A scoping review of the contributions of farmers’ organizations to smallholder agriculture

The adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 underscored the global commitment to combat hunger and improve the well-being of small-scale producers and the environment. Small-scale producers contribute substantially to the food supply, yet many experience food insecurity and are highly vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South and East Asia. Farmer organizations (FOs)—including associations, cooperatives, producer organizations, self-help and women’s groups—are intended to support members’ interests by improving access to markets, credit, and extension services, managing shared natural resources, building skills, and strengthening well-being. However, concerns exist about FO equity and inclusiveness, heterogeneity of benefits across contexts and crops, and dependence on external support, with limitations due to infrastructure and managerial capacity. To inform SDG targets 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4, more evidence is needed on FO impacts. This study conducts a scoping review to assess the contributions of FOs to small-scale producers in SSA and India, synthesizing evidence on impacts on income, empowerment, agricultural production, food security, and the environment from 239 studies.

The paper situates FOs within a substantial body of literature recognizing their role in market access, credit, extension, and collective natural resource management. Prior reviews often targeted specific FO types or single countries and lacked systematic approaches, leaving gaps in comparative, cross-country evidence and in understanding heterogeneity of impacts and inclusivity. Questions persist on whether FOs primarily serve relatively better-off farmers, how benefits vary by crop, resource access, and membership heterogeneity, and the extent of reliance on governmental or donor support. This scoping review addresses these gaps by systematically mapping the evidence across SSA and India, multiple FO types, and a broad set of outcomes, without aggregating effect sizes, to inform policy and research priorities.

Design: Scoping review following PRISMA-SCR guidelines. Steps included: (1) defining the research question about FO services and their impacts on livelihoods and the environment; (2) identifying relevant studies using predefined definitions (Box 1); (3) study selection; (4) data extraction and charting; (5) collating and reporting results. Search and sources: Searches conducted in CAB Abstracts and Global Health (via Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus, complemented by extensive grey literature searches using custom web-scraping. Duplicates were removed via a Python script. Full search strategies are available at https://osf.io/4gt3b/. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion required: (1) explicit reference to small-scale farmers/producers/smallholders; (2) explicit reference to FOs (per protocol); (3) focus on SSA, SSA countries, or India; (4) published after 2000; (5) explicit reference to FO impacts on livelihoods (income, food security) or environment; (6) focus on agricultural production for human/animal consumption; (7) exclusion of forestry, agroforestry, fisheries, aquaculture as primary focus; (8) use of primary and/or secondary data to demonstrate contributions; (9) English or French language. Study selection: Three-stage screening. Stage 1 used title screening aided by machine learning to identify population and geography metadata. Stage 2 used Covidence for title/abstract screening by two independent reviewers with a third resolving conflicts. Stage 3 involved full-text screening by a single reviewer for remaining papers. Some papers contributed multiple studies, yielding 239 studies from 234 papers. Data extraction and analysis: A structured template (Supplementary Data 1) captured study metadata, FO characteristics (type, membership costs, years in operation, production focus), services provided (marketing, market information, financial, extension/education, technology access, inputs, infrastructure, resource management, policy advocacy, employment, links to external programs), and impacts (income, food security, yield, production quality, empowerment, environmental outcomes). Environmental outcomes included resilience, water quality/quantity, soil conditions, erosion, land use, biodiversity, and renewable energy use. Quantitative impact details (e.g., percentage income or yield change) were recorded where available. External support (government, NGOs, donors), climatic/weather events, local administration, migration, and socio-economic modifiers (gender, land/assets, education, poverty, distance to markets) were noted. Methodological quality appraisal assessed sampling clarity/appropriateness, use of control groups or pre–post assessments, and appropriateness of data analysis; studies lacking clarity or adequacy were classified as low quality (Supplementary Table 1.1).

Study corpus and FO types: 239 studies across 24 countries (80% published since 2010); 53% quantitative; 64% had ≥100 respondents. Seven FO types: agricultural cooperatives; farmers’ associations/groups; rural self-help and women’s groups; dairy cooperatives; producer groups; natural resource management (NRM) groups; rural financial cooperatives. Of 228 with membership data, 75% open membership, 25% women-only/mostly. Production focus (n=238): 55% crops, 24% livestock, 21% mixed. FO services (11 categories): Most common were marketing services to increase product sales (54%, 129/239), market information (46%, 111/239), and extension/education (37%, 89/239). Others included inputs access, financial services, technology access, resource management, infrastructure development/management, policy advocacy, employment provision, and linking to external programmes. A minority (about 4%, 25 studies) focused solely on financial services. Impacts overview: 41% of studies examined a single measurable impact; 67% reported only improvements, 21% mixed improvements and no improvements, 12% only no measurable improvements. Income: Assessed in 174 studies (73% of all). Across all 239 studies, 58% reported improved income; 15% reported no improvement. Income gains were associated most with output marketing and market information; extension and financial services also helped; NRM services showed limited short-term income effects. In 33 studies quantifying income changes (14%), increases ranged 3–70% over 2–5 years. Seven studies (3%) reported fluctuating income due to prices, weather, pests/disease, labor constraints or illness; 25 studies (10%) reported income stabilization via reliable markets, bargaining power, and price stability. Production quality: 20% (48/239) reported improvements; 5% (13/239) reported no change. Improvements largely in crops (fruits, coffee) and dairy, driven by market information and output marketing (about two-thirds of studies reporting quality gains), with support from extension and input services. Yield: 19% (46/239) reported yield improvements; 11% (27/239) no change. Gains mainly in crop-focused, open-membership FOs; most frequently in producer groups, farmers’ associations, and agricultural cooperatives; none reported for financial cooperatives. Services most associated: output marketing, extension, and market information. Extension often improved use of fertilizers and high-quality/climate-resilient seeds. Environment: 24% (57/239) reported positive environmental outcomes (resilience-building, flood protection, wetland and land/water conservation, improved water quality/quantity, better soils, reduced erosion). Six percent (15/239) noted no improvements or negative impacts (e.g., water pollution, land clearing). Positive effects were most often in NRM-focused FOs; economic FOs less often measured environmental outcomes. Notable activities included climate adaptation/resilience (4.6%, 11 studies) and organic farming (4.2%, 10 studies). Other outcomes: Food security addressed in 8% (19/239) with improvements linked to stabilized income, yield increases, and inputs/extension. Empowerment/social benefits improved in 41 studies (about 17%), especially in self-help and women’s groups (e.g., confidence, decision-making, leadership, business skills). About 20% of studies mentioned increased ability to pay for schooling, healthcare, or savings via higher income/credit. External support: 40% of studies reported government support to FOs (input/investment subsidies, cash transfers, infrastructure, start-up assistance, public extension, tax exemptions). NGO/international/donor support in 25% of studies. Highest government support frequency in NRM groups (60%); more farmers’ associations/groups received support when NGOs included. Climate variability/events negatively affecting production mentioned in 12.6% (30 studies); local administration changes in 7.1% (17 studies). Socio-economic modifiers (68 studies identified): Gender relations often increased male control over production/revenues; predominantly male FO membership hindered women’s participation. FO members tended to have larger landholdings and assets; primary or higher education more common among members; poorer and remote farmers less likely to participate due to fees, input costs, and market distance. Distance to markets negatively correlated with membership. A few studies (1.7%) reported targeted support for poor households to access inputs or education. Government role: Benefits included initial and ongoing financial/infrastructure support and acting as buyer of last resort (with lower prices but improved stability). Risks included prolonging inefficiencies and political interference. Private sector: Limited evidence (6% of studies) on input contracts, buyer relationships, contract farming, and private extension. Publication bias: 12% of studies reported no measurable improvements; potential bias towards positive findings remains likely.

The review indicates that FO services enhancing market access—especially output marketing and market information—are consistently associated with improved member income, yield, and product quality. Extension and educational services help address knowledge and managerial gaps, facilitating technology adoption and sustainable practices; when delivered via collectives, these services are more cost-effective. Financial services (credit, savings, seasonal input finance, insurance) further support income gains and resilience, especially under climate risk. However, benefits are uneven: marginalized farmers—women, poorer households, those with less education, smaller landholdings, or greater remoteness—are less likely to join FOs or to benefit equivalently, highlighting equity concerns. Environmental benefits are documented mainly in NRM-focused FOs, but many economically oriented FOs may produce unmeasured environmental co-benefits through promoted practices (e.g., irrigation, targeted fertilizer use). Governments substantially influence FO performance via policy, infrastructure, and subsidies, though support can both enhance stability and entrench inefficiencies. The findings support designing FO interventions that bundle market access, extension, infrastructure logistics, and financial services, while integrating natural resource management and targeting marginalized groups to improve inclusivity and sustainability.

FOs generally provide important benefits to smallholders in SSA and India, particularly through services that improve market access, extension/education, and financial inclusion, with documented gains in income and, to a lesser extent, yield, product quality, empowerment, and environmental outcomes. Policy should place market access (information, infrastructure, logistics) at the center of FO design and expand integration of natural resource management and climate resilience into FO services. Tailored support is needed for marginalized farmers (women, poorer, remote, less-educated) to build capacities and reduce barriers to participation. Governments can strengthen FO effectiveness by providing enabling legal frameworks, infrastructure, credit, and extension, while avoiding support that entrenches inefficiencies. Future research should examine heterogeneity of benefits among different member groups, spill-over effects on non-members and communities, robustly evaluate food security and nutrition outcomes, better document the role and design of government/NGO/private sector support, and assess the impacts of private sector engagement on FO performance.

As a scoping review, the study maps evidence without synthesizing effect sizes or weighting by study quality. Potential publication bias likely favors positive results; only 12% of included studies reported no measurable improvements. Environmental outcomes may be under-measured in economically oriented FOs, and information on FO characteristics (e.g., membership costs) was limited. Aggregated household data in some studies prevented clear separation of multiple FOs within the same umbrella organizations, potentially underreporting FO counts. The review focuses on SSA and India and excludes forestry, agroforestry, fisheries, and aquaculture as primary activities, limiting generalizability beyond the specified scope. Food security outcomes were infrequently assessed. Methodological quality varied, with some studies lacking clear sampling strategies, control groups, or pre–post designs.