the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Nov 2023
Positive tipping points for accelerating adoption of regenerative practices in African smallholder farming systems: What sustains adoption?
Abstract. Regenerative agriculture (RA) practices have been promoted as a critical climate change resilience strategy and adaptation solution for smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, most RA programmes struggle with securing and sustaining high adoption rates with many facing dis-adoption. We used Lenton et al.’s positive tipping points framework to assess the potential for fast and lasting adoption of Regenerative Agriculture (RA) in Sub-Saharan Africa. This involved reviewing literature and combining evidence from the successful expansion of the International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) in East Africa to examine the conditions and feedback processes that drive RA adoption. We found that the key leverage points for TIST wide and rapid adoption were: (1) the cultivation of reinforcing feedback processes that strengthened the social capital around adoption and (2) elimination of barriers to carbon accreditation. Integrating carbon accreditation protocols as standard in design or review of RA interventions could provide an essential leverage to boost adoption rates. Future studies could explore what drives variations in scaling rates and patterns between the sites to inform more site specific interventions.
- Preprint
(1280 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2531', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2024
The manuscript ‘Positive tipping points for accelerating adoption of regenerative practices in African smallholder farming systems: What sustains adoption?’ assesses the potential for successful adoption of Regenerative Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. It introduces the concept of positive social tipping processes using existing frameworks and applies them to the example of the International Small group and Tree planting programme (TIST) in East Africa.
While RA adoption and the TIST programme is a very interesting example of a positive social tipping point and the manuscript has the potential to become an interesting publication, the manuscript in its current form lacks clear structure, clear definitions and coherent use of terminology. It requires fundamental reworking before publication.
The structure of the manuscript is not clear. Why do the authors start with the social tipping point framework by FOLU, then use Fesenfeld (2022) and finally move to Moore et al’s (2015) concept of scaling? What is the connection between Moore et al and STPs and why is it useful to use them both?
The manuscript is not very well written and requires correction of typos and other language and grammar mistakes before publication. In addition, the manuscript’s style (repetition of words, mistakes in referencing) needs to be improved.
In more detail:
Section 1:
Fig 1 which is directly copied from the FOLU report is not necessarily suitable to describe a positive social tipping process. Column 3 (conditions for systemic tipping points) is labelled as ‘enabling environment’ in the FOLU report (non peer-reviewed grey literature) but usually, positive tipping frameworks start with enabling conditions before reinforcing and dampening feedbacks lead to a tipping point. I would recommend using Fig 3 in Lenton et al (2022) or Fig 4.2.3 in the Global Tipping Point Report as framework instead.
Section 2:
I wouldn’t define economic competitiveness as an enabling condition. I would rather define it as social tipping element following Otto et al (2020). An intervention to create an enabling condition to reach economic competitiveness could be investments in R&D or extension services in the RA field. The examples of control variables for enabling conditions provided in the Lenton et al (2022) figure seem more suitable to me.
The categories economic competitiveness, accessability, capability and cultural appropriateness are neither clearly defined nor coherently applied throughout section 2. For example, access to affordable credit is listed under ‘capability’. Extension services are discussed in the competitiveness section. Each category needs to be clearly defined.
The role of information is not clear. Is it an additional category or does it run through the four other categories?
Section 3:
Fig 2: Apparently this figure is adapted from Fesenfeld (2022) but the reference is missing in the bibliography and thus, I cannot evaluate it. Also, the four categories (economic competitiveness, accessibility etc) are, according to the text, interacting in Fig 2, but they are not even referenced in Fig 2.
The section is titled ‘reinforcing feedbacks processes’ but they are not discussed in detail in the section. Fig 2 is not well described in the text. It is not clear how Moore’s (2015) definition of scaling is linked to the Fesenfeld et al. transition diagram.
Section 8:
Why is a causal loop diagram used to describe the positive feedback loops? Who developed it and on what basis? Was it developed together with TIST farmers? Or based on a literature review? This is all very unclear.
