Summary of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) work on Linking Knowledge with Action. This research theme aims to identify ways to catalyze action from knowledge about long-term adaptation, climate risk management and low emissions agriculture so that we can achieve this global vision as quickly as possible.

1. Tackling Innovation in Climate Change Research
Patti Kristjanson + Christine Jost
Science Domain 6 + CCAFS
20 May 2014
ICRAF Research Seminar Nairobi

2. Climate Change – A Wicked Problem
Wicked problems – complex,
uncertain, ever-evolving,
multiplicity of stakeholders
and perspectives
Need to move beyond
expert approach –
evaluation and advice
To consultative processes –
collective understanding and
response
CCAFS. 2013. Unlocking the potential of social learning for climate change and food security:
Wicked problems and non-traditional solutions. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/27781

3. Innovation
"An innovation is something original, new, and important in
whatever field that breaks in to a market or society”.
(Wikepedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation#cite_ref-1, accessed 20 May 2014)
“[An innovation systems] framework embeds technological
change within a larger, more complex system of interactions
among diverse actors, organizational cultures and practices,
learning behaviors and cycles, and rules and norms.
(Spielman et al. Technology in Society, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.10.004)
A process
If you’re not living on the edge, you’re taking up too much space.

4. Researching Innovation in the Context of
Climate Change
Main Question: How do we achieve large-scale
smallholder agricultural development in the
urgent context of climate change?
Knowledge to action approaches
• Research into use – the
loading dock
(Cash et al. Science, Technology & Human Values, 2006, 31(4),
doi: 10.1177/0162243906287547)
• Research in development –
research done in development
contexts with development
partners

5. Focus on Partners
Research prioritization, design, implementation and
evaluation with and by partners
– Problem focused
– Flexible
– Consultative
– Timely discovery
– Established scaling mechanisms
– Ownership
Our Research: Policy, communication, capacity, gender
and social differentiation

6. Evidence-based and forward-looking climate
and agriculture strategies and policies
Strategy: Work with experts (Oxford University) in the field to
develop a CCAFS Scenarios Program
– Supports national and regional climate change strategies and policies
using mixed qualitative/quantitative socio-economic scenarios in 5
CCAFS regions (LA, WA, EA, SA, SEA)
Jumpstarts stakeholders when processes
aren’t available for agriculture and food
security planning in a changing climate
Encourages champions to use scenarios
in promoting planning for climate
change
Engages new partners in policy
processes
Chaudhury, M., J. Vervoort, P. Kristjanson, P. Ericksen, and A. Ainslie. 2012. Reg. Env. Change, DOI 10.1007/s10113-012-0350-1

7. The CCAFS Scenarios Program
Research Question: Can a participatory approach be used to develop regional
socio-economic scenarios for use in climate change and agriculture planning, and
will stakeholders use them?
Approach: Participatory qualitative scenarios quantified with IMPACT and
Globiom (partial equilibrium market models), then backcasting
Key Findings:
– Focus on regional stakeholders and priority setting processes has ensured
suitability of scenarios in specific regional contexts
– 24 initiatives taken forward by participants
– Champions:
• ECOWAS/CCAFS West Africa
• KARI East Africa
• LEAD Pakistan
• ASEAN
• Private sector and media in Southeast Asia
Vervoot et al. Global Environ. Change (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.001
Carey C. 2014. The CCAFS Regional Scenarios Programme: External Evaluation Report on Progress
Towards Programme Outcomes. Copenhagen, Denmark. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/34994

8. The CCAFS Scenarios Program
Lessons Learned: Explorative scenarios and normative back-casting methods have a
steep learning curve, requiring facilitation and capacity building over the longer-term
New question: How can multi-stakeholder-generated, qualitative/quantitative
scenarios be used to improve decision-making for better food security, rural
livelihoods and environments under conditions of climatic and socio-economic
change?
– Bounded, partner-led regional case studies in 5 regions 2014-2015
– Pre-defined policy objective
– Consensus indicators
Challenges
– Policy strategy and planning is a dynamic process with too many variables for controlled research
– Documenting how a case was implemented is as important as evaluating indicators of success

9. Innovative Communication
Strategy: Work with an established private sector ICT company that
reaches millions of farmers (Mediae) to disseminate CSA
information.
Research Question: At what scale can agriculture research and
development stakeholders reach smallholder farmers with CSA
technologies and practices using ICT-based platforms, and what is
the impact in terms of adoption and adaptation?
Approach: 2 new methods to disseminating information
– Television to reach farmers with CSA information
– Multiple platforms for K2A dissemination

