Chapter 1

Introduction
George Kanyama-Phiri, Kate Wellard, and Sieglinde Snapp

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN A CHANGING WORLD

Agriculture is the backbone of many developing economies. Despite rapid
urbanization, agriculture continues to employ 65% of the work force in
sub-Saharan Africa—70% of whom are female—and generates 32% of
Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (AGRA, 2014; World Bank, n.d.).
Agricultural systems are vital to tackling poverty and malnutrition. Over
the past two decades, there has been marked progress in reducing global
poverty, and yet, 900 million people struggle to live on less than US$1.90
per day, the majority living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (World
Bank, 2015). There were fewer undernourished people in 2015 compared to
25 years earlier: 795 million compared to 1.01 billion (FAO, 2015), but
international hunger targets are far from being met. In sub-Saharan Africa
almost one in four people are undernourished. Worldwide, 50 million chil-
dren under 5 years are wasted, predominantly in South Asia, and 159 million
are stunted, mainly in Africa and Asia (UNICEF, 2015).
Global agricultural performance has improved since 2000—one of the
highest increases being in sub-Saharan Africa, where cereal production has
grown annually by 3.3%. Cereal yields are increasing globally by an average
of 2% per annum. This represents an increase of 70 kg/ha per year over the
last decade in Latin America and Southeast Asia, to an average yield of
2800 kg/ha. In sub-Saharan Africa part of the increase is due to the increase
in the area under cultivation so grain yields have increased more slowly,
stagnating at around 1000 kg/ha for many years, with a modest increase in
recent years (Fig. 1.1). These average figures mask large variations between
and within countries, and across seasons.
In many countries, high population pressure with limited land holdings
has resulted in continuous arable cultivation on the same piece of land, or
extension of cultivation on fragile ecosystems such as steep slopes and river
banks. These in turn can bring about biological, chemical, and physical land
degradation. Food production has in many cases not kept pace with

Agricultural Systems. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802070-8.00001-3

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 3
4 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

4500
4000
3500
Cereal Yield (kg/ha)

3000
Latin America
2500
Sub-Saharan Africa
2000
South Asia
1500
World
1000
500
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FIGURE 1.1 Cereal yield mean by region from 2006 to 14, World Bank Development
Indicators accessed at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/ on April 1, 2016.

population growth in the face of shrinking land holdings. This is com-

pounded by adverse weather conditions caused by climate change.
Evidence on global warming is unequivocal and shows an acceleration
over the past 60 years. Climate projections show that heat waves are very
likely to occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation
events—droughts and floods—will become more intense and frequent in
many regions (IPCC, 2014). Climate change presents one of the most serious
challenges to agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa, and is the sub-
ject of an all new chapter of this book (see Chapter 13: Climate Change and
Agricultural Systems). Boko et al. (2007) and Ringler et al. (2010) estimated
that some countries are expected to experience up to a 50% decline in crop
yields attributed to the negative impacts of climate change. The Malawi
experience provides an illustration. In the 2014 2 15 season, the country
experienced the late onset of rains, followed by devastating floods with
losses of life and property, and then a dry spell and an abbreviated crop
growing season. The result was a 35% decline in average crop yields.
Associated with these global climatic changes are increasing risks of epi-
demics and invasive species such as weeds. Taken together, the need for
rural innovation and adaptation to rapid change is more critical than ever.
Globalization and the liberalization of many developing economies of
the world, especially in Africa, have not brought about commensurate agri-
cultural economic growth and prosperity. Later chapters consider this essen-
tial context to development; however, the primary focus of the book is on
working with smallholder farmers and rural stakeholders, where educators,
researchers, and extension advisors can make a difference. We recognize the
critical need to engage with policy makers and consider fully the context for
equitable development. Trade barriers and tariffs, including subsidies, cause
considerable disparities and tend to favor Northern hemisphere investors in
agricultural trade and related intellectual property rights. The uneven
 Introduction Chapter | 1 5

Scale

Local (A) Multiple

drivers of change

Past, current, (B) People, (C) Actual

future places, system outcomes, impacts
attributes
Past, current, future
• Climate
National Influence
change
vulnerability, • Social
• Population
• Markets adaptive • Economic
• Policies capacity, • Environmental
• Institutions resilience • Political
• Technology
• Globalization
Global

FIGURE 1.2 Agricultural systems in a changing world, shown at multiple scales with key
drivers of change. Adapted from Lamboll, R., Nelson, V., Nathaniels, N., 2011. Emerging
approaches for responding to climate change in African agricultural advisory services:
Challenges, opportunities and recommendations for an AFAAS climate change response strat-
egy. AFAAS, Kampala, Uganda and FARA, Accra, Ghana.

sequencing of liberalization is impoverishing and widening the gap between

rich and poor countries, resulting in limited competitive capability among
developing countries. Conflict and wars have further impacted negatively on
food production, and led to loss of property and life, displacement, and mis-
ery throughout much of the developing world.
Agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa is being undermined by
the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and by other emerging epidemics such as the
Ebola virus. The productive work force, rural families, and research, exten-
sion, and education staff have been badly affected. Gender inequality is
another major social challenge. Despite contributing 70% of the agricultural
labor in many developing economies, women rarely have access to requisite
resources and technologies as compared to their male counterparts. The con-
sequence of inequality is a vicious cycle of poverty and food insecurity,
accentuated in households headed by women and children.
Agricultural systems are part of a complex, changing world (Fig. 1.2).
Multiple drivers—including: climate change, population, technology, and mar-
kets (A); exert influences on people, places, or agricultural systems (e.g., an
ecologically-based agricultural system) (B). These drivers work across different
ranges, from local to global, and result in, for example, increasing land pressure,
greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. The attributes of the population,
place, or system (e.g., their assets) affect their vulnerability, resilience, and capac-
ity to adapt to change. The interaction between the drivers of change and the pop-
ulation, place, or system is the development process. Actual outcomes, impacts,
and adaptations (C) can be seen as the results of the development process—for
6 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

example, changed livelihoods, poverty, well-being, and environment (Lamboll

et al., 2011) (see Chapter 3: Farming-Related Livelihoods, on Livelihoods, and
Chapter 13: Climate Change and Agricultural Systems, on Climate Change).
Agricultural development depends to a great extent on investment in
human capacity and education for successful generation and application of
knowledge. It is a conundrum that increasing human population density can
exhaust resources and impoverish an area, or through education and human
capacity building, lead to innovation and prosperity. Investments in knowl-
edge—especially science and technology—have featured prominently and
consistently in most national agricultural strategies. In a number of countries,
particularly in Asia, these strategies have been highly successful. Research
on food crop technologies, especially genetic improvements, has resulted in
average grain yields doubling over the past 40 years, and continued improve-
ments have been shown over the last decade (Fig. 1.1). Average cereal yields
remain notably low in sub-Saharan Africa, with modest but steady increases
in recent years from 1250 kg/ha to almost 1500 kg/ha.
Gains in agricultural productivity and ingenuity in devising superior stor-
age and postharvest processing have directly contributed to enhanced food
security around the globe. Time and again the predictions that population
growth will outstrip food supply have been disproved. New disease-resistant
crop varieties and integrated crop management (ICM) have provided measur-
able gains for farmers, from the adoption of disease-resistant cassava varie-
ties to high yielding, maize-based systems. Agricultural scientists in
developing countries are innovators in genetic improvement, including part-
nering with farmers to develop new varieties of indigenous crop plants
(Fig. 1.3). Complementary technological innovations have allowed farmers
to protect gains in productivity, such as biological control practices to sup-
press pests, and postharvest storage improvements (Fig. 1.4).

