The impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low-and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map

Agroecological practices increase farmers' well-being in an agricultural growth corridor in Tanzania

Millions of people rely on nature-rich farming systems for their subsistence and income. The contributions of nature to these systems are varied and key to their sustainability in the long term. Yet, agricultural stakeholders are often unaware or undervalue the relevance of those contributions, which can affect decisions concerning land management. There is limited knowledge on how farming practices and especially those that build more strongly on nature, including agroecological practices, may shape farmers' livelihoods and well-being. We aim to determine the effect that farmer perception of contributions from nature, socioeconomic conditions, and farming practices, have on outcomes related to food security and human well-being. We conducted 467 household surveys in an agricultural growth corridor in rural Tanzania, which is also essential for nature conservation due to its high biodiversity and its strategic location between several protected areas encompassing wetland, forest, and grassland habitats. Results show that implementing more agroecological practices at farm scale has a positive effect on farmer well-being in the study landscape. Results also indicate that higher awareness of benefits from nature, as well as engagement with agricultural extension services, are associated with higher number of agroecological practices applied in the farm. This research confirms the relevance of capacity-building initiatives to scale up the uptake of agroecological practices in the tropics. It also shows, using empirical evidence, that farming practices taking advantage of nature's contributions to people can positively affect food security and human well-being, even when those practices complement conventional ones, such as the use of synthetic inputs. Understanding the impact of agroecological farming on the well-being of smallholder farmers in the tropics paves the way for policy and program development that ensures global food demands are met in a sustainable way without compromising the well-being of some of the world's most vulnerable people.

What evidence exists on the links between natural climate solutions and climate change mitigation outcomes in subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions? A systematic map protocol

BACKGROUND

Natural climate solutions (NCS)-actions to conserve, restore, and modify natural and modified ecosystems to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-are increasingly regarded as important pathways for climate change mitigation, while contributing to our global conservation efforts, overall planetary resilience, and sustainable development goals. Recently, projections posit that terrestrial-based NCS can potentially capture or avoid the emission of at least 11 Gt (gigatons) of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, or roughly encompassing one third of the emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals by 2030. NCS interventions also purport to provide co-benefits such as improved productivity and livelihoods from sustainable natural resource management, protection of locally and culturally important natural areas, and downstream climate adaptation benefits. Attention on implementing NCS to address climate change across global and national agendas has grown-however, clear understanding of which types of NCS interventions have undergone substantial study versus those that require additional evidence is still lacking. This study aims to conduct a systematic map to collate and describe the current state, distribution, and methods used for evidence on the links between NCS interventions and climate change mitigation outcomes within tropical and sub-tropical terrestrial ecosystems. Results of this study can be used to inform program and policy design and highlight critical knowledge gaps where future evaluation, research, and syntheses are needed.

METHODS

To develop this systematic map, we will search two bibliographic databases (including 11 indices) and 67 organization websites, backward citation chase from 39 existing evidence syntheses, and solicit information from key informants. All searches will be conducted in English and encompass subtropical and tropical terrestrial ecosystems (forests, grasslands, mangroves, agricultural areas). Search results will be screened at title and abstract, and full text levels, recording both the number of excluded articles and reasons for exclusion. Key meta-data from included articles will be coded and reported in a narrative review that will summarize trends in the evidence base, assess gaps in knowledge, and provide insights for policy, practice, and research. The data from this systematic map will be made open access.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-022-00268-w.

Understanding Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agroforestry on Rural Communities

Several studies have highlighted the benefit of implementing agroforestry for rural communities. From the perspective of socio-economic, agroforestry can potentially improve smallholders’ income, increase food security, promote gender equality and stimulate cultural activities in rural areas. Furthermore, agroforestry can enhance ecosystem service through improved soil structure, increased carbon sequestration and higher water retention. Despite having many advantages, the adoption of agroforestry among rural communities, particularly among smallholder farmers in developing countries remains limited. The absence of agroforestry in public policy causes little recognition of this system to tackle the climate crisis as well as to improve rural livelihood. This may be due to, among others, a less comprehensive evidence on impacts that simultaneously touch upon social, economic as well as environmental aspects of agroforestry on the community. This review gives a special emphasis on the current evidence depicting the characteristics of agroforestry adoption, its benefits and potential drawbacks, as well as challenges for the adoption in some developing countries. The outcomes might help related stakeholders to make appropriate decisions to improve rural livelihood.

Research on agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation: what can we conclude so far and what should we improve?

