The concept of the water-energy-food (W-E-F) nexus has quickly ascended to become a global framing for resource management policies. Critical studies, however, are questioning its value for assessing the sustainability of local livelihoods. These critiques flow in part from the perception that the majority of influential nexus analyses begin from a large-scale, implicitly top-down perspective on resource dynamics. This can lead to efficiency narratives that reinforce existing power dynamics without adequate consideration of local priorities. Here, we present a community-scale perspective on large W-E-F oriented infrastructure. In doing so, we link the current debate on the nexus with alternative approaches to embrace questions of water distribution, political scales, and resource management. The data for this paper come from a survey of 549 households conducted around two large-scale irrigation and hydropower dams in the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. The data analysis involved descriptive statistics, logistic analysis, and multinomial logistic analysis. The two case studies presented show that the impact of dams and the perception thereof is socially diverse. Hydropower dams and irrigation schemes tend to enhance social differences and may therefore lead to social transformation and disintegration. This becomes critical when it leads to higher vulnerability of some groups. To take these social factors/conditions into consideration, one needs to acknowledge the science-policy interface and make the nexus approach more political. The paper concludes that if the nexus approach is to live up to its promise of addressing sustainable development goals by protecting the livelihoods of vulnerable populations, it has to be applied in a manner that addresses the underlying causes that produce winners and losers in large-scale water infrastructure developments.

The article takes hydro-development schemes in the Upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia as an example to discuss the suitability and shortcomings of nexus approaches for the analysis of complex socio-ecological transformations. Based on critical theoretical debates and extensive field research in Ethiopia, the paper broadens the nexus perspective by integrating the three analytical dimensions of time, space, and power. The empirical material comes from a case study of the Fincha-Amerti-Neshe scheme that was implemented in three consecutive stages over almost half a century, combining dams, hydro-power plants, large-scale sugar cane plantations, and a factory for sugar production. The empirical findings follow the historical stages of the scheme and their physical outcomes, which affected much more than just water, energy, and food. The paper explores socio-ecological transformations along the analytical dimensions of time, scale, and power. First, it views time and temporality as essential aspects of change and calls for a more systematic recognition of the historical context out of which development trajectories and current nexus situations have emerged. Second, it takes a cross-scalar perspective to explain how local land use is influenced by regional and global drivers. And third, it emphasizes the importance of asymmetric power structures to explain the dynamics of hydro-developments and their social consequences. In conclusion, the paper calls for a “nexus-plus” perspective that is more sensitive to the historical and cross-scalar embeddedness of hydro-development, and which enables more inclusive and fair governance of scarce resources.

Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for Next Generation (RISING) project has conducted action research on livestock feed and forages starting in 2012 to bridge gaps on feed availability and quality. The objectives of this paper are to share approaches on how Africa RISING project enabled smallholder farmers to intensify feed and forage resources; present research findings of selected cultivated forages, fodder trees, and postharvest feed and forage utilization innovations; and highlight key lessons evolving from the feed and forage action research and scaling interventions. The project established partnership with CGIAR and local partners, conducted participatory need assessment, prioritized researchable issues, identified and validated different forages and utilization innovations, and created development partnership to facilitate wider scaling. Training activities and multistakeholder platforms were used to enhance cross learning of project partners. The cultivated forages grown under farmers’ fields and management conditions provided high biomass yield of good nutritional quality. For instance, oat (Avena sativa L.)–vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) mixture, lablab [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet], vetch–desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) intercropping, sweet lupin (Lupinus albus L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), and fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yielded on average 15, 3.4, 5.5, 2.9, 15.3, and 20.2 t dry matter ha⁻¹, respectively. Animal response trials showed an increase in milk yield of 30–50% with supplementation of oat–vetch mixture and fodder beet. Feed wastage was considerably reduced (>30%) due to the use of feed troughs and storage sheds, with high economic incentives to invest in such innovations. Integrating and intensifying feed and forage resources and postharvest innovations at farm level remains a priority to improve livestock productivity and food security.

Scaling is a ubiquitous concept in agricultural research in the global south as donors require their research grantees to prove that their results can be scaled to impact upon the livelihoods of a large number of beneficiaries. Recent studies on scaling have brought critical perspectives to the rather technocratic tendencies in the agricultural innovations scaling literature. Drawing on theoretical debates on spatial strategies and practical experience of agricultural innovation scaling in Ethiopia, this paper adds to the current debate on what constitutes scaling and how to overcome critical scaling constraints. The data for the paper came from a qualitative assessment using focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and document analysis on scaling work done in Ethiopia by a USAID-funded research for development project. The paper concludes with four broad lessons for the current understating of agricultural innovation scaling. First, scaling of agricultural innovations requires a balanced focus on technical requirements and associated social dynamics surrounding scaling targets, actors involved and their social relations. Second, appreciating the social dynamics of scaling emphasizes the fact that scaling is more complex than a linear rolling out of innovations towards diffusion. Third, scaling may not be strictly planned; instead, it might be an extension of the innovation generation process that relies heavily on both new and long-term relationships with key partners, trust, and continuous reflection and learning. Fourth, the overall implication of the above three conclusions is that scaling strategies need to be flexible, stepwise, and reflective. Despite the promises of flourishing scaling frameworks, scaling strategies it would appear from the Africa RISING experience that, if real impact is to be achieved, approaches will be required to be flexible enough to manage the social, processual and emergent nature of the practice of scaling.

Increasing and competing demands on agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa mean that policy and investment decisions become more complex. Despite growing consensus on the need for sustainable agricultural intensification, there is limited agreement on how to achieve this in practice. Governments and societies face uncertainty and complex choices. This paper explores the potential of Multi-Stakeholder, Social Learning (MSL) approaches, facilitated by National Learning Alliances (NLAs), to improve policy and investment decisions. Comparative evidence from a donor-supported research and learning programme in Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia is used in a theory-based evaluation approach to assess the contribution of the NLAs to capacity and practice change amongst individuals, networks and senior decision-makers. Ten outcome cases are explored, including their contribution to systemic changes in the governance of evidence. Key lessons included: the value to decision-makers of engaging with informal networks; importance of combining dialogue, deliberation and experiential learning; the need to create safe spaces in national level MSL processes; the demanding combination of facilitation skills and commitment; and appropriately flexible support. This suggests a need not only for the production of quality research, but crucially support for MSL as a means of contributing to the good governance of evidence and sustainable change.

This paper uses the concept of riskscapes to understand the way climate risks manifest themselves and interact with other risks to create vulnerable local communities in Ethiopia and Tanzania. The main research question we addressed is: what are the different sources of risks facing farmers’ livelihoods in the selected case study areas of both countries and where does climate risk fit? The study uses qualitative research methodology with thick description of our case studies to identify variables which are common in both countries. Accordingly, we identified six major risk settings which are important in determining the vulnerability of communities, namely ‘climate hazard risk setting’, ‘subsistence risk setting’, ‘population increase risk setting’, ‘state policy failure risk setting’, ‘market volatility risk setting’, and ‘supernatural risk setting’. Our findings highlight two important points. First, the interaction between risk settings and climate risks differs from one place to another, depending on the ecological endowment and social fabric of the area of interest. Second, local communities and experts attach different importance to the six risk settings identified and the interaction between them, making up local community and expert riskscapes. Hence, we argue that effective climate risk management in the context of sub-Saharan Africa requires proper understanding of the way various risk settings interact with climate risk, and of the different weight that relevant actors attribute to these risks and their interaction.