The Green Revolution: On-going Lessons

The green revolution, launched in the 1960s, is an example of widespread
and rapid transformation through new varieties and technologies that pro-
vided substantial, and often remarkable, increases in the productivity of rice
and wheat cropping systems. Productivity gains, however, do not necessarily
ensure equitable accrual of benefits. A review of over 300 studies of the
green revolution found that over 80% produced unbalanced benefits and
increased income inequity associated with the adoption of high yield poten-
tial varieties and production technologies (Freebairn, 1995).
The varieties produced by the green revolution provided a new architec-
tural plant type that could respond to high rates of nutrient inputs with
heavier yields in the presence of sufficient water and productive soils. These
were widely adopted by farmers on irrigated lands, in some cases displacing
 Introduction Chapter | 1 7

FIGURE 1.3 Improvement of the indigenous Bambara groundnut crop is underway in South
Africa, where rapid gains in productivity and quality traits have been achieved.

FIGURE 1.4 Biological control is being practiced on a large scale in Thailand, where farmers
are supported by innovative field stations and extension educators that demonstrate health-
promoting composts and integrated pest management practices.

indigenous varieties and the biodiversity of land races. In other locales the
new varieties were adopted judiciously, not replacing but supplementing the
diversity of varieties grown to provide one more option among the many
plant types managed by smallholders.
8 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

An example is the development of early-maturing rice varieties with a

high harvest index. These plant types allocate to grain, with limited stover
production, and do not necessarily produce tasty or storable grains, which
were still valued by Sierra Leone farmers. Interestingly, the new high yield
potential varieties were integrated into both “swamp” rice (informal irriga-
tion) and upland, rain-fed rice production systems in Sierra Leone. These
“green revolution” rice varieties supplemented but did not replace long-
and medium-duration varieties which were moderate in yield potential, but
had many other desirable properties. The new varieties allowed smallholder
women and men to exploit specific soil types and land forms for rice pro-
duction, and develop a wider range of intercrop systems of early and late
duration rice varieties (Richards, 1986). This illustrates the adaptive and
innovative nature of smallholder farming in the face of new technologies
and genetic materials.
There are numerous critiques of the green revolution. Most emphasize
the limited adoption of high yield potential varieties within agroecologies
that have an unreliable water supply or inadequate market infrastructure.
A lack of nuanced understanding of local conditions (which vary widely in
time and space, and provide limited system buffering capacity), and miscon-
ceptions of farmer priorities, are key contributors to failures in some green
revolution varieties and input management technologies developed for inten-
sified production in the irrigated tropics that were inadvisably promoted in
rain-fed and extensive agricultural systems.
The relevance of agricultural technologies that require substantial
investment in labor and external inputs is particularly suspect for extensive
agriculture where farmers often prioritize minimal investment. In a variable
environment replanting is not uncommon, so low-cost seeds and minimal
labor for seedbed preparation may be a goal, often not recognized by agricul-
tural scientists. Optimizing return to small doses of inputs rather than
optimizing return overall requires different types of technologies.
Stable production that reduces risk is another common goal of farmers, par-
ticularly in sub-Saharan Africa, with different criteria for success than simply
yield potential. The changeable and low resource environments experienced
by smallholder farmers in much of the region require careful attention to
technologies with high resilience.
Poor soil fertility, low and variable rainfall, underdeveloped institutions,
markets, and infrastructure are realities facing the rain-fed tropics. Typically,
farmer knowledge systems have been tested over many years and across a
wide range of environments. The fine-tuned modifications that occur over a
long period lead to resilient and relevant technologies. Agricultural research-
ers have only periodically been fully cognizant of this valuable resource:
local knowledge systems. Recently, renewed importance has been given
to valuing both indigenous and scientific understanding of the world. These
 Introduction Chapter | 1 9

FIGURE 1.5 Participatory action research underway with Ugandan farmers interested in soil
fertility improvement.

knowledge systems need to be integrated, rather than being seen as compet-

ing. The two world views can be complementary, as shown by the example
of integrated nutrient management. Here, organic nutrient sources (such as
residues and compost) can enhance returns from judicious use of nutrient
inputs from purchased fertilizers and herbicides that reduce crop competition
for nutrients (de Jager et al., 2004). Chapter 2, Agroecology: Principles and
Practice, of this book explores such concepts of applied agroecology, and puts
them on a solid scientific footing. A website that gives an opportunity to join
a community of practice around these concepts, based on experiences of the
book’s authors in Malawi, can be checked out at: http://globalchangescience.
org/eastafricanode. We welcome all to join the conversation.
The context for agriculture is changing rapidly, and the process of
knowledge generation is undergoing transformation as well. Agricultural
development is moving beyond a technology transfer model, to one that recog-
nizes farmers and rural inhabitants as full partners, central to change efforts.
Participatory approaches that are fully cognizant of the necessity for collabo-
rative efforts are being tried around the globe: from participatory action
research (PAR) on soil fertility in Uganda (Fig. 1.5) to community watershed
improvement efforts in India. Other exciting examples include dairy farmers
in the Netherlands participating in research circles, land care groups in
Australia, and potato growers in Peru involved in participatory Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) (see these examples and more in Pound et al., 2003).
The long-term aim of sustainable development is to enhance capacity and
promote food security, livelihoods, and resource conservation for all: see Box 1.1
10 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

BOX 1.1 Sustainable Development Goals Relevant to Agricultural Systems

In 2015 the nations of the world adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG) as a transformative approach to development. At least five SDGs are
directly addressed in this book:
G Goal 1 to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.
G Goal 2 to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture.
G Goal 5 to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
G Goal 13 to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
G Goal 15 to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial eco-
systems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and
reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss.

Source: United Nations Sustainable Development.

for key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations.
Tremendous adaptability and understanding is required to manage a biocom-
plex and rapidly changing world. This is a pressing reality for the more than
three billion people living in rural areas with extremely limited resources. In
these often risky, heterogeneous environments, access to food and income
depends on a wealth of detailed knowledge evolved over generations, and
the capacity to integrate new findings. This book presents a research and
development approach that seeks to engage fully with local knowledge pro-
ducers: primarily smallholder farmers and rural innovators.
Agricultural research has historically often suffered from an over-
simplistic view of development and a top-down approach toward rural
people. This was one of the major critiques that led to the rise of the farming
systems movement in the 1970s. The technologies developed through a
reductionist understanding of agricultural problems did not take into account
farmers’ holistic and systems-based management and livelihood goals
(Norman, 1980).
Our goal is to bring farming systems research into the 21st century and
provide a new synthesis incorporating advances in systems analysis, partici-
patory methodologies, and the latest understanding of agroecology and bio-
logical processes. Table 1.1 presents a glossary of farming systems research
and sustainable agriculture terminology as it has evolved over time. The next
section of this chapter presents how farming system approaches to develop-
ment have evolved and continue to change. Ultimately we recognize that
access to food and increasing that access depends upon the broad shoulders
and innovative capacity of men and women farmers that tend one or two
hectares of land, or less. We seek to empower those hands, to support food
security and equitable development starting at the local level.
TABLE 1.1 Definitions of Farming Systems Research and Sustainable
Agriculture
Terminology Definition References
Farming system A complex, interrelated matrix of soils, Dixon et al.
plants, animals, power, labor, capital, and (2001)
other inputs, controlled—in part—by farming
families and influenced to varying degrees by
political, economic, institutional, and social
factors that operate at many levels
Agricultural system An agricultural system is an assemblage of FAO (n.d.)
components which are united by some form
of interaction and interdependence, and
which operate within a prescribed boundary
to achieve a specified agricultural objective
on behalf of the beneficiaries of the system.
Farmers and rural stakeholders are at the
foundation of agricultural systems, which
includes consideration of equity and local
control
Sustainable agriculture An integrated system of plant and animal US
production practices having a site-specific Congress
application that will, over the long-term, (1990)
satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance
environmental quality and the natural
resource base upon which the agricultural
economy depends; make the most efficient
use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm
ranch resources, and integrate, where
appropriate, natural biological cycles and
controls; sustain the economic viability of
farm operations; and enhance the quality of
life for farmers and society as a whole
Ecological intensification A knowledge-intensive process that requires FAO (2011)
optimal management of nature’s ecological
functions and biodiversity to improve
agricultural system performance, efficiency,
and farmers’ livelihoods