Through a meta-analysis, Mupepele et al. (BMC Ecol Evol 21:1-193, 2021) assessed the effects of European agroforestry systems on biodiversity, estimated by species richness or species diversity. They showed that the effects of silvoarable and silvopastoral systems depend on the systems they are compared to and the taxa studied. Further, they found that only silvoarable systems increased species richness or diversity, compared to cropland. The authors conclude that agroforestry systems have weak effects on biodiversity and that landscape context or land-use history are probably more important than the practice of agroforestry in itself. However, we draw attention to important shortcomings in this meta-analysis, which downplay the potential of agroforestry for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. We hope that the meta-analysis by Mupepele et al. (BMC Ecol Evol 21:1-193, 2021), and our comments, will contribute to improving the quality of research on agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation.

Consistent cooling benefits of silvopasture in the tropics

Agroforestry systems have the potential to sequester carbon and offer numerous benefits to rural communities, but their capacity to offer valuable cooling services has not been quantified on continental scales. Here, we find that trees in pasturelands (“silvopasture”) across Latin America and Africa can offer substantial cooling benefits. These cooling benefits increase linearly by −0.32 °C to −2.4 °C per 10 metric tons of woody carbon per hectare, and importantly do not depend on the spatial extent of the silvopasture systems. Thus, even smallholders can reap important cooling services from intensifying their silvopasture practices. We then map where realistic (but ambitious) silvopasture expansion could counteract a substantial fraction of the local projected warming in 2050 due to climate change. Our findings indicate where and to what extent silvopasture systems can counteract local temperature increases from global climate change and help vulnerable communities adapt to a warming world.

A new study shows that tropical silvopasture systems can provide significant cooling services for local communities, and identifies where these silvopasture systems can most effectively counteract global climate change to help communities adapt to warming.

Agroforestry trade-offs between biomass provision and aboveground carbon sequestration in the alpine Eisenwurzen region, Austria

Mountain agroecosystems deliver essential ecosystem services to society but are prone to climate change as well as socio-economic pressures, making multi-functional land systems increasingly central to sustainable mountain land use policy. Agroforestry, the combination of woody vegetation with crops and/or livestock, is expected to simultaneously increase provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, but knowledge gaps concerning trade-offs exist especially in temperate industrialized and alpine regions. Here, we quantify the aboveground carbon (C) dynamics of a hypothetical agroforestry implementation in the Austrian long-term socio-ecological research region Eisenwurzen from 2020 to 2050. We develop three land use scenarios to differentiate conventional agriculture from an immediate and a gradual agroforestry implementation, integrate data from three distinct models (Yield-SAFE, SECLAND, MIAMI), and advance the socio-ecological indicator framework Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) to assess trade-offs between biomass provision and carbon sequestration. Results indicate that agroforestry strongly decreases HANPP because of a reduction in biomass harvest by up to - 47% and a simultaneous increase in actual net primary production by up to 31%, with a large amount of carbon sequestered in perennial biomass by up to 3.4 t C ha-1 yr-1. This shows that a hypothetical transition to agroforestry in the Eisenwurzen relieves the agroecosystem from human-induced pressure but results in significant trade-offs between biomass provision and carbon sequestration. We thus conclude that while harvest losses inhibit large-scale implementation in intensively used agricultural regions, agroforestry constitutes a valuable addition to sustainable land use policy, in particular when affecting extensive pastures and meadows in alpine landscapes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10113-021-01794-y.

The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Background

Agroforestry, the intentional integration of trees or other woody perennials with crops or livestock in production systems, is being widely promoted as a conservation and development tool to help meet the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Donors, governments, and nongovernmental organizations have invested significant time and resources into developing and promoting agroforestry policies and programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) worldwide. While a large body of literature on the impacts of agroforestry practices in LMICs is available, the social-ecological impacts of agroforestry interventions is less well-studied. This knowledge gap on the effectiveness of agroforestry interventions constrains possibilities for evidence-based policy and investment decisions to advance sustainable development objectives.

Objectives

The primary objective of this Campbell systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence on the impacts of agroforestry interventions in LMICs on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. The secondary objectives were to identify key pathways through which agroforestry interventions lead to various outcomes and how the interventions affect different sub-groups of the population.

Search Methods

This review is based on a previously created evidence and gap map (EGM) of studies evaluating the impacts of agroforestry practices and interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. We included published and unpublished literature in the English language covering the period between 2000 and October 20, 2017. We searched six academic databases and 19 organization websites to identify potentially relevant studies. The search was conducted for our EGM in mid-2017, and we did not conduct an additional search for this systematic review.

Selection Criteria

We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies assessing the effect of an agroforestry intervention on at least one outcome measure of agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, or human well-being for farmers and their farmland in LMICs. Agroforestry interventions include any program or policy designed to promote and support the adoption or maintenance of agroforestry practices, which include trees on farms, silvopasture, shade-grown crops, and homegardens with trees, among others. Moreover, the studies needed to include a nonagroforestry comparator, such as conventional agriculture or forestry systems or a before-after comparison.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used a standardized data extraction spreadsheet to extract details about each included study. We also used a standardized form to assess risk of bias for each of the included studies in this SR. Meta-analysis techniques were used to combine and synthesize effect size estimates for the outcomes measures that had sufficient data. We used a random effects models for the meta-analyses and use Hedge's g (difference in means divided by the pooled standard deviation) to report effect size estimates. The outcomes without enough evidence for meta-analysis were discussed narratively.

