A Policy Taxonomy for Agricultural Transformation
This taxonomy is derived from the original framework of four broad categories and nine sub-categories used in Transforming Agriculture in Africa & Asia: What are the policy priorities?
What are the policies that drive agricultural transformation? And how can they be classified to support decision making? These are the key questions that drove the development of a policy taxonomy for agricultural transformation, with a focus on those that affect prices in agricultural markets.
This taxonomy is derived from the original framework of four broad categories and nine sub-categories used in Transforming Agriculture in Africa and Asia: What Are the Policy Priorities? and an assessment of over 250 articles. This taxonomy moves beyond the category approach. Instead, it examines the underlying target of the policy, i.e., whether the policy is primarily targeting agricultural markets, the rural economy, the macroeconomy, or the institutions that shape socioeconomic relationships. This shift in approach was designed to help decision-makers prioritize options.
For more detailed information please see the longer report Agricultural Bias in Focus.
You might also be interested in
How Can We Work With Nature to Tackle Drought and Desertification?
Drought is one of the most devastating and pervasive challenges exacerbated by climate change. However, we can work to reduce its effects through nature-based solutions for land restoration and climate-smart agriculture.
Sustainable Asset Valuation of Land Restoration and Climate-Smart Agriculture in Burkina Faso
This integrated cost-benefit analysis demonstrates the potential of nature-based infrastructure to restore land and combat desertification, aiding communities with climate change adaptation and producing wide-reaching socio-economic benefits.
Carbon Offset Deals and the Risks of “Green Grabbing”
Governments must ensure land-based investments for carbon removal respect the access and tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Rethinking Investment Treaties
International investment treaties and their investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) system are facing growing scrutiny. But what would an alternative system—one fit for the challenges of the 21st century—look like?