Fig 5 is labelled ‘reinforcing feedback loops’ but shows dampening feedback loops as well. The negative link between ‘decreased soil productivity’ and ‘decreased crop yield’ is incorrect. More decreased soil productivity leads to more decreased crop yield. Further, a rapid growth of trees leads to a decrease in soil productivity. The link needs to be positive or the label needs to change to ‘soil productivity’. The entire figure needs to be reworked.
Again, how is Fig 6 linked to the positive social tipping framework? Who has developed the figure, based on what information? Why is the layout different to Figs 5 and 4?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2531-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antony Philip Emenyu, 05 Jun 2024
Thank you for reading our manuscript and providing such useful feedback. We acknowledge the need for substantial changes in the overall manuscript structure, clear definition and coherent use of terminology and concepts, clear referencing and appropriate signposting of illustrations. We really appreciate your suggestions to improve quality of the manuscript (particularly around the clear structure, definitions, terminology). To shall take the following steps to address the various observed issues.
- Introduced a section on conceptual framing (just after introduction). In this section we discuss the relationship between the positive tipping points framework proposed by Lenton et al. (2022) and Moore et al.’s concept on scaling. We then propose an integration between these two frameworks which forms a basis for the rest of our analysis throughout the manuscript and have ensured that consistent terminology is used accordingly.
- Replaced the original Figure 1 (from the FOLU report) with an adapted version based on Lenton et al 2022, and informed by our conceptual synthesis. . The elements under control variables for enabling condition (in the positive tipping points framework) will be merged into the following four categories (price/cost, complementarity and performance, Desirability and symbolism, Accessibility/Convenience, Information, social networks and capability) reflect their interdependencies in regenerative agriculture
- The section 2.0 on enabling conditions will be merged with 3.0 on reinforcing feed backs. Under each of the subheadings in this combined section, we discuss enabling conditions, the reinforcing feed backs they interact with, and the possible scaling effect.
- The section on scaling of TIST (presently section 5 and 6) and reinforcing feedback processes driving adoption of TIST (section 8) will be merged with the section on enabling conditions driving adoption of TIST (section 7). The section will then cover enabling conditions and reinforcing feedback processes in the TIST case study and their impact on scaling. Figure 4,5 and 6 will be integrated in this discussion and contents integrated in text inorder to keep the manuscript focused.
We provide more specific responses to each of the comments in the attached supplementary document RC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antony Philip Emenyu, 05 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2531', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2024
The presented manuscript “Positive tipping points for accelerating adoption of regenerative practices in African smallholder farm systems: What sustain adoption?” examines the potential of an accelerated and sustained adoption of regenerative agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. It analyses the conditions and feedback processes as concepts of social tipping processes using the example of the International Small Group and Tree Planting Programme, supplemented by literature review.
The idea of analysing the adoption of RA using a concrete example is interesting and promising, but the approach used is unclear and needs more explanation. For example, it is not clear to me, how the framework for operationalising positive tipping points was used throughout the process and how it was linked to other approchaes such as the three forms of scaling by Moore.
Furthermore, the manuscript lacks definitions and a standardised use of terminology. For instance, a clear definition of regenerative agriculature practices is missing. In Section 1, conservation agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and agroforestry are presetente as RA practices. In my understanding, conservation agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and regenerative agriculture are all alternative approaches to conventional agriculture that fall under the umbrella of sustainable agriculture, while RA practices tend to include specific agricultural practices such as reducing tillage or growing cover crops (I would include agroforestry here as well) (e.g. Newton et al., 2020). To avoid confusion, I would suggest giving a clear definition of what is meant by RA practices. Also, it is not clear to me whether the Tree Planting Programme is considered as a practice or a programme that facilitates RA practices; again, a more precise definition would be helpful.
More detailed comments for the respective sections:
Section 2:
- For me, it is not clear to me where the key factors come from and how they are linked to the framework presented in Section 1. Rogers (2003) is cited for the list of conditions and not the framework for operationalising positive tipping points.
- The structure of the respective paragraphs is not clear to me as well. What should be presented and explained? Description of the conditions (e.g. economic competitiveness) in the context of RA in Africa and measures to create these conditions (e.g. information exchange)? If this is the case, it should be made more explicit.
