Search

Trade-off analysis (TOA) is central to policy and decision-making aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural landscapes. Yet, a generic methodological framework to assess trade-offs in agriculture is absent, largely due to the wide range of research disciplines and objectives for which TOA is used. In this study, we systematically reviewed 119 studies that have implemented TOAs in landscapes and regions dominated by agricultural systems around the world. Our results highlight that TOAs tend to be unbalanced, with a strong emphasis on productivity rather than environmental and socio-cultural services. TOAs have mostly been performed at farm or regional scales, rarely considering multiple spatial scales simultaneously. Mostly, TOAs fail to include stakeholders at study development stage, disregard recommendation uncertainty due to outcome variability and overlook risks associated with the TOA outcomes. Increased attention to these aspects is critical for TOAs to guide agricultural landscapes towards sustainability.

To leverage agriculture's potential to better benefit both people and nature, policymakers need clear messages about which farming practices positively impact biodiversity and yields, and when trade-offs arise. Existing reviews analyse effects of different agricultural practices on either biodiversity or yield, without considering interactions. Here, we applied multinomial and quantile regression models to synthesize global evidence of synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and yield, using 764 paired observations (from 43 studies across 18 countries) comparing diversified and simplified farming systems. Results show that farmland diversification led to win-win outcomes for biodiversity and yield in 23% of cases, while a win for biodiversity coupled with a loss in yield was the most likely outcome (28% of cases). Yield and biodiversity responses were negatively correlated, meaning that diversifying farming systems solely in pursuit of production goals is unlikely to lead to markedly better outcomes for biodiversity, or vice-versa. Yet certain situations made win-win significantly more likely, including when crop and animal production, or multiple diversification practices (e.g., intercropping and cover crops), were combined, when no agrochemicals were applied, when diversification occurred in temperate climates, and when diversification enhanced below-ground taxa. Win-win was also more likely than lose-lose when biodiversity was measured as richness or richness-evenness, but not abundance, suggesting that in certain contexts diversified farming can effectively enhance species diversity while increasing agricultural yields. Overall, crop commodity group and bioclimatic location were amongst the most important contextual factors influencing the likelihood of a synergy or trade-off between biodiversity and yield, and diversification that accounts for these is less likely to lead to unexpected outcomes. Our novel method and up-to-date review show that farmland di

Agriculture, as the largest managed biome, represents both a land-use with great impacts on ecosystems and great potentialities to a better sustainability of climate mitigation, food security and biodiversity. Yet, its effects on biodiversity importantly vary among agricultural managements. Currently, no global synthesis analysing the available evidence of multiple individual or combined agricultural intervention on biodiversity exists. Here, we systematically synthesise evidence of the published meta-analyses on the effects of: individual practices (fertilization, crop diversification, tillage, pest and disease management, residues management, water management), agro-ecological systems (agroforestry, conservation agriculture, organic agriculture) and landscape scale management (landscape complexity, land-use change), on various biodiversity groups in croplands. We searched through four online search engines on July 2021. We thereby identified more than 150 meta-analyses to create a database representing ca. 1500 effect-sizes. From this, we produce: (i) an evidence map highlighting the data availability and knowledge gaps, and (ii) a vote-counting analysis representing the positive/neutral/negative effects of agricultural interventions on biodiversity. First, our results show that most of the meta-analyses focus on the effects of one individual agricultural practice: mainly fertilization (mineral or organic) and crop diversification. In contrast we gathered less meta-analyses on agricultural systems or landscape scale effects. All agricultural interventions highlighted micro-organisms as the most studied biodiversity group, followed by invertebrates (predominantly arthropods) and weeds. We notice that notably megafauna and avifauna are scarcely represented. For all biodiversity groups, the most studied metrics are biomass, abundance and taxonomic richness, while activity metrics are highly represented only in micro-organisms. Trait-based functional responses are ver

The debate concerning the need for significant transformations towards more nutrition oriented, environmentally sustainable and inclusive food systems has generated increased attention towards agroecology in recent years. Literature on this subject has already demonstrated that transitions to agroecology will be context specific, as countries and regions have distinctive visions for the future of agriculture and food systems, unique starting points, and will therefore define their own transition pathways. This paper assesses how different policies (consumer oriented; producer oriented; market and food environment oriented; macro and trade oriented; and cross-cutting policies) can affect incentives for agroecology. It provides examples of policies and related actions taken by national, regional and city governments that intend to promote one or more agroecological principles. The assessment reveals that, until now, few countries have embarked on a broad set of reforms with sustained commitments. Many of these policies are new, weakly institutionalized and supported by limited budgets, making it difficult to analyze their actual effects. Because of this, there is very little research on how effective they have been in promoting agroecological transitions or the objectives that agroecology aims to achieve. Consequently, the paper's main recommendation is for research to fill this gap so that future policy formulation and implementation can be better informed by experiences from different countries.

