Scaling Whole Farm Innovation Bundles for Sustainable and Equitable Mixed Farming Systems in Malawi December 2025 Report CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi 1 Contents Acronyms Executive Summary 1. Background 1 1.1 Structural constraints and risks in Malawi’s smallholder farming systems 1 1.2 Barriers to scaling proven innovations 1 1.3 Rationale for Whole Farm Bundling 1 1.4 Evidence base informing Whole Farm Bundling in Malawi 2 1.5 From evidence to action: towards a national whole-farm bundling roadmap 5 1.6 Workshop objectives and expected outcomes 6 2 Workshop design 6 2.1 Strategic partner roles and mandates 6 2.2 Workshop structure and methods 7 3. Vision, opportunities, bottlenecks and what is working 7 4. Priority whole farm bundles in Malawi 10 4.1 Farm-level integration bundle (crops–livestock–soil health–fertility–forages). 10 4.2 Landscape-level integration bundle (land–water–soil–forestry–governance) 14 4.3 Cross-cutting synthesis 16 5 Road map or Whole-Farm Bundling in Malawi 17 5.1 Overall objectives of the roadmap 17 5.2 Institutional leadership for the two priority bundles 17 6. Concluding perspective 20 References 21 Annex 22 Annex 1. Workshop program 22 Annex 2. Mentimeter results on workshop expectations 23 Authors: Sabine Homann-Kee Tui1, Haroon Sseguya2, Adane Tufa2, Julius Manda2, Feyera Liben1, John F. Omondi2. 1 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Lilongwe, Malawi 2 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Lilongwe, Malawi Acronyms ADMARC Agricultural Development and Marketing Cooperation ABC Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT ATCC Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center DAECC District Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services DAESS Decentralized Agricultural Support Services DAHLD Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development DARS Department of Agricultural Research Services DLRC Department of Land Resources Conservation FSU Farm Services Unit ICM Integrated Catchment Management ICRAF CIFOR- World Forestry Centre ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture IPSR Innovation Packaging and Scaling Readiness LUANAR Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources MoA Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development MoGCDSW Ministry of Gender, Community Development and Social Welfare MMPA Malawi Milk Producers Association MUST Malawi University of Science and Technology SWC Soil and Water Conservation TLC Total LandCare VACs Village Agricultural Committees VSLA Village Savings and Loan Associations Executive Summary This multi-stakeholder workshop convened government institutions, development partners, research institutions, financial service providers, NGOs and private sector actors, to co-design integrated, scalable innovation bundles that address persistent system constraints facing smallholder farmers in Malawi. The discussions responded to growing recognition that isolated technical interventions are insufficient to deliver sustained productivity, resilience, and inclusion at scale. The workshop pursued three interrelated objectives: (i) to establish a shared understanding of bundling approaches already applied in the Malawi context and share successful examples; (ii) to diagnose binding constraints limiting adoption and scaling of integrated innovations; and (iii) to co-design fit-for-purpose bundles that align production, markets, finance, extension, and governance, while remaining sensitive to farmer heterogeneity and local conditions. Through plenary discussions and focused group work, participants examined two complementary bundles: (i) a farm-level integration bundle linking crops and seed systems, soil health and fertility, livestock and forages and (ii) a landscape-level bundle anchored in Integrated Catchment Management (ICM). A key outcome was the collective identification of core components for each bundle. At farm level, functional, reliable and inclusive markets were identified as the central driver unlocking investment in productivity, quality, finance, and advisory services. At landscape level, ICM was confirmed as the unifying framework for integrating land, water, forestry, livestock, and local governance interventions. Participants recognized that both bundles directly support Malawi’s national priorities on agricultural commercialization, resilience, and sustainable land management, as articulated in Malawi Vision 2063, the National Resilience Strategy (2018-2030), National Agriculture Investment Plan (2018-2023) and Agriculture Land Resources Management Policy (2024). Participants further identified the most critical constraints limiting scale, including weak aggregation and quality assurance, insecure and poorly governed land and water resources, misaligned financial products, fragmented extension and advisory services, and weak enforcement of by- laws. In response, the workshop defined integrated sets of bundle components considered operational, financeable, and scalable. These include farmer- based organization and cooperatives for aggregation and bargaining power, inclusive finance tailored to agricultural cycles, harmonized extension and digital advisory systems covering soil health and climate smart practices, fodder and livestock markets, and finance; as well as strengthened governance supported by result-based incentives. An important outcome of the workshop was the co- design of an initial national roadmap for advancing whole-farm bundling in Malawi. The roadmap adopts a phased approach (foundation, learning, and institutionalization) and identifies clear institutional leadership. The Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), agribusiness and marketing unit, was agreed as the lead institution for the market-oriented farm bundle, working with partners including Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development (DAHLD), financial service providers, cooperatives, agro-dealers, and private off-takers. The Department of Land Resources Conservation (DLRC) was identified as lead for the ICM bundle, in collaboration with forestry authorities, district councils, traditional leaders, restoration enterprises, and research partners. Key early milestones include establishment of bundle working groups, selection of 3–4 learning districts, harmonization of extension and market tools, and initiation of pilot implementation linked to existing programmes. Cross-cutting insights emphasized the central role of farmer agency, particularly through Village Agricultural Committees (VACs) and cooperatives, in articulating demand and shaping service delivery, and that digital innovations require pragmatic solutions to access, including group-owned devices. Participants also stressed that bundles must remain context-specific and adaptive, rather than rigid packages, given heterogeneity across catchments, markets, and social systems. Overall, the workshop generated a shared, system- level understanding of how integrated innovation bundles can support sustainable productivity, resilience, and inclusion in Malawi. It established clear priorities, institutional leadership, and early milestones for action, providing a foundation for piloting, institutional integration, and scaling through national programmes and aligned partner investments. 1. Background 1.1 Structural constraints and risks in Malawi’s smallholder farming systems Malawi’s agriculture and food system is facing growing pressures, making it essential to address the multiple constraints farmers face to improve adoption of new practices. Agriculture remains central for the economy, and productivity constraints persist, with rising climate risks, and inequalities continuing to limit the sector’s contribution to inclusive growth. National strategies call for a transition toward more productive, climate-resilient and commercial agriculture that is also inclusive, including the Malawi 2063 (NPC, 2020), National Resilience Strategy (2018-2030, GOM, 2018a), National Agriculture Investment Plan (2018-2023, GOM 2018b) and sector policies and strategies including the National Agriculture Policy (2024- 2034, GoM, 2024c), National Livestock Development Policy (2021-2026, GOM, 2021), Agriculture Land Resources Management Policy (2024-2029, GOM, 2024a), Agriculture Sector Food and Nutrition Strategy (2020-2024, GOM, 2020) and Fertilizer and Soil Health Action Plan 2024–2034 (GOM, 2024b). Smallholder farmers, who often cultivate fragmented plots of less than one hectare of land, operate within interacting constraints that cannot be solved through a single technology. Climate shocks, recurrent droughts, dry spells, and floods, affect more than 80% of rural livelihoods and increase production risks. Soil degradation, with estimated annual losses of ~29 tons per ha, reduces nutrient response and lowers returns to fertilizer and improved seed. Market volatility, high input costs, and limited liquidity make production decisions costly and uncertain. Additionally, access to advisory services and quality inputs is limited for many farmers, who rely on an underfunded pluralistic extension system. A recent study highlights large staffing gaps in extension and heavy reliance on external financing in Malawi (World Bank, 2025). Social constraints, including gendered labor burdens, unequal control over land and productive resources, limited decision-making power for many women and youth, and high care workloads, further reduce the capacity to experiment with and adopt new practices (Homann-Kee Tui et al., 2024). These pressures reinforce Malawi’s continued dependence on maize-dominated systems, limiting dietary diversity, soil health improvement, and income growth. As the Agriculture Sector Food and Nutrition Strategy notes, diversification remains constrained by systemic barriers rather than a lack of technical options. 1.2 Barriers to scaling proven innovations Although Malawi has a wide portfolio of technical and service innovations, including improved seed for cereals and legumes, soil amendments, soil and water conservation, sustainable land management practices, and digital advisory tools, their adoption remains low because the enabling conditions are often missing or are poorly integrated. Common constraints include: • Missing complements: Technologies are being disseminated without the inputs and services they depend on (e.g. improved seed without soil amendments, Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices without adequate tools or labor support). • Service and timing failures: Late access to inputs, fragmented extension messaging across actors, or financial products misaligned with seasonal cash flows. • Mis-sequencing: Training is not aligned with input access or production increases without credible market outlets. • Coordination constraints: Parallel initiatives among research, extension, private sector, NGOs, and multistakeholder platforms, sometimes provide inconsistent guidance. These constraints reflect public spending and system issues identified in recent expenditure analysis, including fragmented financing and coordination constraints, and the need to strengthen public goods such as extension, seed systems, and risk management (World Bank, 2025), as well as integrated land, soil, and water management systems (GOM, 2024a). 1.3 Rationale for Whole Farm Bundling In this context, whole-farm bundling refers to the intentional packaging of complementary and mutually reinforcing technical, institutional, financial, market, and social innovations (Bennett et al., 2022). Bundles are designed to be delivered by multiple actors - public, private, and community- based - across communities, districts, and programmes. The purpose is to ensure that farmers not only receive technology or practice, but a package of services, inputs, and arrangements required for the package to work under real farm conditions. Bundled approaches offer several advantages in Malawi’s mixed farming systems: • Risk reduction: Aligning seed, soil fertility management options, finance, and advisory services can reduce the fear of loss and increase confidence to experiment and supports climate adaptation. