Suchergebnisse

This paper argues for altering the predominant notion of which factors are variables and which are fixed or given in agricultural research. Instead of the current inclination to see technologies as given and the conditions under which they are used as variable (assuming that in due time poor people gain access to credit, better land, and so forth), agricultural research should consider technologies as the variable factor. Agricultural research should aim at developing technologies that can be usefully employed given the existing, often adverse, conditions. Thus, it should target technology development towards farmers', and especially poor farmers' resource endowments. (DÜI-Hff)

In the mid-1990s, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) expanded its mission beyond sustainable improvements in productivity and formally incorporated a poverty focus. At the same time it initiated a process for the System to become explicitly output and impact oriented. As a result, social science research has become an integral part of the CGIAR research agenda and the research implementation process. And there is evidence that research in the social and anthropological disciplines is permeating the CGIAR research. However, there is a need for a systematic effort to facilitate the formulation and implementation of an updated social science research agenda that is commensurate with the new CGIAR vision and strategy. This is particularly important in facilitating the true integration of social research into the CGIAR research agenda, a need that has been strongly highlighted by external reviews in recent years. This article emphasises that there is a need to foster a research culture and ethos in the CGIAR that will promote a development-oriented synthesis of socially responsible research that integrates biophysical and human sciences in CGIAR research planning and implementation processes along the research-to-development continuum in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. (Original abstract)

In the mid-1990s, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) expanded its mission beyond sustainable improvements in productivity & formally incorporated a poverty focus. At the same time it initiated a process for the System to become explicitly output & impact oriented. As a result, social science research has become an integral part of the CGIAR research agenda & the research implementation process. & there is evidence that research in the social & anthropological disciplines is permeating the CGIAR research. However, there is a need for a systematic effort to facilitate the formulation & implementation of an updated social science research agenda that is commensurate with the new CGIAR vision & strategy. This is particularly important in facilitating the true integration of social research into the CGIAR research agenda, a need that has been strongly highlighted by external reviews in recent years. This article emphasizes that there is a need to foster a research culture & ethos in the CGIAR that will promote a development-oriented synthesis of socially responsible research that integrates biophysical & human sciences in CGIAR research planning & implementation processes along the research-to-development continuum in agriculture, forestry, & fisheries. 2 Tables, 2 Figures, 2 Appendixes, 31 References. Adapted from the source document.

Australia produces sufficient food to contribute to the diets of at least 60 million people per year. But when the outcomes of Australian investments in agricultural science, technology and training are taken into account, Australia contributes towards the diets of an order of magnitude more people—possibly as many as 400 million per year1. The numbers of poor people benefiting from Australian scientific expertise could be increased through well-targeted investments in agricultural research in priority countries and regions, including Africa. Investing in agricultural research for development fits the high moral purposes of the Australian aid program, as reflected in its five strategic goals and 10 development objectives, which are set out in the government strategy 'An effective aid program for Australia: making a real difference—delivering real results'.2 It relates particularly to three of the development objectives: improving food security by investing in agricultural productivity; improving incomes, employment and enterprise opportunities for poor people; and reducing the negative impacts of climate change and other environmental factors on poor people. The strategic framework for international agricultural research within Australia's aid program as developed in this report in relation to Why? Where? What? and How? gives emphasis towards forming longer term partnerships of up to 15 years. These partnerships would have some of the following characteristics: • The priority themes would be determined according to the priorities of the developing countries and matched with Australia's capacity to contribute. • There would be a commitment from the partner developing country or regional entity to ensure an enduring development. • Partnerships would include research in the social sciences and humanities as well as the natural sciences; including economic research on the links between increasing scientific research for sustainable productivity growth and reducing poverty. • Each partnership would require a training component—from TAFE-level certificate to PhD—with most of the training done in country. It is understood that shorter term, project-based work of around 3 years duration may be important in some instances, such as in timely response to natural disasters, but should not be dominant. A 'Team Australia' approach should be taken to avoid parallel pathways and lead to a more cohesive Australian effort in support of international agricultural research. It is understood that much of Australian aid will be focused in our near neighbourhood of Asia and the Pacific. Nevertheless, emerging issues—such as those facing Africa—should continue to be included in Australian aid, as part of our being a responsible global citizen. The panel's findings imply that there are some steps that can be taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Australian aid delivery in relation to international agricultural research. We draw attention to the following opportunities, as examples emerging from the panel's report. They are cross-referenced to the sections and pages of the panel report where their strategic rationale is described in more detail. The panel commends these steps as examples to the responsible parties for their further consideration and appropriate action.