Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 12 Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers Scott Sabin, Josh Meyer, Emile Icoyavuze, Honorine Murorunkwere, Méthode Ntibandye, Jared White, Milmer Martinez Vergara, Corey Chin, Paul Thompson, Robert Morikawa1 Smallholder farmers around the world often find themselves at the nexus of poverty and environmental degradation. Promotion of savings groups has become a well-recognized strategy for addressing poverty. Evidence shows that while savings group promotion can result in positive impact, these results are often small. This paper examines a quasi-experimental (difference-in-differences) study of an integrated approach to savings group promotion, combining a savings methodology with participatory training in regenerative agriculture/agroecology techniques. After 2 years of participation, farmers who participated in both church-based savings group activities and regenerative agriculture training saw positive change across economic, environmental, and spiritual dimensions, with the treatment group experiencing a 39% decrease in poverty as measured by a multidimensional poverty index relative to the control group. Results support the integration of savings methodologies with agricultural training to multiply impact among smallholder farmer communities. Introduction Over 600 million smallholder farmers in the world (FAO 2023b) often find themselves living at the nexus of poverty and environmental degradation. They are also often located in some of the most ecologically critical zones in the world, and as such are positioned to be important stewards of not only food security, but above and below ground ecosystems, water resources, biodiversity, and carbon. Equipping smallholder farmers, who daily face urgent issues of deforestation, declining soil health, and farm productivity is a critical element in any global strategy to address environmental degradation and climate change. Many strategies have been developed to help equip smallholder farmers and other households living in conditions of poverty under the umbrella of poverty alleviation (Lipton 1996). Promotion of savings groups has become a significant component of poverty alleviation strategies in the past 30 years (VSLA 2023). Reviews and meta-analyses of savings group literature show a link between savings and positive well-being outcomes (Annan, et al. 2013; Biscaye et al. 2015; Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014; Stewart, et al. 2012; van Rooyen, Stewart, and de Wet 2012). One of the first systematic reviews of savings and microfinance studies (Stewart, et al. 2012; van Rooyen, Stewart, and 1 The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of the smallholder farmers in the study areas, who are improving the resilience of their communities and watersheds, one group at a time. All authors are employees of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work in the study area and provide training support to farmers. de Wet 2012) concludes that savings promotion can have a positive impact on health, food security, and nutrition outcomes, but that results are mixed, and authors found little consistent evidence of a positive impact on income. A randomized control trial (RCT) of village savings and loans associations (VSLAs) conducted in Burundi (Annan, et al. 2013) shows a positive impact on food security indicators and a statistically significant reduction in poverty. The intervention studies combined training on VSLA group formation with training on entrepreneurship and financial literacy. A review that looks specifically at studies of savings (Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014) indicates that access to savings opportunities has a positive long-term impact on poverty and income. This review study finds little evidence that additional training on financial literacy leads to increases in savings habits. An extensive review of over one thousand papers looking specifically at agricultural communities (Biscaye et al. 2015) references a wealth of data on the impact of credit on smallholder farmers but much less information on the impact of savings. Most studies of savings show at least some positive effect, but evidence of increased income and resilience is mixed. Authors note that context may play an important role in study outcomes, contrasting Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 13 for example urban versus rural settings. Another large meta-analysis of thousands of titles—filtered to 24 studies that meet author criteria—shows that promotion of savings has a small but significant impact on poverty metrics such as expenditures, income, return on family business, and food security (Steinert et al. 2018). A multi-sector approach, while requiring greater coordination, has been shown to have a positive impact on poverty. In particular, agricultural growth is strongly associated with poverty reduction (Lipton 1996). Integration of savings with other types of interventions has been examined in several studies (Entz, Kaarsgaard, and Salomons 2016; Gugerty, Biscaye, and Anderson 2019; Rippey, and Fowler 2011). A meta-analysis of self-help group studies (Gugerty, Biscaye, and Anderson 2019), shows that self-help groups often have multiple goals, and experience a wide range of beneficial outcomes in multiple areas such as maternal and childcare, reproductive health, savings, and agriculture. A review of studies of savings groups integrated with other initiatives (Gugerty, Biscaye, and Anderson 2019) reveals that integration can have positive outcomes. As these authors note, it also seems true that, with other organizations, in some instances, these outcomes appear to be more beneficial for the linked organization than for the savings group. Federations or apex models in particular represent a risk of reduced transparency. Several studies have examined the linkage between savings and agriculture. A study in Ghana (Ankrah Twumasi et al. 2019) shows that farmers perceive that savings result in an increase in capital, and therefore in agricultural production. Participation in Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) in Tanzania results in increased farm productivity, food availability, increased diversity of income sources, and decreased school drop-out rates among smallholder farm households (Nyamaka 2019). Another study indicates that participation in VSLA results in 38% higher agricultural productivity compared with farmers who do not participate in VSLA (Dawuni, Mabe, and Damba 2021). This study suggests that acquisition of inputs is a key factor contributing to the increase in productivity. Households that are actively saving are more likely to adopt climate-smart agriculture techniques according to a study in Kenya (Gikonyo et al. 2022). This study notes that the majority of households actively saving are involved in community groups. Some organizations, observing the benefit of combined savings with agriculture, have integrated savings promotion components to enhance their regenerative agriculture or agroecology intervention. A training program in Kenya combined sustainable agricultural land management practices with VSLA (Shames et al. 2015). Authors note that VSLA participation provides a source of funding that helps farmers implement sustainable agricultural land management practices on a long-term basis. A four-year study of a training package integrating sustainable land management practices and VSLA in Kenya finds project farmers experiencing higher levels of savings and increased farm yields relative to a control group (Nyberg et al. 2020). A climate-smart agriculture program in Ghana observes that training programs can have a positive influence on adoption of climate-smart techniques, and that VSLA can positively influence farmer participation in such programs (Martey, Etwire, and Mockshell 2021). A financing model called community Ecofund credits utilizes a VSLA model and provides grants to groups who implement an environmental management plan—this program is being implemented in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania (Wild et al. 2021). A conservation agriculture research program in South Africa provides VSLA training to interested farmer groups and observes VSLA is key to the long-term application of conservation agriculture practices (Kruger et al. 2022). An agroforestry program in Ghana supports formation of VSLA groups which allowed farmers, especially female farmers, to access credit and diversify farming practices (Kusters, K 2023). A smaller number of studies provide evidence of a causal link for the impact of integrated savings and agricultural training. A quasi-experimental study in Tanzania shows that combining VSLA with farmer field schools (FFS) helps increase adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices such as mulching, composting, and crop rotation (Pamuk et al. 2021; 2018). A difference- in-differences (DID) study of an integrated development model combining savings groups with regenerative agriculture training in the Democratic Republic of the Congo observes positive changes in household economic condition and ecosystem health (Sabin et al. 2019). A case study in Haiti and the Dominican Republic at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (Sabin et al. 2022) indicates that smallholder farmers who participate in savings groups are resilient in the face of major shocks and continue to apply regenerative agricultural techniques. Another DID study of a combined savings and agricultural training intervention operated by World Relief in Rwanda shows that participating farmers are more likely to apply innovative farming techniques, have better food security, and improved economic conditions (Dent et al. 2020). The evidence discussed above makes a case for complementary interaction between savings activities and agriculture, and in particular, support for agricultural training. Yet the number of studies providing rigorous quantitative evidence for this interaction is small. To contribute to the evidence being gathered on this topic, the remainder of this paper examines the effect of integrating a regenerative agriculture training component into an established savings group model using a quasi-experimental design Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 14 in Burundi, further building the case for complementary interaction between savings and agricultural training. Methods This study arises from a partnership between two organizations, Hope International and Plant With Purpose. Data gathering