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 2 of 29 • Productivity and income: Diversified crop- livestock and maize–legume intercropping, integration of forages, and soil health practices improve land-use efficiency, soil fertility management (including manure use), and income opportunities. • Embracing heterogeneity: Bundles can be adapted to the needs of food-insecure, emerging, and commercial farmers, supporting both productive and protective pathways, while keeping delivery practical through existing structures. • Stronger delivery systems: Coordinated planning across actors improves timing, aligns incentives, and reduces contradictory messages across public, private, and development actors. Critically, bundling in Malawi needs to be farmer- centered and demand-driven. This requires co- designing bundles with farmers and other value- chain actors; tailoring bundles to local agroecological and market conditions; and recognizing gender and youth dynamics that shape labor availability, decision-making, and access to resources. When embedded within the Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation, and Water Development (Malawi) (MoA) structures and district coordination platforms under Decentralized Agricultural Support Services (DAESS), bundles can become scalable delivery models rather than isolated project pilots. The bundling process itself strengthens institutional capacity for co-design and coordination, enabling solutions that are replicable, adaptable and suitable for mainstreaming through public extension, private- sector investment, and community-led uptake. 1.4 Evidence base informing Whole Farm Bundling in Malawi The workshop built on recent engagements and participatory studies at national and district levels, focusing on Mbili-Mbili strip cropping (Liben et al., 2023) as the core innovation, and generating evidence on available complementary innovations in Malawi, as well as whether farmers are able and willing to use them in practice. Three complementary sources of evidence were used to build on a common understanding of the main constraints, opportunities, and farmer priorities. 1.4.1 National level insights from the first Innovation Packaging and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) workshop The IPSR workshop held in 2023 brought together national and district participants from government, research, the private sector, and NGOs to jointly assess Mbili-Mbili strip cropping as a core technical innovation and mapped the readiness and use of complementary institutional, financial and advisory components (Homann-Kee Tui et al., 2023). The IPSR process examined the system readiness and use, to what extend complementary services, incentives, and institutional arrangements were in place to address major bottlenecks and support adoption and scaling of Mbili-Mbili. The discussions highlighted several constraints and entry points relevant for bundling and scaling strategy development: High technical maturity against low practical uptake: While most technical components were considered well-developed, participants agreed that uptake remained low. Farmers lacked the conditions, relationships and incentives needed to integrate innovations into their diverse farming systems. Finance, affordability, and risk management as binding constraints: Limited access to affordable finance and risk protection emerged as the strongest bottlenecks to scaling integrated systems. Complementary finance products were among the least developed components. Some actors were piloting group-based loan products, coupled with input delivery and risk sharing. This reflected early steps toward a financial layer within the socio- technical bundle. Weak legume seed systems and delivery delays: Persistent legume seed shortages, limited multiplication capacity, and late input delivery undermine bundling efforts. Participants emphasized the need to integrate seed system strengthening with awareness creation, promotion of preferred varieties, and demand stimulation (e.g. through cooking classes and nutrition demonstrations). Fragmented and underresourced extension services: Inconsistent messaging across actors reduces farmers’ confidence and uptake. Participants highlighted the importance of strengthening DAESS platforms, frontline capacity, and farmer-based organizations, and of using accessible channels such as radio and community forums. Policy and regulatory constraints: Time- consuming and delays between the Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee (ATCC) release and dissemination slow farmer access to innovations. Clearer procedures and harmonized guidelines were identified as essential for scaling. Gendered constraints: Women and youth face unequal access to land, labor, capital, and decision- making authority, limiting their ability to adopt and benefit from bundled innovations. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of gender-responsive design, labor-saving options, and targeted support structures. Climate variability and risk aversion: Increasing climate variability and shocks make farmers CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 3 of 29 reluctant to experiment without adequate advisory and financial support. Group-based irrigation systems and climate-risk buffering were noted as promising climate-risk mitigation mechanisms. Overall, the IPSR findings underscored the need for integrated, system-oriented bundling, strengthening financial products, seed systems, extension coordination, gender-responsive design, climate buffering mechanisms, and governance processes. 1.4.2 District-level Readiness and Use assessments (DAESS Process, 2025) To better understand local realities, district-level sensitization and feedback workshops were held in 2025 in 4 Districts where Mbili-Mbili was evaluated, Balaka, Kasungu, Mzimba, and Zomba. The workshops were held under the District Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committee (DAECC), as one of the coordinating mechanisms within DAESS. Participants assessed the readiness, current use, and gender inclusiveness of technical and socio- institutional innovations for both food-security– oriented (FS) and market-oriented (MO) farmers. Across the districts, the discussions mirrored the patterns identified at the IPSR workshop, which showed that systemic constraints affect farmers’ capacity to make use of the available technical innovations (Figure 1). Ready but underutilized systems: The main production technologies (improved maize seed, inorganic fertilizer, soil and water conservation) were widely considered technically ready, yet use and gender inclusion remained low, particularly among resource-poor and female farmers. Adoption was constrained by high input costs, labor demands, limited capital, and information gaps. FS farmers relied more on recycled seed, organic inputs and traditional intercropping, while MO farmers accessed hybrid seed, fertilizer, finance and contract farming. Fragmented delivery: Inputs, finance, advisory services, market linkages and climate information were delivered in parallel rather than as coordinated packages. Project-based pilots (care groups, seed banks, forages) often depended on external funding, and district platforms such as DAECC were not fully used to better align programs and interventions. Limited awareness and farmer-centered learning: Farmers seemed familiar with technology names but lacked practical understanding and have not evaluated them under farm conditions. Demand- driven extension was constrained by limited sensitization. It was frequently mentioned that farmers cannot demand services or technologies they do not know exist. Radio, lead farmers and Farmer Field Schools were seen as critical for creating awareness and demonstrating bundles in practice. Finance and labor constraints: High costs of seeds, fertilizers and phones, combined with low, volatile incomes discouraged investment, especially among women, youth, and resource-poor farmers. Labor-intensive practices (Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), CA, composting, Mbili-Mbili ridging, and establishing forages) were seen as difficult to adopt for households combining farm work, care responsibilities and off-farm labor responsibilities. Gendered participation and decision making: Women were seen as more active in farmer-based organizations, Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLA)s, care groups and cooperatives, which were identified as more gender responsive innovations. However, decisions over land, commercial crops, capital-intensive inputs, technologies and marketing, remained more male controlled. Social and financial innovations carried greater gender-transformative potential than technical practices alone. These district findings reinforced that components exist, but are not designed or delivered as coherent, farm-type-specific bundles. Figure 1. District-level system readiness, use gender inclusion scores: Patterns identified at DAECC meetings in Balaka, Kasungu, Mzimba, Zomba Districts (2025). Source: Workshop data collection. 1.4.3 Farmer preference evidence (conjoint experiment, 2024) A conjoint experiment conducted in 2024 involving 246 farmers experienced with Mbili-Mbili as core innovation provides evidence on which bundle components influence farmers’ willingness to adopt Mbili-Mbili on their own fields (Abetu et al, 2024). The results confirm that adoption decisions are primarily driven by financial liquidity, risk management, and access to complementary inputs, rather than by the technical practice alone. Key findings include: Microloans for maize fertilizer with post-harvest repayment were the single most valued attribute. This reflects the central role of maize in household food security, seasonal liquidity constraints and high fertilizer prices. Farmers preferred repayment schedules that aligned with their harvest cycles, highlighting risks associated with credit schemes. Full seed bundles (maize, soybean, pigeon pea) scored second, reflecting demand for crop diversification and soil fertility benefits from legumes. The result supports IPSR evidence that diversification-oriented bundles are more attractive when seed access constraints are addressed simultaneously with agronomic recommendations. Risk-reduction mechanisms such as crop insurance and climate information indicate awareness of increasing climate variability and the importance of anticipatory decision-making. Flexible market arrangements that preserve selling autonomy were preferred over group contracts and premium prices, reflecting limited trust in formalized marketing systems and the dominance of informal traders. Cluster analysis confirmed heterogeneous preferences, with four distinct preference profiles for (i) full seed bundle, (ii) microloan service, regardless of the repayment schedule, (iii) loans with repayment after the harvest or (iv) maize seed alone. None of these were strongly aligned with conventional household typologies. This suggests that preference-based segmentation should complement, rather than replace, farm-type approaches in bundle design and targeting. While participants expressed strong demand for integrated bundles, they also articulated clear concerns regarding: • labor peaks associated with managing intercropped systems; • potential debt exposure under inflexible or poorly sequenced loan arrangements; and • loss of autonomy under formalized group marketing models. These concerns reinforce IPSR and DAESS guidance that bundles need to be flexible, sequenced, and embedded in local institutional networks, with delivery mechanisms adapted to farmers’ labor calendars, risk profiles, and market realities. 