The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (CoSAI) and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) jointly commissioned a gap study to determine how far away innovation investment is from helping agri-food systems achieve zero hunger goals and the Paris Agreement while reducing impacts on water resources in the Global South. The results show that the world can come much closer with some well-placed investments.
Considering the new opportunities that ICT innovations bring to improve performance of financial and extension services, this study looks at the potential contribution of financial and extension services to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The approach used extends the standard Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model to include longer-term management goals and find a solution that balances the efficient use of innovation investments and the achievement of policy goals, making this approach well suited for the analysis of the SDGs.
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.
Increasing investment and spending in agricultural innovation is not enough to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets of ending poverty and hunger because the effectiveness of investments in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries is affected by the low quality of infrastructure and services provided, and by different norms and practices that create a considerable gap between financing known technical solutions and achieving the outcomes called for in the SDGs.
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.
The Sourcebook is the outcome of joint planning, continued interest in gender and agriculture, and concerted efforts by the World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. The purpose of the Sourcebook is to act as a guide for practitioners and technical staff inaddressing gender issues and integrating gender-responsive actions in the design and implementation of agricultural projects and programs. It speaks not with gender specialists on how to improve their skills but rather reaches out to technical experts to guide them in thinking through how to integrate gender dimensions into their operations.
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.