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?

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.

Cities are highly visible centers of mass consumption of food and vast excretion of waste; they are less often associated with the production of food. Yet closer observation of cities in the Global South reveals that they are also locations of food production. This report describes the major challenges affecting crop cultivation and animal raising as well as food consumption in and around cities, where many households are poorly fed, negatively affected by unsustainable urbanization processes, and threatened with a warming and disease-prone world.

Brazil has transformed from being a net food importer, to one of the largest agricultural exporters in the world. The country is now one of the top global funders of agricultural innovation, with a special emphasis on funding R&D for sustainable agriculture. While food insecurity and environmental challenges exist in many parts of Brazil, social programs and funding in innovation have helped those in need.

To meet the growing demand for food in the Global South in a sustainable manner, current funding in agricultural innovation will need to be increased exponentially. Some estimates suggest up to USD 320 billion annually is required to help meet the UN SDG Goals for food and agriculture by 2030. Current levels of funding for agriculture and agricultural innovation fall far short of this and hence efforts to induce more funding for these goals, including through the use of new financing instruments1, is critical going forward.

The only specialized multilateral development institution focused exclusively on rural development, IFAD has successfully used agriculture as a means of poverty reduction – contributing ~USD 22 billion in funding to date1. About 90% of IFAD's portfolio is focused on Low to Middle Income (LMI) countries. IFAD stands out with its nutrition and gender-sensitive lenses coupled with investments in climate-resilient agriculture – mainstreaming nutrition, gender, and climate change work in agriculture.

Agricultural innovation has played a critical role in the economic transformation of developing East Asian countries over the past half century. This transformation began with the diffusion and adoption of high-yielding seed varieties, modern fertilizers, and other agricultural technologies (for example, pesticides, machinery), commonly known as the Green Revolution.

This paper discusses innovation in low and middle-income countries, focusing on the role it has played in local and national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lessons from this effort for how innovation might be harnessed to address wider development and humanitarian challenges by mobilising resources, improving processes, catalysing collaboration and encouraging creative and contextually grounded approaches. The paper also examines how international development and humanitarian organisations can improve their support for local and national innovation efforts.

One-fifth of the innovative solutions to fight the Covid-19 pandemic have emerged from low and middle-income countries, and these responses offer promising insights for how we think about, manage, and enable innovation. As the international community now faces the historic challenge of vaccinating the world, more attention and resources must be directed to the innovators who are developing technically novel, contextually relevant, and socially inclusive alternatives to mainstream innovation management practices.