1.5 From evidence to action: towards a national whole-farm bundling roadmap The combined evidence from national and district readiness assessments, participatory learning processes, and farmer preference studies points to two strong insights: (i) There is a strong demand for whole-farm integrated bundles that reduce risk and address binding constraints faced by different farmer groups. (ii) Adoption and scaling are constrained less by the absence of technologies, than by systemic coordination, sequencing and delivery constraints, which require multi-actor interventions and procedures. A national roadmap is therefore required to translate this shared understanding into practical, farmer- responsive pathways, for co-designing, piloting and scaling whole farm bundles. Such a roadmap must support coordinated, inclusive, and scalable delivery of mixed farming system innovations by clarifying priorities, roles, and processes across actors and levels. Specifically, an effective road map should • position bundling as a strategic approach rather than a collection of project activities; • establish a shared understanding of core and complementary components, grounded in farmer preferences; • clarify about institutional roles, commitments, coordination mechanisms, across research, extension, finance, markets, and social support systems; • identify priority bundles for testing under real farming conditions with learning integrated; • provide a practical framework to guide co- design, piloting, and scaling through existing DAESS and MoA structures. Farmer preference evidence further shows that adoption is most likely when bundles start from farmer-valued entry points, notably access to finance with post-harvest repayment, reliable seed bundles (including legumes), and risk-reduction mechanisms rather than from stand-alone agronomic recommendations. Roadmap design must therefore prioritize coordinated integration of agronomy, finance, advisory, and climate-risk services, in line with DAESS reforms that promote pluralistic and harmonized service delivery. The roadmap should also explicitly recognize farmer heterogeneity. Differentiated bundle pathways are required for food-insecure, emerging, and commercial farmers, while maintaining simple and flexible delivery models that can be implemented CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 6 of 29 through existing district platforms. Finally, the roadmap should function as a living instrument, identifying priority bundles for piloting with embedded learning loops to refine design, sequencing, and targeting before scaling. 1.6 Workshop objectives and expected outcomes Guided by these implications, the workshop pursued the following objectives 1. Build a shared understanding of whole-farm socio-technical bundling and its relevance for Malawi’s diverse farmer types – including food insecure and social assistance farmers to productive commercially oriented farmers. 2. Exchange experience and evidence from research, extension, farmer-based organizations, private sector actors, and development partners on the readiness, use and performance of bundling approaches. 3. Identify key system bottlenecks and opportunities across policy, land and water management, inputs, extension, markets, finance, farmer-based organization, and social support systems that affect adoption and scaling 4. Initiate a roadmap process for co-developing whole-farm bundles that link government departments, research institutions, districts, and partners. 5. Define principles for monitoring, learning, and adaptation, ensuring continuous feedback and improved scaling pathways over time. The workshop was designed to deliver the following outcomes: 1. A farmer-centered framing of bundling principles suited to Malawi’s mixed farming systems and farmer typologies. 2. A set of priority bundles and delivery configurations tailored to vulnerable, emerging, and commercially oriented farmers. 3. An assessment of Malawi’s bundling readiness highlighting bottlenecks and opportunities across policy, extension, land tenure, inputs, markets, gender and youth dynamics. 4. A draft national roadmap for bundle co- development, including coordination mechanisms across the MoA (DARS, DAES, DLRC, and Department of Agricultural Planning Services (DAPS), academia, NGOs, private sector, and development partners. “Too often, innovations reach farmers in isolation rather than as coherent, mutually reinforcing solutions. Effective bundling is now critical for impact at scale.” Opening remarks by Dr Susan Chikagwa-Malunga, Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture Research Services (DARS 2 Workshop design The workshop was designed as a sensitization, learning and co-creation platform to build a shared understanding of whole-farm bundling approaches, reflect on current system gaps, and explore the level of demand and feasibility for adopting such approaches in Malawi. Rather than prescribing a fixed roadmap, the workshop aimed to foster informed commitment and shared ownership among key organizations, which would be essential for the co-design, testing, and future integration of bundled solutions within existing systems. 2.1 Strategic partner roles and mandates Participants were selected based on their formal mandates within Malawi’s agricultural innovation system and their potential roles in developing, delivering and validating whole-farm bundles: Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS): Leads national agricultural research and technology development, oversees innovation release through the ATCC and ensures alignment with national research priorities and policy frameworks. Department of Land Resources and Conservation (DLRC): Responsible for sustainable land resources, including crops and livestock, soil and water conservation, and catchment-based planning, critical for bundles that integrate farm-level practices with landscape-level natural resource management. Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES): Leads Malawi’s pluralistic, demand-driven extension system, and oversees the Decentralized Agricultural Extension Services System (DAESS) platforms at national, district and community levels. DAES plays a central role in harmonizing advisory services, coordinating multiple actors, and enabling aligned messaging and learning across government, NGOs, the private sector, and farmer-based organizations. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 7 of 30 Ministry of Gender, Community Development and Social Welfare (MoGCDSW): Provides guidance for socially inclusive, youth- and gender- responsive innovation design, ensuring that bundles reflect differentiated labor burdens, access constraints, and household decision-making dynamics. Academia (Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Malawi University of Science and Technology (MUST): Generate evidence on farmer demand, system constraints, and context-specific innovation design, and support applied research on bundle performance and learning. NGOs, farmer associations, and private sector actors (e.g., Total LandCare (TLC), Heifer International, Development Aid from People to People (DAPP), Farm Services Unit (FSU), Malawi Milk Producers Association (MMPA), K2 TASO): Bring practical experience in implementing integrated interventions, develop market and finance innovations, and strengthen farmer-based organization models that can anchor bundled delivery mechanisms. CGIAR partners (e.g. Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT (ABC), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)): Support co-design, testing and evaluation of bundled approaches, provide methods to assess scaling readiness, and help integrating research, policy and practice frameworks Together, this coalition provides the multidisciplinary foundation needed to align technical, financial, institutional, market and social components as an essential condition for bundling. 2.2 Workshop structure and methods The workshop was facilitated as an interactive learning and co-creation process, by scaling expert Haroon Sseguya, IITA. It started with a framing presentation by Sabine Homann-Kee Tui, ABC, which synthesized available insights on whole-farm bundling approaches generated under the One CGIAR initiative. This established a common base for reflection and joint analysis. The following participatory methods were then used to guide the deliberations: Workshop expectations: Participants agreed on four concrete workshop outputs, (i) a set of priority bundles that Malawi should advance in the next five years; (ii) an agreed assessment of readiness for each priority bundle, distinguishing between technical readiness, and actual use, (iii) initial directions for a practical roadmap to operationalize the selected bundles, including sequencing and key institutional roles; (iv) elements of a collaboration framework across research, government, private sector, NGOs, and financial institutions. Panel discussion on vision, bottlenecks, and what is working: Representatives from government, NGOs, the private sector, and research institutions reflected on the presentation and discussed vision, opportunities, bottlenecks, and what is working for advancing integrated and inclusive scaling approaches in Malawi. Mixed-group work: Participants formed interdisciplinary groups to identify high-priority bundles, clarify core and complementary components, and propose measures to address the key bottlenecks affecting adoption and scalability. Drafting an initial roadmap: Groups outlined preliminary directions for developing a national roadmap on whole-farm bundling, including indicative institutional roles and priority actions required to take this work forward. This combination of shared framing, structured dialogue, and collaborative group work ensured that the workshop moved beyond information sharing toward joint problem-solving and early alignment around feasible next steps. 3. Vision, opportunities, bottlenecks and what is working The panel discussion brought together government, academia, NGOs, farmer-based organizations, and the private sector to reflect on three questions: (i) what a shared vision for integrated, whole-farm approaches in Malawi should look like; (ii) what is currently constraining adoption and scaling; and (iii) which experiences demonstrate that bundling can work in practice. Shared vision: Integrated, Inclusive, and Climate- Resilient Farming Systems, MoGCDSW (Mrs Alice Mkandawire): Sustainable agricultural transformation must build on gender equity, social inclusion, and climate resilience. Women and youth continue to face barriers, including limited access to land, credit, quality seed, extension services and decision-making authority. Bundles therefore need CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 8 of 30 to ensure combined access to inputs, training, finance, and market linkages, rather than addressing these elements in isolation. Women’s strong participation in cooperatives and farmer- based organizations, VSLAs and care groups was highlighted as opportunity for accelerating adoption, if bundles are designed to leverage these platforms. Policy frameworks supporting inclusion exist, but implementation gaps remain and constrain their impact at farm level. Integrated land use and policy alignment – (DLRC, Mr Anderson Kawejere): Malawi’s’ Agriculture Land Resources Management Policy 2024 promotes integrated catchment management, agroforestry, soil and water conservation, and cereal–legume intercropping. From a policy perspective, bundling aligns well with national priorities. However, funding is the primary bottleneck. Conserving one hectare can cost ~USD 7,000, which exceeds available public funding. Climate- smart