The global impacts of the climate crisis are becoming ever clearer, and natural resources and ecosystems are being depleted. Despite some progress, hunger and poverty persist, and inequalities are deepening. The world is realizing that unsustainable high external inputs and resource-intensive industrialized systems pose a real danger of biodiversity loss, increased greenhouse gas emissions, shortages of healthy food, and the impoverishment of dispossessed peasants around the world.
In the rapidly changing context of agri-food systems, extension and advisory services (EAS) are expected to provide new roles and services that go well beyond the traditional production-related technology transfer. Consequently, pluralistic EAS systems with diverse actors have emerged with diverse actors, including private and civil society organisations. These multiple EAS actors must adopt innovative entrepreneurship models if they are to act proactively and respond to the increasing diversity of farmers’ demands while staying independent and sustainable.
Climate change is threatening development gains and intensifying global inequities—putting peace and important gains in human well-being at risk.
In Nepal, the Plantwise programme, in collaboration with International Development Enterprises (iDE), has established networks of locally owned plant clinics, run by community business facilitators (CBFs) trained as plant doctors, who provide practical plant health advice. This study examines how gender is integrated into this programme in three purposively selected study districts. It presents the experiences of farmers, the challenges they faced in accessing plant health services through a gender and social inclusion lens.
Many countries are facing growing levels of food insecurity, reversing years of development gains, and threatening the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Even before COVID-19 reduced incomes and disrupted supply chains, chronic and acute hunger were on the rise due to various factors, including conflict, socio-economic conditions, natural hazards, climate change and pests.
China will be confronted with many challenges in the years to come, including achieving carbon neutrality, ensuring environmental sustainability, protecting vulnerable people, and ensuring a smooth transition from smallholder to modern agriculture. This policy note discusses how China could further advance its food and agricultural development model, making it greener, more sustainable, and more inclusive.
La transition agroécologique requiert de transformer la manière d’accompagner les agriculteurs dans leurs changements de pratiques. Les champs-écoles sont des dispositifs participatifs pertinents pour cela, car ils accroissent les capacités des agriculteurs à expérimenter, à produire des connaissances et à construire eux-mêmes des innovations. Il est toutefois nécessaire de veiller à la qualité de mise en œuvre de ces dispositifs, ce qui a des implications pour les acteurs de la recherche et du développement.
Innovation for sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) is challenging. Changing agricultural systems at scale normally means working with partners at different levels to make changes in policies and social institutions, along with technical practices. This study extracts lessons for practitioners and investors in innovation in SAI, based on concrete examples, to guide future investment.
A huge increase in investment in innovation for agricultural systems is critical to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement. Most of this increase needs to come from reorienting existing funding for innovation. However, understanding whether an investment will fully promote environmentally sustainable and equitable agri-food systems can be difficult.
Finance is a key lever for turning agriculture from a potential source of environmental harm and social inequity to a driver of conservation and social inclusiveness. Private and public sector funding for farmers to combat climate change and protect and restore nature (‘Paying for Nature’) is rapidly increasing. Yet this new funding may not reach its aims without drastically improving farm-level reward mechanisms.