PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food
Systems Initiative: From short-termism to
transformation of the world’s food systems
Bram Govaerts 1,2☯ID *, Christine Negra 3☯ID *, Tania Carolina Camacho Villa1‡,
Xiomara Chavez Suarez1‡, Anabell Diaz Espinosa1‡, Simon Fonteyne 1‡ID ,
Andrea Gardeazabal1‡, Gabriela Gonzalez1‡, Ravi Gopal Singh1‡, Victor Kommerell1‡,
Wietske Kropff4‡, Victor Lopez Saavedra1‡, Georgina Mena Lopez1‡, Sylvanus Odjo1‡,
Natalia Palacios Rojas1‡, Julian Ramirez-Villegas4‡, Jelle Van Loon 1‡ID , Daniela Vega
1‡,
1‡
a1111111111 Nele Verhulst , Lennart Woltering
1‡, Molly Jahn5‡*, Martin Kropff1‡
a1111111111
1 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Texcoco, Mexico, 2 Cornell University,
a1111111111
Ithaca, New York, United States of America, 3 Versant Vision LLC, New York, NY, United States of America,
a1111111111 4 Alliance CIAT-Bioversity, Cali, Colombia, 5 Jahn Research Group, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
a1111111111 Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
☯ These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.
* b.govaerts@CGIAR.ORG (BG); Christine@VersantVision.com (CN); molly.jahn@jahnresearchgroup.net
(MJ)
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Govaerts B, Negra C, Camacho Villa TC,
Chavez Suarez X, Espinosa AD, Fonteyne S, et al. Abstract
(2021) One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food
Systems Initiative: From short-termism to
Agri-food systems are besieged by malnutrition, yield gaps, and climate vulnerability, but
transformation of the world’s food systems. PLoS
ONE 16(6): e0252832. https://doi.org/10.1371/ integrated, research-based responses in public policy, agricultural, value chains, and
journal.pone.0252832 finance are constrained by short-termism and zero sum thinking. As they respond to current
Editor: Abid Hussain, International Centre for and emerging agri-food system challenges, decision makers need new tools that steer
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), toward multi-sector, evidence-based collaboration. To support national agri-food system
Kathmandu, Nepal, NEPAL policy processes, the Integrated Agri-food System Initiative (IASI) methodology was devel-
Received: February 19, 2021 oped and validated through case studies in Mexico and Colombia. This holistic, multi-sector
Accepted: May 23, 2021 methodology builds on diverse existing data resources and leverages situation analysis,
modeled predictions, and scenarios to synchronize public and private action at the national
Published: June 4, 2021
level toward sustainable, equitable, and inclusive agri-food systems. Culminating in collec-
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
tively agreed strategies and multi-partner tactical plans, the IASI methodology enabled a
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of multi-level systems approach by mobilizing design thinking to foster mindset shifts and
all of the content of peer review and author stakeholder consensus on sustainable and scalable innovations that respond to real-time
responses alongside final, published articles. The dynamics in complex agri-food systems. To build capacity for these types of integrated, con-
editorial history of this article is available here:
text-specific approaches, greater investment is needed in supportive international institu-
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832
tions that function as trusted in-region ‘innovation brokers.’ This paper calls for a structured
Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all
global network to advance adaptation and evolution of essential tools like the IASI methodol-
copyright, and may be freely reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or ogy in support of the One CGIAR mandate and in service of positive agri-food systems
otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. transformation.
The work is made available under the Creative
Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Data Availability Statement: The manuscript does
not contain datasets per se. Analysis of the
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 1 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
different cases can be found here Maı́z para Introduction
Colombia https://repository.cimmyt.org/handle/
10883/20218 Maize for Colombia: https:// Agri-food systems in crisis
repository.cimmyt.org/handle/10883/20382 Maı́z
The world’s agri-food systems are the sum of activities and relationships that determine how
para México https://repository.cimmyt.org/
humanity’s food is produced, processed, distributed, and consumed, together with the human,
bitstream/handle/10883/20219/60937.pdf?
sequence=4&isAllowed=y and on the web. biological, chemical, and physical systems that shape these activities at every stage [1,2]. They
are deeply interconnected with global trade and financial networks and operate across political
Funding: This work was made possible thanks to
borders.
the generous support of the Mexican Government
through SADER in the frame of MasAgro, Crops for Today, our agri-food systems are failing to deliver healthy diets to most of the world’s popu-
Mexico. The project is part of the CGIAR Research lation, even as food production methods–agriculture, foraging, and aquaculture–create wide-
Program on Maize (MAIZE) and Wheat (WHEAT), spread environmental harm from deforestation to resource over-exploitation to massive,
which is generously supported by W1&W2 donors, planet-changing releases of activated nitrogen, phosphorus, greenhouse gases, and toxic chem-
including the Governments of Australia, Belgium,
icals. Globally, food production has increased with population growth, yet low-quality diets
Canada, China, France, India, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and food insufficiency leave billions of people suffering from malnutrition, undernutrition,
Sweden, Switzerland, U.K., U.S., and the World and obesity [3]. Agricultural yield gaps (i.e., the difference between potential and actual crop
Bank. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or and livestock productivity) remain pervasive [4,5]. The terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that
recommendations expressed in this publication are underpin food production have been heavily disrupted (e.g., carbon and nitrogen cycles; soil
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
and water resources), contributing extensively to climate change [6–8]. Climate-related risks
the view of the donors mentioned previously. The
to agriculture (including synchronous crop failure across multiple regions) threaten all types
funder provided support in the form of salaries for
authors BG, CN, TCCV, XCS, ADE, SF, AG, GG, of farmers as well as agri-businesses, financiers, insurers, consumers, and governments [9,10].
RGS, VK, VLS, GML, SO, NPR, JR-V, JVL, DV, NV, By any measure and at every scale, our agri-food systems are in urgent need of transformation
LW, but did not have any additional role in the to a condition where the food-related needs of every human are met completely and within
study design, data collection and analysis, decision planetary boundaries, consistent with a long term, livable future for all.
to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The
Simultaneously addressing the intimidating set of agri-food system challenges will require
specific roles of these authors are articulated in the
‘author contributions’ section. coordinated implementation of many strategies including rapid, extensive roll out of existing
and emerging technologies (e.g., crop and animal breeding; resource use efficiency), demand
Competing interests: No competing interests.
management (i.e., aligning food consumption with health and environmental sustainability),
Versant Vision LLC has no competing commercial
affiliation and therefore this does not alter our ambitious spatial planning and target-setting (i.e., without double-counting or excess opti-
adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data mism), regulatory reform, and substantial financial investment [11,12]. Farmer adoption of
and materials.” sustainable agricultural practices and technologies and risk mitigation in change management
will require context-appropriate combinations of agronomic support, value chain enhance-
ment, tailored incentives, and responsive policies [13–16].
