Selected issues in agricultural technology

This chapter discusses selected issues in agricultural technology. First, it continues the evaluation started in Chapter 4 (Section 4.5.2) of the room for further yield improvements. It then discusses some technologies that could contribute to making agriculture more sustainable, such as integrated pest and nutrient management, conservation agriculture and organic agriculture. It continues with an assessment of prospects for agricultural biotechnology and concludes with some observations on the future agenda for agricultural research.

11.1 The scope for yield increases

As discussed in Chapter 4, world agriculture has derived more of its growth from an increased intensive use of land already under crops than from expansion of agricultural areas, even though area expansion has been and still is the main force in a number of countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. Improved farming practices, irrigation, improved varieties, modern inputs, etc. all contributed to the growth of yields that underpinned many of the increases in agricultural production. This trend is expected to continue.

How far can this process go? Intensification and yield growth are subject to limits for reasons of plant physiology (see, for example, Sinclair, 1998) and because of environmental stresses associated with intensification (see Murgai, Ali and Byerlee, 2001 and Chapter 12). Moreover, in many circumstances it is simply uneconomical to attempt to raise yields above a certain percentage of the maximum attainable. In considering the prospects and potentials for further growth in world agriculture, we address below the question: what are the gaps between the actual yields of any given crop in the different countries and those that are agronomically attainable given the countries’ specific agro-ecological endowments for that crop? Naturally, what is agronomically attainable changes over time as agricultural research produces higher-yielding varieties and farming practices improve.

As discussed in Chapter 4, intercountry differences in average yields can be very large, but they do not always denote potential for growth in countries with low yields. As an example, Figure 11.1 shows the wheat yields (five-year averages 1996/2000) in the major wheat producers of the world. Yields vary from a high range of 6.0-7.8 tonnes/ha in four EU producers (the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and France) plus Egypt; through an upper-middle range of 3.0 to 4.0 tonnes/ha (China, Hungary, Poland and Italy) and a lower-middle range of 2.4-2.7 tonnes/ha of the United States, Spain, India, Romania, Ukraine, Argentina and Canada; down to the low-yield range of 1.0-2.2 tonnes/ha of Pakistan, Turkey, Australia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan. Analogous wide yield differentials exist for all crops: those for maize in the major producers are shown in Figure 11.2.

Figure 11.1 Wheat yields (average 1996/2000)

Note: Twenty-two countries with a production of over 4 million tonnes in 1996/2000 accounting for about 90 percent of world wheat output in 1996/2000

Figure 11.2 Maize yields (average 1996/2000)

Note: Nineteen countries with a production of over 4 million tonnes in 1996/2000 accounting for about 90 percent of world maize output in 1996/2000

The reasons why country average yields differ from one another are many. Some are agro-ecological, others socio-economic. Irrigation is important in the achievement of high yields in several countries, e.g. Egypt. In addition, agro-ecological and demand factors influence the mix of varieties of the same crop grown in each country, for example, low-yielding durum wheat versus common or soft wheat with higher yields. Given that we are interested in the physical/agronomic potential for yield growth, we need to separate out the part of these intercountry yield gaps that is caused by agro-ecological diversity from the part caused by other factors.

The results of the global agro-ecological zones (GAEZ) analysis (see Chapter 4) provide a way of controlling agro-ecological diversity in such intercountry comparisons. In a nutshell, GAEZ describe at a fairly detailed geographic grid the agro-ecological conditions prevailing in each country. GAEZ also have models defining the agro-ecological requirements for the growth of each crop. Based on this, GAEZ derive estimates for attainable yields for each crop and in each grid cell in the different countries under three technology (input use and management) variants. A summary description of the procedure is given in Box 4.1. More detailed explanations are to be found in Fischer, van Velthuizen and Nachtergaele (2000).

