This working paper summarizes the findings of a portfolio review conducted to explore the gender and youth responsiveness of climate-smart agriculture technologies tested across climate-smart villages. The innovative and integrative aspect of the Climate-Smart Village (CSV) approach can provide useful insights into how to decrease the gender gap in the context of climate change.
Participatory action research (PAR) has been around for years, and can add significant value to agriculture research for development projects. The use of PAR in climate-smart villages (CSVs) is no different. This review aimed to assess the impact that PAR approaches had on the adoption of CSA practices and technologies, with an emphasis on gender and social inclusion. Through a portfolio review, interviews with regional CSV teams, and surveys sent to local partners, this report demonstrates the benefit of PAR use in the implementation of the CSV approach.
The evidence base on agri-food systems is growing exponentially. The CoSAI-commissioned study, Mining the Gaps, applied artificial intelligence to mine more than 1.2 million publications for data, creating a clearer picture of what research has been conducted on small-scale farming and post-production systems from 2000 to the present, and where evidence gaps exist.
A range of approaches and financial instruments have been used to stimulate and support innovation in agriculture and resolve interlocking constraints for uptake at scale. These include innovation platforms, results-based payments, value chain approaches, grants and prizes, incubators, participatory work with farmer networks, and many more.
Agriculture is crucial for the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and is one of the main drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss and resource degradation. The contribution of agriculture to these environmental problems has been exacerbated by subsidies, which constitute the dominant public policy to support farmers. At the same time, other economic instruments introducing more sustainable land-use practices and incentivizing better environmental and social outcomes are already being applied worldwide.
The study was designed to answer the following three key questions:
(1) What types of investment instruments have been tested to support innovation in agri-food systems in the Global South, and how can these be categorized into a working typology?
(2) What is the evidence on how well different instruments have supported SAI's multiple objectives (e.g. social equality and environmental) at scale and what contextual and design factors affect their success or failure in achieving these objectives (e.g. type of value chain, who participates)?
This shift in thinking will require major shifts in policy, research, and investment. But where should these investments go? What foundations should be strengthened? Which gaps need filling? What’s working? What’s not?
In order to answer these questions in an informed way, we need to examine the evidence that exists and identify areas where more research is needed.
But this is easier said than done.
What are the patterns of funding in agricultural innovation for the Global South1 ? Who are the key funders in this innovation and who are the key recipients? How doesthis funding split between various topics and value chains? What proportion of these funds support Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)? And how is SAI innovation funding split across different parts of the agriculture sector funding and innovation canvas?