Agroecological Improving the performance of agriculture Coe and

intensification (AEI) through integration of ecological principles Nelson
into farm and system management (2011)

Sustainable A form of production where yields are FAO (2011)

intensification increased without adverse environmental
impact, and without cultivation of more land

Low external input and Agriculture which makes optimal use of Reijntjes
sustainable agriculture locally available natural and human et al. (1992)
(LEISA) resources (such as soil, water, vegetation,
local plants and animals, and human labor,
knowledge, and skills), and which is
economically feasible, ecologically sound,
culturally adapted, and socially just
12 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

EVOLVING AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH

Agricultural sciences are seen by some as naturally interdisciplinary: a
“quasidiscipline” defined by real-life multidimensional phenomena. As such,
a multidisciplinary approach is needed to address them adequately. Over the
last 40 years different integrations have occurred. By the early 1970s, crop
ecology had evolved, including disciplines such as physiology, pathology,
entomology, genetics, and agronomy. From the mid-1970s to the 1980s,
farming systems research was prominent, including biophysical and eco-
nomic components. By 1985 a focus on sustainable production had become
dominant. Now, worries about food production and global hunger have
been modified by increased public concern about the rapid deterioration of
the earth’s ecosystem, especially since the 1992 United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, also known as
the “Earth Summit.” Thus, sustainable agricultural management has been
redefined as sustainable natural ecosystem management, including disci-
plines such as geography, meteorology, ecology, hydrology, and sociology
(Janssen and Goldsworthy, 1996). These have been combined with new
thinking on sustainability and poverty alleviation, so that international
agricultural research centers have altered their focus on agricultural produc-
tivity and commodity research to a more integrated natural resource
management (NRM) perspective (Probst et al., 2003). NRM aims to take
into account issues beyond classical agronomy: spatial and temporal inter-
dependency, on-site and off-site effects, trade-offs of different management
options, and the need to involve a wider range of stakeholders in joint
activities (Probst, 2000).
These evolving approaches are gradually being seen in the work of
researchers on the ground, including international agricultural research centers,
national agricultural research systems, extension services, nongovernmental
organizations, development agencies, the private sector and, in particular,
farmers’ groups. There is increasing recognition of farmers’ ability to adapt
technologies to their own purposes. This was one of the instigating factors in
developing farming systems research approaches in the 1980s. Another driving
factor in developing farming systems and, more recently, participatory
research methodologies, has been the perceived lack of relevance and relative
failures associated with monocultural, green revolution technologies. Farming
in semiarid and subhumid rain-fed production areas, and across the vast major-
ity of sub-Saharan Africa, has remained at low levels of productivity, and has
been left out of many agricultural development initiatives. A robust alternative
has emerged, involving farmers through PAR to support local capacity build-
ing and adaptation of “best bet options” (Kanyama-Phiri et al., 2000;
Kristjanson et al., 2005; Snapp and Heong, 2003).
Other approaches include support for value chains, which are closely
related to market opportunities and educational and extension reforms: these
 Introduction Chapter | 1 13

BOX 1.2 Testing “Best Bet” Options in Mixed Farming Systems in West
Africa
The contributions of livestock to NRM take place within a complex of biophysi-
cal, environment, social, and economic interactions. To better understand and
optimize the contribution of livestock, novel approaches have been developed
that integrate these multiple aspects and consider the implications from house-
hold to regional levels. An example of such an approach is mixed farming sys-
tems in West Africa where international institutions—the International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the International Livestock Research Centre (LRI),
and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)—have been working together with farmers to increase productivity
whilst maintaining environmental stability through integrated NRM. The process
began with prioritization of the most binding constraints that research can
respond to (competition for nutrients and the need to increase productivity of
crops and livestock without mining the soil). The introduced technologies—the
best of everything that research has produced—were presented as “best bet”
options which were tested by farmers against current practices. The implications
and impacts of introducing best bet options were assessed, taking into account
not only grain and fodder yields, but also nutrient cycling, economic/social
benefits or disadvantages, and farmers perceptions. A further step would be to
capture environmental implications such as methane emissions, construction of
wells, and availability of fresh water.

Source: Tarawali, S., Smith, J., Hiernaux, P., Singh, B., Gupta, S., Tabo, R., et al., 2000 August.
Integrated natural resource management - putting livestock in the picture. In: Integrated Natural
Resource Management Meeting, pp. 20 25. www.inrm.org/Workshop2000/abstract/Tarawali/
Tarawali.htm.

will be explored later in this book. In areas where agricultural research and
extension (R&E) systems have remained stuck in a commodity-oriented mode,
there have been failures to understand the complex interactions between social
and biophysical processes, resulting in impractical agricultural technologies
and policies that did not address farmers’ priorities (Box 1.2).
Many international agricultural research centers and development projects
are still primarily focused around improvements in monocultural, high input,
and high return (to land) cropping systems. Although these often primarily
meet the needs, resources, and aspirations of the well-endowed and linked-to-
market groups of farmers, there are inspiring cases where genetic outputs and
technologies have been used by farmers from diverse socioeconomic, gender,
and age groups, if they provide adequate returns to their labor and investment,
and support improvements in their livelihoods (livelihoods encompass the
multiple strategies used to sustain self and family: see Chapter 2,
Agroecology: Principles and Practice). Participatory breeding research and
livestock innovation approaches help ensure relevance to diverse farmer
14 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

requirements, and are addressed in detail in Chapter 8, Participatory Breeding:

Developing Improved and Relevant Crop Varieties With Farmers, and
Chapter 9, Research on Livestock, Livelihoods, and Innovation, of this book.
Addressing and understanding the complexity of goals associated with a
whole farming system was the main focus of the farming systems movement
that attempted to improve client-orientation and to develop a more multidis-
ciplinary approach to agricultural R&E. The farming systems approach
shifted R&E from a commodity focus to a holistic approach that included
crops, livestock, off-farm income generation, and cultural goals, as well as
the economic returns of the entire farm.
Farmers continually make complex trade-offs of time and labor with
multiple returns from diverse farm and off-farm enterprises that address
the whole farming system and livelihoods within a rapidly changing
environment. Diagnostics of system complexity and understanding farmer
priorities in order to develop relevant technologies and interventions led to
farming systems teams that bridged social science and biological science
inquiries. Collaborative endeavors among social scientists, biologists, educa-
tors, and rural community members have been growing over many years;
this has led to and strengthened recognition of the whole farming system and
livelihood strategies within which varieties and other technologies are
assessed and adopted, discarded, or temporarily adopted (Box 1.3).
The value of interdisciplinary inquiry has been heralded by many, but the
challenges are tremendous and many whole systems approaches have
devolved into a single focus or dispersed efforts over time. Communication
across disciplines is a huge challenge, requiring long time frames and
commitment to working together. Institutional reward structures that focus
on individual achievements and changing donor priorities appear to have
marginalized farming systems teams in some organizations and projects. The
potential returns from a committed, enduring farming systems approach is
seen in the steady enhancement of farmer livelihoods in regions of Brazil,
where farming systems teams have labored for two decades. Here, a range of
germplasm and technologies have been introduced: a long-season legume
(pigeon pea) providing nutrition for poultry while enhancing soil productivity
and linked to new maize varieties; and integrated use of poultry manure and
fertilizer, are components of more sustainable farming systems (Fig. 1.6).
Over time, an ecologically based understanding has informed a farming
systems approach to enhance the diagnostic and descriptive aspects of R&E.
A rigorous understanding of the biological and physical landscape and pro-
cesses in the ecosystem can greatly improve the technical insights and knowl-
edge that scientists bring to agricultural development. Rather than empirical
trial and error, the crop types and management practices suited to a given
agroecology can be more accurately predicted. This will lead to identification
of the most promising options that farmers and local extension advisors
can then test for performance within a given locale and social context.
 Introduction Chapter | 1 15