The agro-ecologically attainable yields can be used to draw inferences about the scope for raising yields in countries where actual yields are “low” in relation to what is attainable for their agro-ecologies. Actual yield data in the agricultural statistics are normally available only as country national averages, not by agro-ecological environments. Therefore, for comparison purposes, the estimates of the agro-ecologically attainable yields for any given crop must also be cast in terms of national averages specific to each country’s agro-ecological endowments in relation to that crop. Also, since we compare agro-ecologically attainable yields under rainfed conditions, the remainder of this section will focus on countries with predominantly rainfed agriculture to minimize the distortion caused by the unknown contribution of the normally higher irrigated yields.

For each crop, averaging out over the whole country, the yields for each grid cell give an estimate of “attainable” national average yield for that crop. These yields can be compared with actual national average yields to form an idea of the physical/agronomic scope for yield growth compatible with the country's agro-ecological endowments. In principle, countries with similar attainable averages for any given crop and technology level may be considered to be agro-ecologically similar for that crop. Naturally, any two countries can have similar attainable yields but for very different reasons, e.g. in some countries the limiting factors may be temperature and radiation, in others soil and terrain characteristics or moisture availability. Nevertheless, the GAEZ average attainable yields for any crop can be taken as a rough index of agro-ecological similarity of countries for producing that crop under specified conditions.

For example, France and Finland have actual wheat yields of 7.1 tonnes/ha and 3.2 tonnes/ha, respectively (averages 1996/2000). This gap does not indicate that Finland has considerable scope for raising yields towards those achieved in France, because Finland's agro-ecology is much less suitable for growing wheat than France’s. The GAEZ evaluation suggests that the agro-ecologically attainable yields in the two countries (i.e. controlling for agro-ecological differences) are 6.6 tonnes/ha and 3.7 tonnes/ha, respectively (rainfed wheat yields under high inputs). By contrast, France and Hungary are very similar as to their agro-ecological environments for wheat growing since both have agro-ecologically attainable yields of around 6.5 tonnes/ha. However, Hungary’s actual yield is only 3.9 tonnes/ha, compared with France’s 7.1 tonnes/ha. The gap indicates that there is considerable agronomic potential for yield growth in Hungary if a host of other conditions (economic, marketing, etc.) were to become closer to those of France. However, this does not mean that it would be economically efficient for Hungary to emulate France's overall economic and policy environments in relation to wheat, e.g. the high support and protection afforded by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Table 11.1 shows the agro-ecologically attainable national average wheat yields for more countries and compares them with actual prevailing yields. These countries span a wide range of agro-ecological endowments for wheat production, with some countries having a high proportion of their “wheat land” in the very suitable category (Uruguay) and others having high proportions in the suitable and moderately suitable categories, e.g. Brazil, Paraguay and Sweden. Attainable average yields in these countries range from 7-7.5 tonnes/ha in Germany and Poland, through 5.0-5.8 tonnes/ha in the United States, Uruguay and Sweden and 4.0-4.8 tonnes/ha in Turkey, Russia, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Ethiopia, to 3.0-3.4 tonnes/ha in Paraguay, Brazil and the United Republic of Tanzania.

The divergence between economically efficient and agro-ecologically attainable yields can be very wide. For example, Uruguay and Sweden have nearly equal agro-ecologically attainable yields (5.0-5.3 tonnes/ha, although Uruguay has more land suitable for wheat growing than Sweden) but actual yields are 6 tonnes/ha in Sweden (in practice exceeding what the GAEZ evaluation suggests as attainable on the average) and 2.3 tonnes/ha in Uruguay. In spite of Uruguay’s yields being a fraction of those that are agro-ecologically attainable and of those prevailing in Sweden, it is not necessarily a less efficient wheat producer than Sweden in terms of production costs. Other examples of economically efficient wheat producers with low yields in relation to their agronomic potential include Australia (2.0 tonnes/ha actual versus 4.2 tonnes/ha agro-ecologically attainable) and the United States (2.7 tonnes/ha versus 5.8 tonnes/ha).