- In the paragraph about "Cultural and social appropriateness", every citation is double. In addition, the description of the competition to the green revolution in Africa in the second paragraph is not clear to me. What is the green revolution? How does this relate to the condition described?
- In the paragraph about "Accessebility", is it not clear what the different forms of accessibility are? The first sentence is incomprehensible to me in this regard. What is meant by intervention? What is meant by process (the examples given were considered practices in section ?)? What is meant by product? In the third part of this paragraph, thre references seem to be missing.
Section 3:
- The chapter is called “Reinforcing feedback processes in adoption in RA”, but feedback processes are not mentioned or explained in the text. What do the feedback processes mean for the adoption of RA?
- In Fig. 2, it's not clear how the different conditions from Section 2 are reflected.
- In line 268, a distinction is made between the individual level and the household level. What does this distinction mean with regard to regenerative agriculture? Individual farmers, farming households? Section 8 makes a similar distinction between the household and the community level? I would suggest clearly defining these levels and indicating which levels are of interest or being looked at.
Section 5 and 6:
- The table is its own chapter.
- It is not clear to me why the example of TIST is analysed using the three forms of scaling from Moore et al. What is the relationship between the conditions and feedback loops and the three forms of scaling?
Section 8:
- Figure 4 and 5: It is not clear to me how to read this figure. "Social contagion and network effects" seems to be a category of feedback processes. Do the social, ecological, economic and agronomic processes indicated lead to social contagion? Or does a contagious feedback process result from the interaction of these processes? I would suggest explicitly representing the important feedbacks using causal loop diagrams and labelling indicating the respective feedback processes.
- Small note: In Figure 4 it is feedback processes, in Figure 5 it is feedback loops. I would standardise the descriptions.
- Figure 6: Same comment as for Figure 4 and 5. The figure is difficult to read, a clear indication of the feedback processes would be helpful. To be consistent here, I would suggest also adding the polarities (+/-) as in the other two figures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2531-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Antony Philip Emenyu, 05 Jun 2024
The presented manuscript “Positive tipping points for accelerating adoption of regenerative practices in African smallholder farm systems: What sustain adoption?” examines the potential of an accelerated and sustained adoption of regenerative agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. It analyses the conditions and feedback processes as concepts of social tipping processes using the example of the International Small Group and Tree Planting Programme, supplemented by literature review.
The idea of analysing the adoption of RA using a concrete example is interesting and promising, but the approach used is unclear and needs more explanation. For example, it is not clear to me, how the framework for operationalising positive tipping points was used throughout the process and how it was linked to other approaches such as the three forms of scaling by Moore.
RESPONSE:
Thank you so much for this critical observation which highlights the need to adopt a clear structure and consistent use of terminology across the entire manuscript. To improve address this issue, we have
Introduced a section on conceptual framing (just after introduction). In this section we discuss the relationship between the framework for operationalisation of positive tipping points proposed by Lenton et al. (2022) and Moore et al.’s conceptualisation of scaling.
Moore et al.’s conceptualisation of scaling acknowledges three levels/dimensions of scaling: scaling deep (impacting social norms), scaling out (impacting greater numbers) and scaling up (Impacting laws and policy). The framework for operationalisation of positive tipping points on the other hand introduces the concept that certain reinforcing feedback processes play a crucial role in driving the various dimensions and levels of scaling. It critically observes that, if these reinforcing feedback processes are strong enough, scaling could be self-perpetuating (Global Tipping Points Report, 2023).
In the conceptual framing section, we discuss the integration between the two frameworks which forms a basis for the rest of our analysis throughout the manuscript. We have restructured the manuscript accordingly and also adopted terminology from the respective frameworks to ensure consistency in definitions.
Furthermore, the manuscript lacks definitions and a standardised use of terminology. For instance, a clear definition of regenerative agriculture practices is missing. In Section 1, conservation agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and agroforestry are presented as RA practices. In my understanding, conservation agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and regenerative agriculture are all alternative approaches to conventional agriculture that fall under the umbrella of sustainable agriculture, while RA practices tend to include specific agricultural practices such as reducing tillage or growing cover crops (I would include agroforestry here as well) (e.g. Newton et al., 2020). To avoid confusion, I would suggest giving a clear definition of what is meant by RA practices.
