How effective are partnerships between governments, NGOs, and international organizations in delivering targeted interventions that build climate resilience in the most vulnerable regions?
Short answer
Key finding
This study addresses the sub-question by investigating how agroforestry interventions in low- and middle-income countries, supported by partnerships between governments, NGOs, and international organizations, can enhance climate resilience in vulnerable communities. It highlights that agroforestry improvement can focus on soil fertility, biodiversity, and water retention, thus imparting potential benefits for agriculture and ecosystem services. However, such interventions are context-specific and therefore differentially effective for crop yield and income improvements as well as to the more vulnerable groups of the population, notably women. This study draws attention to targeted and inclusive approaches to local conditions and environmental, social, and economic conditions; however, more research is necessary to strengthen the evidence base and make sure that such partnerships work well and in a fair way in building resilience among the most vulnerable populations.
Low- and middle-income country agroforestry interventions often bring positive impacts to agriculture, ecosystem services, and human well-being although differences abound among contexts and these outcomes tend to depend on, for example, level of income, gender, or specific regional conditions.
Short summary
The review of low- and middle-income countries systematically explored agroforestry interventions, which typically saw the integration of trees into either crops or livestock. Integration tends to increase crop yields and soil fertility but often has unclear, mixed effects for income and nutrition, with often detrimental effects on women and other vulnerable groups. In conclusion, there is a need for more targeted and inclusive programs that consider the specific needs of these vulnerable groups. Further research should be emphasized to strengthen the evidence base and understand the full range of impacts of agroforestry on different communities.
Long answer
Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary focuses on discussing systematic review regarding agroforestry interventions within low and middle-income countries that entails its impact in regard to agricultural productivity, ecological service delivery, and the social and well-being aspect concerning people within vulnerable communities.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on one systematic review:
Castle, S. E., Miller, D. C., Ordonez, P. J., Baylis, K., & Hughes, K. (2021). Theimpacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services,and human well‐being in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1167. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1167
What are the main findings?
This summary responds to the sub-question of partnership effectiveness between governments, NGOs, and international organizations in delivering targeted interventions that build climate resilience in the most vulnerable regions. This systematic review of agroforestry interventions in low- and middle-income countries sheds some light on how such partnerships can be helpful in integrating sustainable agriculture practices that enhance productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. While agroforestry has proven promising, the review emphasizes tailoring interventions to local contexts, ensuring inclusivity, and addressing gender-specific challenges to maximize their effectiveness in building resilience, particularly for marginalized groups. The findings underscore the need for more inclusive, context-specific, and evidence-based interventions to better support vulnerable communities in adapting to climate change
The systematic review of agroforestry interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) highlights both the potential benefits and challenges of integrating trees with crops or livestock in agricultural systems. One of the primary advantages of agroforestry is that it improves agricultural productivity, mainly by enhancing soil fertility. The presence of trees contributes to the health of the soil through improvements in nutrient cycling, prevention of erosion, and improvement in water retention, thereby benefitting crop production. Other ecosystem services available through agroforestry include increased biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, and improved microclimates, which are all significant in making the farming system more climate change resilient.
However, as shown by this review, effects of agroforestry on crop yields and farm income tend to be significantly variable and contextual. In some regions, it has led to significant improvements in productivity, whereas in others, the integration of trees with crops or livestock did not produce the expected outcomes. In some conservation-based agroforestry systems, where the goal is to preserve or rehabilitate natural ecosystems, crop yields have sometimes been decreased, presumably because of competition between trees and crops for resources such as sunlight, water, and nutrients. This variability emphasizes the need to adapt agroforestry practices to the specific environmental conditions, crop types, and farmer needs in each region.
This review also draws attention to the fact that agroforestry had mixed effects on women and other marginalized groups. Agroforestry can diversify income-generating activities, among other advantages, and open access to a wider range of forest products; however, its reach to women and marginalized people differs. While, in many instances, access to resources and decision-making capacities for women can be increased, other times are where they find full participation either difficult or hard to achieve - as in less access to land, credit, or training, among others. The gender dynamic, social norm, and unfair resource access and so on tend to influence whether marginalized groups in general can obtain maximum benefits of agroforestry practices or not. This calls for a more gender-sensitive approach to agroforestry interventions so that the benefits are equitably distributed.
A further key finding of the review is the limited evidence available on the impact of agroforestry on nutrition and food security. Even though agroforestry systems add to dietary diversity through additional sources of fruits, nuts, and leafy vegetables, the impact of such systems on nutritional outcomes of farming households is still less documented. Similarly, while agroforestry may enhance income stability and provide a safety net against climate-related shocks, its direct impact on food security remains unclear, with more research needed to understand how agroforestry practices can improve access to nutritious food.