took place in southern Burundi, in the provinces of Rutana and Makamba. Two watersheds were selected, the treatment watershed, Rukuzira (104 square km), and the control watershed, Nyakayi (72 square km). Both watersheds have somewhat rugged relief and range in elevations from approximately 1200 m to 2100 m above sea level (Open Topography 2013). Both are considered miombo woodlands ecoregion type (Olson et al. 2001) and are primarily rural, practicing highlands agricultural systems (Hoogeveen and George 2010). Figure 1: Location of study watersheds within Burundi, Treatment = Rukuzira, Control = Nyakayi Previously established savings groups, 74 in total, were identified in the treatment watershed. Each group consists of approximately 20-25 members trained in group savings methodology using Hope International’s program (Hope International 2023). The savings group methodology (Hope International 2024) is church- centered with a biblically integrated curriculum that places a strong emphasis on the transformational power of Jesus, and the importance of key principles including trust, discipline, transparency, leadership, stewardship, fellowship, and commitment to time in prayer and the Bible. The goal is to see men and women around the world find their soul’s satisfaction in Christ and become dignified, hope-filled providers in their families and communities. A core element of this approach is discipleship: through regular interactions with the men and women in the savings group ministry, church-based volunteers and pastors share the Gospel, facilitate Bible studies, and invite them to experience lasting transformation through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Groups select their own leadership, write their own bylaws, establish their own savings and credit norms, and conduct savings and loans transactions openly during regular meetings. Over a two-year period from 2020 to 2022, Plant With Purpose provided additional training in agroecology practices such as agroforestry and soil conservation to savings groups in the treatment watershed. Multiple training strategies were implemented including: • Use of a multi-year curriculum that covers topics including agroforestry, soil conservation, soil health, conservation agriculture, biointensive agriculture and watershed management. • Lecture-style training in which technicians provide theoretical and practical information to farmer groups on regenerative agriculture/agroecology practices. • Groups were encouraged to prioritize key practices and test them in a farmer field school (FFS) model (FAO 2023a). FFS is a training methodology that seeks to “level the playing field” between trainer and farmer, acknowledging the value of both local and external knowledge, and providing the opportunity to test farming practices under local, “real life” conditions. Using a donated parcel of land in the community, participating farmers get to try out what they learn in experiments that they propose, and then participate in analyzing the outcomes. • Volunteer members within savings groups known as “endogenous facilitators” were equipped with knowledge in regenerative practices and acted as a locally-based resource for other farmers. A difference-in-differences (DID) design (“Difference…” 2020) was applied, comparing groups in the treatment watershed who did receive regenerative agriculture training to similar groups in the control watershed who continued with savings activities but received no regenerative agriculture training. In 2020 a baseline study was conducted with 488 randomly selected households surveyed from existing savings groups, 309 in the treatment watershed, and 179 from the control watershed. In 2022, an endline study was conducted with the same randomly selected households where possible, 404 in total, 245 from the treatment watershed and 159 from the control watershed. Data were collected on a suite of indicators addressing environmental, economic, and social/spiritual themes (see Table 1). Results were analyzed using the open-source R statistical platform (R Core Team 2023). Multidimensional poverty was estimated using the method developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (Alkire and Foster 2011). The Multidimensional Poverty Index Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 15 (MPI) is a robust approach to measuring poverty and has been tested in a wide variety of contexts. The MPI looks at poverty as not simply economic, but also having social, health, educational, and even spiritual components. This holistic approach aligns well with the model applied by both collaborating organizations in this study (Hope and Plant With Purpose) who see faith as a critical dimension of well-being or poverty. This approach/model therefore influences what is measured, the definition of impact, and what a flourishing life means. See Figure 9 below for the indicators included in this study. Table 1: Metrics linked to desired MPI outcomes Indicator Metric Cash Reserves Amount of emergency cash available, months Land Protected % of farm protected with trees or soil conservation measures Technique Diversity Number of regenerative agriculture techniques applied on farm Soil Health Evaluated health of soil on farm, Likert scale Nutrition Index Estimated nutrition