The document discusses the challenge of scaling climate-smart agricultural practices from pilot options to widespread adoption. It identifies four key areas for intervention: incentivizing, risk coping, partnering, and including. For each area, it provides examples of strategies that can be used to enable scaling, such as modifying costs/benefits, managing risks through different world views, configuring partnership capacities, and bringing together multiple dimensions of inclusion. The overall goal is to act as "system builders" and "web weavers" to facilitate the conditions needed for scaling climate-smart agriculture through a combination of business practices, localized adaptations, inclusive approaches, and managing leverage points within partnerships.

1. Connecting business and scaling
The institutional design challenge
Sietze Vellema
Wageningen University & Research
DRAGON make big changes with little resources
CSA 2019, Side event, Bali, October 10
GCP4 NWO CCAFS
i-LED (inclusive Low Emission Dairy development in East Africa)

2. The challenge: from CSA options to scale
Donella Meadows:
“small shift in one thing can
produce changes in
everything”
Where and
how to
intervene in
the system?

3. Incentivizing
Partnering
Risk coping Including

4. Incentivizing
Align incentives; few are effective on their own
o modify the costs and benefits structure
o reinforce certainty for reaching expected revenues
o enable the intensification of farming systems
o enhance farmers factor returns
o improve marketing margins
Marcel van Asseldonk, Evan Girvetz, Haki Pamuk, Cor
Wattel and Ruerd Ruben. Forthcoming. Policy incentives
for smallholder adoption of climate-smart agricultural
practices

5. Risk coping
Blend world views and management styles
o Outcomes can be managed sustainably
o Outcomes are a personal responsibility and
achievement
o Outcomes require altruism and common effort
o Outcomes are a function of chance
 O’Riordan, T., & Jordan, A. (1999). Institutions,
climate change and cultural theory: towards a
common analytical framework. Global Environmental
Change, 9(2), 81-93.

6. Partnering
Configure capacities to make partnerships
developmental
o Deliberation capacities
o Alignment capacities
o Transformative capacities
o Fitting capacities
 Vellema, Sietze, Schouten, Greetje, & Van Tulder, Rob
(2019) Partnering capacities for inclusive
development in food provisioning. Development
Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12466
 Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to
intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute:
Hartland. Accessed May 21, 2019 at:
http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-
places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

7. Including
Bring together multiple dimensions of the
process of inclusion
o Voice
o Ownership
o Reward
o Risk
 Vermeulen S, Cotula L (2010). Making the most of agricultural
investment: A survey of business models that provide
opportunities for smallholders. IIED.
 Chamberlain WO, Anseeuw W. (2018). Inclusiveness revisited:
Assessing inclusive businesses in South African agriculture.
Development Southern Africa:1-16.
 Thorpe J. (2018). Procedural Justice in Value Chains Through
Public–private Partnerships. World Development: 103:162-75.
 Seelos C., J. Mair (2014). Organizational closure competencies
and scaling: a realist approach to theorizing social enterprise.
In: Jeremy Short (ed.) Social Entrepreneurship and Research
Methods. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.147 – 187.
 Seelos C., J. Mair (2017). Innovation and scaling for impact:
how effective social enterprises do it. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

8. Conditions for scaling -> team
• Configuration of business and localized practices
• Smart engineers
• Inclusive vocabulary
• Institutional workers
• Partnerships managing leverage points
• -> System builders
• Business practice fits risk coping strategies in real markets
• -> Web weavers