Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) responds in order to sustain agriculture under a changing environment, and is a major priority in the development sphere. However, to achieve impact at scale, CSA innovations must address agricultural systems’ context-specific and multi-dimensional nature and be purveyed through feasible scaling processes. Unfortunately, knowledge on the scaling of CSA innovations under smallholder farming systems and in the context of developing countries remains scant. Understanding scaling processes is essential to the design of a sustainable scaling strategy. This study aimed to draw lessons on scaling from 25 cases of scaling CSA, and related projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania implemented by public institutions, local and international research organisations, Non-Govermental Orginsations(NGOs), and community-based organisations. Generally, scaling follows a linear pathway comprising technology testing and scaling. Most cases promoted technologies and models geared towards climate change adaptation in crop-based value chains, and only a few cases incorporated mitigation measures. Efforts to engage the private sector involved building business models as a potential scaling pathway. The cases were very strong on capacity building and institutionalisation from local, national, and even regional levels. However, four critical areas of concern about the sustainability of scaling emerged from the study: (i) There is little understanding and capture of the dynamics of smallholder farming systems in scaling strategies; (ii) climate data, projections, and impact models are rarely applied to support the decision of scaling; (iii) considerations for the biophysical and spatial-temporal impacts and trade-offs analysis in scaling is minimal and just starting to emerge; and (iv) there are still challenges effecting systemic change to enable sustainable scaling. In response to these concerns, we propose investment in understanding and considering the dynamics of the smallholder farming system and how it affects adoption, and subsequently scaling. Programme design should incorporate climate change scenarios. Scaling programmes can maximise synergies and leverage resources by adopting a robust partnerships model. Furthermore, understanding the spatio-temporal impact of scaling CSA on ecological functioning deserves more attention. Lastly, scaling takes time, which needs to be factored into the design of programmes.

The last decade has seen a growing interest in scaling up innovations to realise wider benefits from development investments. While numerous proven technologies, products and models have been successfully piloted, scaling them up through expansion, adoption and replication has proved challenging, particularly in poor regions of the world. The low uptake of innovations is partially attributed to the design of technologies, in a manner that is not compatible with local farming practices. At the same time, proven innovations fail to generate large impacts at scale because implementing actors have not sufficiently understood or effectively engaged with the scaling process. This article shares lessons from the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF) that supported applied research to develop, test and scale up promising food and nutrition security innovations. Key lessons include ensuring that innovations are embedded within local socio-ecological systems; engaging end users throughout the research process and enabling participatory decision-making; and considering the investment returns of innovations for end-users.

In this paper we use a scoping review to examine how the concept of resilience is framed and empirically applied with respect to agricultural development interventions in smallholder farming systems in Africa. We reviewed a total of 50 studies and found that most focused on two major strategies for building resilience. The first approach prioritized matching solutions, like Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), to the biophysical attributes of problems, such as the stresses and shocks associated with climate change. The second approach focused on advancing social equity goals to improve resiliency, while also integrating climate-related adaptation measures. Among such measures were co-created innovations that sought to affect social change on issues related to human agency, power relations, and equity considerations in resource access and use. The different conceptions and responses to climate and non-climate related risks and vulnerability in the reviewed literature also revealed growing tensions. There are especially strong critiques concerning resilience building interventions that prioritize technical solutions adapted to the bio-physical aspects of climate change. We argue for more constructive dialogue around what each of the two approaches might offer to contribute to improving resilience on a range of adverse social-ecological changes in Africa’s smallholder farming systems. Specifically, we emphasize the importance of valuing the complementarity contributions that both technocratic-focused and social equity-centered approaches offer as none of the different approaches on their own is up to the task.

This article examines the potential role of agri-business SMEs in scaling climate resilient seed systems through inclusive business models in Eastern and Southern Africa. Over the last decade, donors and policymakers have coalesced behind a private-sector scaling agenda for Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) in which small-and-medium enterprises, multinational corporations and financial institutions are recognized for their potential to contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of aid. This agenda has progressively adopted notions of inclusiveness entailing wider socio-economic empowerment for smallholder farmers and sustainability. Whereas proponents of private sector-scaling of CSA seed systems through inclusive business models make linear assumptions surrounding shared value outcomes and impact at scale for farmers and companies alike, we argue that these dynamics are not always straightforward in practice. For instance, the current focus of CSA seed-related investments towards the formalization and commercialization of seed sectors, does not correspond well to the contextual reality of where ESA farmers source the bulk of their seeds-from diverse channels operating under Farmer-Managed Seed Systems. More careful consideration is needed into the conditions under which inclusive business models could be more compatible with local farming contexts in ways that can support equitable and sustainable transitions at scale.