diversity based on frequency of consumption of key food groups Crop Yield Estimated yield in current season relative to previous seasons, Likert scale Spiritual Support Estimated support received from fellow group members, Likert scale, (measured by support through prayer or the sharing of prayer requests – not included in the MPI summarized in figure 9) Results Using the difference-in-differences approach, a series of key metrics linked to the indicators in Table 1 shows a positive difference in the treatment group relative to the control group from the baseline data collected in 2020 to the endline data collected in 2022. These consist of an increase in cash reserves, percentage of land protected with regenerative practices on farms, diversity of regenerative agriculture techniques applied per farm, soil health, nutrition diversity measured as an index, crop yield, and spiritual support provided by other group members. Difference- in-differences analysis looks at the relative change from baseline to endline-—his means the absolute difference at endline is less important if the change over time indicates a difference between treatments. For example, spiritual support remains relatively flat for the treatment group from baseline to endline, but declines for the comparison group, resulting in a relative positive change (the difference in the differences) for the treatment group. Note that all these differences are statistically significant at a p value of 0.01. Each of these outcomes is summarized separately in figures 2-8 on the following pages: Figure 2: Cash reserves measured in months Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 16 Figure 3: Percent of land on farm protected with trees or soil conservation measures Figure 4: Regenerative agriculture technique diversity per farm Figure 5: Soil health Figure 6: Nutrition index Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 17 Figure 7: Crop yield Figure 8: Spiritual support Table 2: Results of statistical tests of difference-in-differences Indicator Baseline Endline DID value p-value Control Treatment Control Treatment Cash reserves (months) 0.51 0.78 0.68 1.38 .43 0.00292 Land protected (% of farm) 42 28.5 42.7 43 13.8 0.00273 Technique diversity (per farm) 2.4 2 2.1 3.3 1.6 1.59E- 09 Soil health (1-5) 2.7 2.7 2.4 3 0.6 9.94E- 06 Nutrition index (1-4) 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.00859 Crop yield (1-3) 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.2 0.6 3.08E- 07 Spiritual support (0-3) 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.00288 In addition, a multidimensional poverty index (MPI—See Figure 9) is estimated using a series of 12 indicators across 6 dimensions. Households are evaluated for level of deprivation based on the 12 indicators in the index. Household size is also considered in order to estimate both the poverty headcount and intensity of poverty. By considering multiple dimensions such as education, and access to water, MPI reflects a perspective that poverty is about more than cash scarcity. The MPI analysis in this study shows a decrease in levels of multidimensional poverty among the treatment group by 20% from 2020 to 2022, and an increase in levels of multidimensional poverty among the control group of 19% (See Figure 10). Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 18 Figure 9: Multidimensional Poverty Index metrics Figure 10: MPI results (note: no error bars provided on MPI as an aggregate value) Discussion This study was implemented among well- established and well-functioning savings groups. The treatment group received training in regenerative agriculture techniques while the control group did not. At baseline, the control and treatment cohorts were similar based on the indicators measured. After two years of training and application of techniques, the treatment group showed significant improvement in a variety of dimensions, including soil health, crop yield, cash reserves, nutrition, and spiritual support. Simple transfer of knowledge was likely not the only factor in this change. Traditional lecture-style training was provided to farmers, but this was integrated with more participatory training methods. In particular, FFS was promoted among the treatment group allowing farmers to share indigenous knowledge, prioritize, and test regenerative techniques locally and appropriately. At baseline, approximately 10% of the treatment group reported involvement in FFS while at endline participation in FFS had increased to 40%. Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 19 It is worth noting the larger context in which this study took place. The timing of the study, 2020-2022 was a period of considerable upheaval—a global pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and rampant inflation. Regionally Burundi was also experiencing drought. As a result, some indicators, such as nutrition, show a decline in the comparison group. This is not evidence for declining program effectiveness as much as it is evidence of the greater global and regional context. The treatment group over the same period for nutrition for example, also showed a decline, but one that was less drastic—providing some evidence of greater resilience. Several extensive reviews of savings studies (Biscaye et al. 2015; Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014; Steinert et al. 2018), report positive impacts of savings promotion, but these impacts are often mixed or small. It is worth remembering that mature savings groups in this study were formed out of, and participated in, a HOPE International church-based savings group ministry that has been associated with significant change. In a previous study of HOPE International savings groups from Zambia using the same curriculum and methodology (Hope International 2024), 73% of group members changed something about the way they lived because of discipleship training, and were 3 times more likely to enjoy increasing trust in relationships than a comparison group. The results of this current study provide strong evidence that integration of savings promotion goals with regenerative agriculture promotion can multiply impact and support the results of other similar studies (Dent et al. 2020). Farmers in this study who participated in both savings group activities and application of regenerative techniques saw a 39% decrease in levels of poverty as measured by a multidimensional poverty index relative to the control population farmers who were involved only in savings group activities. This impact is large and supported by a rigorous quasi-experimental design building on the limited number of quantitative studies that add to the understanding of the interaction between savings groups and regenerative agriculture training. This study shows positive, statistically significant change across a suite of indicators using a quasi- experimental design. Where the control population remained unchanged or even showed declines in key indicators, the treatment population showed measurable improvement. These changes were not only economic, for example increases in cash reserves, but also environmental, specifically increase in the amount of land protected per farm, technique diversity, and soil health. Furthermore, the treatment group showed improvement in spiritual support provided by other group members, indicating that the overall impacts are truly multidimensional. Use of the quasi- experimental design, difference-in-differences, and clear, statistically significant differences between comparison savings groups and treatment savings groups permit a high level of confidence in attributing change to the influence of the regenerative agriculture/ agroecology training component. In addition to reduction in levels of economic poverty, positive changes in other dimensions such as improved soil health, increased amount of land protected with trees or soil conservation measures, and increased spiritual support among participants suggests that change is not economic only, but truly multidimensional. It further suggests possible drivers of change—improved soil health for example, can lead to healthier crops, increased production, and greater ability to earn income. Gender is also a consideration— the regenerative agriculture training component is inclusive for both men and women. Typically, female participation is between 60-70% of all participants. In many contexts, including Burundi, women do at least as much farming as men. While beyond the scope of this paper, inclusion of women is likely another driver of change. Further studies should be conducted to better understand the possible drivers of change observed in this study. This study considers two treatment plans: church- based savings groups as the control, and church-based savings groups plus regenerative agriculture training as the treatment. A future study could consider four treatment regimes: 1) No training (control) 2) Savings groups alone 3) Regenerative agriculture training alone 4) Combined savings and regenerative agriculture training. This would allow a clearer understanding of change and how each component may contribute to change. A larger study could look at 3 key components— environment, economics, and spiritual factors. Such a study might have 8 treatments plans: 1) No training 2) Savings groups alone 3) Regenerative agriculture training alone 4) Spiritual renewal training alone 5) Savings groups and regenerative agriculture training combined 6) Savings & spiritual renewal training combined 7) Regenerative agriculture and spiritual renewal training combined 8) All three components combined. Conclusion Savings groups, in particular the village savings and loan methodology (VSLA 2023), are well established as Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 20 an effective community development intervention, although the impact has been shown to be mixed or small (Biscaye et al. 2015; Steinert et al. 2018). This study demonstrates that the integration of complementary interventions, in this case regenerative agriculture training, can multiply the impact of savings groups. In this study, farmers who participated in both church-based savings group activities and regenerative agriculture technique application saw higher levels of savings reserves, improved soil health, increased household nutrition levels, and decreased levels of multidimensional poverty, when compared to savings groups with no participation in regenerative agriculture training. These results were not small or mixed, with the treatment group seeing a 39% relative decline in levels of multidimensional poverty over a two-year period. This outcome builds on the growing body of evidence from other practitioners such as World Relief (Dent et al. 2020) and suggests that an integrated approach to savings can multiply impact, result in significant reductions in multidimensional poverty among smallholder farmers, and achieve multiple goals of both poverty alleviation and environmental restoration. References Alkire, Sabina, and James Foster. 