The yield gap in relation to agronomic potential is an important element when discussing agronomic potentials for yield growth. For the countries in which we find large differences between actual and attainable, it seems probable that factors other than agro-ecology are responsible. Yields in these countries could grow some way towards bridging the gap between actual and attainable if some of these factors could be changed, e.g. if prices rose. We could then take the countries with a sizeable “bridgeable” gap and see their aggregate weight in world production of a particular crop. If the weight is significant, then the world almost certainly has significant potential for increasing production through yield growth, even on the basis of existing knowledge and technology (varieties, farming practices, etc.).

Among the major wheat producers, only the EU countries (the United Kingdom, Denmark, France and Germany) have actual yields close to, or even higher than, those attainable for their agro-ecological endowments under rainfed high-input farming. In all other major producers with predominantly rainfed wheat production (11 countries) the gaps between actual and attainable yields are significant. This is shown in Figure 11.3. These 11 countries account for 37 percent of world wheat production. If we assumed that half of their yield gap (attainable minus actual) were “bridgeable”, their collective production could increase by some 60 percent without any increase in their area under wheat – an increment equal to 23 percent of current world output. Yield growth would also occur in the other countries accounting for the rest of world production, including the major producers with irrigated wheat not included in those shown in Figure 11.3, such as China, India, Pakistan and Egypt. All this is without counting the potential yield gains that could come from further improvement in varieties, since the agro-ecologically attainable yields of the GAEZ reflect the yield potential of existing varieties.

Figure 11.3
Wheat: actual and agro-ecologically attainable yields (rainfed, high input)

Note: Fifteen countries with a predominantly rainfed wheat production of over 4 million tonnes in 1996/2000.

Some states in India, such as the Punjab, are often quoted as examples of areas where wheat and rice yields have been slowing down or are even reaching a plateau. Fortunately, India is one of the few countries for which data at subnational level and distinguished by rainfed and irrigated area are available. Table 11.2 compares wheat and rice yields by major growing state with the agro-ecologically attainable yields, taking into account irrigation. It shows that, although yield growth has indeed been slowing down, in most cases actual yields are still far from agro-ecologically attainable yields (with a few exceptions such as wheat in Haryana). This suggests that there are still considerable bridgeable yield gaps in India.

The discussion above gives an idea of the scope for wheat production increases through the adoption of improved technologies and practices to bridge some of the gap that separates actual yields from obtainable yields. The broad lesson of experience seems to be that if scarcities develop and prices rise, farmers quickly respond by adopting such technologies and increasing production, at least those living in an environment of not too difficult access to improved technology, transport infrastructure and supportive policies. However, in countries with land expansion possibilities, the quickest response comes from increasing land under cultivation, including shifting land among crops towards the most profitable ones. Argentina’s example is instructive: mostly from land expansion, it increased wheat production by 68 percent in 1996 and maize production by 48 percent in 1997 and another 25 percent in 1998, following price rises in the immediately preceding years.

Countries use only part of the land that is suitable for any given crop. This does not mean that land lies bare or fallow waiting to be used for increasing production of that particular crop. In most cases the land is also suitable for other crops and in practice is used for other crops (see Box 4.2). The point made here is that the gap existing between yields actually achieved and those obtainable under high-input technology packages affords significant scope for production increases through yield growth, given conducive socio-economic conditions, incentives and policies. The point is not that production increases can be obtained by expanding cultivation into land suitable for a particular crop, because such land may not be available if it is used for other crops.

Moreover, even if there probably is sufficient slack in world agriculture to support further increases in global production, this is small consolation to food-insecure people who depend for their nutrition on what they themselves produce. Such people often live in semi-arid agricultural environments where the slack for increasing production can be very limited or non-existent. The fact that the world as a whole may have ample potential to produce more food is of little help to them.

