Scaling innovations or new solutions goes much beyond the classical deployment of new technologies using market forces. It is also the deployment at scale of new practices or solutions that are local in a bottom up approach combining a diverse set of approaches.

The methodological approach below is derived from two programmes, A first one is the CGIAR programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). A second one is the Climate Smart Agriculture Booster of Climate-KIC aiming to deploy CSA solutions at scale in Europe. The key role of the assessment methodology stems very much from the work of Poverty Action Lab and of Esther Duflo.  

Agricultural practices and the farming systems in which they are embedded are in general local and specific. They are therefore an appropriate test case for scaling and more generally to examine what scaling local solutions entails or even whether it makes sense at all. Many lessons from the programmes mentioned above remain to be derived. This article proposes a novel methodological approach to scaling good climate smart agricultural practices.

The problem of scalability of agricultural solutions or practices has two components. The first one can be summarized by the question  “is the solution good?”. This refers to the capacity of a solution to address the problem at stake, in this case to either mitigate or adapt to climate change. The second question, which can be stated as “can the solution be replicated in other contexts” relates to the capacity of the solution to be deployed at scale in other farms or other contexts, and, if so, by which combination of approaches.

So let us consider these two questions in detail.

What is good?

A farm can be represented as a system that manages resources (land, labour, inputs, energy…) under a set of constraints (availability of resources, policy or incentive measures & constraints…), so as to maximise a certain function (in general its annual profit, but  happiness of its inhabitants could also be targeted). This system tends to operate in an optimal way at least in the short term. Its medium and longer term viability is generally not clearly considered by the farmer (especially if the economic situation is not prosperous) since the annual cycle of production takes precedence over the longer term perspectives.

In our view,  a “good” solution for a farm system entails different aspects.

The first and most obvious one is “does the new solution work well for the farmer?”. This in turn has at least two dimensions: (i) can the solution fit in the system, is it compatible with its resources and constraints and (ii) does the new solution generate increased profit for the farmer. The “profit” dimension needs to be approached with a broad perspective: a solution may not generate profit directly but impact the other resources and constraints allowing the evolution of the system in a positive way and thus have an indirect link to profitability.

The other components of the “good “ relate to the way the new solution delivers other “values” for the farmer (e.g. to his health, family life quality, well-being of all farm inhabitants including animals-, for common goods of the society and the planet (e.g. biodiversity, climate change mitigation…). Many of these contributions to common goods are not immediately tangible for the farmers.

Obviously not all solutions are “good”. Assessing them along the two dimensions of “good” is therefore critical and needs to be carried out carefully. In general a proper solution combines a technology or a new practice and the way it can be introduced in the farming system. In the case of a CSA solution, we will simplify the problem by assessing:

1. the feasibility of introducing the new solution in a variety of farms or farming systems
2. the economic profit it may generate in the different cases,
3.   the welfare of farm inhabitants (from staff to animals to plants)
4. the related impacts on climate that can be achieved

Because the farms and their systems are variable, several trials are ideally needed for a proper evaluation (and the Randomized Controlled Trial approach could be used in certain cases). The 4 criteria mentioned above ideally need to be assessed in a set of farms able to provide an unbiased distribution of results in a given region/context.

What is scalable?

Once the “goodness” of a solution has been assessed, only half of the work is achieved. Being good does not mean a solution is scalable, thus being replicable in another context.

In the case of Climate Smart Agriculture a good solution is a solution that is applicable and acceptable by a farmer and that has tangible effects on greenhouse gas emissions, on carbon sequestration and on the resilience of the system. It fulfils at least criteria #1 and #4.

The scalability and the scaling approach of a “good” solution will depend very much on the economic benefit it may generate for the farmer (criterion #2) and on the increased welfare of the farm inhabitants (criterion #3). These two criteria are combined below into the notion of “profit”.

The deployment of a solution that increases the farmer’s economic and welfare benefits (i.e. a profit-positive one) is likely to be feasible using classical business approaches resting on good marketing and/or support from extension services. It may quite often require specific incentives to overcome behaviour, policy or financial barriers. For instance, many solutions can be implemented only if a group of farmers decide to implement them (e.g. build cooperatives). This is the case in particular for capital intensive solutions. In other cases new solutions may require the construction of entire new value chains (e.g. biofuel production and integration in the gas grid).