2011. “Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 476–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006. Ankrah Twumasi, Martinson, Yuansheng Jiang, Frank Osei Danquah, Abbas Ali Chandio, and Wonder Agbenyo. 2020. “The Role of Savings Mobilization on Access to Credit: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Ghana.” Agricultural Finance Review 80 (2): 275–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-05-2019-0055. Annan, Jeanine, Tom Bundervoet, Juliette Seban, and Jaime Costigan. 2013. A Randomized Impact Evaluation of Village Savings and Loans Associations and Family-Based Interventions in Burundi. USAID. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A- Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village- Savings-Annan- Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075 030acf3d3. Biscaye, Pierre, Chris Clark, Katie Panhorst Harris, C. Leigh Anderson, and Gugerty, Mary Kay. 2015. “Review of Rural and Agricultural Finance in Sub- Saharan Africa.” EPAR Brief No. 307. Evans School of Public Policy & Finance. https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and- agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/. Dawuni, Peter, Franklin Mabe, and Osman Damba. 2021. “Effects of Village Savings and Loan Association on Agricultural Value Productivity in Northern Region of Ghana.” Agricultural Finance Review 81, 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR- 02-2020-0024. Dent, Kallisse, Rodney Green, Rhona Murungi, Beatrice Nyiranzeyimana, Jean de Dieu Habiyaremye, Rafael Flores, and Andrew Jones. 2020. A Case Study of World Relief’s Agriculture for Life and Savings for Life in Rwanda. https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of- world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for- life-in- rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc9 1729280065. “Difference-In-Differences.” 2020. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics- econometrics-and-finance/difference-in- differences. Entz, Meghan, Janet Kaarsgaard, and Michael Salomons. 2016. An Overview of Savings and Self Help Groups, Their Contribution to Improved Food Security, and How to Improve Their Function: A Review of the Literature. Canadian Foodgrains Bank. https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of- savings-and-self-help-groups-their- FAO. 2023a. “Global Farmer Field School Platform. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/farmer-field- schools/home/en/. ———. 2023b. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en. Gikonyo, Naomi Wanjiru, John Rono Busienei, John Kamau Gathiaka, and George Njomo Karuku. 2022. “Analysis of Household Savings and Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Technologies. Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Nyando Basin, Kenya.” Heliyon 8 (6): e09692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09692. Gugerty, Mary Kay, Pierre Biscaye, and C. Leigh Anderson. 2019. “Delivering Development? Evidence on Self-Help Groups as Development Intermediaries in South Asia and Africa.” Development Policy Review: The Journal of the Overseas Development Institute 37 (1): 129–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12381. Hoogeveen, Jippe and Hubert George. 2010. “Major Agricultural Systems (Global).” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e- daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006 https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-05-2019-0055 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3 https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and-agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/ https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and-agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/ https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-02-2020-0024 https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-02-2020-0024 https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065 https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065 https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065 https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065 https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of-savings-and-self-help-groups-their- https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of-savings-and-self-help-groups-their- https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/home/en/ https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/home/en/ https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09692 https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12381 https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e-daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53 https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e-daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53 Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 21 Hope International. 