BOX 1.3 Cowpea Variety Development and Farmer Adoption in West

Africa
An illuminating example of multiple collaborative endeavors is the IITA’s inter-
country African Cowpea Project (PRONAF) in West Africa. The initial focus of
cowpea breeders on determinant, short-statured varieties was not successful, as
cowpea is used by many farmers not only for grain and leaf production (e.g., as
a vegetable), but also for livestock fodder, products which require some indeter-
minate, viney traits in cowpea. This adoption story (documented by Inaizumi
et al., 1999; Kristjanson et al., 2005) shows how livestock researchers worked
with plant breeders and social scientists over a number years, whilst extensio-
nists, geographers, and agricultural economists were also involved in the dissem-
ination and evaluation.
Losses due to pests were evidently a major constraint, so IITA established the
Ecologically Sustainable Cowpea Protection (PEDUNE) project to find alterna-
tives to the use of toxic pesticides, and promote Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) as the standard approach to cowpea pest management in the dry savannah
zone. The project identified botanical pesticides such as extract of neem leaf
(Azadirachta indica), papaya, and Hyptis, and introduced new aphid- and striga-
tolerant cowpea varieties, and encouraged the use of solar drying. The program
has worked with the West and Central Africa Cowpea Research Network and the
Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Programme (CRSP). It uses Farmer Field
Schools (FFS), a learner-centered approach where farmers’ groups conduct field
experiments to test and learn about technology options under realistic condi-
tions, improving their crop management decision-making skills in the process.
The FFS represent an exciting extension 2 farmer partnership for catalyzing the
evaluation of new agricultural technologies (Nathaniels, 2005).

Agroecology is the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the

design, development, and management of sustainable agricultural systems.

The key principle is to manage biological processes, including reestab-

lishing ecological relationships that can occur naturally on the farm, instead
of managing through reliance on high doses of external inputs (see
Chapter 2: Agroecology: Principles and Practice).
Improved understanding of plant interactions with soil microbial and
insect communities is contributing to systems-oriented management practices
(see Chapter 5: Designing for the Long-term: Sustainable Agriculture).
Through carefully chosen plant combinations and integration of plants with
livestock, an agroecologically informed design can improve the inherent
resilience of a farming system. Indigenous practices often rely on agro-
ecological principles such as diversity of plant types and strategic planting
16 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

FIGURE 1.6 Pigeon pea has been introduced on smallholder farms in Brazil. Note soil fertility
enhancing residues accumulating in front.

of accessory, or helper plants, to reduce pest problems and protect soils. This
is shown in the remarkably similar plant combinations used by farmers
around the world. For example, in hillside vegetable production systems,
from Korea to the Upper Midwest in North America and the Andes in South
America, farmers plant strips of winter cereals (rye in Korea and the United
States, barley in Peru) along the contour across slopes where onions, pota-
toes, and other tubers are grown, to confuse pests and prevent erosion while
building soil organic matter. In more tropical zones, vetiver grass strips can
play a similar role (Fig. 1.7).

DIFFERENT PATHS TAKEN

Farming system characterization and understanding livelihood strategies lie
at the foundation of agricultural development. It is a challenging process,
one that will be addressed from different perspectives in the following chap-
ters. Factors to consider include environmental aspects, such as the agroecol-
ogy and resource base, and socioeconomic aspects including population
density and community goals, levels of technological complexity, and
market-orientation.
Take the crops and animals present on a farming system as an example
of the complexity involved. A mixture of crops is grown, including inter-
cropped cereals and edible legumes, where there is competition for the avail-
able land, labor, and capital resources. Where land is a limiting factor,
 Introduction Chapter | 1 17

FIGURE 1.7 Vetiver grass planted along bunds for soil conservation in Malawi.

farmers can maximize usage of land through intercropping of legumes and

cereals or doubling up of legumes, to both increase yields and improve soil
fertility. However, to identify the best-bet cereal/legume combinations,
researchers must partner with farmers to ensure that their preferences are
embedded in the development process. Research in West and Southern
Africa (Snapp and Silim, 2002; Kitch et al., 1998) has demonstrated that
food legumes are preferred over nonfood legumes and that most small-scale
farmers choose new varieties of legumes primarily for food and cash income
security rather than for soil fertility enhancement.
There are exceptions, where plant species are adopted primarily for sus-
taining a farming system. Nonfood legumes play a major role in the Central
American humid tropics, as weed-suppressing crops in maize-based and
plantation systems. Maize is planted into the dense foliage of recently
slashed Mucuna pruriens, a green manure “slash and mulch” system. This
and other promising options for sustainable agriculture are discussed in
Chapter 5, Designing for the Long-term: Sustainable Agriculture.
The importance of livestock varies from region to region, and indeed
from family to family. Often in dry areas and where rainfall is highly vari-
able, livestock are highly prized, and are essential to culture and livelihood.
Livestock provide a means to concentrate energy and biomass over a large
area through grazing, and are flexible in the face of periodic or occasional
drought. The system of transhumance relies on moving livestock annually to
utilize grazing effectively. Chapter 9, Research on Livestock, Livelihoods,
and Innovation, discusses in-depth livestock innovations and agricultural
development. It is illuminating to consider briefly the role of small rumi-
nants, in particular for poverty alleviation. Families that have small
18 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

BOX 1.4 Intensive and Extensive Cropping Systems

Intensification of cropping systems occurs in time and space, and includes:
1. Intercropping with complementary crop species;
2. Double cropping over time, with two crops a year. One crop may be a soil
building plant species, such as a green manure from herbaceous or tree
legume species, and the other a nutrient exploitive species that often has
high cash value, extracting benefit from the soil building phase of the
speeded up rotation sequence;
3. Intensified plant populations of a monocultural species, often a plant type
that has vertically disposed (erect) leaves that can minimize shading, while
at the same time maximizing the interception of Photosynthetically Active
Radiation (PAR) when a very high density of plants are grown in a given
space. Although substantial nutrient sources will be required, weed control
requirements may be minimized as plant cover is achieved quickly in an
ideal situation.
Extensive systems are another pathway, and may be pursued if the climate is
highly variable, e.g., with severely limited rainfall or other critical resources.
Livestock are often very important in these environments, and stover may be a
primary use, greater than human food value, for many cereal crops.
The tools being used by farmers are not necessarily good indicators of how
intensive the management practices are, as, e.g., plowing, which may be used in
extensive or intensive land use. Plowing can facilitate planting and weeding of
an improved fallow, or allow a large area to be planted to meet food security
requirements, thus reducing pressure to intensify through use of inputs or related
investments.

ruminants in West Africa were the first to adopt the new dual purpose cow-
pea. The introduction of a rotational crop of pigeon pea combined with
improved, early duration maize varieties and intensified poultry production
in Brazil also highlights the role of integrated crop and livestock technolo-
gies, where research followed farmer interest in intensified versus extensive
production, for different aspects of the farming system.
Researchers have at times prioritized intensification, whether through
introducing new crop or livestock varieties that produce more per unit
grown, or through agricultural input use. We contend here that agricultural
system performance and resilience can be enhanced both through extensive
and intensive cropping systems, but this must be done in consultation with
the ultimate end users, the smallholder farmers (see Box 1.4).
Another pressing problem is organic matter depletion under continuous
arable cultivation in heavily populated and land constrained agricultural sys-
tems which have invariably led to decreased land productivity. To circum-
vent this problem a great deal of research has been conducted. Some of the
agricultural systems options qualify as “best bet” natural resource improving
 Introduction Chapter | 1 19