public works programmes contribute to land restoration, but coverage remains limited. A clarification was made that while intercropping is widely practiced, many systems are not technically optimized, highlighting the need for improved extension guidance and adaptive management rather than simply promoting the practice itself. Evidence for farmer demand and affordability - Malawi University of Science and Technology (MUST, Dr Tabitha Nindi): Farmers demand for bundled products is highly context dependent. Farmers are willing to adopt bundled products when these clearly address their needs and risks. Improved seed on its own is often unaffordable for many farmers; adoption increases when seed is bundled with subsidies or credit. Similarly, insurance uptake remains low unless it is combined with access to credit and inputs. Dr Nindi stressed that bundle designers must explicitly assess affordability, cost-effectiveness, and farmers’ willingness to pay, and avoid overloading farmers with additional costs such as digital fees or service charges. Awareness strongly shapes demand; for example, when farmers understand the risks of aflatoxin, their willingness to pay for quality inputs and storage increases. Bundles must therefore be tailored to agroecological conditions, farmer types, and local market realities. Private Sector engagement under economic constraints – FSU/Meridian (Mr Dean G. Chilumpha): Collaboration between private companies, the government, and NGOs has proven effective, particularly in advisory services and fertilizer best practices. Many farmers purchasing FSU products follow recommended practices when advisory support is available. However, Malawi’s macroeconomic challenges, forex shortages, rising costs, and low profit margins are eroding private sector capacity. FSU announced that it would abolish its private-sector-led extension service from January 2026. Private sector participation requires policies that support predictability and incentives; otherwise, investments in advisory and service delivery are likely to shrink. NGO experience: Bundling for Resilience and Commercialization– TLC (Mr Blessings Mwale): TLC interventions have demonstrated that bundling can be both commercially viable and resilience- enhancing. For instance, TLC’s integrated ecological approaches, which combine soil conservation, forage production, and market linkages enabled farmers to sell over MWK 1 billion in high-value crops. This demonstrates that ecological practices can drive commercialization when bundled effectively. Land tenure security was identified as a critical enabler. Farmers are more willing to invest in land restoration, when their rights are secure, and tenure clarity is also crucial for carbon projects that require community consent. TLC emphasized that extension communicates to farmers the full benefits of integrated systems, including resilience, environmental gains, and market value, not productivity alone. Researchers were challenged to move beyond yield metrics and integrate environmental, human, and social indicators, consistent with the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework. Sector-specific integration: Dairy systems -K2 TASO (Mr Peter Minjale): In Kasungu District, strong district-level collaboration supports bundling. In Kasungu District, closer coordination with district extension offices enabled deployment of additional veterinary officers, improving services for more than 500 dairy farmers. The adoption of good dairy practices is increasing, athough information gaps remain. A new dairy processing factory is expected to improve farmer margins, but profitability will depend on complementary investments. mechanization for handling perishable milk, fair and stable pricing, reliable supply of affordable veterinary drugs and feeds, and reliable forage supply. While forages introduced by district partners are being adopted, stronger sensitization is needed. K2 TASO urged DARS to provide clearer evidence on which crops and livestock enterprises give commercial returns under different conditions, noting high year-to-year variability. Cross-cutting insights from the discussion What is working CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 9 of 30 • Existence of supportive national policies across land, soil health, seed, nutrition, climate, and gender, although awareness remains limited. • Strong willingness across government, private sector, research, and NGOs to collaborate. • Demonstrated models of success, including TLC’s ecological bundles, FSU advisory partnerships, dairy sector integration, finance– insurance linkages. • Clear farmer demand when bundles are useful, affordable, and de-risking. Persistent bottlenecks • Chronic funding constraints across crop and livestock extension and land restoration support services. • Private sector disinvestment driven by macroeconomic instability. • Inadequate extension coverage, especially digital readiness, market advisory, storage, and seed handling. • Human-centered elements such as decision support, mindset change, and market signals, are rarely bundled with technical solutions. • Limited farmer awareness of policies, technologies, and risks (e.g., aflatoxin). The farmer context: Participants noted that farmers operate at the intersection of multiple dimensions and barriers and opportunities cut across these. • Environment: climate variability, land pressure, soil fertility decline, and water scarcity. • Technologies: seeds, fertilizers, forages, intercropping, veterinary inputs, mechanization. • Institutions and social structures: farmer groups, care groups, VSLs, cooperatives, market systems, extension, financial rules, cultural norms. Finance, input access, extension gaps, and gendered constraints were seen as remaining the binding constraints that determine whether bundles can function in practice. Human-centered bundling as core principle: Participants emphasized that bundling must reduce costs for farmers and not escalate them. Credit fees, insurance premiums, digital charges, and membership costs must be designed to reduce risk and avoid increasing over-indebtedness and exclusion. Bundles should support farmers as decision-makers by providing: • clear and timely information and advisory support across value chains. • skill development to evaluate trade-offs in labor, risk, and profitability. • empowerment to negotiate conditions and prices with off-takers, banks, and service providers. Several examples illustrated misalignment: • loan packages with unfavorable interest rates, • farmer-based organization membership fees that exclude poorer farmers, • labor-intensive practices that ignore seasonal labor shortages, • assuming ideal conditions such as water availability, consistent advisory support, or reliable markets. Diversity, readiness and use: A major theme was diversity, as farmers differ widely by gender, age, wealth, landholding, labor availability, and access to services. Bundles should speak to these segments, women, youth, men, land-constrained farmers, and better-off market-oriented farmers. Participants emphasized co-design so that bundles reflect what is feasible, affordable, and relevant for women, youth, land-constrained households, and commercially oriented farmers. Bundling should also align with national policies, local institutions, market dynamics, and cultural norms. Integrating bundles into existing systems such as DAESS, gender and youth frameworks, seed and land policies, soil health and fertilizer action plans is critical for operationalization and scale. Readiness and use as core concepts to validate existing bundles: The discussion clarified that innovation readiness and use are combined: • Readiness measures the technical availability, institutional approval and support systems for bundle components • Use measures to assess the actual uptake, awareness, and service delivery For example, Mbili-Mbili strip cropping has a high readiness level as it is technically strong and ATCC approved, but actual uptake remains low due to limited dissemination, demonstrations, and coordinated messaging across the country. 4. Priority whole farm bundles in Malawi Having reached a common understanding of the overall bundling situation, interlinked constraints and bundling initiatives from different stakeholder perspectives, this next session focused on identifying two major whole-farm bundles with a 5- year time horizon that could best address core constraints faced by Malawian farming households, and how such a bundle should be structured, targeted, and enabled. The session consolidated contributions from group discussions on the current state of key bundles in Malawi, system bottlenecks, and core bundle components. Initial steps were agreed upon toward a national roadmap for whole- farm bundling approaches in Malawi. The session included group presentations, plenary dialogue, readiness assessments, institutional role identification, and roadmap formulation. Two mixed groups focused on: 1. Farm-level integration bundle (crops–livestock– soil health–fertility–forages). 2. Landscape-level restoration bundle (land, water, catchment management, grazing systems). Two mixed groups were formed, with diverse disciplines represented in each group. Each group was tasked to: 1. Share existing bundling experiences and agree on a five-year "target bundle". 2. Diagnose major constraints underlying that bundle, to select the core bundle and complementary components 3. Identify system changes, key barriers, and actionable recommendations, ensuring that the bundle addresses the needs of poor, productive, and commercially oriented farmers. 4. Assess the readiness and use levels, and identify the most limiting constraints for the core component 5. Develop an initial national roadmap for each of the whole-farm bundles and determine which institutions should lead implementation. 4.1 Farm-level integration bundle (crops–livestock–soil health–fertility– forages). 4.1.1 Existing bundling approaches Participants reflected on bundling practices that were already being implemented across Malawi. The discussions confirmed that bundling is not new in Malawi, as multiple actors combine production, extension, market, and finance components. However, these bundles tend to be rather project- specific than coordinated at the whole-farm level. As a result, they often do not adequately respond to the needs of heterogeneous farmers, nor do they address systemic constraints that span production, markets, finance, and governance. Three dominant entry points for existing bundles were identified: Financial-sector-led components (Vision Fund, Opportunity Bank, others): These components typically anchor around financial products, with complementary services added through partnerships. • Agricultural, business, and group loans • Savings accounts and mobile banking • Insurance products, including index-based crop insurance and health insurance • Financial literacy training and business training delivered through NGOs and implementing partners • Gender empowerment components integrated through NGO collaborations • Environmental screening mechanisms, whereby loans that worsen environmental degradation are not approved Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) components (TLC, DAES, NGOs): These focus on production and resilience, with partial links to markets and finance. • CSA practices, including conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and soil and water conservation • Agroforestry systems, tree planting and woodlots • Drought-tolerant varieties of cereals, legumes, roots and tubers and forages • Nutrition-oriented interventions, including the introduction of biofortified crops • Facilitation of market linkages for climate smart crops • Informal linkages to financial institutions through implementer networks Extension services components: Extension services often act as the integrating mechanism across components. • Integrated extension messages across crop, livestock, finance, and market components • Blended delivery models combining tailored extension messages, on-farm demonstrations and lead farmer approaches • Increasing use of digital extension tools, though constrained by uneven phone access and connectivity. Overall, participants emphasized that while these approaches demonstrate proof of concept, they remain insufficiently aligned, resulting in gaps between production gains, market access, and financial viability. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 11 of 30 4.1.2 Major constraints to effective bundling The initial discussion helped identify the underlying constraints that need to be addressed for the bundle to meet the needs of heterogeneous farmers in Malawi. Participants identified various interlinked constraints that limit the effectiveness of existing bundles across production systems, markets, finance, extension, and governance, and reinforce one another. a) Production and natural resource constraints • High input costs especially for fertilizer, seed, and veterinary drugs. • Low and declining soil fertility and land degradation, linked to nutrient mining and limited organic matter inputs, require long-term soil restoration strategies such as agroforestry, rotations, and manure integration. • Land fragmentation and inadequate land-use planning, limiting land for integrated crop– livestock systems • Limited grazing land, leading to overgrazing, land degradation and conflicts with estates and protected areas. • Chronic and aggravating feed shortages throughout the year with low adoption of improved forages. • Limited access to quality seed, lack of certified or QDS seed for legumes, pastures and forages. • Inadequate access to adapted crop varieties and livestock breeds including legume seed, pasture seed, and improved crop varieties. • Crop and livestock diseases and pests coupled with weak diagnostic and integrated management capacity. b) Institutional and market system constraints • Weak and unreliable markets for both crops and livestock, with low farmgate prices • Small marketed volumes due to low productivity and weak aggregation • Poor product quality, including high moisture content, aflatoxin contamination, and inadequate grading. • Limited collective marketing, and minimal value addition at the community level. • Weak market infrastructure, including poor roads, lack of slaughterhouses, and limited storage or cooling facilities. • Limited access to timely market and reliable market information, especially on prices and trends, export requirements, and buyer specifications. • Weak farmer organizations with low bargaining power and unstable relationships between farmers and buyers • Side-selling, driven by opportunistic vendors who offer temporarily higher prices. c) Finance and risk constraints • Existing products are often not suited to agricultural cycles, with high interest rates, short repayment timelines, high collateral requirements; farmers are sometimes forced to take business loans for agriculture • Limited access to inclusive financial products, especially for women and youth • Weak linkage between farmer-based organizations such as VSLs and MFIs/banks, resulting in weak co-creation between finance providers and agricultural actors • High risk associated with climate shocks reduces farmers’ willingness to invest. • Bundled financial products sometimes increase cost (insurance, digital fees, processing charges) without corresponding value, which may deter uptake d) Extension and information constraints • Limited extension coverage, particularly for livestock and soil health • Fragmented extension messages from multiple partners • Limited smartphone access constrains digital extension • Weak integration across digital and non-digital platforms, for agronomy, livestock, finance, and markets • Insufficient coordination across DAESS structures. • Weak community demand for extension services, with Village Area Committees (VACs) not fully empowered to articulate service needs. e) Governance and social systems constraints • Weak community by-laws on grazing, fires, and natural resource management. • Limited coordination and enforcement capacity at community and district levels. • Poorly defined roles among local institutions and insufficiently organized farmer-based organizations. • Policy inconsistencies, especially related to export permits, price controls, seed and land regulations. 4.1.3 Major barriers to scaling bundles Building on the constraint analysis, participants distinguished scaling barriers, factors that specifically prevent expansion beyond pilots and projects. a) Market system barriers • Sale of ungraded, low-quality products in small quantities, limiting bargaining power. • Limited community-level value addition (grading, drying, sorting). CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 12 of 30 • Persistent aggregation challenges as farmers sell individually, rather than collectively. • Incoherent market information, especially on export requirements. • Unreliable or absent off-takers in rural areas. • Poor infrastructure, including roads, storage, and chilling facilities for dairy. b) Production barriers affecting markets • Inconsistent supply volumes across seasons. • Crop and livestock diseases and pests reducing marketable quantities. • Poor feed and grazing management reducing livestock productivity. c) Input and technology barriers • High cost of inputs, especially fertilizers and livestock drugs. • Inadequate access to quality seed or adapted livestock breeds • Weak local seed multiplication systems for legumes and forages. d) Institutional and governance barriers • Limited farmer organization; groups often collapse after projects end. • Weak coordination across input suppliers, extension, markets, and finance. • Poorly enforced by-laws for communal grazing and natural resource management. • Fragmented extension messaging from multiple actors. e) Finance barriers • Financial products not aligned to the agricultural cycle; mismatched repayment schedules. • Limited inclusive, tailored agro-loans. • Weak bundling of credit, insurance and advisory. • High perceived risk, leading to financial providers charging higher interest rates. f) Information and digital barriers • Low smartphone access, despite the widespread use of SMS. • Fragmented digital platforms across NGOs. • Limited market-price information and disease alert systems. 4.1.4 Proposed bundle components Participants then defined a more integrated farm- level, structured along core functional domains, including production, markets, finance, extension, and institutions, and explicitly designed to address the above-mentioned barriers. a) Strengthen farmer-based organizations • Support cooperatives, commodity associations, VSL and care groups. • Enable group-based purchasing, aggregation negotiation and marketing systems. • Empower and build capacity for farmer-based groups through VACs to articulate extension, finance and market demand. b) Improve market systems directly • Facilitate contract farming, aggregation systems and long-term buyer relationships and off-take agreements • Strengthen community-level value addition and quality control (grading, cleaning, sorting, drying, processing). • Improve certification systems (e.g., meat inspection, aflatoxin control). • Invest in market infrastructure (roads, aggregation centers, storage, cold chains). • Improve access to information on prices and off-takers. • Incentivize off-takers to serve rural areas. • Improve clarity and predictability of market regulations, including export permit processes. c) Improve access to inclusive finance • Co-create agriculture-specific finance products with financial institutions, including MFIs, banks, and farmer-based organizations for scalable inclusion • Align agriculture-specific finance products with crop and livestock cycles. • Offer blended products combining credit, insurance and advisory support • Expanding digital savings and borrowing platforms (e.g., Dream Save app) • Promote group loans to reduce collateral requirements. d) Improve seed and breed systems • Promote quality-controlled community-based seed multiplication and seed banks (QDS/CBSD) where feasible and regulated. • Strengthen partnerships between farmers, agro-dealers and seed companies to ensure access to context-specific seed • Empower farmers to demand appropriate seed and varieties, while providing training on context-specific appropriate seed and varieties • Ensure extension and research validate farmer- demanded varieties, rather than imposing them. e) Climate-smart production and soil health • Expand crop rotations and intercropping with legumes to restore soil health and reduce fertilizer needs. • Encourage the use of organic soil amendments, incorporating manure, compost, and mulching. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 13 of 30 • Strengthen crop–livestock integration, including manure management. • Promote agroforestry for soil fertility and climate resilience. f) Address grazing and land use challenges • Facilitate forage and pasture seed production for feed and soil amendments, along with pasture establishment and land-use optimization • Strengthen community by-laws to manage grazing zones and prevent crop damage, including forage production integration into fallows and woodlots. • Expand improved feed systems and local feed formulation • Encourage breeds and varieties adapted to local conditions g) Strengthen extension and digital advisory • Harmonize crop, livestock, market and finance messaging and contents across sectors and implementers. • Expand access to and use of digital devices, e.g. through group-owned phones via zero- interest loans • Invest in farmer-friendly digital extension formats (SMS, audio, picture-based messaging). • Strengthen DAESS structures, particularly the VAC, to demand extension services and train frontline extension staff accordingly. 4.1.5. Selecting the core component of the farm- level bundle Participants were then tasked to identify the single most critical innovation that would unlock benefits across the system. After deliberation, the group selected reliable and functional markets as core component of the farm-level bundle. The chosen bundle places market activation as the anchor, with all other components, including production, finance, extension, and institutions, designed to support and benefit from effective market participation. Rationale: Markets set incentives: Participants emphasized that, for commercialization, the market must be defined first, with production aligned to buyer specifications. Markets influence production choices, quality requirements and investment incentives. Farmers invest only when credible demand exists. Productivity–profitability linkage: Low yields undermine profitability more than price volatility. Improved productivity enables farmers to accept competitive prices while still achieving margins. Market visibility incentivizes investment in seed, soil health, livestock, and labor. Without market certainty, farmers cannot justify buying quality seed, investing in feed, accessing finance, or adopting CSA. Inclusive market access: A functional market benefits all farmer types: • Commercializing farmers benefit from cooperative-based aggregation, and more predictable market offtake. • Productive farmers gain access to inputs, markets, and services, that enable better them to produce and aggregate higher-volume and better-quality outputs. • Resource-poor farmers can engage through niche markets providing income opportunities such as manure markets, fodder markets, and forage production. Context specificity: Some bundle components are relevant only in certain areas; bundling requires tailoring, and market access stimulates development of complementary components (finance, extension, aggregation) tailored to a particular context. Market access also encourages farmers to demand quality seeds, improved breeds, storage technologies, and extension services that are appropriate and relevant to their context. Consensus was that market demand and enhanced production quantity and quality through improved farmer-based organization and aggregation need to be developed together. To support this core component, the group identified sub-components that form the operational core of the market bundle: • Aggregation and volumes • Quality standards • Value addition • Pricing structures • Timeliness of sale • Market information systems • Cooperative functionality 4.1.6 Readiness and use of markets as the core component Finally, the plenary examined the technical readiness and use level of the market bundle. Innovation readiness level: Low to moderate (score 4, controlled testing for its ability to achieve a specific impact under fully controlled conditions): • Malawi has established technical mechanisms for markets (grading, certification, auction models, informal and formal markets). • Proven pilots and success cases exist (TLC contract farming, aggregation centers in dairy cooperatives, horticulture and groundnut value chains). • Structural blueprints systems such as ADMARC exist, although they are being inconsistently implemented. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 14 of 30 • Policies for cooperatives and marketing are in place. Innovation Use level: Low (score 3, commonly used by partners involved in the initial innovation development). Despite technical readiness, adoption and scaling remain limited due to high cost, labor requirements, market uncertainty, and limited information. Key limiting factors: • Unstructured value chains for most commodities that engage smallholder farmers. • Small volumes of inconsistent-quality products. • Weak trust between farmers and buyers • Poor infrastructure and high transaction costs for farmers and off-takers • Weakly managed and undercapitalized cooperatives • Limited market literacy within extension services • Policy inconsistencies (price controls, export permits). The plenary reached consensus on two binding constraints that must be addressed first, and all other components to support these two binding constraints. These form the critical path for scaling the market bundle. i) Small quantities and weak aggregation, limiting economies of scale and farmers’ bargaining power. ii) Poor quality of products undermining prices, food safety, trade and export potential. 4.2 Landscape-level integration bundle (land–water–soil–forestry–governance) 4.2.1 Major constraints to effective bundling The group began by identifying major land and water challenges impacting productivity, resilience and livelihoods across Malawian farming landscapes. Participants noted that these mirror national priorities highlighted in the Agriculture Land Resources Management Policy (2024) and the National Resilience Strategy (2018-2030) which emphasize accelerating land degradation, erosion and weak catchment governance as binding constraints to agricultural transformation. a) Water-related challenges • Severe riverbank degradation and widespread deforestation around water catchments, leading to heavy soil erosion, sedimentation, and declining water quality. • Weak water governance, including unclear or exclusionary water user rights; limited regulation of multi-user access, and weak enforcement. • Declining water availability for domestic use, livestock and irrigation • Pollution of water sources from agricultural chemicals and industrial waste. These dynamics collectively reduce water reliability, increase conflict, and undermine downstream productivity. b) Land-related challenges • Insecure land tenure and unresolved ownership arrangements hinder willingness to invest and protect land resources. • Progressive land fragmentation and shrinking farm sizes driven by population growth and youth landlessness and expanding settlements reducing arable land • Declining soil fertility and soil health due to erosion, nutrient mining and pollution, linked to poor farming practices • Encroachment of agriculture into fragile ecosystem areas including wetlands and steep slopes. The combined effects include declining productivity, increased erosion risk, resource-use conflicts, and heightened vulnerability to climate shocks. 4.2.2 Proposed bundle components Participants proposed comprehensive and mutually reinforcing landscape bundle components, structured around production, governance, incentive mechanisms and service delivery. The bundle was explicitly designed to align farm-level practices with landscape-level governance and stewardship. Together, they operationalize Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) as a scalable, landscape-level system. a) ICM as the unifying framework ICM provides a unifying framework that aligns land, water, vegetation, and livestock management across the landscape. • Soil and water conservation structures (contours, check dams, erosion control structures). • Riverbank rehabilitation and catchment restoration, using tree planting • Agroforestry systems, including matapako and other locally adapted species • Landscape-level integration of cropping, livestock, forestry, and water management • Climate resilience and risk reduction at catchment scale b) Land, water and resource governance and tenure This component addresses the institutional foundations required for sustained landscape stewardship. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 15 of 30 • Strengthening tenure security and land certification processes. • Development and enforcement of community bylaws regulating grazing, tree cutting, fire use and wetland protection. • Formation and capacity building of Water User Associations • Clarification of access rights, roles, and responsibilities • Strengthened enforcement capacity at community and district levels c) Awareness, behavior change, and social inclusion This component focuses on mindset change and collective action, recognizing that landscape restoration depends on both individual behavior and social norms. • Community sensitization on drivers and consequences of land and water degradation • Promotion of land stewardship, sustainable water use and conservation ethics • Behavior changes on waste management, chemical misuse, open grazing and fire. • Emphasis on adopting inclusiveness (women, youth, marginalized groups) • Communication of long-term productivity benefits of soil and water management d) Climate-smart and environmentally responsible production practices This component integrates farm-level practices that collectively reduce degradation while improving productivity. • Improved manure management and organic matter recycling • Soil health restoration through reduced nutrient mining • Promotion of improved seed, while recognizing affordability constraints • Integrated landscape-wide pest and disease management (IPDM) for crops and livestock • Responsible use of agro-chemicals to reduce land and water contamination through coordinated prevention and control • Oversight of industrial waste impacts on agricultural and water systems • Introduction of biogas systems to support sustainable energy use and nutrient cycling. e) Conservation-linked livelihood and enterprise development This component ensures that conservation delivers tangible economic incentives for communities. • Promotion of banana production, fruit trees, and beekeeping to incentivize conservation and improved community stewardship. • Use of nature-based enterprises to generate income while incentivizing conservation • Strengthening community ownership and stewardship through tangible livelihood benefits f) Incentives, financing, and restoration assets This component addresses the central barrier of long-term investment disincentives in landscape restoration. • Input-for-assets approaches rewarding restoration and stewardship • Result-based financing for adoption of soil and water stewardship • Carbon finance and other performance-based mechanisms • Provision of restoration inputs (seedlings, tools, organic matter) • Addressing seasonal labour constraints through appropriately timed incentives g) Integrated extension, research, and digital advisory services This component ensures coherence, learning, and scale. • Harmonized extension messages across soils, water, crops, livestock, and forestry • Digitized and blended advisory services (SMS, digital tools, field-based support) • Strengthened coordination across DLRC, DAESS, Forestry, NGOs, and projects • Capacity building for farmers, extension staff, and governance structures • Strengthened research and evidence generation (soil health, cost–benefit, long-term impacts) to inform policy reform 4.2.3 Proposed core bundle component After reviewing the proposed components, the group identified ICM as the core innovation anchoring the landscape bundle. ICM provides a coherent, landscape-scale framework through which all other interventions are sequenced and aligned. It is already embedded in national policy frameworks, including the Agriculture Land Resources Management Policy and National Resilience Strategy, and integrates soil health, land and water governance, agroforestry, livestock management, and climate resilience at landscape level. The rationale: • Harmonizes soil, water, forestry, livestock, and cropping practices within a single framework • Builds on existing institutional foundations in Malawi (DLRC, TLC, FD, PWSP). • Provides a coherent landscape-level entry point relevant across diverse agroecological and socio-economic contexts. • Positions other components (e.g., agroforestry, manure management, improved seed, bylaws) CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 16 of 30 as supporting innovations that enable ICM to deliver sustained, system-wide change. 4.2.4 Readiness and use of the core component The group assessed the technical readiness and current level of use of ICM and associated landscape interventions. It is technically mature but operationally constrained, with limited scale, consistency, incentives, and enforcement. Innovation readiness level: High (score 8). Uncontrolled testing of the innovation for its ability to achieve a specified impact under uncontrolled conditions. • Malawi has 20–30 years of experience implementing SWC and ICM-related interventions and practices. • Technical packages are well-established across DLRC, TLC, FD, and MSCA, and public works programmes already integrate ICM principles. • Evidence exists from TLC, government programs, and development partner projects validating the effectiveness of ICM. Innovation use level: Low to moderate (score 4). The innovation is used by some organizations connected to partners involved in its initial innovation development. Despite high technical maturity, implementation remains inconsistent and localized. Key limiting factors: • Weak incentives for long-term stewardship and for farmers to invest in long-term soil and water management • Limited enforcement of bylaws and weak local governance capacity. • Insufficient access to inputs for restoration (seedlings, tools, organic matter). • Seasonal timing constraints, with restoration activities often competing with peak labor demands during the lean season. • Fragmented coordination across sectors and institutions • Insufficient and unstable budget allocations for monitoring, maintenance and enforcement. 