How a research-for-development project in semi-arid Tunisia is showing that lasting agroecological transformation can be achieved in just 18 months if you co-design for it.
A persistent gap remains in agricultural development between the knowledge produced by research and the practical experience of farmers. Technologies are disseminated, projects are terminated and minor alterations are observed, but farmer’s everyday realities do not meaningfully change. The fundamental question that underpins a significant proportion of the most rigorous research in the domain of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) does not pertain to the feasibility of transformation, but rather to the strategic design of initiatives that are intended to catalyze it from the outset.
In Tunisia, the Soil and Water Conservation at Scale (SWC@Scale) project, led by ICARDA, offers a compelling and replicable solution to this pressing issue. Operating within the context of semi-arid regions, where soil degradation, water scarcity, and limited institutional support impede the activities of millions of smallholder farmers, the project applied a dual entry point framework that addresses the trade-offs inherent in system transformation. The experiment was pursued over 18 months and demonstrated social, economic, and environmental impact. The preliminary findings provide insights that extend far beyond the confines of Tunisia.
Why do single-solution approaches fail?
The technology push model has long been dominant in agricultural development. This model involves identifying a good practice, demonstrating it, and expecting farmers to adopt it. This linear logic and approach has an obvious flaw. A practice that improves soil health over years may require upfront investment with delayed returns, an unacceptable trade-off for households experiencing immediate food insecurity. The intervention fails, not because the technology incompatible, but because the design ignores the farmer’s actual decision-making context.
The dual entry point approach addresses this issue during the design stage. Rather than promoting a single solution, this approach operates through two complementary pathways: a biophysical entry point to improve natural resource management and a social entry point to strengthen local institutions, capacities, and stakeholder engagement. This approach promotes multi-benefit innovations that deliver economic and environmental gains, as well as bundles of complementary solutions that are carefully sequenced over time to balance short-term needs with long-term sustainability.
Root the design in context, not assumptions
Prior to the implementation of any intervention in Tunisia, the project team conducted extensive fieldwork, encompassing surveys, focus group discussions, and stakeholder consultations. This contextual diagnosis was not perfunctory; rather, it was a deliberate and considered process. The identification of innovations was determined by the application of three primary criteria in the packaging process:
- The relevance of the solutions to farmers’ immediate needs and interests
- The positive environmental impact
- The complementarity of the solutions, so that they function together as a coherent system are of the essence.
The sequencing of these solutions is also regarded as a scaling strategy during the implementation phase. Farmers who experience early, tangible benefits are more likely to invest in longer-term solutions. The establishment of trust through the demonstration of tangible results fosters the social environment necessary for large-scale adoption. Achieving the optimal entry point entails considerations that extend beyond local fit, it is also essential to establish the conditions that are conductive to organic spread.
What alterations might occur in the span of 18 months?
The project’s preliminary outcomes are significant, particularly given the relatively brief duration of the 18-month implementation. The process of documenting meaningful transformation is often protracted, requiring years of observations and analysis. Nevertheless the SWC@Scale project identified evidence of genuine systemic transformation across social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This transformation was evident not solely in output metrics but also in behavioral shifts and organizational changes.
The social dynamic that emerged among farmers during the span of 18 months reflected increased knowledge exchange, which subsequently led to a heightened demand for improved agricultural practices. Local organizations, including agricultural service cooperatives, were created by the communities as platforms for collective action and decision-making processes. Women’s participation and leadership in these groups increased significantly. In some communities, women began exploring the establishment of associations dedicated to the promotion of income-generating activities.
From an economic lens, the enhancement of forage and feed availability during two consecutive agricultural seasons has prompted investment in livestock fattening, a more market-oriented activity that reflects a shift of farmers from family farming to more commercially-oriented activities. Collective investments increased as farmers organized into groups, reducing individual risk. the newly established SMSA by the community obtained licenses to market agricultural inputs, thereby generating a local income stream and enhancing local farmers accessibility to agricultural services.
A shift in attitudes was also observed on the environmental front. A growing interest among farmers in the restoration of degraded rangelands using species such as Cactus, Sulla, and Carob has been observed. Adoption of legume-based rotations spontaneously for two consecutive seasons, and on-farm seed production (to grantee continuous access to forage seeds in the following years) have increased, which are indicative of a more resilient and self-sustaining agricultural system.
The infrastructure of scaling: social capital and hubs
These achievements were the result of a deliberate investment in local social capital networks, trust, and institutions that enable collective action. A total of 60 training activities were completed by over 1,200 direct beneficiaries, during the 18 months. Demonstration plots offered farmers the chance to observe and test new practices under real conditions, providing a more compelling and persuasive experience than any extension pamphlet. The project also built “scaling hubs” within the community which are local structures integrating knowledge generation (on farm trials and measures), sharing (trainings), service provision (extended training of local leader farmers), and collective organization (into farms cooperatives). These hubs are designed to ensure the promotion of innovations and scaling dynamics beyond the project’s lifespan. Such investments facilitate scaling, rather than merely replicating technologies and innovations. They foster community empowerment and capacity for continuous adaptation and diffusion of innovations within the community itself. This distinction is of great importance when it comes to project design. The impact radius of a project that ends and leaves behind social capital and enhanced social learning, even if it includes inclusive innovation process, is finite. A project that is successfully completed and leaves behind an institution or structure with legitimacy, relationships, and a mandate to continue operations has a strong potential to maintain its influence.
Implications for policy and funding
The SWC@Scale experience offers several practical lessons for the funding, design, and evaluation of AR4D. Firstly, impact does not necessarily require extended timeframes; however, it does necessitate the implementation of an appropriate and socially (organizationally) grounded approach. The implementation of short-term projects has been demonstrated to result in significant and quantifiable societal change when these projects prioritize stakeholder engagement, system thinking, and flexible iteration.
Secondly, local institutions have been identified as a crucial yet underutilized resource. Farmer organizations, cooperatives, and community groups often serve as crucial intermediaries between research and practice. Investing in their capacity, rather than solely farmer training on a given innovation, is instrumental in establishing the conditions for self-sustaining scaling. Policy frameworks which recognize and allocate resources to these actors will yield more substantial returns on their investments.
Thirdly, The dual entry point framework is highly replicable and adaptable. Although the principles were developed in a specific context in Tunisia, they can be applied in other resource-constrained contexts, provided that interventions are genuinely tailored to local conditions. Its interdisciplinary foundation, which integrates agronomy, economics, and social sciences, renders it particularly well-suited to address the complex, multi-dimensional tradeoffs that are characteristic of most smallholder farming systems.