RESPONSE:
Thank you for this critical observation which further calls for clarity of definitions. Newton et al. (2020) provides a critical review of the various definitions of regenerative agriculture. Based on their work, they identify two common ways of definition pathways; process focused definitions (e.g reduce tillage, crop rotation, cover cropping) or outcome focused definitions (e.g increase carbon sequestration, improve ecosystem health). In this piece we opted for the outcome-based definition for the following reasons:
- The description of any system as regenerative is based on its outcomes rather than its components.
- Different combinations of processes could lead to different outcomes depending on the social-ecological context. Thus, rather than defining the processes (which is rather prescriptive), a focus on the outcomes would permit practitioners to identify the most appropriate processes unique to their respective contexts.
Therefore, in lines 47-50 we write, “RA here refers to farming practices that improve soil, water and overall ecosystem health, increase carbon sequestration, increase biodiversity, maintain or improve farm productivity and improve social and economic wellbeing (see Newton et al., 2020)”.
Also, it is not clear to me whether the Tree Planting Programme is considered as a practice or a programme that facilitates RA practices; again, a more precise definition would be helpful.
RESPONSE:
In Line 280, we describe TIST as “an agroforestry, payment for ecosystem services (PES) programme”. However, we acknowledge that this definition seems to lack sufficient clarity. To address this, in the revision, we define TIST as, “A program that promotes tree planting with an added benefit of accessing payments for carbon captured”.
More detailed comments for the respective sections:
Section 2:
- For me, it is not clear to me where the key factors come from and how they are linked to the framework presented in Section 1. Rogers (2003) is cited for the list of conditions and not the framework for operationalising positive tipping points.
- The structure of the respective paragraphs is not clear to me as well. What should be presented and explained? Description of the conditions (e.g. economic competitiveness) in the context of RA in Africa and measures to create these conditions (e.g. information exchange)? If this is the case, it should be made more explicit.
- In the paragraph about "Cultural and social appropriateness", every citation is double. In addition, the description of the competition to the green revolution in Africa in the second paragraph is not clear to me. What is the green revolution? How does this relate to the condition described?
- In the paragraph about "Accessibility", is it not clear what the different forms of accessibility are? The first sentence is incomprehensible to me in this regard. What is meant by intervention? What is meant by process (the examples given were considered practices in section?)? What is meant by product? In the third part of this paragraph, the references seem to be missing.
RESPONSE:
Thank you so much for your comments which point out to the inconsistency in structure (Both overall manuscript structure and paragraph structure in section 2.0), lack of clear definition and consistent use of terminology and appropriate citation.
To improve structural alignment, we have introduced a section on conceptual framing (just after introduction). In this section we discuss the relationship between the framework for operationalisation of positive tipping points proposed by Lenton et al. (2022) and Moore et al.’s conceptualisation of scaling. We then propose an integration between these two frameworks which forms a basis for the rest of our analysis throughout the manuscript. The section 2.0 on enabling conditions will be merged with 3.0 on reinforcing feed backs. Under each of the subheadings in this combined section, we discuss enabling conditions, the reinforcing feed backs they could cause and the possible scaling effect.
To ensure clear definitions and consistent use of terminology, we adopt the labelling and definitions used in the framework for operationalisation of positive tipping points. However, the elements under control variables for enabling condition (in the positive tipping points framework) will be merged into the following four categories (price/cost, complementarity and performance, Desirability and symbolism, Accessibility/Convenience, Information, social networks and capability) to reflect their interdependencies in regenerative agriculture systems.
The ‘green revolution’ in this context is related agricultural approaches that prioritise yield maximisation through intensive use of external inputs like fertilisers and pesticides. It is brought up here to provide context to potential trade-offs the farmers have to make and how regenerative agriculture could be given an edge.
Section 3:
- The chapter is called “Reinforcing feedback processes in adoption in RA”, but feedback processes are not mentioned or explained in the text. What do the feedback processes mean for the adoption of RA?