FIGURE 1.8 The crop legume “cowpea” (Vigna unguiculata L.) is a productive source of high
quality organic matter and multiuse products, widely adapted to the semiarid and arid tropics.

technologies, through their potential for adaptability and adoption by end

users (Box 1.2).
It is important for agricultural scientists and change agents not to under-
estimate the substantial biologically based challenges, and economic chal-
lenges, that act as barriers to farmer adoption of integrated, low input, and
organic matter-based technologies. This is nowhere more evident than in the
marginal and risky environments that many smallholder farmers inhabit. The
lack of easy answers has been well documented. Often the areas that are
most degraded, such as steep slopes, are those that allow limited plant
growth, requiring intensive labor and other investments to overcome a
degraded state (Kanyama-Phiri et al., 2000). There are emerging technolo-
gies, such as drought-tolerant cowpea which combines farmer utility as a
grain, vegetable, and fodder source, with moderate but consistent soil-
improving properties (Fig. 1.8; Box 1.3).
Strategic intervention is the key to successful agricultural development pro-
grams, and will be discussed in more depth in relation to different smallholder
farming systems throughout this book. Chapter 4, Farming Systems for
Sustainable Intensification, gives a detailed discussion of African farming sys-
tems trajectories of change, and intensive versus extensive strategies (Box 1.5).

Impact at Local and Regional Levels

Participatory approaches are being experimented with widely, as a means of
supporting the generation of local adaptive knowledge and innovation. PAR
can have an impact at broader levels as well, through improving research rel-
evance. This has not been the explicit goal of many PAR projects, but if
20 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

BOX 1.5 Best Bet Agricultural Systems Options for Improved Soil Fertility
1. Inorganic fertilizers
Use of nutrients from inorganic sources has the advantage of quick nutri-
ent release and uptake by plants, for a consistent yield response. However,
the cost of inorganic fertilizers and associated transportation costs has proven
to be prohibitive for many limited resource farmers. It been has reported
elsewhere (Conway, pers. comm.) that in Europe a nitrogen fertilizer such as
urea costs US$70 per metric ton. By the time the fertilizer reaches the coast
of Africa the price will have doubled, to include transport, storage, and han-
dling, and may be much higher if many middlemen are involved in the pro-
cess of importing the fertilizer and packing it for resale. Eightfold increases in
fertilizer costs are not uncommon by the time the fertilizer reaches a farmer
located in a Central African country, pushing the commodity beyond the
reach of most end users. Thus, the use of inorganic fertilizers on staple food
crops by smallholder farmers requires subsidies, at least in the short-term.
2. Incorporation of crop residues and weeds
Residues from weeds and crop residues have been overlooked at times,
as the wide C/N ratio, high lignin content, and low nutrient content generally
found in crop residues and weeds limits soil fertility contributions from these
organic sources. However, cereal and weed residues build organic matter
and improve soil structure for root growth and development. Legume crop
residues have higher quality residues and are one of the most economically
feasible and consistent sources of nutrients on smallholder farms. Grain
legumes such as soybean (Glycine max L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.),
common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and peanut (Arachis hypogea L.) are
best bet options for soil fertility improvement under rotational agricultural
systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Countrywide trials in Malawi have documen-
ted over a decade that peanuts, soybeans, and pigeon pea consistently and
sustainably improve maize yields by 1 t/ha, from 1.3 t/ha (unfertilized contin-
uous maize) to 2.3 t/ha (unfertilized maize rotated with a grain legume)
(MacColl, 1989; Gilbert et al., 2002).
3. Green manures from herbaceous and shrubby legumes
A green manure legume is one which is grown specifically for use as an
organic manure source. It often maximizes the amount of biologically fixed
nitrogen from the Rhizobium symbiosis that forms nodules in the roots. This fixed
nitrogen is available for use by subsequent crops in rotational, relay, or inter-
cropped systems. Green manures also have an added advantage of a narrow C/N
ratio, which facilitates residue decomposition and release of N to subsequent
crops. In southern and eastern Africa, best bet herbaceous and shrubby legume
options for incorporation as green manures have been widely tested. These
include M. pruriens, sun hemp (Crotalaria juncea), Lab lab (Lab lab purpreus),
pigeon pea intercropped with groundnut, and relay systems with Tephrosia voge-
lii (see Chapter 5: Designing for the Long-term: Sustainable Agriculture). Residue
management and plant intercrop arrangement are important to consider, along
with the species used for a green manure system. Sakala et al. (2004) reported
(Continued )
 Introduction Chapter | 1 21

BOX 1.5 (Continued)

higher maize grain yields from early compared to late incorporated green
manure from M. pruriens. Similarly, for smallholder farmers on the Island of Java
in Indonesia, threefold increases in maize yields have been reported following
incorporation of a 3-month-old stand of mucuna or sun hemp.

causal analysis and iterative learning are explicitly included, then research
findings can have wider applications. For example, participatory, on-farm
research on nutrient budgeting has been shown to be an effective means to
improve farmer knowledge of nutrient cycling; however, it has the potential
to provide valuable research insights as well. This was shown in Mali, West
Africa, where participatory nutrient mapping was undertaken to support vil-
lagers learning about nutrient loss pathways and integrated nutrient manage-
ment practices (Defoer et al., 1998). At the same time, Defoer and
colleagues gained knowledge about farm and village-level nutrient flows.
Some of the information generated will be locally specific, as nutrient losses
are conditioned largely by site-specific environmental factors, yet we con-
tend that knowledge generated locally can often be used to improve research
priorities, and to inform policy.
One of the goals of this book is to support broader learning from the
PAR process. Agricultural researchers are charged with a dual mandate: to
provide local technical assistance that supports farmer innovation at specific
sites, while simultaneously generating knowledge of broader relevance. To
work at different levels and meet these dual objectives, careful attention
must be paid to choosing sites that are as representative as possible of larger
regions. Thus, local lessons learned can be synthesized, and disseminated,
over time.
Examples are developed in this book of how to support outreach and
“take to scale” participatory NRM, crop and livestock improvement (see
chapters: The Innovation Systems Approach to Agricultural Research and
Development; Outreach to Support Rural Innovation). Promising strategies
for large-scale impact will vary, depending on objectives. Successful exten-
sion examples include Farmer Field Schools and education/communication
campaigns that address an information gap, and engage rather than preach.
Education requires documentation of current knowledge and farmer practice,
to identify missing information and promote farmers testing for themselves
science-based recommendations. This focus on knowledge generation con-
trasts with promoting proscribed recommendations, and is illustrated by a
radio IPM campaign in Vietnam that challenged farmers to test for them-
selves targeted pesticide use. The campaign resulted in large-scale experi-
mentation among rice farmers, and province-wide reductions in pesticide use
22 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

(Snapp and Heong, 2003). Another innovative example is from Indonesia,

where participatory research on sweet potato Integrated Crop Management
(ICM) was scaled-up through FFS. A unique aspect of this project
was that FFS education materials were developed through joint
farmer 2 researcher learning about sweet potato ICM over a number of
years. Only after this participatory development of training materials were
FFS initiated to communicate with farmers on a range of ICM principles
and practice (Van de Fliert, 1998).
Participatory and adaptive research approaches have evolved out of a
desire for the most effective, informed, farming systems approaches possi-
ble. Participation helps bridge gaps and enhances communication among
researchers, extension advisors, and rural stakeholders. It recognizes the
importance of scientific input from both biophysical and socioeconomic
enquiry, while at the same time valuing indigenous local knowledge. By
so doing it provides a basis for increased understanding and iterative tech-
nology development in partnership with stakeholders, especially small-
holder farmers.
Agricultural systems science requires attention to synthesis, reflection,
and learning cycles (Table 1.1). These are key ingredients in maintaining
quality and rigor in an applied science which must engage with the complex-
ity of real-world agriculture. Synthesis techniques are emerging that help
address these challenges, including statistical multivariate techniques, meta-
analysis, and geo-spatial analysis. These are important methods that can
help researchers and educators derive knowledge from local experience, and
understand underlying principles of change. Elucidating drivers or regulators
of change and building in iterative reflective steps are important components
of agricultural systems research. Chapter 4, Farming Systems for Sustainable
Intensification, discusses in more depth agricultural systems evolution over
time, and approaches to catalyzing change in sustainable directions.
Institutional reform and engagement with policy is an area that agricul-
tural systems science is beginning to move toward, as discussed in
Chapter 14, Tying It All Together: Global, Regional, and Local Integrations.
Farming systems may not have sufficiently addressed institutional change,
and this newly reborn farming systems movement—called here “agricultural
systems”—is working not only with farmers and R&E, but is now taking on
and transforming institutions and policy in every part of society.