The review emphasizes the need for more inclusive and targeted interventions that consider the specific needs of local communities, including women, indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable groups. This approach cannot be one-size-fits-all because agroforestry success depends on local environmental, social, and economic conditions. Interventions need to be designed with local communities in mind to ensure they are culturally appropriate, effective, and inclusive. More rigorous, long-term studies will be needed to strengthen the evidence base on the specific impacts of agroforestry for different communities, especially those most vulnerable to climate change and food insecurity.
Review summaries
The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services,and human well‐being in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1167.
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
1. Key finding
Overall
This review assesses the impact of agroforestry interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on three main outcomes: agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being.
2. Short summary
Agroforestry intervention often benefits agriculture with large yield impacts, especially on less fertile lands, although results vary considerably. It may be negative on more productive land. There is a small positive effect on income, commonly due to increased yields or incentive payments that compensate for a decrease in yields. Although the evidence base on nutrition and food security is limited, agroforestry is likely to have a neutral or positive impact on nutrition and food security outcomes. The effects of agroforestry on ecosystem services are not widely studied in impact evaluations but are documented in the broader agroforestry literature. Equity issues have been observed in many studies and thereby require more attention to equity in agroforestry interventions.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Farmers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including smallholder farmers, large-holders, women-headed households, and poorer groups.
Intervention: Agroforestry interventions, such as the integration of trees or other woody perennials with crops or livestock in production systems.
Comparator: Non-agroforestry systems,.
Outcomes: Agricultural productivity, including crop yields, Ecosystem services, including soil fertility, biodiversity, and other environmental impacts, Human well-being, including income, food security, nutrition, and equity among different population sub-groups (e.g., smallholders, women, and poorer groups).
Study design: Randomized control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies published in English from 2000 to October 2017.
3.2 Risk of bias
- Impact evaluations using criteria as suggested by an adapted version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Assessment of the risk of bias by coding “Yes,” “No,” and “Unclear”.
- Reporting bias not assessed
- random‐effects model and report the I2 statistic to assess the percentage of variability in the estimates due to heterogeneity
3.3 Publication bias
Attempted to reduce publication bias by searching for and including unpublished studies and grey literature in the review.
3.4 Findings
This systematic review reviews the effects of agroforestry intervention on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Agroforestry, which combines trees with crops or livestock, is widely encouraged as a tool to achieve sustainable development goals. However, a very limited amount of rigorous evidence is present regarding its social and ecological impacts, which hinders effective policy and investment decisions. The review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the outcomes of agroforestry practices and their pathways that influence agricultural and environmental results and the well-being of various population groups.
The review included studies published between 2000 and 2017, with attention given to randomized control trials and quasi-experimental studies regarding the effects of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Meta-analysis results showed a large but variable positive effect of agroforestry interventions on crop yields with a summary effect size of 1.16. Soil fertility replenishment-based systems, which included trees in agricultural fields, as well as improved fallows, showed positive impacts. However, in some cases, incorporating trees into production systems led to reduced yields, especially in conservation-oriented systems where land was taken out of production. This reduction in yields was often offset by incentive schemes to compensate farmers economically.
In terms of income, the meta-analysis found a small positive impact (effect size of 0.12), with improvements typically linked to higher yields or compensation mechanisms like payments for yield losses. However, several interventions - including certification programs and security initiatives in tenure - showed mixed results with some very poorly targeted programs that even had a negative impact. Evidence of the effects of agroforestry on nutrition and food security was lacking and could not be quantitatively reviewed; however, the narrative synthesis suggested that agroforestry may positively or even neutrally affect dietary diversity and food security dependant on context.
Reviewers highlighted the evidence gap with regard to the environmental benefits of agroforestry, particularly in terms of ecosystem services. Though some signs suggested a beneficial role of agroforestry in soil fertility and other ecosystem services, an absence of clear indicators for environmental impact made it challenging to draw firm conclusions. The differential effects of agroforestry interventions on various sub-groups of the population also explored studies, and results generally showed that smallholder farmers experienced the most positive impacts. The impacts on women and poorer groups were more mixed, and there is hence a strong case for equity issues to be tackled in the design and targeting of agroforestry programs.
Overall, the review concludes that the evidence base on agroforestry interventions is scant and of low quality, with high risks of bias in the studies included. Although agroforestry has potential to enhance agricultural productivity and income, this is not an effect shared universally, and much more rigorous evidence is required to really ascertain the effectiveness of various forms of agroforestry. The review stresses the equity and socio-economic dimension in the design of interventions and calls for much more investment in more long-term and well-designed studies, in particular through randomized control trials, to further establish strength to the evidence base. Policymakers and donors are particularly encouraged to provide ways of targeting smallholder farmers, women, and other marginalized groups in the interventions made, in designing programs that can target well all segments of population toward equitable benefits.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | Yes | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | Yes | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | Yes | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | Yes | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Yes | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | High |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 0 |
| Women | 2 |
| Intra-household | 0 |