2023. “SG Multiply.” https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg- multiply. ———. 2024. “RESTORE: Savings Curriculum.” https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/resto re-agreement. Karlan, Dean, Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan, and Jonathan Zinman. 2014. “Savings by and for the Poor: A Research Review and Agenda.” Review of Income and Wealth 60 (1): 36–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12101. Kruger, Erna, Hendrik Smith, Phumzile Ngcobo, Mazwi Dlamini, and Temakholo Mathebula. 2022. “Conservation Agriculture Innovation Systems Build Climate Resilience for Smallholder Farmers in South Africa.” In Conservation Agriculture in Africa: Climate-Smart Agricultural Development, edited by Saidi Mkomwa and Amir Kassam, 345–60. Wallingford: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789245745.0021. Kusters, Koen. 2023. Supporting Agroforestry Adoption for Climate-Smart Landscapes: Lessons from the Working Landscapes programme. Tropenbos International. https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/ supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate- smart+landscapes. Lipton Michael. 1996. “Successes in Anti-Poverty.” Issues in Development Discussion Paper 8, International Labour Organization. http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Public ations/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm. Martey, Edward, Prince M. Etwire, and Jonathan Mockshell. 2021. “Climate-Smart Cowpea Adoption and Welfare Effects of Comprehensive Agricultural Training Programs.” Technology in Society 64: 101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101468. Nyamaka, Kasukura. 2019. “The Impact of Informal Savings Schemes on Household Welfare of Smallholder Farmers in Kilolo District, Iringa, Tanzania.” Masters Thesis, The Open University of Tanzania. http://repository.out.ac.tz/2507/. Nyberg, Ylva, Caroline Musee, Emmanuel Wachiye, Mattias Jonsson, Johanna Wetterlind, and Ingrid Öborn. 2020. “Effects of Agroforestry and Other Sustainable Practices in the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP).” Land 9 (10): 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100389. Olson, David M., Eric Dinerstein, Eric D. Wikramanayake, Neil D. Burgess, George V. N. Powell, Emma C. Underwood, Jennifer A. D’amico, et al. 2001. “Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth: A New Global Map of Terrestrial Ecoregions Provides an Innovative Tool for Conserving Biodiversity.” BioScience 51 (11): 933–38. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2. Open Topography. 2013. “Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). https://doi.org/10.5069/G9445JDF. Pamuk, Haki, Marcel van Asseldonk, Karl Deering, Evan H. Girvetz, Joseph Hella, Stanley Karanja Ng’ang’a, Thabit Masoud, Jamleck Osiemo, and Ruerd Ruben. 2018. “Testing a New Model Combining Micro-Finance and Farmer Training to Upscale the Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices by Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries.” CGIAR Research. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99020. Pamuk, Haki, Marcel van Asseldonk, Cor Wattel, Stanley Karanja Ng’ang’a, Joseph Philip Hella, and Ruerd Ruben. 2021. “Farmer Field Business Schools and Village Savings and Loan Associations for Promoting Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices: Evidence from Rural Tanzania.” Working Paper No.361. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114490. R Core Team. 2023. “The R Project for Statistical Computing.” https://www.r-project.org/, Rippey, Paul and Ben Fowler. 2011. Beyond Financial Services: A Synthesis of Studies on the Integration of Savings Groups and Other Developmental Activities. Aga Khan Foundation. https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond- financial-services. Sabin, Scott, Annah Amani, Guy Paraison, Durbel Lora Brito, Milmer Vergara, Grace Santos, Corey Chin, and Robert Morikawa. 2022. “Smallholder Farmer Resilience: A Multi-Year Multidimensional Study in the Dominican Republic and Haiti.” Trees, Forests and People 7: 100189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100189. Sabin, Scott, Birori Dieudonne, John Mitchell, Jared White, Corey Chin, and Robert Morikawa. 2019. “Community-Based Watershed Change: A Case Study in Eastern Congo.” Forests 10 (6): 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060475. Shames, Seth, Krista Heiner, Martha Kapukha, Amos Wekesa, and John W. M. Recha. 2015. “Scaling up Sustainable Agriculture Land Management in Bungoma County, Kenya.” Ecoagriculture Policy Focus no. 12. Washington DC: Ecoagriculture Partners. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68429. Steinert, Janina I., Juliane Zenker, Ute Filipiak, Ani Movsisyan, Lucie D. Cluver, and Yulia Shenderovich. 