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION

Linkages between researchers and local users can vary greatly depending on
how “ownership” of the research process is distributed between the two. In
recent years most research projects have sought local people’s participation,
but objectives of such participation are diverse, ranging from legitimizing
outsiders’ work and making use of local knowledge, to building local
 Introduction Chapter | 1 23

BOX 1.6 Types of Participation in the Agricultural Innovation Process

G Contractual participation: the researcher has control over most of the deci-
sions in the research process, the farmer is “contracted” to provide services
and support.
G Consultative participation: most decisions are made by the researcher, with
emphasis on consultation and gathering information from local users.
G Collaborative participation: researchers and local users collaborate on an
equal footing, though exchange of knowledge, different contributions, and
sharing of decision-making power throughout the agricultural innovation
process.
G Collegiate participation: researchers and farmers work together as colleagues
or partners. “Ownership” and responsibility are equally distributed among
the partners, and decisions are made by agreement or consensus among all
parties.

Source: Based on Biggs, S., 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of
experiences from nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper.
ISNAR, The Hague (Biggs, 1989).

capacity for innovation development and transformation. This last objective

is essential to increase the capacity of marginal groups to articulate and
negotiate for their own interests, and to improve their status and self-esteem
(Probst et al., 2003). The type of participation which evolves will define the
research process and roles of researchers and farmers in all areas, including
planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the learning (Box 1.6).
Innovation development may be based on formal research or informal
farmer experimentation, or a combination of the two. “Hard” and “soft” sys-
tems approaches can be identified (Bawden, 1995). Hard systems approaches
attempt to understand entire systems (e.g., farms, groups of farms, or com-
munities) by looking at them from the outside, and assuming that system
variables are measurable and relationships between cause and effect are con-
sistent and discoverable by empirical, analytical, and experimental methods.
This is the approach taken by farming systems research. Soft systems propo-
nents argue that systems are creations of the mind, or theoretical constructs
to understand and make sense of the world. Thus, soft systems methods aim
at generating knowledge about processes within systems by stimulating self-
reflection, discourse, and learning (Hamilton, 1995).
We argue that both research methods are needed: “soft” PAR on processes
of NRM (e.g., organization, collective management of natural resources, com-
petence development, conflict management), and conventional “hard” research
that focuses on technological and social issues (e.g., soil conservation, nutrient
cycling, agronomic practices, socioeconomic aspects). Successful attainment
of goals of increased production and environmental sustainability depends on
the meaningful integration of the two (Probst et al., 2003).
24 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

Researchers have adopted a range of approaches to agricultural innova-

tion to date, including:
1. Transfer of technology (TOT) model: with technology being developed
by researchers at the “center,” adapted by local researchers, and trans-
ferred by extensionists to farmers;
2. Farmer First model: where farmers participate in the generation, testing,
and evaluation of sustainable agricultural technologies, often based on
their own local practices, with researchers documenting rural people’s
knowledge, providing technology options and managing the research;
3. Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLA): developed through
critical reflection and experiential learning through the process of addres-
sing local development challenges. Researchers help different groups
develop their knowledge and capacities for self-development, as facilita-
tor, catalyst, and provider of methodological support and opportunities
(Roling, 1996).
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and may be used in
combination to complement each other in different situations. Currently,
most research falls under the “transfer of technology” and “farmer first”
approaches. The longer-term PLA approach requires a reorientation of skills,
management, and financing modes (without predefined quantifiable targets),
and is only just beginning to be considered by researchers. One example of
researchers attempting to put PLA research into practice is the Center for
International Forest Research (CIFOR) project on Adaptive Collaborative
Management (Box 1.7).

BOX 1.7 CIFORs Project on Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM)

Improving the ability of forest stakeholders to adapt their systems of management
and organization to respond more effectively to dynamic complexity is an urgent
task in many forest areas. The ACM project addresses a number of research
questions:
1. Can collaboration among stakeholders in forest management, enhanced by
social learning, lead to both improved human well-being and to the mainte-
nance of forest cover and diversity?
2. What approaches, centered on social learning and collective action, can be
used to encourage sustainable use and management of forest resources?
3. In what ways do ACM processes and outcomes impact on social, economic,
political, and ecological functioning?
The project collaborates with many institutions involved in research, imple-
mentation, and facilitation of change across a number of countries. Researchers
see themselves as part of the system rather than neutral. Since there is no single
“objective” static viewpoint from which forest management dynamics can be
observed, forest managers and users are all actively and meaningfully involved
(Continued )
 Introduction Chapter | 1 25

BOX 1.7 (Continued)

in the research. Research outputs are targeted toward different users at local,
national, and global levels, including: manuals on methods and approaches,
toolbox for development practitioners, policy briefs, research papers, and soft-
ware such as simulation models.

Source: www.cifor.cgiar.org.

Exciting recent developments show the potential for decentralized and

client-driven R&E to be highly relevant to smallholders. Experiments in rea-
ligning R&E are currently underway in a number of developing countries,
such as Bolivia and Uganda. The political context is promoting rapid change
in agricultural R&E, with almost universal disinvestment in government agri-
cultural services providing incentives for more client-driven extension and
private sector partnerships. In some countries, such as Bolivia, the public
sector investment in agricultural R&E has shrunk to almost nil. Although
there are concerns about meeting the needs of the poorest clients under these
circumstances, promising shifts toward more responsive and integrated
extension have arisen in Bolivia and Uganda. These countries show that it is
possible for extension and agricultural advice services to reduce the level of
commodity focus, and focus more attention on science in the service of cli-
ent partnerships, catalyzing rural innovation while giving consideration to
the whole farming system.

CATALYZING DIRECTIONS OF CHANGE

The rural environment is undergoing rapid change. Globalization, climate change,
and epidemics are some of the forces impinging on farming systems. Farmers are
developing innovative responses, and can be supported to intensify—or in some
cases extend—in directions that are sustainable, resilient, and equitable.
The case for working with smallholder farmers as a key engine of devel-
opment and production is widely known. Not in all cases, but in many situa-
tions, the ability of smallholders to be highly productive on a per acre basis
is outstanding. Farmers will produce given access to resources and incen-
tives, even if their land holding size is small. Examples include China and
Russia (and numerous others) who have fed their billions not from the col-
lective farmer movement that built up large farms, but from individual small-
holder efforts, where many farmers built very productive small plots
(intensive gardens) that fed most of the population. The indigenous knowl-
edge (IK) of smallholders is unsurpassed—they know their resources, such
as soils and priorities, better than anyone!
26 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

Researchers have become interested in linking with what they see as a

vast untapped resource, and many have initiated participatory research pro-
jects to try to extract and replicate this knowledge. This can increase the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of development programs, since IK is owned and
managed by local people, including the poor. However, the danger is that in
joining researcher-driven activities farmers abandon some of the very prac-
tices which have built up and continually extend and modify their local
knowledge base. A few researchers have taken an alternative “empowering”
approach to participatory research, seeking to enhance farmers’ capacities to
experiment and extend their knowledge. This requires scientists to strive to
understand the process of local knowledge generation and then to support
and complement it (see Box 1.8).