To leverage agriculture's potential to better benefit both people and nature, policymakers need clear messages about which farming practices positively impact biodiversity and yields, and when trade-offs arise. Existing reviews analyse effects of different agricultural practices on either biodiversity or yield, without considering interactions. Here, we applied multinomial and quantile regression models to synthesize global evidence of synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and yield, using 764 paired observations (from 43 studies across 18 countries) comparing diversified and simplified farming systems. Results show that farmland diversification led to win-win outcomes for biodiversity and yield in 23% of cases, while a win for biodiversity coupled with a loss in yield was the most likely outcome (28% of cases). Yield and biodiversity responses were negatively correlated, meaning that diversifying farming systems solely in pursuit of production goals is unlikely to lead to markedly better outcomes for biodiversity, or vice-versa. Yet certain situations made win-win significantly more likely, including when crop and animal production, or multiple diversification practices (e.g., intercropping and cover crops), were combined, when no agrochemicals were applied, when diversification occurred in temperate climates, and when diversification enhanced below-ground taxa. Win-win was also more likely than lose-lose when biodiversity was measured as richness or richness-evenness, but not abundance, suggesting that in certain contexts diversified farming can effectively enhance species diversity while increasing agricultural yields. Overall, crop commodity group and bioclimatic location were amongst the most important contextual factors influencing the likelihood of a synergy or trade-off between biodiversity and yield, and diversification that accounts for these is less likely to lead to unexpected outcomes. Our novel method and up-to-date review show that farmland di

Non-PR, IFPRI5; CRP2; CRP5, PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM); CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE), The debate concerning the need for significant transformations towards more nutrition oriented, environmentally sustainable and inclusive food systems has generated increased attention towards agroecology in recent years. Literature on this subject has already demonstrated that transitions to agroecology will be context specific, as countries and regions have distinctive visions for the future of agriculture and food systems, unique starting points, and will therefore define their own transition pathways. This paper assesses how different policies (consumer oriented; producer oriented; market and food environment oriented; macro and trade oriented; and cross-cutting policies) can affect incentives for agroecology. It provides examples of policies and related actions taken by national, regional and city governments that intend to promote one or more agroecological principles. The assessment reveals that, until now, few countries have embarked on a broad set of reforms with sustained commitments. Many of these policies are new, weakly institutionalized and supported by limited budgets, making it difficult to analyze their actual effects. Because of this, there is very little research on how effective they have been in promoting agroecological transitions or the objectives that agroecology aims to achieve. Consequently, the paper’s main recommendation is for research to fill this gap so that future policy formulation and implementation can be better informed by experiences from different countries.

The expansion and intensification of agriculture have led to global declines in biodiversity. This paper presents a systematic review protocol to clarify under what management and landscape contexts diversified farming practices are effective at improving outcomes for terrestrial biodiversity, and potential trade-offs or synergies with agricultural yields. The systematic review will be developed following the Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES). The review will include articles that compare levels of diversity (e.g., abundance, richness, Shannon’s diversity index) of any terrestrial taxon (e.g., arthropods, mammals) in diversified farming systems to levels in simplified farming systems and/or natural habitats, prioritising articles that also report agricultural yields. We will search for relevant peer-reviewed primary studies in two global repositories: Scopus and Web of Science, and among primary studies included in previous meta-analyses that are retrieved from the search. Full-texts of identified articles will be screened using a clear inclusion/exclusion eli-gibility criteria. All included articles will be assessed to determine their internal validity. A narrative synthesis will be performed to summarize, describe and present the results, and where the articles provide sufficient and appropriate data, we will conduct a quantitative meta-analysis.

This dataset provides Agrobiodiversity Index scores for 80+ globally dispersed countries computed using global datasets.

Sustainability agendas increasingly recognize that attaining conservation and development outcomes demands greater integration across sectors. Integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) are a leading approach to reconciling multiple objectives. However, a characterization of the diversity of approaches under the ILI umbrella and the comparative performance of different types of approach is lacking. Here, we analyze questionnaire data obtained from project proponents to delimit four particular types of ILI: one type was dominated by agricultural interventions and another by conservation interventions, and these partially integrated ILIs engage local scales of governance; the remaining two types exhibit strong integration, with aims and actions across multiple sectors and scales of governance. We show that integrated projects were deemed to be more successful by project proponents. The typology offers the practitioner and research community an explicit set of strategies for selection, evaluation, and support and attests to the need for integration to achieve sustainable outcomes.

