This report is part of the AFRHINET project under the ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Science and Technology (S&T II). The overall aims of the project are to enhance options for sustainable integration of rainwater harvesting for irrigation through understanding adoption constraints and developing networks for capacity building and technology transfer. The African partners are Addis Ababa University and WaterAid-Ethiopia in Ethiopia, University of Nairobi and ICRAF-Searnet in Kenya, Eduardo Mondlane University in Mozambique, and University of Zimbabwe and ICRISAT-Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe.
This study has been produced with the overall goal to document and analyse exisiting best practices in the field of RWHI management in sub-Saharan Africa, with a special focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This is meant to determine the suitability of RWHI management under multivariate biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. The best practices include specific information and know-how on the performance, cost-efficiency and impacts of RWHI technologies.
These recommendations are a compilation of 2 regional studies at sub-Saharan Africa level which focused on research and technology transfer in the field of rainwater harvesting irrigatio nmanagement on one hand (section 3), and effective policy recommendations on the use of rainwater for off-season small-scale irrigation on the other (section 4). The regional studies upon which this transnational study is based come from the analysis of national studies in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
This Economic and Sector Work paper, “Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems,” was initiated as a result of the international workshop, “Development of Research Systems to Support the Changing Agricultural Sector,” organized by the Agriculture and Rural Development Department of the World Bank in June 2004 in Washington, DC.
The CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) is a research in development program which aims to foster innovation to respond to community needs, and through networking and social learning to bring about development outcomes and impact at scale. It aims to reach the poorest and most vulnerable communities that are dependent upon aquatic agricultural systems. AAS uses monitoring and evaluation to track progress along identified impact pathways for accountability and learning.
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.
The present case study investigated a policy-induced agricultural innovation network in Brandenburg.
This report describes the 2012 NAIS Assessment was piloted in 4 countries: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire, open-ended interview questions, and data mining of secondary sources. A team led by a national coordinator took charge of data collection from various partner organizations in each country.
This report summarizes the international symposium organized on 21 June 2016 by the Tropical Agricultural Platform (TAP) to discuss capacity development for food security and nutrition in Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS). In addition, the symposium aimed to present the findings of the e-conference on "Innovation systems for food security and nutrition: understanding the capacities needed" that took place between 18 April and 13 May 2016.
Agriculture is among the most risk-prone sectors in the economies of Central Asia. Production shocks from weather, pests and diseases and adverse movements in agricultural product and input prices not only impact farmers and agri-business firms, but can also strain government finances. Some of these risks are small and localized and can be managed by producers. Others are the result of more severe, exogenous shocks outside agriculture that require a broader response.