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.
Este artículo es una aproximación al tema de la estrategia de política pública para el desarrollo rural en México. Tiene por objetivo establecer contrastes entre la política que se derivaría de la normatividad vigente y la incidencia efectiva de la acción gubernamental sobre las condiciones productivas y sociales del medio rural; así como, entre los instrumentos normativos que rigen la planeación, diseño y ejercicio de la política pública y sus resultados en los últimos años.
There has been an increasing interest in science, technology and innovation policy studies in the topic of policy mixes. While earlier studies conceptualised policy mixes mainly in terms of combinations of instruments to support innovation, more recent literature extends the focus to how policy mixes can foster sustainability transitions.
While national governments are the main actors in innovation policy, it is observed a proliferation of challenge-oriented innovation policies both at the subnational and the supranational level. This begs the question about subsidiarity: what innovation policies for societal challenges should be organized at subnational, national and supranational levels?
In the past 15 years, Tanzania has made considerable progress in the fight against child undernutrition. This paper analyses in what respects an enabling environment for nutrition action in Tanzania has emerged. It critically investigates the nature of government political commitment and assesses the breadth and depth of a range of public policies, initiatives and actions within and across nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive sectors, and at the national, sub-national and community levels.
Despite the key role of actor networks in progressing new sustainable technologies, there is a shortage of conceptual knowledge on how policy can help strengthen collaborative practices in such networks. The objective of this paper is to analyze the roles of such policies – so-called network management – throughout the entire technological development processes.
Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge.