Over the past decade, the evidence has expanded rapidly on how forests and trees support agriculture by regulating microclimate, water cycles, improving biodiversity and soil health. But for policymakers and practitioners, this surge of information has not been easy to navigate.

Multiple sources of evidence have emerged from distinct research areas, including hydrology, agronomy, ecology and climatology, all of which use different scales, methods and terminology – and at times deliver information that appears to point in different directions. These findings are not necessarily contradictory, but they describe different parts of the same system, on a different scale or in a different location.

While the evidence base has solidified and expanded, it remained difficult to access, interpret and apply. With the launch of a recent FAO report, Climate and ecosystem service benefits of forests and trees for agriculture, we set out to turn this new knowledge into actionable insights.

Our aim was not to add one more study to an already crowded field, but to create a foundation that brings coherence. We wanted to show, with care and transparency, what the scientific community understands so far, where uncertainties remain, and where the knowledge is already robust enough for action.

Forests can mitigate escalating risks across food systems

Heat stress, unpredictable rainfall patterns, water scarcity and soil degradation are now evident in many food-producing regions. Forests and trees can mitigate these threats through multiple mechanisms: regulating climate, stabilizing water availability, enhancing soil health, supporting pollination and pest control, and even contributing to safer working conditions by shielding farm workers from heat. Without forests, agricultural systems become more exposed to these escalating risks, increasing the risk for food insecurity.

Forests are complex systems: no single process explains all the effects on agriculture, and benefits are not distributed homogeneously across space and time. But taken together, the evidence forms a consistent narrative: standing forests and trees, when integrated into agricultural landscapes, can support productivity, resilience and viable rural livelihoods.

Avenues for action

One of the most important messages of the report is that we already have several clear entry points for action. But the gap between what the science shows and what policies prioritize is still wide: in many agricultural policy debates, forests still appear as peripheral to production, rather than as part of the essential infrastructure.

Several global processes are placing increasing emphasis on integrated land management. Global climate and biodiversity frameworks are beginning to recognize how forests support resilience in food systems. Examples include the outcome of the first global stocktake, which recognizes the critical role of forests for both climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which also supports forestry–agriculture linkages by promoting integrated landscape management, among many others.

Finance is another critical pathway. Valuing the benefits of forests for agriculture remains difficult, yet new mechanisms are emerging, from more nature-friendly agricultural subsidies to blended finance initiatives and innovative instruments such as biodiversity bonds and long-term forest stewardship facilities. These tools can shift incentives away from short-term production gains and toward landscapes that deliver cooling, water regulation and biodiversity services essential for farming.

Together, these pathways show that moving from evidence to action does not require waiting for perfect knowledge. It requires aligning existing policy spaces, financial tools and community leadership toward resilient food systems.

Implementation must be locally tailored

Perhaps the most important avenue for action is at the local level. Many of the benefits described in the report, such as cooler microclimates, more stable water flows and healthier soils, are felt directly by farmers and communities. It is of vital importance to co-design solutions with them, drawing on local and Indigenous knowledge and tailoring interventions to the specific conditions of each landscape.

No single model applies everywhere; the most effective strategies will be those rooted in local realities and built through collaboration. Actions must be tailored to local conditions, and they need to account for potential trade-offs. The richness of evidence does not replace the need for context-specific planning; instead, it provides the tools to design better, more informed interventions.

Connecting disciplines and deepening collaboration to improve decision-making

The process behind this report can be considered a step towards such tailored implementation, and an example of multidisciplinary, multistakeholder work that is needed to make this happen. We brought together 49 authors from 25 institutions, each contributing expertise from hydrology, climate science, agroecology, socio-economics, supply-chain analysis and more. Convening this group was not just a technical exercise, it was an essential part of building a shared understanding across fields that rarely interact deeply.

For us, the objective was never only to produce a report, but also to help build a community that will carry this agenda forward long after the publication itself: researchers who now speak more fluently across disciplines, practitioners who see new opportunities for tree-based resilience, and policy actors who can draw on a clearer evidence base to make decisions.

This kind of synthesis requires institutions that can bridge disciplinary divides and create spaces where evidence becomes actionable. This is SEI’s role: facilitating dialogue, supporting implementation, and helping translate complex science into the kind of integrated, locally grounded solutions that farmers and communities can use.