We have long understood that our complex and interconnected agri-food systems are fun-
damental to our collective aspirations for inclusive and equitable communities on a sustainable
planet. Over the last seventy-five years, progress toward the post-war vision of a sustainable
global agri-food system has been stymied when public and private sector decisions have been
guided by short-term considerations and zero-sum thinking [17]. Economic policies, capital
markets, commodity value chains, and even development programs rarely reflect an integrated
systems approach [2].
The insufficiency of our current approach has been laid bare by global recessions and the
COVID-19 pandemic. Across governments, civil society, and the private sector, stakeholders
are embracing the global urgency to sustainably increase food production [18], in parallel with
economic development and while adapting to increasing pressure from climate change and
reversing natural resource degradation. Several of the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) address elements of sustainable agri-food systems [19]. However, the SDGs will not be
achieved simply by promoting individual technologies, practices, or policies targeted to a sin-
gle objective, nor can they be achieved primarily through digitization or financial inclusion
[20].
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 2 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Agri-food system solutions will require integrated systems approaches that go beyond
introducing innovation through unilateral action and, to be inclusive, must embrace collabora-
tive, research-based action by diverse stakeholders through a lens of system thinking [21–23].
To meet human needs under climate change and within resource limits, interventions will be
needed across all components of food production and distribution value chains. Yet, many
innovation and governance systems are weakly suited to handle current and emerging agri-
food challenges [24,25]. Investment in supportive international institutions has not kept pace
with the need for collaborative innovation focused simultaneously on productivity, health, and
resilience [26–28]. The perennial impediment of weak local capacity for implementing con-
text-specific solutions requires concerted effort to develop functional, inclusive civic and polit-
ical institutions [29,30] and to improve scenario-based stakeholder planning [31].
To operationalize an integrated systems approach, agri-food system decision makers need
new tools that help them to develop collaborative, research-based solutions, while accounting
for socio-economic and political realities, without getting lost in complexity [32]. As an exam-
ple of one such tool, this paper describes the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative (IASI)
methodology. Based on insights gathered through development and validation of the IASI
methodology in Mexico and Colombia, the authors call for the establishment of a structured
global network to support use and adaptation of decision support tools embedded in systems
thinking and in service of agri-food systems transformation.
The Integrated Agri-food System Initiative
Origins
The IASI methodology has conceptual origins in the global Knowledge Systems for Sustain-
ability (KSS) research alliance that builds and tests knowledge systems to more sustainably
manage complex risks related to food, energy, water, climate, and human security [33].
Methodologically, the IASI was inspired by the CSIRO-led Australian National Outlook
(ANO). In 2015, the ANO presented an innovative analytical framework designed to allow
stakeholders to explore plausible future scenarios, identify policy and investment strategies,
and agree on near-term actions [34]. Focused on Australia’s physical economy (i.e., water-
energy-food nexus; materials- and energy-intensive industries), the 2015 ANO validated an
integrated framework, which relied on loosely coupled biophysical, economic, and social mod-
els. In 2019, the ANO framework was applied to a broader set of stakeholder concerns (i.e.,
new technology- and science-based industries; energy and emissions; land use) [35].
Learning from the Australian experience, the International Maize and Wheat Improve-
ment Center (CIMMYT), a CGIAR research center, developed and validated the Integrated
Agri-food System Initiative (IASI), a holistic, multi-sector methodology that builds on
diverse existing resources (e.g., datasets; models; approaches) to cultivate stakeholder agree-
ment on coordinated public and private sector actions to enhance national agri-food sys-
tems. The IASI methodology is designed to engage agri-food system stakeholders from the
public, private, and civil sectors such as representatives of farmers’ associations, national
research centers, universities, food and livestock feed companies, government agencies, and
non-governmental organizations. Development of the IASI methodology was guided by the
notion that agri-food system transformations depend on multi-scale, dynamic interplay
among actors with different forms of power [36,37]. Understanding the variety of these
interactions and processes, and their implications for governance, is critical for brokering
broad stakeholder agreement on national policy and investment priorities [37], and for
building upon on-the-ground experience with Agricultural Knowledge Management for
Innovation [38].
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 3 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Methods
The starting point for applying the IASI methodology is to identify windows of opportunity,
which will vary across national contexts. These might arise with a political transition, a fiscal
crisis, a shift in trade conditions for key commodities, or a new donor initiative. In essence,
these are times when influential actors are re-evaluating their goals and the means to reach
them and are, therefore, more willing to entertain new approaches and information sources.
Once a window of opportunity has been identified, the IASI methodology is applied sequen-
tially. Major steps include:
1. Diverse experts examine the current status (“where are we today?”) and the business-as
usual (BAU) scenario (“where are we heading?”) based on analysis of the socio-economic,
political, and sectoral context and model-based projections.
2. Stakeholders determine a preferred future scenario (“where do we want to go?”), based on
assessment of national implications, and define drivers of change toward a desired 2030
scenario, through a neutrally facilitated process.
3. Defined criteria are applied to stakeholder and expert inputs to validate drivers of change
and to identify strategies and actions (e.g., public policies; value chain and market interven-
tions; biotechnology applications) that can steer toward the preferred future scenario,
which are then reviewed and prioritized by high-level decision makers.
4. Stakeholders agree on measurable targets and tangible, time-bound actions toward the
preferred future scenario.
5. Stakeholders build shared commitment to a tactical implementation plan among tradi-
tional, non-traditional, and new partners.
6. Ongoing stakeholder engagement is organized around an online dashboard that tracks
actions and progress toward targets and supports course correction and coordinated
investment.
Case studies
In 2017, the CIMMYT convened the Maı́z para México (MpMx) initiative to support sustain-
able intensification of the Mexican maize sector, leading to the development of the IASI meth-
odology. Subsequently, CIMMYT partnered with the International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), another CGIAR center, to adapt the IASI methodology to the Colombian
context during a transitional socio-political moment, resulting in the Maı́z para Colombia
(MpCo) initiative. Table 1 summarizes the IASI processes in these two countries (further
details can be found in the case studies in the Supporting Information and in public reports
published by CIMMYT and CIAT [39,40]).
Drive toward systems framing
In many countries, major commodity crops such as maize, wheat, or rice are natural gateways
into national policy processes and constituencies because, as staple foods, they are often foun-
dational to food security and national economies. While not a large economic driver, the enor-
mous cultural and political importance of maize in Mexico, a staple food and a symbol of the
country’s heritage, has been amplified by the effects of free trade policies. In Colombia’s post-
conflict period, the under-developed maize sector was threatened by imports under open
trade. In both Mexico and Colombia, the centrality of maize opened the door to robust
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 4 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Table 1. Development and adaptation of the Integrated Agri-food System Initiative through application to
maize-based systems in Mexico and Colombia.
Maı́z para México (MpMx) Maı́z para Colombia (MpCo)
A political or sectoral window of opportunity expands the scope of possible policy objectives.
Late 2016 –A political transition and an uncertain trade Early 2018 –In a post-conflict period, CIMMYT and
context led Mexico’s Agriculture Ministry to solicit CIAT were invited to apply the IASI methodology to
CIMMYT’s support with national agricultural planning. Colombia’s under-developed maize sector, which was
threatened by imports.
1. Analysis of current status (e.g., historical and contemporary data on the socio-economic, political, and sectoral
context [41]) and a modeled business-as-usual (BAU) scenario are evaluated by an expert panel, which propose
drivers of change for maize improvement by 2030, based on quantitative and qualitative inputs.
Early 2017 –CIMMYT aggregated data, developed a 2030 Early 2018 –CIAT and CIMMYT aggregated data,
BAU scenario, and convened an expert panel, which developed a 2030 BAU scenario, and convened an expert
proposed five drivers of change. panel, which proposed six drivers of change.
2. Sectoral consultation (with representatives from government, academia, and the agriculture sector), facilitated
by a neutral, independent facilitator, determines a preferred 2030 scenario and preliminarily validates drivers of
change and identifies corresponding strategies and actions.
Early 2017 –CIMMYT convened an 85-person, multi- Mid-2018 –CIMMYT and CIAT convened a 60-person,
sectoral stakeholder workshop. (With CIMMYT’s multi-sectoral stakeholder workshop. (This event
participation, an influential private sector organization signaled renewed private sector participation in
undertook a parallel strategic planning process). agricultural planning).
3. Stakeholder and expert inputs are validated using defined criteria, resulting in a revised set of drivers of change,
strategies, and actions to steer toward the preferred 2030 scenario, which are then reviewed and prioritized through
structured one-on-one consultations with high-level representatives of diverse institutions.
Mid-2017 –CIMMYT systematically reviewed expert and Mid/late-2018 –CIMMYT systematically reviewed
workshop inputs to produce two main strategies (each expert and workshop inputs to produce six revised
with underlying drivers of change, specified actions, and strategies, then undertook qualitative validation through
indicators), then undertook qualitative validation one-on-one meetings with diverse sectoral stakeholders.
through one-on-one meetings with influential
stakeholders.
4. Measurable targets and tangible, time-bound actions are proposed, based on the preferred 2030 scenario and
prioritized strategies and actions, and anchored in SDG-related metrics (i.e., a global, multi-sector touchstone).
Late-2017 –CIMMYT provided a detailed MpMx report Late-2018 –CIMMYT presented findings to executive
to government leaders and sectoral actors. and legislative political leaders.
Mid-2019 –A CIMMYT/CIAT report presented MpCo
2030 targets and actions.
5. Expanded partnership space is created to translate shared commitments into a tactical implementation plan
through purposeful stakeholder engagement.
Mid-2018 –CIMMYT briefed Mexico’s presidential Early-2020 –National Agriculture Planning Office
candidates on MpMx. created an official plan based on the MpCo report.
Early 2019 –The President’s Office convened a high-level Early-2020 –CIMMYT and CIAT were mandated to
taskforce to propose MpMx implementation and policy convene a task force and explore potential funding
integration. collaborations. MpCo strategies and actions integrated
Early 2020 –The Secretary of Agriculture publicly into agricultural plans of farm groups and local
launched MpMx [42]. governments.
6. Online dashboards are developed to monitor progress toward the preferred 2030 scenario (i.e., actions, targets),
to support ongoing structured stakeholder engagement and course correction, and to display investible
opportunities for donors, government, and the private sector.
Mid 2019 –CIMMYT developed a project-level Mid 2020 –CIMMYT initiated development of a project-
dashboard supporting ongoing monitoring. level dashboard.
Mid-2019 –CIMMYT initiated a IASI process for wheat, End 2020 –Donor-funded projects initiated.
beans, and cotton-based systems.
Mid 2020 –Virtual stakeholder events in nine regions
specified actions to be implemented.
Mid 2020 –Donor-funded projects initiated.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832.t001
engagement in the agriculture sector that, through the IASI methodology, enabled the emer-
gence of a broader value proposition encompassing health and nutrition, national security,
local economic development, and food self-sufficiency considerations. For example, as the
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 5 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
MpMx process rolled out, CIMMYT undertook a parallel process for native maize seeds and
production practices (i.e., the autochthonous, diversified, maize-based Milpa production sys-
tem) and a Beans for Mexico exercise was also initiated.
Shared vision through design thinking and scenarios
The IASI methodology builds stakeholder consensus through design thinking (i.e., under-
standing specific needs to define an innovative solution), informed by situation analysis, mod-
eled predictions, and scenarios for a discontinuous future. Current status is assessed through
review of literature and historical trends (e.g., sub-national crop production; supply; consump-
tion patterns; environmental conditions). A 2030 BAU agri-food scenario integrates analysis
of biophysical changes in climate and crop production and socio-economic analysis (e.g., trade
implications), in alignment with the timeframe of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Loosely coupled models (based on spatially-explicit analyses and machine learning processes)
are used to produce sufficiently accurate and precise scenarios that use metrics and narratives
to make risks, benefits, tradeoffs, and counter-intuitive insights visible. While models and sce-
narios cannot predict the future, these tools can supplement the experience, knowledge, and
intuition of agriculture sector stakeholders [43].