Main Results

We identified 11 studies across nine countries, all of which used quasi-experimental methods. Overall, the quality of the evidence base was assessed as being low. Studies were rated as having high or critical risk of bias if they failed to convincingly address more than one of the main potential sources of bias, namely selection bias, group equivalence, and spillover effects. Given the low number of studies and the high risk of bias of the evidence base, the results of this SR are limited and should be considered a baseline for future work. The results of the meta-analysis for impacts on yields indicated that agroforestry interventions overall may lead to a large, positive impact on yield (Hedge's g = 1.16 [-0.35, 2.67] (p = .13)), though there was high heterogeneity in the results (I ² = 98.99%, τ 2  = 2.94, Q(df = 4)  = 370.7). There were positive yield impacts for soil fertility replenishment practices, including incorporating trees in agricultural fields and improved fallow practices in fields where there are severe soil fertility issues. In other cases, incorporating trees into the production system reduced productivity and took land out of production for conservation benefits. These systems generally used an incentive provision scheme to economically offset the reductions in yields. The result of the meta-analysis on income suggests that agroforestry interventions overall may lead to a small, positive impact on income (Hedge's g = 0.12 [-0.06, 0.30] (p = .20)), with moderately high heterogeneity in the results (I ² = 75.29%, τ 2  = 0.04, Q(df = 6) = 19.16). In cases where improvement yields were reported, there were generally attendant improvements in income. In the cases where payments were provided to offset the potential loss in yields, incomes also generally improved, though there were mixed results for the certification programs and the tenure security permitting scheme. One program, which study authors suggested may have been poorly targeted, had negative yield impacts. There was not enough comparable evidence to quantitatively synthesize the impacts of agroforestry interventions on nutrition and food security outcomes, though the results indicted positive or neutral impacts on dietary diversity and food intake were likely. Surprisingly, there was little evidence on the impacts of agroforestry interventions on environmental outcomes, and there was no consistency of environmental indicator variables used. However, what has been studied indicates that the environmental benefits are being achieved to at least some extent, consistent with the broader literature on agroforestry practices. The evidence base was insufficient to evaluate the interaction between environmental and social impacts. Several studies explicitly considered variable impacts across different population sub-groups, including differential impacts on small-holders versus large-holders, on woman-headed households versus male-headed households, and on richer groups versus poorer groups. Small-holder farmers typically experienced the most positive effect sizes due to the agroforestry interventions. Women and poorer groups had mixed outcomes relative to men and richer households, highlighting the importance of considering these groups in intervention design.

Authors' Conclusions

There is limited evidence of the impacts of agroforestry interventions, restricting our ability to draw conclusions on the effect sizes of different intervention types. The existing evidence forms a baseline for future research and highlights the importance of considering equity and socio-economic factors in determining suitable intervention design. Some key implications for practice and policy include investing in programs that include pilot programs, funding for project evaluation, and that address key equity issues, such as targeting to smallholders, women, poor, and marginalized groups. Funding should also be given to implementing RCTs and more rigorous quasi-experimental impact evaluations of agroforestry interventions over longer time-periods to collect robust evidence of the effectiveness of various schemes promoting agroforestry practices.

Simulating Agroforestry Adoption in Rural Indonesia: The Potential of Trees on Farms for Livelihoods and Environment

In recent years, agroforestry has gained increasing attention as an option to simultaneously alleviate poverty, provide ecological benefits, and mitigate climate change. The present study simulates small-scale farmers’ agroforestry adoption decisions to investigate the consequences for livelihoods and the environment over time. To explore the interdependencies between agroforestry adoption, livelihoods, and the environment, an agent-based model adjusted to a case study area in rural Indonesia was implemented. Thereby, the model compares different scenarios, including a climate change scenario. The agroforestry system under investigation consists of an illipe (Shorea stenoptera) rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) mix, which are both locally valued tree species. The simulations reveal that farmers who adopt agroforestry diversify their livelihood portfolio while increasing income. Additionally, the model predicts environmental benefits: enhanced biodiversity and higher carbon sequestration in the landscape. The benefits of agroforestry for livelihoods and nature gain particular importance in the climate change scenario. The results therefore provide policy-makers and practitioners with insights into the dynamic economic and environmental advantages of promoting agroforestry.

Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map

Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a systematic evidence synthesis product which display the available evidence relevant to a specific research question. EGMs are produced following the same principles as a systematic reviews, that is: specify a PICOS, a comprehensive search, screening against explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, and systematic coding, analysis and reporting. This paper provides guidance on producing EGMs for publication in Campbell Systematic Reviews.