Nairobi, January 2017

2. Sustainable intensification?
Source: University of Michigan
It is still not clear what sustainable intensification might
look like on the ground, how it might differ amongst
production systems, in different places, and given
different demand trajectories, and how the tradeoffs
that inevitably arise, might be balanced.
Garnett and Godfray, 2012
In its current use, the term “sustainable
intensification” is often weakly and narrowly
defined, and lacks engagement with key
principles of sustainability
Loos et al. 2014

3. Key considerations for SI R4D
Place research and technical innovation in bio-physical,
social and economic contexts
Spatial dimension (heterogeneity at various levels)
Temporal dimension (drivers of change, trajectories,
systems in transition)
Smallholders farming systems are multi-commodity and
multi-functional
Rural livelihoods increasingly depending on non-farm
activities
Avoid to be lost in ‘complexity’!

4. Agriculture and the environment (link to CCAFS and WLE)
Source: FAO
Shammi Mehra/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Farmers’ Unchecked Crop Burning Fuels India’s Air Pollution
Algae development in
the Sea of Cortes due to
ag. nitrate pollution
Gully erosion in a groundnut field in
Malawi

6. • Over 1 billion people are employed in
world agriculture, representing 1 in 3
of all workers
• In sub-Saharan Africa over 60
percent of the entire workforce are
involved in agriculture
Livelihood, equity and social justice
The role of agriculture varies very much across geographies

7. In Tittonell et al. 2013
Smallholder farming systems: A poverty trap?
Harris and Orr, 2014

8. Complex and tortuous impact pathways
(compared to seed systems and breeding
IP)
Cover the full R4D continuum
- Systems research
- Development of frameworks (analytical
and operational)
- M&E&L is key and needs to include
indicators/metrics
- Impact through complex partnership
with public and private sector (broker
role)
- Technology and knowledge generation
to guide development
-> Need better M&E&L and impact
assessment

9. Herrero et al., 2009

10. Technology
generation
Community to
landscape system
HH farming systemField Institutions &
Markets
Process
research
Enabling &
analysis tools
Output target ‘Last mile providers’
Innovation systemsParticipatory co-innovation & learning
- System interactions:
- Livestock, cash
crops; trees
HH typologies
(livelihood &
biophysical)
Trade-off analyses Bio-economic
models
Geospatial (domains,
impact)
- Knowledge products
- Identify inefficiencies
(markets, providers)
Outcome Increased productivity &
stability of farming systems
Increased income of
smallholder farmers
Scale
- Systems for the future
Increased yield of
maize/wheat for
smallholder farmers
- System impacts
on NRM &
ecosystem services
- Mechanization
Business models
- Communication
products
Sustainable Intensification Framework
- Water
- Nutrients
- Seeds
- Weeds
- Pest & diseases
- Soil health
- Tillage
- Rotation
- Intercropping
Scaling

11. FP 5
Develop
CoA 1.4
Adoption, impact,
M&E&L
CoA 1.1
Foresight and
targeting
CoA 4.2
• Understanding of farmer decision making
processes and adoption patterns.
• Decision support systems
• Institutional arrangements evaluated for
SI potential
CoA 3.1 Elite biotic
and abiotic stress
tolerant
CoA 4.1
• Farming systems analysis to guide targeting
of interventions) for specific environmental
and agroecological contexts
• Understanding and prioritization of actual
and potential demand for SI options across
geographies and landscapes
e d
f
g
h
i
l
m
Integrated knowledge for development and performance feedback to research
CoA 4.3
• Proof of concepts, and knowledge on crop
management interventions
• Participatory technology adaptation
• Options to lower yield gaps, improve
productivity, efficiency, yield stability.
n
o
CoA 4.4
• Business model research and
development
• Partnerships for scaling SI interventions
and assessment of partners’ capacity
• Innovation capacity development R&D
b c
CoA4.4
Partnershipandcollaborationsmodelsforscaling
INFORMATION
INCENTIVES
OPPORTUNITIES
PROCESSESSSCALING
j
k
p
a
a
Knowledge and product flows between CoAs
- 4.3 to 4.1 Integration of agronomy performance into systems analysis
- 4.1 to 4.3 Prioritization for further field scale research in CRPs agro-
ecologies
- Inform participatory research design and prioritized technologies to be
integrated according to agro-ecologies and farm types
- Feedback loop and improvement of framework
- Agronomy/technical know-how to participatory research actors
- Feedback on in-situ performance of technologies and their integration
for further improvement by agronomists
- Meta-level targeting information to systems analysis
- Feedback loop on meta-level foresight and targeting
- Methodological support to SI scaling.
- Provides prototyped decision support tools/Systems
- Feedback to participatory approaches and DST/DSS
- Provide adoption figures + process indicators to CoA 1.4
- Supply of promising germplasm for targeted environments
- Feedback on G×E×M, with emphasis on closing yield gaps
- Business model intelligence to leverage public-private partnerships
- Innovation capacity research and development
- 4.2 to 4.3 integration from research from practice and back (feedback)
g
h
i
j
l
k
m
n
o
p
a
b
c
d
e
f
CoA 4.2
Integration of technological and
institutional options in rural
livelihood systems
CoA 4.1
Multi-scale farming system
framework to better integrate and
enhance adoption of sustainable
intensification options
CoA 4.3
Multi-criteria evaluation and
participatory adaptation of
cropping systems

12. Sustainable Intensification Flagships (FP4) for MAIZE (and WHEAT)
CRP IEA (Item 146): The MAIZE CRP illustrates the type of systems research that would be
useful within the CGIAR. As the evaluation pointed out, systems research conducted within this
CRP focused on the characterization and assessment of trade‐offs in farming systems, the
identification of optimization options, and support for sustainable intensification trajectories.
Methods included surveys, modeling, field experimentation and statistical analysis.