4.2.5 Priority constraints and critical path for scaling Participants reached consensus on the most binding constraints that must be addressed first to enable scaling of the landscape bundle: • Incentives for land restoration, including subsidized input-for-asset schemes, carbon finance, and result-based financing. • Effective policy enforcement supported by functional and enforceable community by-laws • Targeted capacity building for farmers, extension staff, and local governance structures • Strengthened research and evidence generation to inform policy reform, including soil health data, cost–benefit analysis, and long- term impact assessment. All other components were considered supporting measures that should be sequenced to reinforce these priority actions. 4.3 Cross-cutting synthesis Plenary discussions highlighted insights that cut across both farm-level and landscape-level bundles, informing how bundling can be designed, sequenced, and scaled in Malawi. Core innovations: Two core innovations were selected as anchors for the system: (i) improved and reliable market access at farm level, and (ii) Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) at landscape level. Both functions are interdependent and require complementary social, financial, institutional, and behavioral components to translate technical readiness into sustained use and impact. Productivity–market interdependence: Productivity improvements and market access were consistently identified as mutually reinforcing. At both farm and landscape scales, productivity gains alone do not generate benefits without credible markets, while markets cannot function without sufficient and reliable quantities and quality of produce. Effective bundles must therefore address production and markets together rather than sequentially or in isolation. Context specificity and adaptive bundling: Participants emphasized that bundles should not be treated as fixed packages. Instead, they must remain context-specific and adaptive, with complementary components selected and sequenced based on local conditions. Some areas already have functioning by-laws, agroforestry systems, or community institutions, while others require foundational investments. The heterogeneity of catchments, market structures, and social systems must guide both design and sequencing. Central role of cooperatives and farmer-based organizations: Strong farmer-based organizations, particularly cooperatives, were identified as foundational across both bundles. They address aggregation constraints, improve bargaining power, enable quality control, and facilitate engagement with markets, finance providers, and extension services. Farmer demand articulation and local governance: Empowering farmers to articulate demand was highlighted as critical for effective seed systems, suitable extension, and service delivery. Structures such as VACs play a central role in enabling farmers to express needs, coordinate services, and hold providers accountable. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 17 of 30 Digital inclusion as an enabling condition: Digital innovations were recognized as increasingly important for advisory services, market information, and coordination. However, their effectiveness depends on reliable access to devices and connectivity. Group-owned smartphones and shared digital access models are emerging as practical solutions in contexts where individual ownership remains constrained. Together, these insights underscore that successful scaling depends not on individual technologies, but on coordinated, adaptive bundles that align markets, landscapes, institutions, and farmer agency. 5 Road map or Whole-Farm Bundling in Malawi Drawing on lessons from the Kenyan experience with Gender-Transformative Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles (GTSTIBs), particularly the phased approach of (i) foundation, (ii) learning and (iii) institutionalization (Lutomia et al., 2025), stakeholders jointly developed initial steps for a national roadmap for advancing whole-farm bundling in Malawi. The roadmap is explicitly tailored to Malawi’s decentralized extension system, strong district-level coordination platforms (DAESS/DAECs), and the need to align bundling with existing policies, programmes, and financing constraints. Whilst the workshop co-designed the initial steps of the roadmap, participants recognized that bundling is not a one-off design exercise. Rather, it requires deliberate leadership and governance, sustained learning, and progressive integration into existing institutional frameworks in order to contribute to the transformation of Malawi’s’ agricultural systems. The roadmap, therefore, foresees combining technical piloting with progressive institutional strengthening and reform, capacity development, and partnership mobilization over time. 5.1 Overall objectives of the roadmap The roadmap is guided by four interlinked objectives: 1. Establish functional governance structures for whole-farm bundles that clarify leadership, coordination roles, and accountability across institutions and levels. 2. Build a shared understanding among public, private, civil society, and research actors of what whole-farm bundling entails, why it matters, and how it differs from fragmented delivery. 3. Agree on priority bundles and sequencing, recognizing heterogeneity in agro-ecologies, markets, and farmer typologies. 4. Mobilize and align partnerships and resources to support piloting, learning, and scaling through existing programmes and budgets. 5.2 Institutional leadership for the two priority bundles Based on plenary and group discussions, participants agreed that effective bundling requires clear institutional leadership and coordination mechanisms, while allowing for multi-actor co- leadership and engagement. Two priority bundles were therefore assigned lead institutions, with complementary co-leads reflecting their multi- sectoral nature (Table 1). CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 18 of 30 Table 1. Institutional leadership selected for each of the priority bundles. Priority bundles Access to reliable inclusive markets bundle Integrated Catchment Management and landscape-level bundle Overall objective Improving productivity gains and resilience with reliable markets, aggregation and finance mechanisms Linking farm-level productivity gains and resilience with coordinated landscape action, particularly for soil and water conservation, agroforestry, grazing management, and restoration of degraded catchments. Lead institution DAES (Extension Services), through its Agribusiness and Marketing Unit Department of Land Resources and Conservation (DLRC) Co-leads and key partners • Total LandCare, drawing on their inclusive market access and delivery model, aggregation, quality assurance, contract farming and financing experience • Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development (DAHLD) particularly for livestock and fodder market integration • Inclusive finance providers (e.g. Vision Fund, MFIs, VSLA – bank linkage initiatives) tailoring financial products to smallholder cash-flow cycles, risk profiles and graduation pathways • Private sector off-takers and processors bring in market certainty, price signals, quality requirements, demand response • Cooperatives and farmer-based organizations, for improved aggregation, bargaining power, and collective action, and for reducing transaction costs for buyers and service providers. • Agro-dealers and input suppliers, for last- mile input distribution and farmer interaction, improved access to relevant inputs (seed, fertilizer, inoculants, feed) • Local Government Authorities (market infrastructure, by-laws, enforcement) enabling institutional and regulatory environment for market functioning • Academia (LUANAR, MUST) conducting market systems analysis, value chain research, and capacity development, informing national strategies. • CGIAR centers (ABC, ICRAF, IITA, ICRISAT) for holistic evaluation and evidence generation, tested market-linked bundling approaches, and South-South- learning. • Total LandCare, integrating landscape restoration with livelihoods and markets • Forestry Department for forest and tree-based interventions, alignment with national strategies and commitments • Local councils, traditional authorities, for governance, convening power and enforcement role, legitimizing collective action and compliance • Private sector nurseries and restoration enterprises for reliable access to quality seedings and services linked to restoration markets • Academia (LUANAR, MUST) for adaptive research and training on soil health, agroforestry systems and land-water interactions • CGIAR centers (ABC, CIFOR- ICRAF, IITA, ICRISAT) for generating public goods, methods and tools for bundle design, evidence generation, cross site and South-South learning. CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 19 of 30 5.3 Phased implementation plan The roadmap was structured around three phases, spanning approximately three years. Each phase combines technical action with institutional learning and adjustment (Table 2). Table 2. Phased implementation plan Phases Key actions Expected outcomes Year 1. Foundation and stakeholder mobilization: Putting the system in place before scaling pilot begins 1. Formally confirm bundle leads and co-leads; define clear TORs for each bundle 2. Establish two Bundle Working Groups, linked to existing technical platforms rather than creating parallel structures 3. Conduct structured stakeholder mapping (ministries, NGOs, private sector, farmer-based organizations, development partners). 4. Prioritize 3–4 implementation districts as learning sites, that reflect agro-ecological and market diversity, and where district leadership shows readiness 5. Develop bundle-specific co-design and implementation plans (roles, mandates, coordination modalities, decision pathways from national to district level) 6. Harmonize existing tools, guidelines, and extension messages to reduce contradictory advice reaching farmers 7. Hold district-level inception meetings through DAESS/DAEC platforms to secure political and administrative buy-in and clarify expectations. 1. Clear governance and coordination arrangements 2. Shared understanding of bundling concepts 3. Agreed learning sites and implementation pathways Year 2. Co-design, capacity development, testing and learning: Emphasis on learning by doing, with iterative adaptation rather than rigid rollout. 8. Strengthen the capacity of frontline extension workers, VACs, cooperatives, and lead farmers on bundled delivery. 9. Pilot the two bundles in selected districts though joint experimentation, farmer-centered adaptation. 10. Refine bundle combinations for different farmer types (resource-constrained, transitioning, market-oriented). 11. Strengthen seed systems (community-based multipliers, QDS arrangements and private sector linkages). 12. Facilitate finance co-creation workshops with MFIs and banks to align loan products, repayment schedules, and risk-sharing mechanisms with bundle requirements. 13. Enhance digital extension and market information systems, recognizing smartphone access constraints and group-based solutions 14. Systematically document early results, adoption barriers, gender and labor implications, and institutional bottlenecks to inform iterative learning 4. Tested and adapted bundle prototypes 5. Evidence on adoption barriers, and on what works for whom and under what conditions 6. Strengthened inter- institutional collaboration Year 3: Institutionali-zation and scaling preparation: Integration of adapted bundles into 15. Integrate bundles into departmental plans, guidelines and extension curricula (DAES, DLRC, DAHLD, district plans). 16. Revise and refine relevant policies and bylaws (grazing, land use, local market regulation). 7. Bundles integrated in routine planning and delivery systems 8. Sustainable scaling pathways identified CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 20 of 30 Malawi’s agricultural system. 