RESPONSE
Thank you for this critical observation which further highlight the need for better structural alignment in the manuscript. Feedback processes represent causal loops that reinforce certain actions, in this case adoption. These in-turn depend on the enabling conditions that have been created. By separating these sections we fail to capture this linkage. To address this gap, we shall merge the sections on enabling conditions presently (section 2.0) and the section on reinforcing feedback processes (section 3.0) and link discussions to the different levels of scaling.
- In Fig. 2, it's not clear how the different conditions from Section 2 are reflected.
- In line 268, a distinction is made between the individual level and the household level. What does this distinction mean with regard to regenerative agriculture? Individual farmers, farming households? Section 8 makes a similar distinction between the household and the community level? I would suggest clearly defining these levels and indicating which levels are of interest or being looked at.
RESPONSE:
We thank the referee for the observations and suggestion for a clear definition and distinction between individual farmers, farming household, farming community and indication of level of interest. We take note and will ensure the necessarily contextual clarity is provided whenever the comparisons between levels is undertaken.
Section 5 and 6:
- The table is its own chapter.
- It is not clear to me why the example of TIST is analysed using the three forms of scaling from Moore et al. What is the relationship between the conditions and feedback loops and the three forms of scaling?
RESPONSE:
Thank you for this observation which highlights the lack of structural clarity. To improve overall structural clarity, we have revised the overall manuscript structure. We introduced a conceptual framing section which discusses the interrelationship between the levels/dimensions of scaling and the framework for operationalisation of positive tipping points and used this to set the tone for the entire manuscript. We have omitted the table in section 5 and integrated its contents in the discussion on enabling conditions and reinforcing feedback processes in the scaling of TIST, linking these to the various dimensions of scaling.
Section 8:
- Figure 4 and 5: It is not clear to me how to read this figure. "Social contagion and network effects" seems to be a category of feedback processes. Do the social, ecological, economic and agronomic processes indicated lead to social contagion? Or does a contagious feedback process result from the interaction of these processes? I would suggest explicitly representing the important feedbacks using causal loop diagrams and labelling indicating the respective feedback processes.
- Small note: In Figure 4 it is feedback processes, in Figure 5 it is feedback loops. I would standardise the descriptions.
- Figure 6: Same comment as for Figure 4 and 5. The figure is difficult to read, a clear indication of the feedback processes would be helpful. To be consistent here, I would suggest also adding the polarities (+/-) as in the other two figures.
RESPONSE 17:
Thank you for the critical observations in figure 4,5 and 6.
In figure 4, the cumulative benefits (ie livelihood improvements and resilience) from ecological, agronomic and economic processes are what leads to social contagion. Without the improved livelihoods and resilience, neither the individual processes nor the interaction between these processes might lead to social contagion and network effects.
In Figure 5, our focus was to illustrate the possibility of unintended feedback processes that could result from adoption of particular intervention. Here, we do not attempt to link these to social contagion or network effects.
Fig 6 was developed by the authors based on literature (peer reviewed and grey) on TIST. The lay-out is different because the focus of this figure is to show transitions across scales rather than a highlighting the internal dynamics that affect these processes which is the focus of fig 4 and 5.
Despite the above explanation, we recognise the confusion our current presentation could cause and will be making the following changes in the revised version.
- Since we shall be merging the enabling conditions and reinforcing feedback sections, the figures will be integrated into the most appropriate sections under enabling conditions and reinforcing feed-back processes in the scaling of TIST. Figure 4 and 5 will be introduced under the section of cost, performance and complementarity while figure 6 is brought under the section information and social networks. The appropriate text signposting the figures will also be presented under the respective sections.
- The presentation of the figures will be reviewed taking the comments of the referee into account.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 366 | 204 | 48 | 618 | 37 | 36 |
- HTML: 366
- PDF: 204
- XML: 48
- Total: 618
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 177 | 28 |
| Germany | 2 | 78 | 12 |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 68 | 10 |
| China | 4 | 42 | 6 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 34 | 5 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 177