10. Shamba Shape-up
Key Findings:
– >3 million weekly viewers
– 8 CG CC technologies
highlighted in season 4
– Proportion viewers
learning something new
89%
– Proportion changing >1
farming practice 46%
Median net soil fertility benefit for Kenya: 13,746,233 US D
Makeover style TV show in EA (Swahili + English)
The Mediae Company – SSU series 2+3 KAPs Report. Dec 2013
ACAR – SSU Series 1 Development Benefit and Systematic Impact Report. Sep 2013

11. Shamba Shape-up
Lessons: When presented in a creative format, dissemination of CSA
information via television can reach a wide audience.
New questions:
– What is the impact in terms of adoption and adaptation?
– Is a video-based product restricted to television, or can its use be by other
partners using different platforms?
– What would be the reach and impact in other regions with other ICT-based
platforms?
2015 objectives:
– Expand the reach of CSA content from the widely successful television
program Shamba Shape-up into other extension platforms in EA.
– Identify ICT-based dissemination and extension opportunities in other CCAFS
regions that have the potential to bring CSA information to millions of
smallholder farmers per region.
– Develop a robust M+E system to measure the impact of ICT-based mass
dissemination of CSA technologies and practices on adoption and adaptation.

12. Research Communication
Strategy: Use ICT to bring people
together to interact with, use and
improve K2A findings
– 5 videos in 2013
– 1 white board teaching tool
– 18 bogs (4,541 UPV) in 2013
– K2A Website (5,729 UPV in 2013)
– 5 learning notes
– 3 policy briefs
– Presentations
– Workshops
– Storyfy
– 2011-2013 Research Publications –
12 journal/book articles, 8 working
papers
Online Communities
– Climate change social learning and
communication:
http://ccsl.wikispaces.com/Sandbox
– CCAFS Impact Pathways and Theory of Change
Resource Site: http://ccafs-ip-toc-
cd.wikispaces.com/
– CCAFS working Group on impact pathways
and M&E for results-based management
GoogleGroup
– Gender, Agriculture and Climate Change
Research Network:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostRecent
=&trk=&gid=6657402
– CGIAR Gender and Agricultural Research
Network CCAFS page:
https://sites.google.com/a/cgxchange.org/ge
nder-ag-research-network/ccafs-gender-and-
climate-change
– CCAFS Gender Researchers Google Group
Lessons Learnt: We are reaching people, but we don’t have indicators of outcomes
Research Question: Are we enabling outcomes with our various communication
platforms?

13. Farmer-led Innovation
Strategy: Embedding research in development processes and
strengthening capacities to innovate and adapt
• e.g. CG partnership with PROLINNOVA – an NGO-led
international network that promotes local innovation processes
Research question: have farmer-led processes of research and
innovation in agriculture and NRM led to improvements in rural
livelihoods?
– Photo: IFPRI

14. Key findings re: Farmer-led innovation
• Greater food and nutrition security - through higher yields, better
storage and increased crop diversity
• In most cases, farmers accumulating savings and investing in assets
• Higher agrobiodiversity and a reduction in use of chemical inputs in
many cases
But,
• Community-level impacts were rarely mentioned
• Experimentation, especially with introduced technologies, tended to
bring more benefits to medium and better-off farmers than to poorer
households, especially women-headed ones
• Institutionalizing the approach (e.g. in extension) remains a big
challenge
Wettasinha et al. 2014, PROLINNOVA with AAS and CCAFS

15. Key Lesson re: Farmer-led innovation
So we have some evidence that farmer-led processes of
research and innovation in agriculture and NRM led to
improvements in rural livelihoods.
But the key lesson is that:
Innovations are often location-specific and cannot be scaled
up easily; it’s the approach of farmer-led experimentation
that can be scaled out.
So, our new research question
becomes: ‘How do we make this
work at scale?’
And, we can only explore this with partners
like PROLINNOVA, local governments or
NGO’s that are supporting this approach on
the ground with communities!
Photo: V.Atakos

16. Climate Change and Social Learning
“If research is genuinely to result in beneficial changes in behaviour, policies
and institutions, research outputs need to be much better informed by and
engaged with the processes through which individuals, communities and
societies learn and adapt their behaviour in the face of change”
Research question: Under what conditions are social learning
approaches effective, replicable and/or scalable, and
sustainable?
Approach: crowdsourcing a large number of case studies that
use the same conceptual framework
Kristjanson et al. Nature Climate Change 4, 5–7 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2080
http://ccsl.wikispaces.com/
Photo: Cgiarclimate

17. Participatory Action Research (PAR)
“PAR in agriculture is a methodology that embraces iterative cycles of co-
inquiry by communities and experts to test potential solutions to problems in
realistic local settings”
While there has been lots of ‘participatory’ research going on, its been largely
diagnostic in nature; what’s new and needed is a longitudinal approach
analyzing the adoption of continually improving solutions to a community’s
most pressing agricultural problems.
Jost, C. 2014. ‘Socially Inclusive Research and Development for Climate Change and Food Security: A
practitioners guide, forthcoming, CCAFS.
Photo: Cgiarclimate

