Cet article présente une évaluation théorique de la performance urbaine des modèles alimentaires alternatifs dans la prise en charge des objectifs de développement durable (ODD) en vue d’améliorer la sécurité alimentaire urbaine. Elle concerne les modèles des systèmes alimentaires les plus relatés dans la littérature, à savoir le système alimentaire territorialisé (SAT), le City-Region Food System (CRFS) et le système alimentaire urbain intelligent (SAUI) en émergence.
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.
La consommation de produits certifiés n’est plus l’apanage des pays développés. Au Kenya, les premiers marchés biologiques sont apparus à Nairobi en 2006. Ils sont approvisionnés par des maraîchers, confrontés à une diversité de défis : construire une certification biologique crédible, garantir la fraîcheur des produits et composer avec l’hétérogénéité des attentes des consommateurs. À partir de données d’enquête et du cadre analytique des coûts de transaction, nous analysons l’organisation des marchés de 2006 à 2013.
This brief provides an overview of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) and describes how the M&E system is designed to support the program to achieve its goals. The AAS program aims to improve the lives of 22 million people dependent upon aquatic agricultural systems by 2024 through research in development.
This set of guidance notes is designed to support practitioners and evaluators in conducting retrospective evaluations of a capacity development intervention or portfolio to assess and document results. Users will enhance their understanding of the capacity development process, of what works and what does not work in promoting change and to inform future programs. The standard M&E approach for assessing capacity development results has not been sufficient.
This report reviews the evidence of impact of capacity strengthening on agricultural research for development (AR4D) in developing countries. The study was commissioned by DFID as part of the documentation process of the project Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa (SCARDA).
This report describes the concepts and methods used to evaluate a regional capacity development project in Latin America. The project under study aims to strengthen planning, monitoring, and evaluation in agricultural research organizations in the region. The report outlines the procedures employed in five evaluation studies and summarizes the results of each study. It then presents consolidated findings in response to three evaluation questions: What were the main contributions of the project to agricultural research management?
This paper is the result of a joint effort of OECD/DAC and LenCD to assemble the critical messages about training and learning that are emerging from the current international scrutiny of training and capacity development. It synthesises current wisdom on the topic, and offers a sense of direction on where the debate is going, particularly in terms of approaches to capacity development interventions at country and field levels. The paper is written primarily for the demand side, i.e.
The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.
This document provides guidelines for Innovation Platform (IP) facilitation and the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of IP processes and outcomes. Although it has been written for PROGEBE (project on ‘Sustainable management of globally significant endemic ruminant livestock of West Africa) staff at the site, national and regional levels, it is believed to have wider relevance beyond this specific project and specifically applies to projects which have a similar structure.