Are risks really the main barrier to Climate-Smart Agriculture? In our new study across 11 countries in Africa and Asia, we find that many climate-smart innovations are not only highly profitable (IRR 20–490%, strong NPVs) but also carry low risk of capital loss—especially when supported by subsidized finance and smart public policy.
Climate-Smart Agriculture won’t scale if farmers only see costs and not clear cash returns. In this piece, I explore why Cash-on-Cash ROI (annual net cash flow divided by initial investment) can help farmers, extension agents, and investors translate CSA practices into simple, relatable answers to the core question: “Will this pay?”
This study applied cost-benefit analysis to livestock practices in Ethiopia’s lowlands, demonstrating how economic tools can guide better decision-making. Results showed that certain practices provide significant returns when both costs and long-term benefits are considered.
Farmers face many barriers when deciding whether to adopt climate-smart soil practices. This study found that education, market access, and availability of information significantly shape adoption decisions. Understanding these socioeconomic factors helps design better support systems for farmers.
Not all adaptation strategies are equally beneficial—some create synergies while others lead to trade-offs. This analysis highlights the importance of assessing multiple dimensions of adaptation, from productivity to environmental sustainability.
Farmers and policymakers often struggle to choose the right strategies under climate uncertainty. This work introduces decision-support tools that help evaluate adaptation options and guide evidence-based planning.