The BAU scenario is evaluated by an expert panel, composed of high-credibility specialists
with diverse expertise (e.g., seeds; spatial analysis; climate change; trade) and track records of
engaging outside their disciplinary realm. The expert panel provides deep technical knowledge
throughout the IASI process. Multi-sector stakeholders are convened to review the BAU sce-
nario and strategies proposed by the expert panel through a carefully designed, interactive
workshop. (This workshop design was replicated by the Mexican Agriculture Ministry in
development of a multi-crop strategic plan.) If the BAU scenario is perceived as positive by
stakeholders, then no action is needed, but if an alternative future scenario is preferred, stake-
holders identify strategies and actions that can steer away from the BAU scenario (which is
commonly reinforced by near-term considerations or specialized interests) and orient toward
preferred directions.
After further validation, consultations with mid- and high-level decision makers calibrate
priority strategies and actions, while also building ownership and commitment among these
influential leaders, who represent a diverse set of public and private institutions in the agricul-
ture sector. While time-consuming, the goodwill developed through these consultations is
instrumental for building novel collaborations promoting sustainability between government
and industry (e.g., offtaker commitments) and continuity across political transitions. For
example, in 2018, under a new presidential administration, MpMx was designated as a flagship
project within the Crops for Mexico initiative. In Colombia, strong buy-in by an internal plan-
ning unit at the Ministry of Agriculture allowed the momentum of MpCo to continue as a new
President and Agriculture Minister came into office in 2018.
Multiple stakeholder entry points
The IASI methodology is designed to generate strategies, actions, and quantitative, SDG-
aligned targets that have high likelihood of supportive public and private investment. It
emphasizes timely provision of information and options (including estimated costs of inac-
tion) to decision makers and enables multiple, coordinated entry points for stakeholders with
different interests (e.g., policymakers; farm groups; financial institutions; input or service pro-
viders). In Mexico and Colombia, the IASI processes engaged traditional agricultural sector
stakeholders as well as entities that are not usually pulled into technical agricultural
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 6 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
discussions, such as national development banks. To fill identified gaps, new entities such as
alternative providers of rural finance were also engaged.
The IASI focus on drivers of change broadened the set of potential solutions and better
embedded collectively identified strategies within government, increasing the likelihood of
impact and continuity across different political regimes. In Mexico, the IASI process produced
a tactical plan to improve agricultural production systems by translating innovation networks
into visible knowledge co-creation infrastructure. These ‘hubs’ feature research platforms,
demonstration modules, and extension areas where sustainable farming practices and technol-
ogies are tested, improved, and adapted with community participation [44,45]. This infrastruc-
ture provides a foundation for continuous scaling and enables timely regionalized impact
assessments [38]. In Colombia, a hub network is being initiated, which will be critical to realiz-
ing the MpCo strategies. MpMx implementation will also be supported through the One
CGIAR Excellence in Agronomy 2030 (EiA 2030) initiative, which will leverage data and ana-
lytics to deliver targeted digital agricultural advisory services (for farmers, farm advisors, and
service providers) and to support government agencies and agricultural companies.
Insights from IASI development and validation
Beyond short-termism to an integrated systems approach
Building agreement around national policy change is a powerful scaling strategy for research-
based solutions that contribute to sustainable agri-food systems. Too often, national policy
processes are dominated by zero sum thinking and winner-take-all struggles (e.g., budget bat-
tles) that inhibit progress toward sustainability, equity, and profitability. Short-termism–exces-
sive focus on short-term results at the expense of long-term interests–breeds internecine
competition and politicization within commodity sectors, leaving little room for meaningful
integration of new needs, such as climate adaptation, or evolving production practices to meet
changing market demands [17].
Progress toward the SDGs requires facing up to the ‘wicked’ problems confronting agri-
food systems [46]. As the seriousness of agri-food system crises is internalized by decision
makers, a profound sense of urgency can lead to unsustainable or unilateral responses. For
example, advanced technologies (e.g., sensors; crop protection; agricultural biologicals; arti-
ficial intelligence) are garnering investment based on anticipation of productivity and prof-
itability gains that may not yet be substantiated by robust empirical evidence or without
evaluation of potential tradeoffs, unintended consequences, or risks for equity and long-
term sustainability [1]. Such responses to agri-food system crises may bypass more holistic
solutions, grounded in multi-disciplinary science, that can generate cross-sectoral support
and achieve multiple sustainability objectives (e.g., food security; poverty reduction; climate
adaptation) [47–49].
By using existing tools to help sectoral stakeholders envision a different future and take
action toward productive, inclusive, and resilient agri-food systems, the IASI methodology can
steer away from technology over-reliance and winner-take-all approaches. The future-oriented
and inclusive framing of the IASI methodology is essential to shifting stakeholder mindsets. By
first collectively setting a vision and then linking it to present-day circumstances, constraints
imposed by near-term concerns (e.g., budgets) and political dynamics can be minimized in
favor of focusing on medium-term opportunities and cultivating trust that benefits can accrue
to all collaborating stakeholders. The strategies and actions emerging from the IASI methodol-
ogy reduce economic, reputational, operational, and policy risks faced by governments, global
donors, and agricultural sector financiers by offering them a validated set of potential
investments.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 7 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Informing policy processes and coordinating action
While techniques for interactive, scenario-assisted, multi-objective development planning are
not new [50–54], they have infrequently led to significant agri-food system change [31]. Chal-
lenges range from reductionist knowledge management systems [38], narrowly scoped out-
come metrics [55,56] or technological feasibility analysis [47], poorly defined validation
processes [43], and sparse attention to competing interests and policy incentives [14,32] to a
lack of stakeholder engagement in scenario building [30] and tradeoff analysis [57,58] and
weak governance and investment capacity [24].
Relative to other national agricultural planning approaches, the IASI methodology, as
applied to maize-based systems in Mexico and Colombia, has demonstrated its effectiveness in
overcoming typical barriers (e.g., short-term fixation on budgets; zero sum competition
among stakeholders) and advancing multiple objectives simultaneously (e.g., improvement in
crop yield and quality; farmer livelihoods; environmental protection). Importantly, both
Mexico and Colombia underwent political transitions mid-way through the IASI process, yet
there was substantial continuity in MpMx and MpCo.