18. Socially Inclusive Research and Development
for Climate Change and Food Security
Initial Strategy: Work with FAO, experienced in using
participatory approaches for understanding issues of gender,
climate change, ag and food security, to refine/target these tools
to address CCAFS initial priority gender research questions,
concerning:
– Male and female awareness and adoption of CSA practices
– Women and men sharing adaptation strategies in climate analogue
villages
– Male and female access and use of climate information
Training guide, available in 3 languages, has been downloaded over 10,000
times
http://hdl.handle.net/10568/21790
Photo:
WORLD
BANK

19. Key findings in implementing these new
gender-CC tools in 3 countries/regions
• Women are constrained in adopting climate-smart ag
practices (lack of cash, assets, access to information,
cultural norms, labour issues, low literacy, etc.)
• CSA research needs to focus on modification of
technologies and practices to overcome constraints, and
catalyze gender-targeted institutional change
• Participatory approaches are a powerful tool for
understanding institutional aspects governing control
over, access to, and use of resources & changes over time
• Descriptive/diagnostic research alone is not sufficient for
catalyzing gender transformation
• Through development partnerships, we can begin to shift
our focus to PAR-based exploration of adaptation options
Chaudhury et al, CCAFS WP19 http://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/

20. Socially Inclusive Research and Development
for Climate Change and Food Security
New Research Question: Can the capacity of stakeholders to implement
gender-responsive and socially-sensitive climate change, agriculture and food
security programs be increased by using participatory action research?
Our Approach:
– Help stakeholders use participatory approaches to gather information
to design socially inclusive programs on CC, ag and food security
– Co-develop, taking a social learning approach, a tool that allows a user
to select tools appropriate to their needs in the areas of: Co-
production of Knowledge, Climate Resilient Agriculture, Climate
Information Systems, Mitigation, and Knowledge Synthesis
– Partnerships (CARE, WeEffect) to field test guide
– Partner-led training programs based on individual needs
– Companion Manuals in development:
• Gender and climate change PAR
• Gender and climate change project development and M+E

21. Gender and Social Differentiation
Our theory of change: We will have more of an impact if we target and
successfully reach women
• IFPRI-ILRI-ICRAF-CIAT intra-hh gender CC study in 4 countries
• Key finding: Women are much less likely to be aware of ‘climate smart’
agricultural practices, but when they are aware, they are just as likely to
adopt them
• New research question: how best do we target climate smart practices and
knowledge to women?
• Large N survey?
Photo: World Development
Movement.

22. Surveys: How do we understand CC in dynamic systems?
Perceptions Driving Changes in Smallholder Agriculture in Africa and Asia*
Key Findings:
– Markets most important driver of changes to ag. practices, followed by climate
– Markets most important livestock practices change, then diseases then climate
– Main response to market drivers: crop management changes
– Main response to climate drivers: land management changes
– EA farmers: Most adaptive, focusing on productivity, most responsive to climate drivers
• Machakos most adaptive site
• Borana least adaptive site
– SA farmers: Less adaptive, focusing on intensification, almost non-responsive to climate
drivers
• Bagerhat least adaptive site, only site where climate drives change rather than markets
– WA farmers: Least adaptive, focusing on land management, low responsiveness to
climate drivers
• Lawra-Jirpa most adaptive site
• Segou least adaptive site
*Analysis of CCAFS HH baseline, Jost et al. in process

23. Grappling with food security
• Dependent variable: # of
food deficit months
• Variables: Credit, cash
source, education, HHSIZE,
HHnonworkers, information,
land, production,
ProdDiversity, site, transport,
innovativeness, soil, water
• These variables explained
40% of variation
Graphic from: Kristjanson et al., 2012 Food Sec.
(2012) 4:381–397 DOI 10.1007/s12571-012-0194-z
Using the CCAFS Baseline Survey

24. Predictive models of land and soil health
were developed by the ICRAF GeoScience
Lab (landscapesportal.org), based on
global LDSF datasets.
Extracting SOC and erosion values from
MODIS imagery using HH coordinates.
Strong relationship between SOC and
erosion.
Source: Winowiecki, Vågen et al, in process
Soil and land health

25. Larger size bubble indicates
more diverse land management
Biophysical constraints often limit management options;
bringing together the socioeconomic data and LDSF information
will help us better understand behavioural change
Land Health and Diversity of Farmer Management Practices
Source: Winowiecki, Vågen et al, in process

26. Big Challenges
Researching innovation is a new science; we are still
learning how and why to do this research
• Where and when are large N studies called for; building
on existing K critical to make sure we are asking the right
questions
• Are we asking the right questions? The question must
drive the research approach(es)
• Outcomes are place specific – our research/sentinel sites
are key
• Keeping a focus on enabling action