BOX 1.8 Research Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge

Indigenous knowledge is the basis for local level decision-making in food secu-
rity, human and animal health, education, NRM, and other vital economic and
social activities. Agricultural and social scientists have been aware of the exis-
tence of IK since colonial times, but from the early 1980s understanding of farm-
ers’ practices as rational and valid has rapidly gained ground. Two contrasting
interpretations of IK are:
1. Local knowledge is a huge, largely untapped, resource that can be removed
from its context and applied and replicated in different places (like formal
science). Proponents of this perspective have scientifically validated IK or
sought similarities and complementarities between their knowledge and
farmers’ knowledge. Farming Systems Approaches and Participatory
Research and Development largely follow this thinking.
2. IK is based on empirical experience and is embedded in both biophysical
and social contexts, and cannot easily be removed from them. It follows that
the process by which IK is created is as important as the products of this
research.
Many participatory research projects have superimposed a western scientific
method of inquiry over local innovators’ procedures without first assessing local
knowledge and understanding the processes that generate it. This can result in
innovative farmers: “playing along” or participating, but not internalizing or
adopting research/extension messages; abandoning their practices and following
those brought by outside agents who they see as more knowledgeable (and pow-
erful) than they are; or adopting and adapting elements of western scientific
research modes.
Some participatory research projects, particularly those which aim to
empower local people, attempt to support indigenous research as a parallel and
complementary system to formal agricultural research. The approach is to
enhance the farmers capacities to experiment through training in basic scientific
and organizational principles. Skills include problem-solving, and analytical and
(Continued )
 Introduction Chapter | 1 27

BOX 1.8 (Continued)

communication capacity building, particularly in adaptive experimentation and
technology dissemination.
Tangible results and impacts on the lives of the poor have been achieved
under each approach. However, achieving a lasting impact requires stimulating
processes for innovation that are already present in rural communities. Case
studies of participatory research empowering IK can be found in the accompa-
nying DVD.

Source: Saad, N., 2002. Farmer processes of experimentation and innovation: a review of the
literature. Particip. Res. Gender Anal. Program. CGIAR (Saad, 2002).

The goals and interests of smallholders vary widely, but a starting point
is identifying where change is occurring, and where interest in intensification
is high. The challenge is to bring researchers and smallholder farmers
together in a productive partnership, based on respect for each others’ knowl-
edge, skills, experience, and situation.
Major developments have occurred over the past decades in systems
thinking and the adaptation of the Innovation Systems Approach from
industry to agriculture. The Agricultural Innovation Systems approach is
based on dynamic multistakeholder partnerships. These can comprise
farmers, input suppliers, traders, and service providers (researchers and
extension staff) who are facilitated to work together toward a common
objective, such as producing cut flowers for export, or increasing the
efficiency of cassava production, processing, and distribution for the
domestic market. The concept has gained ground due to sponsorship from
the World Bank (2012) and other major donors and is further discussed in
Chapter 11, The Innovation Systems Approach to Agricultural Research
and Development.

ROAD MAP
This book synthesizes theory and practice to support innovation in agricul-
tural systems. Over three decades ago, farming systems research emerged
out of a deep commitment to meet the needs of farmers and the rural poor.
Commodity-focused, green revolution technologies were critiqued as not
being relevant to the resources or priorities of many smallholder farmers,
evidenced in low levels of adoption. This was particularly evident for rain-
fed agriculture in Africa and South Asia. Farming systems approaches of the
1970s and 1980s turned out to be inadequate to the tremendous task at hand,
and disappointed many advocates. However, lessons were learned and expe-
rience accumulated in support of holistic approaches to development. The
28 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

commitment to a systems perspective grew through the 1990s and into the
first decade of the 21st century, strengthened by the development of more
interdisciplinary methodologies and participatory approaches. The goal of
this book is to support this revival of farming systems, through summarizing
lessons from applied agroecology and outreach in support of innovation. We
hope it will be of value to you the reader.
A road map of the book topics follows. The first section of the book lays
out the principles and practices involved in reinventing farming systems. In
this, the introductory chapter, we present some of the serious challenges
faced by farmers and rural communities, and the dynamic, complex nature of
equitable and sustainable development. This is followed by an overview of
emerging opportunities and successful examples of rural innovation and agri-
cultural development. The underlying biophysical gradients that guide the
formation of farming systems and principles of applied agroecology for
improved design are the focus of Chapter 2, Agroecology: Principles and
Practice. Agroecology theory and practical implications are presented.
Chapter 3, Farming-Related Livelihoods, presents ways to address the com-
plexity of farmer livelihoods, building on farming systems research, liveli-
hoods, and analyzing experience. Approaches and tools are presented that
educators, extension staff, researchers, and change agents can use to work
with smallholder farmers around the globe. Chapter 4, Farming Systems for
Sustainable Intensification, is an all new chapter for this second edition, and
considers drivers of agricultural intensification. That is, the how and why of
farming system trajectories, and what can help bring about sustainable
intensification.
Chapter 5, Designing for the Long-term: Sustainable Agriculture, presents
the next steps in reinventing farming systems. This includes an overview of
design principles for long-term sustainability, and applications within a
developing country context.
The next four chapters explore the resources that support rural liveli-
hoods, namely: soil productivity, and plant and animal genotypes. Chapter 6,
Low-Input Technology: An Integrative View, explores lessons from research
on the environment and conditions that support adoption of low input agri-
culture technology, in a developing country context. Chapter 7, Ecologically
Based Nutrient Management, presents agroecological approaches to nutrient
management, including theoretical and practical considerations to improve
nutrient efficiency, and enhance productivity. Chapter 8, Participatory
Breeding: Developing Improved and Relevant Crop Varieties With Farmers,
and Chapter 9, Research on Livestock, Livelihoods, and Innovation, focus on
participatory plant breeding efforts and livestock improvement, including
exciting examples of innovation, and genotype improvement that follows
when farmer priorities are fully taken into account. Theory and practice is
 Introduction Chapter | 1 29

presented for this more client-oriented and co-learning approach to develop-

ment of technologies, that are suited to the complexity of farming systems.
Section three considers the context for sustainable agriculture and devel-
opment. Gender and equity in development is the focus of Chapter 10,
Gender and Agrarian Inequities, where the complexity of social relations and
access to resources is addressed through a historical review of agricultural
systems and inequities, with in-depth examples from Malawi at the house-
hold and community level. The theory of innovation and approaches to cata-
lyze rural innovation are addressed in Chapter 11, The Innovation Systems
Approach to Agricultural Research and Development. Chapter 12, Outreach
to Support Rural Innovation, presents new models in agricultural outreach,
highlighting extension that is client-oriented, and demand-driven knowl-
edge generation and dissemination. Climate change and agriculture, includ-
ing challenges and adaptation, are the topics of Chapter 13, Climate
Change and Agricultural Systems. This is an all new and comprehensive
look at the manyfold and dynamic changes underway with climate change,
and both incremental and visionary responses possible within agricultural
development. The book ends with Chapter 14, Tying It All Together:
Global, Regional and Local Integrations, which addresses head on the
challenges of the 21st century for rural innovation and development.
Promising pathways and integration across local and global efforts in
agricultural systems development are explored in this, the penultimate
chapter of the book.
Our intention in this book is to provide powerful examples of R&E pro-
grams that have achieved impact in a developing country context, to inspire
and improve understanding of agricultural change.