One critical factor is the capacity to capitalize on critical moments such as the Mexican
Agriculture Ministry announcing the first national agriculture planning process since 1966
(supported by the incoming president’s interest to transform agriculture) and Colombia’s rec-
ognition that its maize sector needed support in a post-conflict period. The IASI methodology
does not replace national planning processes, rather it provides a framework for informing
and focusing these processes. Facilitation that fosters consensus through candid, data-based
discussions requires a neutral, independently positioned entity with skills and experience
drawn from the arenas of business, research, political science and development.
As political and agriculture sector leaders (potentially in partnership with global donors)
create or react to windows of opportunity, the neutrally positioned IASI methodology can
strengthen stakeholder support for transformation of agri-food systems that expands produc-
tivity and long-term sustainability [45]. Emphasizing a collective process rather than a ‘black
box’ solution, the IASI methodology is grounded in assessment of the current status and the
BAU scenario and cultivates stakeholder agreement on how to pursue a more sustainable agri-
food system. Leadership and accountability by influential stakeholders are key to creating the
buy-in that unlocks important, but disaggregated data resources that are typically tightly held
by public agencies, research institutions, and companies. A common vision for the future culti-
vates a cooperative mindset among stakeholders, enabling them to share rather than hoard
datasets (and other sources of power asymmetry), allowing these data to become useful at a
system level.
Continuous improvement
Designed to promote thriving agriculture-based systems, the IASI methodology emphasizes
mindset shifts toward sustainable and scalable innovation that responds to real dynamics of
complex agri-food systems. It offers the possibility to simultaneously address multiple pressing
development objectives, including unlocking the agricultural potential to adapt production
systems to climate change, to sustainably manage land, soil, nutrient, and water resources, to
improve food and nutrition security, and ultimately to reduce rural poverty by upscaling and
mainstreaming results and actions.
Maturation of the IASI methodology will require continuous improvement. The new Crops
for Mexico initiative expands on the IASI-mediated MpMx process and use of the IASI meth-
odology is being explored in Africa and Asia. Future applications of the IASI methodology can
pursue ongoing enhancements such as:
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 8 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
• Faster transition from crop-specific windows of opportunity to multiple food types (e.g.,
crops, livestock, and fisheries) and an integrated agri-food system framing (e.g., agricultural
diversification; demand management and culture shifts toward healthy diets; building resil-
ience through crisis response mechanisms).
• Increasingly sophisticated navigation of tradeoffs (e.g., higher yields vs. healthier diets) and
constraints (e.g., energy; land; water) by simulating multi-dimensional outcomes for alterna-
tive policy directions.
• Greater reach (e.g., cross-sectoral; cross-institutional) and inclusivity (e.g., geographic bal-
ance; marginalized groups) and more diverse participation (e.g., consumer advocates; value
chain actors; media).
• Deeper integration of system dynamics and climate change projections in scenario develop-
ment and incorporation of flexible econometric and scenario planning models to generate a
continuous range of options, rather than a limited number of scenarios.
• More explicit links to on-the-ground testing and implementation of strategies and actions
(e.g., enhanced dashboards).
International agricultural research centers as ‘innovation brokers’
In developing the IASI methodology, CIMMYT leveraged knowledge gained through pre-
existing international collaborations (e.g., CSIRO; KSS) and mobilized a diverse set of
research-based approaches (e.g., situation analysis; loosely coupled models; scenarios). The
opportunity to develop and test the IASI methodology arose because CIMMYT was an in-
region institution that had built long-term trust relationships and demonstrated its capacity to
adeptly mobilize data and knowledge toward technical and political challenges [59]. For exam-
ple, recent collaboration on the MasAgro innovation system, which achieved yield increases
among smallholder farmers and enhanced private sector value chains, had deepened CIM-
MYT’s perception as a trusted partner of the Mexican government. In Colombia, CIAT had
previously supported the government by producing national climate change projections.
Through the IASI processes in Mexico and Colombia, CIMMYT and CIAT functioned as
‘innovation brokers,’ enhancing their standing as trusted allies within national political frame-
works. They created knowledge resources that informed subsequent politically-driven pro-
cesses (e.g., in Mexico, MpMx findings and recommendations were integrated by the
Agriculture Ministry and National Agriculture Council).
Deploying tools like the IASI methodology can amplify the ability of international agricul-
tural research institutions to invigorate national policy development and demonstrate the busi-
ness case for research-based solutions to public and private sector agri-food system decision
makers [60]. With deep regional roots, these institutions are well-placed to influence the evolu-
tion of agri-food systems by guiding deployment of integrated strategies that combine breed-
ing, genetics, agronomy, landscape management, enhanced nutrition, and other foundational
elements of sustainable agri-food systems [26]. Through collaborative research initiatives,
novel engagement mechanisms, and capacity building, the IASI methodology can catalyze
improved availability of and access to technical support, information, technologies, and tools.
For example, research undertaken by CIAT, CIMMYT, and national research centers is con-
nected directly to farmers and adoption of improved technologies and practices by farmers
simultaneously feeds back into research programs through on-farm data collection.
Historically focused on breeding for yield and calorie enhancement, international agricul-
tural research institutions are increasingly producing multi-faceted solutions that enable
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 9 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
production landscapes to deliver human well-being and healthy diets within dynamic, global
agri-food value chains [61–64]. With the advent of One CGIAR, enriched focus on agri-food
system transformation will be supported by integration of capacities across regionally based
centers and global programs [65].
Recommendations
If our complex, interconnected agri-food systems are to meet human needs under climate
change and within planetary resource limits, we must shift away from short-termism and zero
sum thinking and toward integrated systems approaches. While new technologies, digitization,
and other responses will be useful, they are unlikely to usher in inclusive, system-level transfor-
mation, which will depend on coordinated shifts in public policy, agriculture, value chains,
and finance. As agri-food system decision makers respond to current and emerging agri-food
system challenges, they will need new types of strategic planning tools that steer toward uncon-
ventional, evidence-based collaboration among diverse stakeholders.
