Innovation has a high potential for increasing productivity and farmers’ income,l and consequently reducing poverty and improving food security. However several tropic al countries lack the resources and capacities to suitably develop their agricultural innovation systems. To address this gap, the g20 established the tropical agriculture platform (tap), a multilateral dynamic facilitation mechanism, which fosters better coherence and greater impact of capacity development for agricultural innova tion systems in tropical countries.
Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), or FAW, is an insect native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas. In the absence of natural controls or good management, it can cause significant damage to crops. It prefers maize, although it can feed on more than 80 additional species of crops including rice, sorghum, millet, sugarcane, vegetable crops and cotton.
This document is part of the project “Strengthening the adaptive capacity to climate change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector of Chile”, executed by the Undersecretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Ministry of the Environment, and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with funding from the Global Environment Facility. The work was implemented in four pilot coves: Caleta Riquelme (Tarapacá); Caleta Tongoy (Coquimbo); Caleta Coliumo (Biobío); and Caleta El Manzano-Hualaihué (Los Lagos).
In Asia and the Pacific, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is working with member countries to leverage breakthroughs in information and communication technologies (ICT) to fight hunger, improve nutrition and counter the effects of climate change and extreme weather events that can devastate farmers and their crops. In the Philippines, a country prone to typhoons, aerial drones are taking to the sky to map out at-risk areas of agricultural land to mitigate risk. This innovative practice is also able to quickly assess damages when a disaster strikes.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) partnered with the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) in 2011 to conduct a series of policy dialogues on the prioritization of demand-driven agricultural research for development in South Asia. Dialogues were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal in mid-2012 and this report captures feedback from those dialogues.
These proceedings include all the papers presented during the AISA workshop either as oral papers or as posters. It also includes the edited text resulting from the Living Keynote process, an innovation in itself.
The AISA workshop was held on 29-31 May 2013 in Nairobi, Kenya, as part of an international week devoted to Agricultural innovation in Africa. The AISA workshop focused on active social learning among participants, developed a collective "living keynote" about the following issues:
Based on international literature, preliminary experiences in a three-country West African research programme, and on the disappointing impact of agricultural research on African farm innovation, the current paper argues that institutional change demands rethinking the pathways to innovation so as to acknowledge the role of rules, distribution of power and wealth, interaction and positions. The time is opportune: climate change, food insecurity, high food prices and concomitant riots are turning national food production into a political issue also for African leaders.
This policy brief deals with the following points: (i) Given the importance of agriculture and the rural medium for countries’ growth and development, policy makers must strengthen the institutional structure of rural extension and increase public and private investment; (ii) Abundant natural resources, knowledge, technology, and extensionists are not enough.
This report is concerned with the ‘who?’ ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of pro-poor extension. It builds on the analytical framework proposed in the Inception Report of the same study (Christoplos, Farrington and Kidd, 2001), taking it forward by fleshing out the analysis with empirical information gathered from several countries during the course of the study (from primary data in Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda and Vietnam, and from secondary sources in a range of other countries, including India), and drawing conclusions on the scope for action by governments and donors in a range of contexts.
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.