REFERENCES
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), 2014. Africa agriculture status
Report 2014: Climate change and smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. AGRA,
p. 218.
Bawden, R., 1995. On the systems dimension in FSR. J. Farm. Syst. Res.-Exten. 5 (2), 1 18.
Biggs, S., 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from
nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper. ISNAR,
The Hague.
Boko, M., et al., 2007. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,
Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Africa Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
(Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 433 467.
Coe, R., Nelson, R., 2011. Exploring agroecological intensification as a framework for research
and development for smallholder agriculture. Briefing paper for McKnight Foundation,
Minnesota, USA.
30 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

Defoer, T., De Groote, H., Hilhorst, T., Kante, S., Budelman, A., 1998. Farmer participatory
action research and quantitative analysis: a fruitful marriage? Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 71,
215 228.
De Jager, A., Onduru, D., Walaga, C., 2004. Facilitated learning in soil fertility management:
Assessing potentials of low-external input technologies in east African farming systems.
Agr. Syst. 79, 205 223.
Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., Gibbon, D. (Eds.), 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome.
FAO, n.d. Farm Systems Management: Agricultural and Farm Systems. http://www.fao.org/doc-
rep/w7365e/w7365e04.htm.
FAO, 2011. Save and grow. A policymakers’s guide to sustainable intensification of smallholder
crop production. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
FAO, 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2015. Food and Agriculture Organisation
of the United Nations, Rome.
Freebairn, D.K., 1995. Did the green revolution concentrate incomes? A quantitative study of
research reports. World Dev. 23, 265 279.
Gilbert, R.A., Komwa, M.K., Benson, T.D., Sakala, W.D., 2002. A comparison of best-bet
soil fertility technologies for maize grown by Malawian smallholders. A research
report on the nationwide on-farm cropping system verification trial by Action Group 1,
Maize Productivity Task Force, Malawi Dept. of Agriculture and Irrigation, Lilongwe,
Malawi.
Hamilton, N., 1995. Learning to learn with farmers. Case study: Queensland, Australia
1990 1995. Doctoral Dissertation. Wageningen Agriculture University.
Inaizumi, H., Singh, B.B., Sanginga, P.C., Manyong, V.M., Adesina, A.A., Tarawali, S., 1999.
Adoption and Impact of Dry-Season Dual-Purpose Cowpea in the Semi-Arid Zone of
Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Janssen, W., Goldsworthy, P., 1996. Multidisciplinary research for natural resource management:
Conceptual and practical implications. Agr. Syst. 51, 259 279.
Kanyama-Phiri, G.Y., Snapp, S.S., Kamanga, B., Wellard, K., 2000. Towards Integrated Soil
Fertility Management in Malawi: Incorporating participatory approaches in agricultural
research. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 11. IIED, UK. www.iied.org/drylands.
Kitch, L., Boukar, O., Endondo, C., Murdock, L., 1998. Farmer acceptability criteria in breeding
cowpea. Exp. Agric. 34 (4), 475 486.
Kristjanson, P., Okike, I., Tarawali, S., Singh, B.B., Manyong, V.M., 2005. Farmers’ perceptions
of benefits and factors affecting the adoption of improved dual-purpose cowpea in the dry
savannahs of Nigeria. Agr. Econ. 32, 195 210.
Lamboll, R., Nelson, V., Nathaniels, N., 2011. Emerging approaches for responding to climate
change in African agricultural advisory services: Challenges, opportunities and recommen-
dations for an AFAAS climate change response strategy. AFAAS, Kampala, Uganda and
FARA, Accra, Ghana.
MacColl, D., 1989. Studies on maize (Zea mays L) at Bunda College, Malawi II. Yield in short
duration with legumes. Exp. Agr. 25, 367 374.
Nathaniels, N.Q.R., 2005. Cowpea, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer extension: a benin
case study, Agr. Res. Exten. Network Paper, 148. Overseas Development Institute, London,
July 2005.
 Introduction Chapter | 1 31

Norman, 1980. The Farming Systems Approach: Relevancy for the Small Farmer. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Pound, B., Snapp, S.S., McDougall, C., Braun, A. (Eds.), 2003. Uniting Science and
Participation: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Earthscan, London.
Probst, K., 2000. Success factors in natural resource management research. Dissection of a com-
plex discourse. In: Lilja, N., Ashby, J., Sperling, L. (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of
Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. CGIAR Program on Participatory Research
and Gender Analysis. CIAT, Cali.
Probst, K., Hagmann, J., Fernandez, M., Ashby, J., 2003. Understanding participatory
research in the context of natural resource management paradigms, approaches and
typologies, Agri. Res. Exten. Network Paper, 130. Overseas Development Institute,
London, July 2003.
Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., Waters-Bayer, A., 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction to
Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. Macmillan, London.
Richards, P., 1986. Coping with Hunger: Hazard and Experiment in an African Rice Farming
System. Allen and Unwin, London.
Ringler, C., Zhu, T., Cai, X., Koo, J., Wang, D., 2010. Climate Change Impacts on Food
Security in sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from Comprehensive Climate Change Scenarios
(No. 1042). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, URL:
http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/125061/filename/
125015.pdf Accessed on 30th September, 2015.
Roling, N., 1996. Towards an interactive agricultural science. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Ext 2 (4), 35 48.
Saad, N., 2002. Farmer processes of experimentation and innovation: a review of the literature.
Particip. Res. Gender Anal. Program. CGIAR.
Sakala, W.D., Kumwenda, J.D.T., Saka, R.R., 2004. The potential of green manures to increase
soil fertility and maize yields in Malawi. Maize Agronomy Research 2000-2003. Ministry of
Agriculture, Irrigation and Food Security, pp. 14 20.
Snapp, S., Silim, S., 2002. Farmer preferences and legume intensification for low nutrient envir-
onments. In: Adu-Gyanfi, J. (Ed.), Food Security in Nutrient-Stressed Environments:
Exploiting Plants’ Genetic Capabilities. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 289 300.
Snapp, S.S., Heong, K.L., 2003. Scaling up: participatory research and extension to reach more
farmers. In: Pound, B.S.S., Snapp, C., McDougal, Braun, A. (Eds.), Uniting Science and
Participation: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. IRDC, Canada,
Earthscan, UK, pp. 67 87.
Tarawali, S., Smith, J., Hiernaux, P., Singh, B., Gupta, S., Tabo, R., et al., 2000 August.
Integrated natural resource management - putting livestock in the picture. In: Integrated
Natural Resource Management Meeting, pp. 20 25. www.inrm.org/Workshop2000/abstract/
Tarawali/Tarawali.htm.
TAC, 2001. NRM research in the CGIAR: A Framework for programme design and evaluation.
TAC Secretariat, FAO.
UNICEF, 2015. Levels and trends in child malnutrition. UNICEF/WHO/World Bank United
Nations (nd) Sustainable development knowledge platform. United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs.
US Congress, 1990. Farm Bill Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(FACTA), Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603 (Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 1990)NAL Call # KF1692.A31 1990. Cited: http://afsic.nal.usda.
gov/sustainable-agriculture-information-access-tools-1.
32 SECTION | I Reinventing Farming Systems

Van de Fliert, E., 1998. Integrated pest management: springboard to sustainable agriculture.
In: Dhaliwal, G.S., Heinrichs, E.A. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Insect Pest Management.
Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi (India), pp. 250 266.
World Bank, 2012. Fact Sheet: The World Bank and Agriculture in Africa. http://go.worldbank.
org/GUJ8RVMRL0.
World Bank, 2015. Poverty Overview. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview#3.

INTERNET RESOURCES
The International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists has a website that provides
support for searching different databases on agricultural knowledge, and a blog on recent
agricultural information related topics http://www.iaald.org/index.php?page5infofinder.php
Agricultural knowledge links are available at the Food and Agriculture Organization FAO “Best
Practices” website, see http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/index_en.htm
Knowledge management for development e-journal often has articles of interest to agricultural
information specialists: http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/issue/view/4
A website exploring agricultural systems research, applied agroecology, and rural innovation is
maintained by the authors of this book http://globalchangescience.org/eastafricanode