innovators and providing incentives for producers, agricultural service providers, and entrepreneurs to collaborate in developing and applying new methods and technologies is a priority among institutions concerned with agricultural knowledge.
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 PowerPoint document was presented during the OECD-ASEAN Regional Conference on Agricultural Policies to Promote Food Security and Agro-Forestry Productivity (Seoul, South Korea, 12-13 October 2015). The presentation outline is the the following: 1) About SEARCA; 2) Analytical Framework on AIS; 3) Governance of Innovation Systems; 4) Investing in Innovation; 5) Facilitating Knowledge Flows; 6) Strengthening Cross-Country Supply of Agricultural Innovation; 7) The Survey.
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.