The Agriculture Technology Program for Turkmenistan (AgTech) takes a comprehensive approach to agricultural development in Turkmenistan by implementing high-impact activities in the livestock and greenhouse horticulture sectors to achieve the two objectives: improve genetics, education and organizations for private livestock producers; introduce successful agribusiness practices.
The Agriculture Technology Program for Turkmenistan (AgTech), funded by USAID and implemented by Weidemann Associates, Inc., aims to increase and develop private enterprises, and improve productivity of private, small and household farms. The project has two key components: the improvement of genetics, education and organization as a means of increasing the incomes of private agribusiness involved in livestock; skills building for private producers, processors and marketers of fruits and vegetables.
This review aims to identify key issues and opportunities needed to bring current Agricultural Education and Training (AET) systems up to the needed capacity. This paper first looks at the opportunities identified in the preliminary research. Next the paper looks at some of the many pitfalls learned from previous AET work that should be avoided moving forward. Lastly the paper gives a brief explanation for some of the key areas that the preliminary research identified as requiring further research and study in a modern day context.
The Agriculture Technology Program for Turkmenistan (AgTech) takes a comprehensive approach to agricultural development in Turkmenistan by implementing high-impact activities in the livestock and greenhouse horticulture sectors to achieve the two objectives: improve genetics, education and organizations for private livestock producers; introduce successful agribusiness practices.
The Agriculture Technology Program for Turkmenistan (AgTech) takes a comprehensive approach to agricultural development in Turkmenistan by implementing high-impact activities in the livestock and greenhouse horticulture sectors to achieve the two objectives: improve genetics, education and organizations for private livestock producers; introduce successful agribusiness practices.
The Guidance Note on Operationalization provides a brief recap of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework as well as a more detailed guide to operationalization of the proposed dual pathways approach. It offers also a strategy for monitoring and evaluation as well as a toolbox of select tools that may be useful at the different stages of the CD for AIS cycle.
The Conceptual Background provides an in-depth analysis of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework. It is also available in French and Spanish.
The first phase in the development of the Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation systems (CD for AIS) consisted of the review of the existing literature, building up a repository of relevant documentation on agricultural innovation in general and AIS and CD for AIS. This report summarizes this first phase. In particular, Section 1 covers this brief introduction. Sections two and three focus on the review of relevant literature, presenting the methodology used and the structure of the repository itself.
This report provides a synthesis of all findings and information generated through a “stocktaking” process that involved a desk study of Prolinnova documents and evaluation reports, a questionnaire to 40 staff members of international organizations in agricultural research and development (ARD), self-assessment by the Country Platforms (CPs) and backstopping visits to five CPs. In 2014, the Prolinnova network saw a need to re-strategise in a changing context, and started this process by reviewing the activities it had undertaken and assessing its own functioning.
Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become proactive and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations: vouchers, competitive grants and farmer-led innovation support funds.