The preceding discussion may create the impression that all is well from the standpoint of potential for further production growth based on the use of existing varieties and technologies to increase yields. Nothing is further from the truth, for two main reasons:

• Exploitation of the yield gaps as defined in the preceding discussion means further spread of the conventional high external input technologies, which is precisely what we should be trying to mitigate if we are to avoid aggravation of the related environmental problems.
• Perhaps more important from the standpoint of meeting future demand, ready potential for yield growth does not necessarily exist in the countries where the additional demand will be, e.g. in the mature green revolution areas of India and other developing countries. When potential demand is in countries with limited import capacity, as is the case in many developing countries, such potential can be expressed as effective demand only if it can be predominantly matched by local production. As noted in Chapters 2 and 8, increases in local production in these countries, in addition to adding to food supplies, stimulate the demand for food because they create employment and incomes and stimulate the wider rural economy. In such circumstances, the existence of large exploitable yield gaps elsewhere (e.g. in Argentina or Ukraine) is less important than it appears for the evaluation of potential contributions of yield growth to meeting future demand.

It follows that continued and intensified efforts are needed on the part of the agricultural research community to raise yields (including through maintenance and adaptive research) in the often unfavourable agro-ecological and socio-economic environments of the countries where the additional demand will be. It is thought (see below) that biotechnology will play an important role here, as it has the potential to be a more efficient instrument than conventional plant breeding for overcoming constraints inherent in such environments (semi-aridity, susceptibility to pest infestations, etc.; see Lipton, 1999).

11.2 Technologies in support of sustainable agriculture

Various approaches have been developed in the past few decades to minimize the environmentally detrimental effects of agricultural production. Among the foremost of these are integrated pest management (IPM), Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems (IPNS) and no-till/conservation agriculture (NT/CA). Rather than as isolated technologies they should be seen as complementary elements of sustainable agriculture.

The conventional model of agricultural development stresses increased production and intensification through progressively specialized operations. By contrast, the approaches discussed in this section seek to meet the dual goals of increased productivity and reduced environmental impact. They do this through diversification and selection of inputs and management practices that foster positive ecological relationships and biological processes within the entire agro-ecosystem. With the help of participatory research and extension approaches, the principles of these technologies can be developed further into location-specific sustainable resource management systems. Even though each of these three approaches has some distinct features, many of the specific technologies used are, to various degrees, found in all of the approaches discussed in this section.

Sustainable agriculture is not a concretely defined set of technologies, nor is it a simple model or package that can be widely applied or is fixed over time. The lack of information on agro-ecology and the high demand for management skills are major barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture. For example, much less is known about these organic and resource-conserving technologies than about the use of external inputs in modernized systems.

11.2.1 Integrated pest management

Crop, forestry and livestock production systems throughout the world suffer losses caused by diseases, weeds, insects, mites, nematodes and other pests. The intensification of farming, forestry and livestock production favours pest buildup, and the high-yielding varieties and breeds utilized are often more susceptible to pests than traditional ones. The impact of many of these problems can be reduced with the help of pesticides but at a cost, including negative health and environmental effects. Because most chemical pesticides are hazardous to human health and toxic to many non-target organisms, there are potential hazards associated with their manufacture, distribution and application, particularly if pesticides are misused (GTZ, 1993). These hazards include exposure during handling or application, pesticide residues in or on foodstuffs, pollution of the environment (soil, groundwater, surface waters and air) and killing of non-target organisms. Because of the disruption of natural enemies, there has been a resurgence of existing pests and an outbreak of new ones. Almost all economically significant pests are already resistant to at least one chemical pesticide.

The goal of IPM is to avoid or reduce yield losses by pests while minimizing the negative impacts of pest control. The term IPM was originally used to describe an approach to pest control with the primary aim of reducing the excessive use of pesticides while achieving zero pest incidence. The concept has broadened over time. Today IPM can best be described as a decision-making and action-oriented process that applies the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy to each situation. To ensure the success of this process, the presence and density of pests and their predators and the degree of pest damage are systematically monitored. No action is taken as long as the level of the pest population is expected to remain within specified limits.

IPM promotes primarily biological, cultural and physical pest management techniques, and uses chemical ones only when essential. Naturally occurring biological control is encouraged, for example through the use of alternate plant species or varieties that resist pests, as is the adoption of land management, fertilization and irrigation practices that reduce pest problems. If pesticides are to be used, those with the lowest toxicity to humans and non-target organisms should be the primary option. Precise timing and application of pesticides are essential. Broad spectrum pesticides are used only as a last resort when careful monitoring indicates they are needed according to pre-established guidelines. This broader focus, in which judicious fertilizer use is also receiving attention (see the next section), is also referred to as integrated production and pest management (IPPM).

The Centre for Research and Information on Low External Input for Sustainable Agriculture distinguishes three stages in the development of IPM (IPMEurope Web site, 2002). In the first stage, the concept of pest population thresholds and targeted pests was introduced. Later, diseases and weeds were added to address more comprehensively the many crop protection problems that farmers face. In the second stage, crop protection was integrated with farm and natural resource management. Indigenous knowledge and traditional cropping practices were studied and adapted, while proper natural resource management became important because of the role of biodiversity in biological control. A whole-farm approach was thus adopted and integrated crop management practised to solve the conflicting needs of agricultural production and the environment.

In the third stage came the integration of the natural and social sciences. Most IPM projects now develop around a dynamic extension model, the farmer field school (FFS), which emphasizes farmers’ ability to experiment and draw conclusions, and enhances their ability to make decisions. The knowledge base has been expanded for a wide range of crops both in terms of new technologies and ecological aspects. Much of this IPM knowledge has still not reached the farm level and lacks site-specific adaptation.

Experience shows that IPM has economic and other benefits for farmers and farm households. However, national policy frameworks in many developing countries have tended to strongly favour pesticide use through subsidies that distorted prices. Because of this, alternative pest control measures, even where successful technically, are often not financially competitive and farmers are reluctant to adopt them. In addition, generally weak extension services lack the capacity for the intensive educational programmes needed to familiarize and train farmers in the use of IPM practices.

In spite of these problems, IPM has been introduced successfully in many countries and for many different crops such as rice, cotton and vegetables. In Cuba, IPM has been integrated successfully into organic farming. Where farmers have had no previous access to chemical pesticides, the introduction of plant protection based on IPM is the preferred option to avoid financially and environmentally costly overdependence on pesticides.

IPM applied to rice has shown good to dramatic improvements in production, in some cases simultaneously reducing costs. Human capacities and networks developed for rice will continue to provide support for new initiatives. Combined with the proven successes, they will promote the introduction of IPM in other crops or cropping systems, particularly vegetables and cotton. Unfortunately, a quantitative evaluation of the uptake in terms of hectares covered and reduced pesticide use is only available for a few projects, making a global or regional estimate of its present and future use impossible.

11.2.2 Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems

Any agricultural crop production – extensive or intensive, conventional or organic – removes plant nutrients from the soil. Nutrient uptake varies according to soil types and the intensity of production. An increase in biomass production results in a higher plant nutrient uptake. Imbalance in the availability of nutrients can lead to mining of soil reserves of nutrients in short supply and to losses of plant nutrients supplied in excess. Insufficiency of one plant nutrient can limit the efficiency with which other plant nutrients are taken up, reducing crop yields. For a farming system to be sustainable, plant nutrients have to be replenished. The nutrient mining that is occurring in many developing countries is a major but often hidden form of land degradation, making agricultural production unsustainable.

IPNS aim to maximize plant nutrient use efficiency by recycling all plant nutrient sources within the farm and by using nitrogen fixation by legumes to the extent possible. This is complemented by the use of external plant nutrient sources, including manufactured fertilizers, to enhance soil productivity through a balanced use of local and external sources of plant nutrients in a way that maintains or improves soil fertility (FAO, 1998e). At the same time IPNS aim at minimizing plant nutrient losses to avoid pollution of soils and water and financial losses to the farmer.

