Suchergebnisse

An increasing number of governments around the world have developed a bioeconomy strategy. These strategies have important implications for the agricultural sector, technological innovation as well as sustainability and food security. The cross-cutting nature of the bioeconomy demands synergies and links between value chains to create innovations for optimal use of biomass for industrial purposes without creating competition for food products. Institutional networks are pivotal for the sustainable production and use of biological resources, as well as for the development of innovative processes to exploit the potential of biomass. This working paper uses three cases studies to explore aspects that need to be addressed to take advantage of the considerable untapped potential of the bioeconomy. The first case study highlights determinants of persisting low maize yields in northern Ghana, despite the introduction of a fertilizer subsidy program. Input subsidy policies are largely regarded as an instrument to increase crop productivity and contribute to food security. The second case study explores the role of female-led market institutions in Ghana. Markets are central to the development of the bioeconomy and as such, trader organizations have a key role to play in the value chain. The third case study investigates how well Brazil, the world leader in sugarcane production, is positioned to realize the shift from a fossil-based to a bio-based economy (bioeconomy). Subsequently, the role institutions and networks play in the development of the bioeconomy in two countries at different points of the value chain are discussed. We conclude that strengthening efforts to tailor site-specific solutions that consider the interdisciplinary nature of crop production, marketing, and development of processes is crucial to the bioeconomy. Overall, more attention to innovation networks is required to master the challenges of the bioeconomy and take full advantage of its opportunities.

While there is consensus on the need to promote agricultural development in Africa to achieve food security and use agriculture as an engine of growth, there is a lively policy debate on appropriate policies to achieve this goal. In the past two decades, there has been a revival of policies that favor government support to agriculture in Africa, especially in the form of input subsidies. Such policies have remained highly controversial, reflecting a long-standing dichotomy in agricultural development policy between those who consider subsidies as essential to increase agricultural productivity and those who criticize such state-focused policy instruments and favor market-oriented approaches. In the literature, agricultural policy choices have mainly been analyzed using models that capture economic or political interests. Some studies have focused on policy beliefs to explain the dichotomy, but what has not received much attention is the use of language in agricultural policy discourses, in spite of increasing evidence that narratives matter for policy-making. To address this gap, we combine the Advocacy Coalition Framework with Narrative Policy Analysis to examine agricultural policy discourses in Senegal. Applying a cluster analysis to coded transcripts of in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders, we identified two opposing advocacy coalitions and labelled them "agricultural support coalition" and an "agricultural support critique coalition". An analysis of the argumentative structure of the narratives of each coalition revealed interesting differences: while the agricultural support coalition told a range of straight-forward stories that explain how government support, such as input subsidies, addresses the problem of low agricultural productivity, the opposing coalition formulated their stories mostly in the form of critiques rather than telling equally straight-forward counter-stories. Based on the analysis, we examine possible meta-narratives, which take arguments of both coalitions into account and may have the potential to overcome the long-standing dichotomy in agricultural development. ; Peer Review

African farm systems remain the least mechanized of all continents. There were substantial state-led efforts to promote agricultural mechanization during the 1960s and 1970s, but these efforts failed, which led to a subsequent neglect of mechanization, both in practice and in academia. In practice, this situation has changed more recently as governments, development practitioners and private companies have re-discovered agricultural mechanization as a top priority. In academia, scholars are also gradually devoting more effort to study mechanization. However, there is still a large gap in the literature from several decades of neglecting mechanization. In this empirical vacuum, several claims around mechanization have emerged in the public debate. While some of them are accurate, many are too simplistic and some are plainly wrong or 'myths'. Such popular myths can mislead policies and programs to promote mechanization and lead to adverse effects on farmers. This paper presents a fact check on nine propositions regarding mechanization. Which ones are true? Which ones are false? To answer these questions, the study uses most of the recent literature on mechanization, thereby also providing a review of the current literature on agricultural mechanization in Africa. The paper draws up implications for future research and action.

African farm systems remain the least mechanized of all continents. There were substantial state-led efforts to promote agricultural mechanization during the 1960s and 1970s, but these efforts failed, which led to a subsequent neglect of mechanization, both in practice and in academia. In practice, this situation has changed more recently as governments, development practitioners and private companies have re-discovered agricultural mechanization as a top priority. In academia, scholars are also gradually devoting more effort to study mechanization. However, there is still a large gap in the literature from several decades of neglecting mechanization. In this empirical vacuum, several claims around mechanization have emerged in the public debate. While some of them are accurate, many are too simplistic and some are plainly wrong or "myths". Such popular myths can mislead policies and programs to promote mechanization and lead to adverse effects on farmers. This paper presents a fact check on nine propositions regarding mechanization. Which ones are true? Which ones are false? To answer these questions, the study uses most of the recent literature on mechanization, thereby also providing a review of the current literature on agricultural mechanization in Africa. The paper draws up implications for future research and action.

This chapter presents the information derived from the stakeholder interviews, guided by the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 3. The first section describes the major actors and their interests as well as their political resources and strategies, with the exception of the major political parties, which are discussed in Chapter 9. The second section identifies major discourse coalitions and describes their belief systems and discourses. The third section reflects on the extent to which policy learning across coalitions has taken place or could take place. This information provides the basis for an analysis of the political feasibility of different reform options and strategies, which is presented in Chapter 11. ; PR ; IFPRI1 ; EPTD

This chapter derives policy implications from the analysis presented in the previous chapters. The section "Reform Options" presents policy options that address the different problems associated with electricity supply to agriculture. The section "Evaluating Reform Options" assesses the political feasibility of the different options, based on the description and analysis presented in Chapters 9 and 10. ; PR ; IFPRI1 ; EPTD

Whereas in India fertilizer policy is the responsibility of the federal government, electricity policy is a joint responsibility of the central government and the states. This chapter provides an overview of the two states that have been selected for the empirical analysis of electricity supply to agriculture: Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. ; PR ; IFPRI1 ; EPTD

This chapter describes the political processes related to electricity subsidies, power-sector reforms, and irrigation- and groundwater-management policies. ; PR ; IFPRI1 ; EPTD