But many good solutions for the climate are not profit-positive for the farmers as shown by marginal cost abatement curves of climate smart agricultural solutions. While solutions that increase the energy efficiency of the production system are in general profit-positive, many others are either profit-neutral or even profit-negative. For instance solutions changing fertilisation practices to reduce N2O emissions are close to profit neutrality but their implementation requires overcoming several barriers due to risk management practices of the farmers: reducing application rates is often associated with a greater risk of crop failure, which may be dealt with using insurance principles. Many adaptation measures like improving crop varieties or risk management practices are profit-negative, at least in the short term. Their effects are, almost by definition, tangible only after a few years when climatic conditions are likely to have sufficiently affected the system.

In the case of profit-negative solutions, scaling is only possible if the common good generated can be transformed into tangible value for the farmers. This can be achieved if other actors of the value chain or society (through consumers or its policy makers) agree to pay for the loss of profit. This may look very difficult but is already a common practice. In many countries (incl. EU) agriculture is one of the economic practices already heavily subsidised by the state. Farmers are thus often paid for “landscape gardening”, for risk mitigation in case of international turmoil (trying to lessen the dependence on imported food) etc. Furthermore consumers are becoming increasingly sensitive to the impacts of their consumptive practices on the environment and an increasing number of them would be willing to pay more for climate-smart products -if a proper certification approach could be implemented. Other actors such as transformers or retailers may also wish to take action for climate through their CSR policies or because of regulatory pressure. These actors can play a critical role in the evolution of the practices since many farmers enter into contracts with them.

Scaling CSA solutions that are profit-neutral for the farmers fit in-between the two preceding cases. Policies, incentives or new regulations are required in that case. There may be also barriers in the behaviour of the farmers to understand precisely as explained for the case of fertilization practices.  

These examples highlight that scaling of innovative CSA solutions will require smart approaches that look much beyond the farming system. These approaches need to rely on:

–    behaviour change

–    policy or regulations

–    incentives or subsidies (including carbon certificates)

–    value chain measures ensuring value transfer to the relevant actors  

As shown by the examples of CGIAR on scaling CSA, it is often a mix of these approaches that is appropriate. Agriculture is one of the areas where scaling of new practices or new technologies is very difficult. Solutions are dependent on the local context, farmers are difficult to convince, solutions are not often clearly profit positive, agriculture production is at least as dependent on subsidies than on simple markets mechanisms. In addition, it is critical to remember that farmers are risk managers and that their behaviour can often only be understood if this dimension is considered, too.  

Finally, we completely endorse the view of Esther Duflo that “there is no trade-off between scaling-up and evaluation” since the two need to work together. Scaling solutions for climate smart agriculture entails a sequence of assessments that progressively ensures the steps depicted above are implemented. A typical sequence is summarized in the graph below. An important element introduced here is the differentiation of assessing the good and developing ways to replicate the solution at scale.  

The proposed method involves also an ex-post assessment which provides a comprehensive estimate of the total costs associated with the development and deployment costs of a solution. These costs include beyond the cost a unit solution all transaction and marketing costs required for the deployment of the solution at scale. These ex-posts or at least a good estimate of these are required for the development of a CSA programme in order to select the most cost-effective solutions.

In conclusion, a set of principles can be derived from initial case studies (Climate-KIC, CGIAR):

1. Farmer and farming system need to be at the centre. A new practice, a new solution needs to fit in a farming system
2. Value chains are also central. Benefits need to be generated somewhere in the value chain or new value chains need to be developed. The challenge is to ensure that these benefits are shared between the different actors and especially with those at the origin of it i.e. the farmers
3. Even if top-down approaches may be required, bottom-up is the key to success. Finding the champions that may accelerate the adoption of innovative solutions is probably one of the keys. How many of these are needed for a given solution depends probably on the profitability of the solution to be scaled. An appropriate choice of the main connectors in a social network is at the same time feasible and effective (see for instance Gossip: identifying central individuals in a social network)
4. Policies, behavioural approaches, economic incentives, champions, value chains approaches are in general complementary and need to be canvassed in a proper way to ensure the success of any scaling action