Use and adapt the IASI methodology
This paper presents a promising methodology for supporting integrated agri-food systems
approaches that has been developed and validated within two national contexts. The IASI
methodology leverages design thinking and scenario planning methods to generate a shared
vision and broadly agreed solutions supported by agri-food system stakeholders. It is a data-
and model-informed approach that facilitates collaborative identification of a preferred future
by experts and stakeholders. The methodology fosters agility in determining implementation
pathways through a tactical plan that translates proposed solutions into real integrated devel-
opment programs and enables diverse multi-stakeholder contributions that align with public
policy objectives.
In Mexico and Colombia, IASI processes are well underway (i.e., tactical plans are com-
pleted and resources are being mobilized) and further applications are anticipated in Africa
and Asia, presenting opportunities for methodological refinement. To carry this work forward,
several types of resources will be required: public and private financial investments; implemen-
tation capacity by dedicated program operation managers and consultants; and monitoring
and evaluation specialists. As these applications mature, the IASI methodology will evolve to
more rapidly and effectively engage diverse stakeholders in national agri-food system policy
processes with enhanced technical capacity (e.g., a continuous range of policy scenarios) and
implementation tracking.
Invest in supportive international institutions
International agricultural research institutions can be indispensable ‘innovation brokers’ in
regional agri-food systems. They are well-situated to lead application of the IASI methodology
when windows of opportunity open. Through their long-term regional presence, high credibil-
ity, and mandate to translate research into sustainable development, these institutions can pro-
vide unique scientific leadership across political cycles, enhancing integration of sustainability
considerations into national policy. Global donors have often found it expedient to commis-
sion international agricultural research institutions to produce outputs that are highly tailored
to donor priorities [66]. If global donors are serious about helping developing countries to
transform their agri-food systems, they will do more to unleash the essential leadership func-
tions of trusted in-region research organizations [67]. Combined with the global inauguration
of One CGIAR’s enriched focus on agri-food system transformation through integrated
regional programs, the IASI methodology will be a valuable tool.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 10 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Mandate a global network for food systems transformation
Development and validation of the IASI methodology in Mexico and Colombia demonstrates
the potential for a neutral, well-designed, science-informed, stakeholder-engaged process to
create space for transformative innovation in national policy. Given the agri-food system crises
made more visible during the COVID-19 crisis, tools like the IASI methodology are needed to
support creation, design, and implementation of integrated strategies for healthy, resilient,
equitable, and sustainable agri-food systems.
To propagate a robust body of knowledge and practice, a structured global network should
be mandated by a high-level, multi-sectoral entity to systematize theory development, testing,
validation, evaluation, and learning for agri-food systems transformation. By harmonizing dis-
parate actions and accelerating continuous improvement of IASI and related methodologies,
this network would engender a community of practice drawing from the KSS global alliance
[68], One CGIAR communities of practice [69], EAT Forum [70], CSIRO [71], the Com-
pact2025 Knowledge and Innovation hub [72], and other relevant groups. As One CGIAR
regional programs are mobilized, a global food systems transformation network would serve
as an integrating platform, enabling these programs to collaboratively develop and validate a
shared set of best practices, to access technologies and services, and to co-design and co-imple-
ment projects with public and private sector partners.
A new global network for food systems transformation would support decision making in
public policy, value chains, finance, and other components of agri-food systems. This network
would harness diverse existing and emerging efforts toward a new field of research endeavor
and global practice, analogous to the fields of business administration and organizational
development, while accelerating methodological refinement and building capacity for further
applications.
Supporting information
S1 File. Case study: Maı́z para México–development and validation of the IASI methodol-
ogy.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank all the participating stakeholders in the Crops for Mexico (Maize for
Mexico) and Maize for Colombia Initiatives.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Bram Govaerts, Christine Negra, Andrea Gardeazabal, Daniela Vega,
Molly Jahn, Martin Kropff.
Formal analysis: Bram Govaerts.
Funding acquisition: Bram Govaerts.
Investigation: Bram Govaerts, Tania Carolina Camacho Villa, Xiomara Chavez Suarez, Ana-
bell Diaz Espinosa, Simon Fonteyne, Andrea Gardeazabal, Gabriela Gonzalez, Ravi Gopal
Singh, Wietske Kropff, Victor Lopez Saavedra, Georgina Mena Lopez, Sylvanus Odjo, Nata-
lia Palacios Rojas, Julian Ramirez-Villegas, Jelle Van Loon, Daniela Vega, Nele Verhulst,
Lennart Woltering.
Methodology: Bram Govaerts, Christine Negra.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 11 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
Project administration: Bram Govaerts.
Resources: Bram Govaerts.
Supervision: Bram Govaerts.
Validation: Bram Govaerts.
Writing – original draft: Bram Govaerts, Christine Negra, Xiomara Chavez Suarez.
Writing – review & editing: Bram Govaerts, Christine Negra, Victor Kommerell, Nele Ver-
hulst, Lennart Woltering, Molly Jahn.
References
1. Hall A, Dijkman J. Public agricultural research in an era of transformation: the challenge of agri-food sys-
tem innovation. Rome and Canberra: CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC)
Secretariat and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); 2109. 67 p.
2. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). Measuring what matters in agriculture and
food systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Sci-
entific and Economic Foundations report. Geneva: UN Environment; 2018. 84 p.
3. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropo-
cene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet. 2019;
393(10170):447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 PMID: 30660336
4. Schils R, Olesen JE, Kersebaum K-C, Rijk B, Oberforster M, Kalyada V, et al. Cereal yield gaps across
Europe. European Journal of Agronomy. 2018; 101:109–120.
5. van Ittersum MK, van Bussel LG, Wolf J, Grassini P, van Wart J, Guilpart N, et al. Can sub-Saharan
Africa feed itself? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016; 113(52):14964–14969.
6. IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Sci-
ence-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Brondizio ES, Settele J, Dı́az S, Ngo HT
(editors). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat; 2019.
7. IPCC. Climate change and land, an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degra-
dation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosys-
tems; 2019.
8. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky KL, Lassaletta L, et al. Options for keep-
ing the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018; 562(7728):519–525. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41586-018-0594-0 PMID: 30305731
9. Lunt T, Jones AW, Mulhern WS, LeZaks DPM, Jahn MM. 2016. Vulnerabilities to agricultural production
shocks: An extreme, plausible scenario for assessment of risk for the insurance sector. Climate Risk
Management. 2016; 13:1–9.
