Contributions

Outcomes for Integrated Pest Management: (a) Women and men scientists, extension agents and private sector are deploying sustainable IPM options against biotic stresses; (b) Farmers are making informed decisions based on their knowledge of IPM; and (c) Policy makers develop laws and policies conducive to the development and deployment of IPM options, including biosecurity aspects.

CoA 3.3 Testing, adapting and validating options

This “on-the-ground” cluster of activities will integrate, adapt and validate the impact of GLDC innovations (e.g. based on ex-ante impact assessments and evaluations conducted under FP1) at field and farm levels as well as at landscape scales through collaboration with FP2, CCAFS and WLE and their contribution to CGIAR SLOs. This research recognizes the importance of the scale effects that amplify or impede the impacts of adoption by individuals, households and communities. Multi-stakeholder engagement will play a crucial role in ensuring the viability, adoptability and scaling up of the innovations; hence the participation of individual stakeholders in learning platforms will be an imperative. Initial prioritization of interventions will be derived from the priority setting activities of FP1, with lessons learned under this CoA feeding back to strengthen on-going systems analysis and modeling as decision support. The cluster will link closely with the activities of CoA 3.1 and 3.2 on synergistic cropping systems, and efficient use of land, water and nutrients to improve crop, tree and livestock systems productivity and farm income. The outputs of this flagship become the intervention scenarios to be tested in an integrative modeling environment with WLE and subsequently scaled. Steps to achieve these outputs include (1) aggregating sustainability metrics on individual interventions²²²; (2) analyzing the trade-off frontiers of farm scale options and assessing the competitiveness of new technologies against competing enterprises and their impacts on whole household incomes/cash flows and on risk management strategies considering climate change, family labor, post-harvest losses and consumption preferences using household bio-economic modeling such as CSIRO’s integrated assessment tool or IAT²²³, the modeling exercise to also evaluate potential of options considering post-harvest losses component targeting increased food availability and farm income; (3) Spatial analysis of the impacts of these interventions at the landscape level with spatially explicit agro-environmental models (e.g., WLE’s Mapping Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being^,224,225 ). The modelling platforms (household, crop and livestock) will be used to better understand temporal and spatial dynamics and therefore trade-offs and risk.