At the plot level, IPNS are designed to optimize the uptake of plant nutrients by the crop and increase the productivity of that uptake. At the farm level, IPNS aim to optimize the productivity of the flows of nutrients passing through the farming system during a crop rotation. The decision to apply external plant nutrients is generally based on financial considerations but is also conditioned by availability and perceived production risks.

Advice on quantities of nutrients to be applied may be based on empirical results from experiments in farmers' fields, which provide information on the impact of combined nutrient applications, timing of nutrient supply and sources of nutrients on crop yields. In the absence of such detailed information, knowledge of the quantities of nutrients removed by crops at the desired yield level provides a starting-point for estimating nutrient requirements.

Improved plant nutrition management will be important for environmentally and economically sustainable crop production, be it conventional or organic. However, the rate of spread of IPNS and their implications for the use of mineral fertilizers in agricultural production cannot be predicted in isolation. Precise management of fertilizer use can raise efficiency by 10 to 30 percent and should therefore be included in all production systems aiming for sustainability, even if they do not emphasize IPNS.

11.2.3 No-till/conservation agriculture

By far the largest extent of agricultural land continues to be ploughed, harrowed or hoed before every crop. These conventional tillage practices aim to destroy weeds and loosen the topsoil to facilitate water infiltration and crop establishment. This recurring disturbance of the topsoil buries any soil cover and may destabilize the soil structure so that rainfall can cause soil dispersion, sealing and crusting of the surface. An additional problem of conventional tillage is that it often results in compacted soils, which negatively affect productivity.

This negative impact of soil tillage on farm productivity and sustainability, as well as on environmental processes, has been increasingly recognized. In response to the problem, no-till/conservation agriculture (NT/CA) has been developed. NT/CA maintains and improves crop yields and resilience against drought and other hazards, while at the same time protecting and stimulating the biological functioning of the soil. Various terms are used for variants of NT/CA in different countries, depending on the perceived importance of one or another aspect of the approach: zero tillage; minimum or low tillage; plantio directo na palha (direct planting in straw); siembra directo permanente (permanent direct seeding); and conservation tillage.

The essential features of NT/CA are: minimal soil disturbance restricted to planting and drilling; maintenance of a permanent cover of live or dead vegetal material on the soil surface; direct sowing; crop rotation combining different plant families (e.g. cereals and legumes); adequate biomass generation; and continuous cropland use. In some countries the above-mentioned systems might lack some essential features of NT/CA and will therefore not have the same beneficial effects.

Soil cover is needed to protect the soil from the impact of rainfall, which would destroy the porosity of the soil surface, leading to runoff and erosion. Crops are seeded or planted through this cover with special equipment or in narrow cleared strips. Direct planting or seeding is linked with NT/CA, since any more general tillage would bury most or all of the vegetal cover. Crop sequences are planned over several seasons to minimize the buildup of pests or diseases and to optimize plant nutrient use by synergy among different crop types and by alternating shallow-rooting crops with deep-rooting ones. When the same crop or cover crops are repeated on the same piece of land each year, NT/CA is an imperfect and incomplete system, because diseases, weeds and pests tend to increase and profits tend to decrease (Derpsch, 2000). The cropland is being used continuously and no burning of residues is allowed.

Besides protecting the soil against erosion and water loss by runoff or evaporation, the soil cover also inhibits the germination of many weed seeds, minimizing weed competition with the crop. After the first couple of years of NT/CA on a field, the stock of viable weed seeds near the soil surface usually declines, often to the point where weed incidence becomes minor, with remnant populations at scattered spots in the field. In the first few years, however, herbicides may still need to be applied. Systems without continuous soil cover or crop rotation may not even reduce the incidence of weed in the long term (e.g. wheat monoculture in the United States).