Smallholder agriculture is an important source of livelihoods in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In these regions the highest concentrations of nutritionally vulnerable populations are found. Agricultural development needs to be nutrition-sensitive, and contribute simultaneously to improving household nutrition, farm productivity and environmental performance. We explored the windows of opportunities for farm development and the potential of crop diversification options for meeting household dietary requirements, whilst concurrently improving household economic performance in contrasting smallholder farm systems in Kenya and Vietnam. Farm and household features and farmer perspectives and priorities were integrated into a farm-household model that allowed quantification of a diverse set of nutritional, labour and productive indicators. Using a multi-objective optimization algorithm, we generated ‘solution spaces’ comprising crop compositions and management configurations that would satisfy household dietary needs and allowed income gains. Results indicated site-specific synergies between income and nutritional system yield for vitamin A. Diversification with novel vegetables could cover vitamin A requirements of 10 to 31 extra people per hectare and lead to greater income (25 to 185% increase) for some households, but reduced leisure time. Although the Vietnamese sites exhibited greater nutrient system yields than those in Kenya, the household diets in Kenya had greater nutrient adequacy due to the fact that the Vietnamese farmers sold greater proportions of their on-farm produced foods. We conclude that nutrition-sensitive, multi-method approaches have potential to identify solutions to simultaneously improve household income, nutrition and resource management in vulnerable smallholder farming systems.

Assessing progress towards healthier people, farms and landscapes through nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) requires transdisciplinary methods with robust models and metrics. Farm-household models could facilitate disentangling the complex agriculture-nutrition nexus, by jointly assessing performance indicators on different farm system components such as farm productivity, farm environmental performance, household nutrition, and livelihoods. We, therefore, applied a farm-household model, FarmDESIGN, expanded to more comprehensively capture household nutrition and production diversity, diet diversity, and nutrient adequacy metrics. We estimated the potential contribution of an NSA intervention targeting the diversification of home gardens, aimed at reducing nutritional gaps and improving livelihoods in rural Vietnam. We addressed three central questions: (1) Do ‘Selected Crops’ (i.e. crops identified in a participatory process) in the intervention contribute to satisfying household dietary requirements?; (2) Does the adoption of Selected Crops contribute to improving household livelihoods (i.e. does it increase leisure time for non-earning activities as well as the dispensable budget)?; and (3) Do the proposed nutrition-related metrics estimate the contribution of home-garden diversification towards satisfying household dietary requirements? Results indicate trade-offs between nutrition and dispensable budget, with limited farm-household configurations leading to jointly improved nutrition and livelihoods. FarmDESIGN facilitated testing the robustness and limitations of commonly used metrics to monitor progress towards NSA. Results indicate that most of the production diversity metrics performed poorly at predicting desirable nutritional outcomes in this modelling study. This study demonstrates that farm-household models can facilitate anticipating the effect (positive or negative) of agricultural interventions on nutrition and the environment, identifying comple

Capturing countries' commitments for measuring and monitoring progress towards certain goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), remains underexplored. The Agrobiodiversity Index bridges this gap by using text mining techniques to quantify countries' commitments towards safeguarding and using agrobiodiversity for healthy diets, sustainable agriculture, and effective genetic resource management. The Index extracts potentially relevant sections of official documents, followed by manual sifting and scoring to identify agrobiodiversity-related commitments and assign scores. Our aim is to present the text mining methodology used in the Agrobiodiversity Index and the calculated commitments scores for nine countries while identifying methodological improvements to strengthen it. Our results reveal that levels of commitment towards using and protecting agrobiodiversity vary between countries, with most showing the strongest commitments to enhancing agrobiodiversity for genetic resource management followed by healthy diets. No commitments were found in any country related to some specific themes including varietal diversity, seed diversity, and functional diversity. The revised text mining methodology can be used for benchmarking, learning, and improving policies to enable conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity. This low-cost, rapid, remotely applicable approach to capture and analyse policy commitments can be readily applied for tracking progress towards meeting other sustainability objectives.

PR, IFPRI3; CRP5; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply, EPTD, CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE), Sustainable land management is at the heart of some of the most intractable challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. It is critical for tackling biodiversity loss, land degradation, climate change and the decline of ecosystem services. It underpins food production, livelihoods, dietary health, social equity, climate change adaptation, and many other outcomes. However, interdependencies, trade-offs, time lags, and non-linear responses make it difficult to predict the combined effects of land management decisions. Policy decisions also have to be made in the context of conflicting interests, values and power dynamics of those living on the land and those affected by the consequences of land use decisions. This makes designing and coordinating effective land management policies and programmes highly challenging. The difficulty is exacerbated by the scarcity of reliable data on the impacts of land management on the environment and livelihoods. This poses a challenge for policymakers and practitioners in governments, development banks, non-governmental organisations, and other institutions. It also sets demands for researchers, who are under ever increasing pressure from funders to demonstrate uptake and impact of their work. Relatively few research methods exist that can address such questions in a holistic way. Decision makers and researchers need to work together to help untangle, contextualise and interpret fragmented evidence through systems approaches to make decisions in spite of uncertainty. Individuals and institutions acting as knowledge brokers can support these interactions by facilitating the co-creation and use of scientific and other knowledge. Given the patchy nature of data and evidence, particularly in developing countries, it is important to draw on the full range of available models, tools and evidence. In this paper we review the use of evidence to inform multiple-objective integrated landscape management policies and programmes, focusing on h

FarmDESIGN Model with the case study farms and their data for the paper "A model to examine farm household trade-offs and synergies with an application to smallholders in Vietnam"