基层农技推广体系改革与建设补助项目政策

<正>2015年,中央财政安排基层农技推广体系改革与建设补助项目26亿元,基本覆盖全国农业县。主要用于支持项目县深化基层农技推广体系改革,完善以"包村联户"为主要形式的工作机制和"专家+农业技术人员+科技示范户+辐射带动户"的服务模式,推动农技推广服务信息化工作,改善推广服务手段,推进农技推广服务特岗计划,补充推广人才队伍,全面推进农业科技进村入户。     

论基层农技推广体系的改革与探索

基层农技推广体系是我国农业发展保护体系的重要组成部分。近几年来各地在农技推广体系改革方面进行了积极探索,取得了一定成效。但随着农业结构调整的推进,基层农技推广体系又暴露出了很多不适应新形势的问题。本文试图在农技推广用人机制、服务方式、管理机制及财政保障机制上进行大胆探索与创新,提出加强基层农技体系建设的措施和建议。     

强化公益性——安徽蒙城县推进基层农技体系改革纪实

“有了用武之地” 蒙城是安徽省农村综合改革试点县,近年来,在省、市农业部门的关怀和指导下,该县在推进基层农技推广体系上进行了一些积极探索和尝试,取得了初步成效。目前,基层农技推广体系建设,做到了县有农技推广中心,乡有农业综合服务站,村有科技示范户,基本建立健全了全县农技推广网络。     

要闻快递

推进基层农技推广体系改革要着重把握三个原则农业部副部长危朝安在湖北省宜昌市就基层农业技术推广体系改革问题进行调研时指出,推进基层农技推广体系改革要着重把握好三个原则:一是要强化农技推广机构的公益性服务职能。逐步构建起以国家农业技术推广为主导,农村合作经济组织为基础,农业科研、教育等单位和     

广西贺州市昭平县农技推广体系改革的实践与体会

农技推广是农业发展与进步的动力,基层农技推广体系建设对于农业发展具有十分重要的作用。本文对昭平县基层农技推广体系改革建设工作进行调研,就其进展、经验及仍然存在的一些问题,提出了相关体会和建议。     

建设新型农技推广体系支撑现代农业发展

近年来,基层农技推广体系在全国范围内出现了一系列不适应新形势、新任务的问题,已经严重影响到农业科技推广工作。为尽快从根本上扭转这种状况,2006年8月28日,国务院下发了《关于深化改革加强基层农业技术推广体系建设的意见》（国发[2006]30号）,勾画出了新阶段我国基层农技推广体系改革与建设的“路线图”。今年中央一号文件提出,发展现代农业是社会主义新农村建设的首要任务,要下大力气转变农业增长方式,建设现代农业,促进农业又好又快发展。科学技术是第一生产力。发展现代农业,转变农业增长方式,归根结底,要依靠科技进步。毫无疑问,加快基层农技推广体系改革与建设,将成为积极发展现代农业,扎实推进社会主义新农村建设的一项重要内容。     

广东省基层农技推广体系改革与建设补助项目实施成效探析

基层农技推广体系改革与建设补助项目的实施,促使农技推广管理体制、推广队伍和运行机制建设不断完善,有利于农业产业科学发展。对广东省8个县（市、区）基层农技推广体系改革与建设补助项目的实施情况进行调研,总结了项目实施的主要做法和成效,以及项目实施过程中存在的问题,提出了对策建议。     

农业部副部长危朝安强调——积极推进基层农技推广体系改革和建设

本刊讯 (记者 高康)7月16日,全国基层农技推广体系改革和建设会议在北京召开.农业部副部长危朝安在讲话时强调,各地要深入贯彻落实《国务院关于深化改革加强基层农业技术推广体系建设的意见》,准确把握改革目标,找准改革立足点,以只争朝夕的精神积极推进基层农技推广体系改革和建设.     

浅谈新形势下农技推广工作

我国的农技推广体系是指国家、省、市、县、乡五级农技推广机构.随着计划经济向市场经济的转型和入世后农业市场的激烈竞争,现有的农技推广体系越来越不适应新形势发展的要求,突出表现体制不顺,机制不活,人员素质不高,许多工作难以开展.当前的农技推广体系如何适应深化农业改革的需要,更好的服务"三农",是新时期农技推广人急需研究的课题.     