10. Anderson WB, Seager R, Baethgen W, Cane M, You L. Synchronous crop failures and climate-forced
production variability. Science Advances. 2019; 5(7):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1976
PMID: 31281890
11. Loboguerrero AM, Campbell BM, Cooper PJM, Hansen JW, Rosenstock T, Wollenberg E. Food and
earth systems: Priorities for climate change adaptation and mitigation for agriculture and food systems.
Sustainability. 2019; 11:1372–98.
12. Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J. Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solu-
tions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2019 Jul.
564 p. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0863-y PMID: 30631162
13. Haupt F, König S, Streck C, Schulte I, Costa C, de Souza LI, et al. Drivers of change: How effective are
corporate supply-chain commitments? Analysis of the Brazilian beef and soy sectors, and the Colom-
bian beef and dairy sectors. Washington, DC: Meridian Institute; 2018.
14. Piñeiro V, Arias J, Dürr J, Elverdin P, Ibáñez AM, Kinengyere A, et al. A scoping review on incentives for
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nature Sustainability. 2020; 3:809–
820.
15. Van Loon J, Woltering L, Krupnik TJ, Baudron F, Boa M, Govaerts B. Scaling agricultural mechanization
services in smallholder farming systems: Case studies from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin
America. Agricultural Systems. 2020; 180:102792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102792 PMID:
32255893
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 12 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
16. Westerman O, Förch W, Thornton P, Körner J, Cramer L, Campbell B. Scaling up agricultural interven-
tions: Case studies of climate-smart agriculture. Agricultural Systems. 2018; 165:283–293.
17. GLOPAN. Future Food Systems: For people, our planet, and prosperity. London, UK: Global Panel on
Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition; 2020.
18. Bodirsky BL, Rolinski S, Biewald A, Weindl I, Popp A, Lotze-Campen H. Global food demand scenarios
for the 21st century. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(11):e0139201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0139201 PMID: 26536124
19. IFPRI. 2019 Global food policy report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute;
2019.
20. Faux Z. Tech startups are flooding Kenya with apps offering high-interest loans. February 12, 2020.
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-12/tech-startups-are-flooding-
kenya-with-apps-offering-high-interest-loans.
21. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D’Croz D, Palmer J, Bodirsky BL, Pradhan P, et al. Articulating the
effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet Planetary Health.
2020; 5(1):e50–e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1 PMID: 33306994
22. De Pinto A, Cenacchi N, Kwon H-Y, Koo J, Dunston S. Climate smart agriculture and global food-crop
production. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(4):e0231764. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231764 PMID:
32348336
23. Desa G, Jia X. Sustainability transitions in the context of pandemic: an introduction to the focused issue
on social innovation and systemic impact. Agriculture and Human Values. 2020; 37:1207–1215. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10129-2 PMID: 32836762
24. Andrijevic M, Cuaresma JC, Muttarak R, Schleussner C-F. Governance in socioeconomic pathways
and its role for future adaptive capacity. Nature Sustainability. 2020; 3:35–41.
25. Solleiro-Rebolledo JL, Aguilar-Ávila J, Sánchez-Arredondo LG. The configuration of the Mexican Inno-
vation System Agrifood Sector. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios. 2015; 36:1254–1264.
26. Alston JM, Pardey PG, Rao X. The payoff to investing in CGIAR research. Arlington, Virginia, USA:
SOAR Foundation; 2020.
27. Dehmer SP, Pardey PG, Beddow JM, Chai Y. Reshuffling the global R&D deck, 1980–2050. PLoS
ONE. 2019; 14(3):e0213801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213801 PMID: 30925151
28. Jahn M. New solutions for a changing climate. The policy imperative for public investment in agriculture
R&D. Chicago: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs; 2020.
29. Babu S. As policy makers call for building capacity for food system transformation, who is listening?
[Blog post]. 2021 Jan. Retrieved from https://www.ifpri.org/blog/policy-makers-call-building-capacity-
food-system-transformation-who-listening.
30. Reed J, Barlow J, Carment R, van Vianen J, Sunderland T. Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile
climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation.
2019; 238:108229.
31. Wiebe K, Zurek M, Lord S, Brzezina N, Gabrielyan G, Libertini J, et al. Scenario development and fore-
sight analysis: Exploring options to inform choices. Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
2018; 43(1):545–570.
32. Brouwer ID, McDermott J, Ruben R. Food systems everywhere: Improving relevance in practice. Global
Food Security. 2020; 26:100398.
33. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Ta‘bara D, Jager J, Chabay I, et al. Opening up knowledge systems
for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science & Policy. 2013; 28:60–70.
34. Hatfield-Dodds S, Adams PD, Brinsmead TS, Bryan BA, Chiew FHS, Finnigan JJ, et al. Australian
National Outlook 2015: Economic activity, resource use, environmental performance and living stan-
dards, 1970–2050. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO; 2015.
35. Deverell J, Srinivasan V, Rendall A, Baynes T, Kelly R, Brinsmead T, et al. Australian National Outlook
2019. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO; 2019.
36. Hermans F, Geerling-Eiff F, Potters J, Klerkx L. Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural
innovation policy instruments–Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics.
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2019; 88:76–95.
37. Rossi A, Bui S, Marsden T. Redefining power relations in agrifood systems. Journal of Rural Studies.
2019; 68:147–158.
38. Gardeazabal A, Lunt T, Jahn MM, Verhulst N, Hellin J, Govaerts B. Knowledge management for innova-
tion in agri-food systems: a conceptual framework. Knowledge Management Research & Practice; In
press.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 13 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
39. Govaerts B, Chávez X, Fernández A, Vega D, Vázquez O, Pérez M, et al. 2019. Maı́z para México:
Plan Estratégico 2030. México: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maı́z y Trigo (CIMMYT);
2019 Aug. 144 p.
40. Galeano C, Nutti M, Ramı́rez-Villegas J, Vanegas H, Pasculli L, Peña Y, et al. Maize for Colombia:
2030 Vision. Mexico: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maı́z y Trigo (CIMMYT) and Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); 2019. 109 p.
41. CIAT. Climate-Smart Agriculture country profiles for Latin America and the Caribbean. Cali, Colombia:
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); 2014. Available at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/
handle/10568/52993.
