Uncovering Evidence Gaps In Agricultural Productivity Research: A Systematic Mapping

By Lina Salazar and Maja Schling et.al

As part of its flagship publication, ‘Agricultural Productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): What We Know and Where We Are Heading’, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) collaborated with the Juno Evidence Alliance team to systematically map agricultural productivity intervention research in LAC. The review, Uncovering evidence gaps in agricultural productivity research: a systematic mapping, which constitutes chapter 14 of the publication, uncovered critical evidence gaps and identified research priorities. These, along with findings in other chapters of the publication, will help to drive productivity and resilience in LAC's food systems.

Agricultural productivity is a crucial pillar for achieving food security, improving rural livelihoods, and reducing poverty in LAC. Yet, in recent years, productivity growth in the sector has slowed, while climate change and socio-economic vulnerabilities have intensified. While governments have enacted numerous policies to meet these challenges, a systematic, region-wide review of agricultural productivity interventions hasn’t been conducted until now.

This review explores the trends and gaps in empirical agricultural productivity research, identifying the most commonly studied countries, products, and intervention types. It also highlights key knowledge gaps related to agricultural productivity interventions across the region.

The review found that research was largely concentrated around crops and livestock, with cash crops and export-oriented products like cattle and cereals dominating the research. Locally important food staples like pulses, roots, and tubers, and mixed systems such as agroforestry are seldom studied. In terms of intervention types, there are evidence gaps for emerging policies like payments for ecosystem services, as well as longstanding policies like trade agreements. However, the most-studied intervention category was natural resource management, which includes a host of sustainability-focused solutions such as soil management and climate-smart agriculture. Geographically, most studies came from the Southern Cone, with Brazil being the most-studied country by far. In contrast, the least-studied region was the Caribbean.

The review also found that impact evaluations with causal inference methods are uncommon, which means that current investment decisions are not based on rigorous evidence. Furthermore, there is limited evidence on heterogeneous effects across diverse populations, which constrains the design of targeted, evidence-based policies for vulnerable groups. On a positive note, interventions have been increasingly analyzed through a climate lens.