17. Mobilize resources (government budgets, development partners), including innovative mechanisms such as PES, carbon finance, and blended finance 18. Strengthen monitoring and data systems (soil health, productivity, markets, adoption) 19. Expand successful bundles to more districts, using evidence-based targeting 20. Establish longer-term financing mechanisms linked to results based and climate finance instruments. 21. Develop a national whole farm bundle scaling strategy with clear sustainability and exit pathways 9. Institutional champions in place at national and district levels 6. Concluding perspective The workshop has led to a shared understanding of whole farm bundle approaches, objectives and expected outcomes: Malawi now has two nationally prioritized bundles to carry forward, with clear institutional leads. Each bundle requires bringing together technical, institutional, social, and financial innovations. 1. Access to reliable, inclusive markets bundling 2. Integrated Catchment Area Management and landscape-level bundling Leadership and coordination platforms are essential. DAES and DLRC were nominated to lead the implementation of working groups for each bundle and report back through a coordinating node, tentatively the ABC, until a national coordination mechanism is formalized. Partners expressed commitment to continue refining and operationalizing these bundles. The workshop has created the foundation for a national roadmap and long-term transformation strategy for mixed farming systems in Malawi. The roadmap will be refined and operationalized once the workshop report is circulated. Stakeholders emphasized that the success of this roadmap depends less on introducing new technologies, and more on changing how existing innovations are combined, delivered, financed, and governed. By sequencing foundation, learning, and institutionalization, the roadmap provides a pragmatic pathway for Malawi to move toward coherent, farmer-centered whole-farm bundling at scale. Partners were encouraged to stay engaged, support evidence generation, and ensure that farmer realities form the basis of the bundling work. Closing remarks by Dr Susan Chikagwa Malunga (DARS) echoed a key message emphasized by participants, that the transition from pilots to scale requires coordinated, system-level bundling rather than isolated technical interventions. References Abetu, T. A., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., López-Ridaura, S., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Tufa, A., and Chiduwa, M. (2024). Co-design of socio-technical innovation bundles: Lessons for sustainable intensification of smallholder systems in Malawi. Farming System Design for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Theories and Practices. Proceedings of the 8ths International Farming Systems Design Conference. Wageningen University & Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/701436 Barrett, C., Benton T., Fanzo J., Herrero, M., Nelson R., Bageant, E., Buckler, E., Cooper, K., Culotta, K., Fan, S., Gandhi, R., James, S., Kahn, M., Lawson-Lartego, L., Liu, J., Marshall, Q., Mason-D’Croz, D., Mathys, A., Mathys, C., Mazariegos-Anastassiou, V., Miller, A., Misra, K., Mude, A., Shen, J., Sibanda, L., Song, C., Steiner, R., Thornton, P., and Wood, S. (2022) Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_1 GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2024a). Agriculture land resources management policy 2024–2029. https://docs.dcafs-tipdep-donors-mw.org/dt_docs/agr_land_rsc_mgt_policy_mw_gvt_2024.pdf GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2024b). Fertilizer and soil health action plan 2024–2034. https://www.agriculture.gov.mw GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2024c). National agriculture policy 2024–2034. https://docs.dcafs-tipdep-donors-mw.org/dt_docs/nap_mw_gvt_2024.pdf GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2021). National livestock development policy 2021–2026. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlw214429.pdf GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2020). Agriculture sector food and nutrition strategy 2020– 2024. https://www.harvestplus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Malawi_Agriculture-Sector-Food-and-Nutrition- Strategy_2020-2024.pdf GoM (Government of Malawi, 2018a). National resilience strategy 2018–2030: Breaking the cycle of food insecurity in Malawi. Office of the President and Cabinet. preventionweb.net/media/62873 GOM (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture, 2018b). National agriculture investment plan (NAIP) 2018– 2023. https://www.scotland- malawipartnership.org/assets/resources/National_Agicultural_Investment_Plan_2018_Final_Signed.pdf Hoffmann, E. (2025). Designing smallholder-centric product and service bundles to incentivize technology adoption using an affordance perspective. MSc Thesis, Wageningen University and Research (WUR), The Netherlands. Homann-Kee Tui, S.; Mzumara, E.; Malunga, I.; Liben, F.; Sseguya, H. (2023). Innovation Packaging and Scaling Readiness Workshop: Mbili Mbili strip cropping system in maize based mixed farming systems of Malawi. Workshop report. Lilongwe, Malawi: IITA. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/135158 Homann-Kee Tui, S., Snyder, K. A., Chiduwa, M. and Liben, F. (2024) Insights for Enhancing Gender Equity and Social Inclusion through Sustainable Intensification of Mixed Farming Systems of Malawi. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/159441. Liben, F.; Homann-Kee Tui, S.; Kinyua, M.; Botoman, L.; Banda, M.; Mzumara, E.; Mponela, P.; Kihara, J. (2023). Co-validation of biofortified Mbili Mbili strip cropping for maize-based mixed farming system in Malawi: The process. Report. Lilongwe, Malawi: IITA. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/135105 Lutomia, C. K., Nyamolo, V., Echessa, L., Moraa, L., Ouya, F., Karanja, D., Arinaitwe, W., Ketema, D., and Nchanji, E. (2025). Nakuru County gender-transformative socio-technical innovation bundles (GTSTIBs) scaling roadmap. Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/786d6c6f-b177-43fa-86bc- fbd98d73c2b4 NPC (National Planning Commission, 2020). Malawi 2063: Transforming our nation. Government of Malawi. https://malawi.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/MW2063-%20Malawi%20Vision%202063%20Document.pdf World Bank (2025). MALAWI Agriculture Public Expenditure Review. Synthesis Report. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099061125040030235/pdf/P500600-5bd66f53-4dde-49a4-8d15- dcc6524e2eb0.pdf Annex Annex 1. Workshop program 08:30–09:00 - Arrival, registration 09:00–09:20 – Opening session: Welcome, introduction & objectives 09:20–10:00 – Framing session • Malawi’s whole-farm bundling frameworks and scaling landscape • Plenary reflections (clarifications, expectations) 10:00–10:30 – Panel discussion Enabling context: Reflections on the demand for and state of whole farm bundling in Malawi – what is driving or blocking integrated solutions. Participants answer 2-3 questions each (5 minutes each) DLRC, MoGCDSW: 1. What is your vision for sustainable farming and bundling in Malawi? 2. What specific policies or institutional bottlenecks advance or hinder integrated solutions? MUST 3. What is your vision for sustainable farming and bundling in Malawi? 4. What evidence shows farmers demand – or lack of demand for integrated solutions? 5. What policy gaps, research gaps and weaknesses in networks limit integration? Development partners (TLC, Heifer International, K2Taso, FSU) 6. What is your vision for sustainable farming and bundling in Malawi? 7. What integrated approaches are already underway, and what is working? 8. What support is needed from GoM and researchers to co-design and scale bundles? 9. Synthesis on opportunities and bottlenecks for the state of bundling in Malawi 10:30–11:00 – Health Break 11:00–12:30 – Thematic inputs and experiences round tables to map existing bundling approaches and road map for strengthening bundling in Malawi For the following two thematic areas the participants split into mixed groups, with diverse disciplines 1. Farm-level integration bundle (crops–livestock–soil health–fertility–forages). 2. Landscape-level restoration bundle (land, water, catchment management, grazing systems). Using the following guiding questions, each group to explicitly answer three questions: 1. Introduction: What bundle components do you currently implement? (technologies, institutions, finance, markets, extension, GESI) 2. Identify key bottlenecks for the scaling of bundles, considering affordability, labor, input systems, market failures, youth/women participation, coordination etc. 3. Define major core bundles and complementary components that address these bottlenecks, considering diverse farm types, including food security oriented, productive, and commercially oriented farmers 4. Map what needs to change in institutions, policies, market structures, extension and advisory services, land/soil/water management, gender norms for these bundles to function and scale? 5. What can research and partners contribute to support continuing bundle co-design and implementation? 12:30–13:30 – Lunch 15:00–15:45 – Plenary reporting, roadmap development, final conclusion: 1. Explain the priority bundles - For each 2. Discuss the required system changes (enabling environment priorities) 3. Generate recommendations for actors to support the bundling processes 4. Agree on a rating of the current maturity of each bundle and provide evidence 5. Define initial steps for a roadmap for bundle co-development, roles and responsibilities 15:45–16:15 – Way forward and closure • Summary of next steps, agreement on follow-up products (report, working groups) • Closing remarks CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program Report | Whole Farm Bundling Malawi Contents | Page 23 of 30 Annex 2. Mentimeter results generated at workshop introductions Citation: Homann-Kee Tui, S., Sseguya, H., Tufa, A., Manda, J., Liben, F., Omondi, J.O. 2025. Workshop report. Scaling Whole-Farm Innovation Bundles for Sustainable and Equitable Mixed Farming Systems in Malawi. Lilongwe. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Acknowledgements The CGIAR Sustainable Science Program forms a part of CGIAR’s new Research Portfolio, addressing key challenges in agri-food systems by fostering efficient production of nutritious foods and safeguarding the environment to create fair employment opportunities, as we simultaneously tackle climate change, soil degradation, pests, diseases, and desertification. This workshop and associated research is being implemented by CGIAR researchers from CIAT and IITA, and we recognize the valuable contributions of all participants to the results of this workshop, including DARS, DLRC, DAES, MoGCDSW, MUST, LUANAR, TLC, DAPP, Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET), MMPA, FSU, Heifer International, World Vision Fund and World Food Programme (WFP). We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ About CGIAR Sustainable Science Program Report This research was conducted as part of the CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program. This research is being implemented by CGIAR researchers from (ABC, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IITA) in close partnership with government and non-governmental organizations in Malawi. CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Its science is carried out by 15 Research Centers in close collaboration with hundreds of global partners. www.cgiar.org Photos © CGIAR / [Emmanuel Mwale, Fadweck Kazondo, IITA] Disclaimer This working paper has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of (CIAT and IITA), donors, or partners. This publication is copyrighted by the (CIAT and IITA) It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-commercial 4.0 International License. To view this license, visit https://cr