Umbrella review assesses climate-smart agriculture's conceptualization and challenges, suggesting a focus on stakeholder engagement.
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) was introduced in 2010 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to help maintain the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of farming operations under changing climatic conditions. Since its introduction, CSA has received global recognition, with many nations incorporating its principles into their national policies. Extensive literature evaluates the benefits and effectiveness of agricultural practices in achieving CSA goals and documents the various factors that influence their adoption on farms. However, CSA has also been repeatedly contested, as scholars and experts worldwide have raised concerns about a lack of conceptual clarity, the prioritization of technological solutions, and the neglect of social, financial, and policy measures. Given CSA's rapid development over the past decade, an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of how CSA has been conceptualized and studied in the scientific literature and to identify remaining gaps to inform future research efforts. The findings reveal inconsistencies in its interpretation; confusion about what constitutes a climate-smart practice or technology; and a tendency to reinforce a sustainable intensification-oriented framing of CSA, as the current scientific discourse pays little attention to farmers, their livelihoods and needs, and other actors and aspects of agriculture. Research needs to go beyond assessing individual agricultural practices or technologies and their effectiveness in meeting CSA goals. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on participatory approaches that engage diverse stakeholders to co-produce solutions aligned with farmers' needs and prevailing challenges, while simultaneously reducing environmental impacts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pathak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: