This publication presents the GEF-6 biodiversity strategy for 2014-2018. As the financial mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) the GEF provides funding to help countries implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020, and achieve the Aichi Targets. I am pleased that donors during the recently completed replenishment pledged $1.296 billion towards the biodiversity focal area for GEF-6, making it the largest individual focal area within the GEF.
The document summarizes the GEF Council's decision to approve the Strategic Approach to Enhancing Capacity Building in November 2003. In approving the strategy, the Council requested the GEF Secretariat, in collaboration with the Implementing Agencies and the monitoring and evaluation unit, to undertake further work to operationalize it.
To meet multiple environmental objectives, integrated programming is becoming increasingly important for the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Integration of multiple environmental, social and economic objectives also contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a timely and cost-effective way. However, integration is often not well defined. This report therefore focuses on identifying key aspects of integration and assessing their implementation in natural resources management projects.
The present essay aims to present a partial view of the evolution of thought on business management and economics of organizations applied to agriculture and identifies perspectives for empirical studies. The paper contains four topics. Following this introduction, the second part revisits the concept of agribusiness systems, the third part presents the institutional/property rights perspective and contractual approach, and part four suggests research issues in the field of economics of organizations
This paper assesses how institutional interactions can strengthen effectiveness, by focusing on three multi-stakeholder partnerships for renewable energy. Based on an expert survey and semi-structured interviews, the study provides both theoretical and empirical contributions to understanding institutional interactions in relation to effectiveness. Moreover, it provides insights on how to strengthen the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder partnerships for renewable energy
The objective of this article is to increase the understanding of the indicator landscape and to complement the various stages of the innovation process with relevant indicators. In doing so, this study categorizes the identified indicators into company-specific and contextual dimensions. Furthermore, this study analyzes the indicators in terms of their potential for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation and investigates the characteristics of relevant publications. The analysis finds that more process rather than product indicators exist in the literature.
The concept of innovation ecosystems has become popular during the last 15 years, leading to a debate regarding its relevance and conceptual rigor, not the least in this journal. The purpose of this article is to review received definitions of innovation ecosystems and related concepts and to propose a synthesized definition of an innovation ecosystem.
There is sufficient evidence, drawn from surveys of innovation in the public sector and cognitive testing interviews with public sector managers, to develop a framework for measuring public sector innovation. Although many questions that are covered in the Oslo Manual guidelines for measuring innovation in the private sector can be applied with some modifications to the public sector, public sector innovation surveys need to meet policy needs that require collecting additional types of data.
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?
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.