2018. “Do Saving Promotion https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg-multiply https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg-multiply https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/restore-agreement https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/restore-agreement https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12101 https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789245745.0021 https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101468 http://repository.out.ac.tz/2507/ https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100389 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5b0933:TEOTWA%5d2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5b0933:TEOTWA%5d2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.5069/G9445JDF https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99020 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114490 https://www.r-project.org/ https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond-financial-services https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond-financial-services https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100189 https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060475 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68429 Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024 Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 22 Interventions Increase Household Savings, Consumption, and Investments in Sub-Saharan Africa? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” World Development 104: 238–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.018. Stewart, Ruth, Carina Van Rooyen, Kelly Dickson, Mabolaeng Majoro, and Thea De Wet. 2012. “What Is the Impact of Microfinance on Poor People? A Systematic Review of Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa - Technical Report.” EPPI Centre-Social Science Research, https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live- website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact- of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic- review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/. Van Rooyen, C., R. Stewart, and T. de Wet. 2012. “The Impact of Microfinance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” World Development 40 (11): 2249–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012. VSLA. 2023. “The VSLA Methodology.” VSLA Associates. https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla- methodology/. Wild, Robert, Moses Egaru, Mark Ellis-Jones, Barbara Nakangu Bugembe, Ahmed Mohamed, Obadiah Ngigi, Gertrude Ogwok, Jules Roberts, and Sophie Kutegeka. 2021. “Using Inclusive Finance to Significantly Scale Climate Change Adaptation.” In African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, edited by Nicholas Oguge, Desalegn Ayal, Lydia Adeleke, and Izael da Silva, 2565–90. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_127. Scott Sabin is CEO at Plant with Purpose. Author email: scott@plantwithpurpose.org. Josh Meyer is Senior Director of Savings Group Programs at Hope International. https://www.hopeinternational.org, Author email: josh.aaron.meyer@gmail.com. Emile Icoyavuze is Deputy National Director at Floresta Burundi. Author email: icoyavuze@gmail.com. Honorine Murorunkwere is Monitoring and Evaluation Manager at Floresta Burundi. Author email: murorunkwereh2019@gmail.com. Méthode Ntibandy is Coordinator for Environmental Restoration at Floresta Burundi. Author email: mntibandye@gmail.com. Jared White is Senior Program Officer, Africa at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org. Author email: jared@plantwithpurpose.org. Milmer Martinez Vergara is Vice-President, International Programs at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org. Author email: milmer@plantwithpurpose.org. Corey Chin is Director of Monitoring, Learning & Evaluation at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org. Author email: corey@plantwithpurpose.org. Paul Thompson is COO at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org. Author email: paul@plantwithpurpose.org. Robert Morikawa is Senior Director, Innovation Lab at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org. Author email: robert@plantwithpurpose.org. Communication regarding this article may be directed to robert@plantwithpurpose.org, 4747 Morena Blvd., Suite 100, San Diego, CA, USA, 92117 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.018 https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/ https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/ https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/ https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012 https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla-methodology/ https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla-methodology/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_127 mailto:scott@plantwithpurpose.org https://www.hopeinternational.org/ mailto:josh.aaron.meyer@gmail.com mailto:icoyavuze@gmail.com mailto:murorunkwereh2019@gmail.com mailto:mntibandye@gmail.com http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/ mailto:jared@plantwithpurpose.org http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/ mailto:milmer@plantwithpurpose.org http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/ mailto:corey@plantwithpurpose.org http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/ mailto:paul@plantwithpurpose.org http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/ mailto:robert@plantwithpurpose.org mailto:robert@plantwithpurpose.org