42. Financiero El. Gobierno apuesta por ’Maı́z por México’ para aumentar producción del grano. March 10,
2020. Retrieved from https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/economia/gobierno-apuesta-por-maiz-por-
mexico-para-aumentar-produccion-del-grano.
43. Eker S, Rovenskaya E, Obersteiner M, Langan S. Practice and perspectives in the validation of
resource management models. Nature Communications. 2018; 9:5359–5369. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-018-07811-9 PMID: 30560876
44. Camacho-Villa TC, Almekinders C, Hellin J, Martinez-Cruz TE, Rendon-Medel R, Guevara-Hernández
F, et al. The evolution of the MasAgro hubs: responsiveness and serendipity as drivers of agricultural
innovation in a dynamic and heterogeneous context. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Exten-
sion. 2016; 22(5):455–470.
45. Liedtka J, Salzman R, Azer D. Design thinking for the greater good: Innovation in the social sector.
New York: Columbia University Press; 2017.
46. Woltering L, Fehlenberg K, Gerard B, Ubels J, Cooley L. Scaling–from “reaching many” to sustainable
systems change at scale: A critical shift in mindset. Agricultural Systems. 2019; 176:102652.
47. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D’Croz D, Palmer J, Benton TG, Bodirsky BL, et al. Innovation can
accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food. 2020; 1:266–272.
48. McElwee P, Calvin K, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, Korotkov V, et al. The impact of interventions
in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Global Change Biology. 2020; 26:1532–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878
PMID: 31637793
49. Smith P, Calvin K, Nkem J, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, et al. Which practices co-deliver food
security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?
Global Change Biology. 2020; 26(3):1532–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878 PMID: 31637793
50. de Wit CT, van Keulen H, Seligman NG, Spharim I. Application of interactive multiple goal programming
techniques for analysis and planning of regional agricultural development. Agricultural Systems. 1998;
26(3):211–230.
51. Rabbinge R, van Oijen M. Scenario studies for future agriculture and crop protection. European Journal
of Plant Pathology. 1997; 103(3):197–201.
52. Candy S, Che Biggs C, Larsen K, Turner G. Modelling food system resilience: a scenario-based simula-
tion modelling approach to explore future shocks and adaptations in the Australian food system. Journal
of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 2015; 5:712–731.
53. Palazzo A, Vervoort JM, Mason D’Croz, Rutting L, Havlı́k P, Islam S, et al. Linking regional stakeholder
scenarios and shared socioeconomic pathways: Quantified West African food and climate futures in a
global context. Global Environmental Change. 2017; 45:227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2016.12.002 PMID: 29056827
54. Van Dijk M, Gramberger M, Laborde D, Mandryke M, Shute L, Sethfest E, et al. Stakeholder-designed
scenarios for global food security assessments. Global Food Security. 2020; 24:100352.
55. Vervoort JM, Thornton PK, Kritjanson P, Forch W, Ericksen PJ, Kok K, et al. Challenges to scenario-
guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Global Environmental Change. 2014;
28:383–394.
56. Nicholson CF, Stephens EC, Kopainsky B, Thornton PK, Jones AD, Parsons D, et al. Food security out-
comes in agricultural systems models: Case examples and priority information needs. Agricultural Sys-
tems. 2021; 188:103030.
57. Kanter DR, Schwoob M-H, Baethgen WE, Bervejillo JE, Carriquiry M, Dobermann A, et al. Translating
the Sustainable Development Goals into action: A participatory backcasting approach for developing
national agricultural transformation pathways. Global Food Security. 2016; 10:71–79.
58. Klapwijk CJ, van Wijk MT, Rosenstock TS, van Asten PJA, Thornton PK, Giller KE. Analysis of trade-
offs in agricultural systems: current status and way forward. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain-
ability. 2014; 6:110–115.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 14 / 15
PLOS ONE One CGIAR and the Integrated Agri-food Systems Initiative
59. McGonigle DF, Nodari GR, Phillips RL, Aynekulu E, Estrada-Carmona N, Jones SK, et al. A knowledge
brokering framework for integrated landscape management. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.
2020; 4:13.
60. Fan S. Some lessons from a life in food policy. Global Food Security. 2019; 22:33–36.
61. Bernstein J, Johnson N, Arslan A. Meta-evidence review on the impacts of investments in agricultural
and rural development on Sustainable Development Goals 1 and 2. IFAD Research Series 38. Rome:
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); 2019 Jun. 86 p.
62. Elven S, Krishnan L. Estimating historical CGIAR research investments, Technical Note N. 5. Rome:
Independent Science and Partnership Council; 2018.
63. Reardon T, Echeverria RG, Berdegué JA, Minten B, Liverpool-Tasie LS, Tschirley D, et al. Rapid trans-
formation of food systems in developing regions: Highlighting the role of agricultural research & innova-
tions. Agricultural Systems. 2019; 172:47–59.
64. SPIA (Standing Panel on Impact Assessment). Do tailored input recommendations and flexible subsi-
dies increase uptake and yields among maize farmers in Mexico? Rome, Italy: CGIAR Independent
Science & Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat; 2019 Jan. 2 p.
65. CGIAR. CGIAR 2030 research and innovation strategy: Transforming food, land, and water systems in
a climate crisis. Montpellier, France: CGIAR System Organization; 2020.
66. Lobell D. Viewpoint: Principles and priorities for one CGIAR. Food Policy. 2020; 91:101825.
67. Haddad L. Viewpoint: A view on the key research issues that the CGIAR should lead on 2020–2030.
Food Policy. 2020; 91:101824.
68. Knowledge Systems for Sustainability [Internet]. Boulder, CO: Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analy-
sis, Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, the University of Colorado-Boulder, the Colorado School of Mines, the
Colorado State University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University. [cited
2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.jisea.org/kss.html.
69. Platform for Big Data in Agriculture Communities of Practice [Internet]. Cali, Colombia: International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://bigdata.cgiar.org/
communities-of-practice/.
70. EAT Forum [Internet]. Oslo, Norway: EAT Foundation. [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://
eatforum.org/.
71. CSIRO [Internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
[cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.csiro.au/.
72. Compact2025 Knowledge and Innovation hub [Internet]. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute. [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: http://www.compact2025.org/knowledge-and-
innovation-hub/.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252832 June 4, 2021 15 / 15