Climate change alters or destroys ecosystems on land, oceans and coasts, leading species to extinction, forcing animals to migrate for survival and resulting in the emergence of non-native invasive species. This biodiversity loss can, in turn, exacerbate the climate crisis with greater carbon emissions from land-use change and deforestation. The need for evidence-informed action to address both crises cannot be overstated, especially for low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs) where individuals and communities remain disproportionately affected. 3ie’s new evidence gap map – supported by UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – aims to support policymakers by providing a comprehensive picture of available research on climate and biodiversity interventions aimed at improving people’s livelihoods.
First such map on these issues
We have looked at research evaluating the effects of climate change and biodiversity interventions on environmental and human well-being outcomes to support adaptive capacities in L&MICs. Considering different intervention instruments, such as regulatory frameworks and policies, land rights, and financial and market-oriented incentives, we identified the rigorous evidence across four natural systems and productive activities: i) land and forests, ii) agriculture and livestock, iii) aquaculture and fisheries, and iv) coasts and oceans.
Based on a systematic search and selection of studies, we included systematic reviews (SRs) and impact evaluations (IEs) using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, as these studies are most apt to identify changes attributable to interventions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first EGM to map rigorous research with such a broad focus on climate, biodiversity and livelihoods.
What we found
The online map includes 1,605 studies (1,512 IEs and 93 SRs), 85% of which were published in the last decade. Figure 1 summarizes the number of IEs and SRs by natural system/productive activities and outcome groups. The EGM provides interesting learnings about the state of the evidence on climate, biodiversity and livelihoods:
- While we aimed to map different natural systems, the research is heavily concentrated across the land and forests and agriculture and livestock groups. The programs most evaluated include protected areas, land rights, community-based/decentralized land management and monitoring, payments for ecosystem services, and other land conservation policies.
- Short-term outcomes are most commonly reported, including natural resources management, land/water cover, and livelihoods-related measures.
- The evidence is concentrated in five countries: China, Ethiopia, Brazil, India and Indonesia.
The map also shows major gaps in this space:
- More research is needed in water-related interventions and in the most climate-exposed and vulnerable countries. We identified fewer than 30 studies on aquaculture and fisheries, and coasts and oceans. Likewise, little research has been conducted in the most climate-exposed and vulnerable countries and specific regions such as Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East and North Africa.
- Evaluating long-term outcomes and the trade-offs between environmental and human well-being measures is rare. The effects of interventions on final climate and biodiversity outcomes – such as GHG emissions or species complexity – are under-explored. Despite climate, biodiversity and human welfare being strongly linked, only 16% of the studies reported both environmental and human well-being outcomes.
- It’s unclear how these programs address concerns around equity and equality. Most of the studies on the map do not account for or adopt equity-sensitive research designs, analytical frameworks, research processes or methodologies.
- There is very limited high-confidence and recent synthesis evidence. Eight out of ten SRs were considered low-confidence, which is a higher rate than rate compared to reviews in 3ie’s Development Evidence Portal. All high/medium-confidence SRs were published at least five years ago, so they may not reflect the latest evidence.
Leveraging the EGM
Our EGM can facilitate evidence-informed decision-making on mitigation and adaptation strategies in the areas where the evidence is concentrated. It also helps understand where more research is needed to understand the long-term effects of these interventions on the environment and the livelihoods of the communities involved. Better synthesis research may also allow the identification of interventions with high potential to improve these outcomes across different contexts.
As our next step, we are conducting a systematic review leveraging the clusters of evidence identified in the map. Based on the evidence that looks at both environmental and human well-being outcomes, we will analyze the effects, key implementation factors and cost-effectiveness of three areas: protected areas, land rights, and community-based/decentralized land management and monitoring. Findings from the review will be available in 2025.
To find out more about 3ie's work on climate change, biodiversity and livelihoods, visit our webpage or write to us at info@3ieimpact.org.