广东全面试建基层农推广新体系

最近，广东省在高要市召开全省基层农技推广体系建设现场会，会议决定从今年起，在全省范围内推广高要市的经验与做法。这意味着，广东省要全面试行基层农技推广新体系。高要市的基层农技推广体系改革始于2001年，2004年被确定为省农技推广体系改革试点单位和全国基层农技推广体系改革试点县。高要市的做法为，撤销镇级农业技术推广站、农业机械管理服务站、畜牧兽医站、水产技术推广站、林业工作站，重新组建镇级农业综合服务中心。     

国土资源与可持续发展

今天 ,我向大家介绍一下我国国土资源的有关情况 ,并与大家一起学习中央关于国土资源管理的重要指示精神。我的介绍分为三个部分 :一是对国土资源重要地位和作用的认识 ;二是对国土资源面临严峻形势的分析 ;三是保护和合理利用国土资源的对策。一、国土资源的重要地位和作用自然资源包括土地资源、矿产资源、海洋资源、水资源、森林资源、草原资源、生物资源、气候资源、能源资源及自然景观旅游资源等十多种。社会生产离不开资源 ,无论生产创造的财富属于哪一个门类 ,其起始点都必定是自然资源。任何一个国家 ,其经济发展的规模、速度以及稳…     

国土资源科技进步与可持续发展

本文探讨了国土资源科技进步与可持续发展的关系 ,科技进步实现我国现阶段可持续发展的途径 ,对可持续发展的未来进行了展望 ,并提出了若干结论和建议。     

保障抗震救灾粮油质量安全的实践与体会

<正>"5·12"特大地震,给四川省粮食系统造成了重大人员伤亡和巨额经济损失,全省21个市州、148个县(市、区)、618个企业遭受了不同程度的破坏和损失,造成的直接和间接经济损失达到140亿     

江苏省地质环境管理改革发展的目标与路径

江苏省现阶段的主要地质环境问题是由自然因素和人为因素造成和引发的。多年来,江苏省地质环境管理取得了很大成绩,但也存在不少问题。新时期加强地质环境管理要根据江苏省的实际,不断深化认识,健全法制,明确责任,突出重点,拓宽地质环境管理思路;要从政府、企业和社会三方面着手,构建保障社会科学发展的地质环境管理新机制,全面推进地质环境管理改革,为江苏省现代化建设"两个率先"的宏伟目标服务。     

Similarities and dissimilarities between the EU agricultural and rural development model and Romanian agriculture. Challenges and perspectives

The main aims of this study are to highlight the differences and the similarities between the European model of agricultural and rural development, and the state of play in the Romanian agricultural sector. Statistically speaking, the agricultural sector's indicators of the past two decades place Romania outside the family picture of the EU countries, with very slight resemblances, and very strong discrepancies between their economic, technical, and institutional characteristics. At present, competition-wise, farming and farmers in Romania are still strongly disfavoured in relation to their competitors in the old EU Member States. In Romania, the economic and institutional mechanisms have most often been devised to the disadvantage of agricultural production, by claiming that subsistence farming would be the sustainable way, and by channelling the added value to other sectors. An option to continue the agricultural policies of the past decades and to abandon the national support lent to agriculture would be particularly risky through its unpredictable and incalculable social and economic effects.     

Land use planning and health and well-being

This paper is concerned with the relationship between the planning of settlements and health. It gives a brief introduction to the issues before summarising the evidence in relation to a range of topics, concluding with some more speculative thoughts on likely future findings.Modern planning was invented in response to inhumane living conditions in 19th century cities. But in the last century the connection was lost. Only now, with concerns over climate change and obesity, is there beginning to be the realisation that the physical environment is an important determinant of health.The paper uses a particular model of this relationship based on eco-system and health determinants theories to structure the review of evidence. The review covers: lifestyle choices in relation to physical activity and diet, mental well-being and community, the local economy and income, health inequalities and strategic land use transport planning, pollution and urban form, and finally impacts on global ecology.There is now a growing consensus that while personal factors are critical in determining health, the urban environment exacerbates or mitigates health and well-being outcomes.The level of active travel (walking and cycling) and outdoor recreational activity is strongly affected by accessibility to local facilities. Access to green, natural environments, and to local social networks, are factors in mental well-being. The wider sub-regional pattern of housing, economic development, land use and transport is a determinant of social exclusion and therefore health inequalities. It also affects health-damaging pollution, adaptability in the face of climate change and the level of carbon dioxide emissions.We have literally been building unhealthy conditions into many of our towns and cities. But comparisons with the best cities in Europe indicate that it is possible to reverse the less desirable trends. Success depends, however, on more radical policies of local authority control over land and finance than any political party has yet advocated. It also requires collaboration between the full range of powerful public and private organizations that influence the built environment.Future research is likely to further strengthen these conclusions. It will become much more obvious that planning for health and well-being is not only the NHS, but about creating a health-promoting physical, social and economic environment.