After a number of years, yields have often risen to some 20 to 50 percent higher than what they were before under conventional procedures. The yields also become less variable from year to year. Labour costs can be significantly lower, and labour demand is distributed much more evenly over the year. Input costs are lower as well, particularly for machinery once the initial investments have been made. In mechanized farming less fuel is needed and smaller tractors can be used or fewer draft animals are needed for a given area; in areas without these power sources, the heavy manual work preparatory to crop establishment is drastically reduced (see also Section 4.6.2).

There are several reasons, however, for the continued dominance of conventional tillage-based agriculture. There is a natural reluctance to change approaches that have been working in past years or for decades. Conventional wisdom on the benefits of ploughing and a lack of knowledge on the resulting damage to the soil system tend to maintain plough-based agriculture. Also, the transition to NT/CA is not free of cost, nor particularly simple. During the transition years, there are extra costs for tools and equipment. Higher weed incidence may increase herbicide costs initially and the yields and resilience against drought will improve only gradually.

A more important impediment to the successful introduction of NT/CA is probably the required complex management skills. Any production system that includes crop rotation (see also Section 11.3 on organic agriculture) is more complex as it calls for coherent management over more than one or two crop seasons. Farmers will need to understand the new system and the reasons for the various procedures, and adapt them to their specific needs and conditions to balance crop rotation with market requirements. In mixed agriculture-livestock systems, practices such as stall-feeding or controlled grazing will need to replace free grazing on harvested fields.

NT/CA farmers appear to be keen to learn and embrace new developments (Derpsch, 2000). Being acquainted with more holistic management approaches to farming, many NT/CA farmers have introduced aspects of organic agriculture or converted entirely to organic agriculture where a market for organic products exists. On the other hand, some organic farmers have successfully adopted NT farming. Moreover, NT/CA farmers have also been faster adopters of IPM approaches than conventional ones (Pieri et al., 2002).

The initial introduction of NT/CA in a new area, its adaptation to the environmental, social and economic conditions and its validation and demonstration in representative farms depend partly on the people involved. They require the determined and sustained efforts of competent, innovative governmental or non-governmental organizations and an active learning attitude of some of the most change-minded farmers and farmers’ groups as well as the extension staff. Once NT/CA has been shown to work well on several farms in a given environment, the practices tend to spread spontaneously over large areas. Farmers need professional contacts with each other and local manufacturers need to be in a position to supply the necessary tools and equipment. During the initial phase many farmers will need some financial support in the form of loans or grants.

Some or all elements of NT/CA have been applied by farmers so far on between 50 and 60 million ha worldwide. Almost half of this is in the United States, where the area under zero tillage tripled over the last decade to about 23 million ha (USDA, 2001e), responding to government conservation requirements and to reduce fuel costs. But a considerable share of this is under monoculture and misses two essential features, namely full soil cover and adequate crop rotation, and cannot therefore be classified as NT/CA. In Paraguay about half of all the cropped land is under elements of NT/CA, mainly zero tillage. The area increased from about 20000 to almost 800000 ha between 1992 and 1999 because the government assisted by sharing part of the initial costs of conversion.

The spread of NT/CA approaches in the next three decades is expected to be considerable but, in addition to the constraints mentioned above, expansion will for several reasons vary widely across countries. Investment is needed to restore nutrient-depleted soils before crop residues can be produced in adequate amounts to satisfy the needs of livestock and maintain a soil cover. In arid areas without irrigation, the amounts of crop residues generally will not be sufficient for effective NT/CA systems. In some countries, established extension services or staff have been actively discouraging farmers from converting to NT/CA, while in others the scientific or extension institutes are not able to initiate the onfarm experiments needed to adapt and validate NT/CA systems locally. Even under favourable circumstances, it can take years before the new production system is widely known, understood and appreciated. A further ten years might be needed for its practical application over a large part of the country or a major farming system area (for example, the South Asian rice-wheat area, or the Brazilian cerrados).

11.3 Organic agriculture

Organic agriculture is a production management system that aims to promote and enhance ecosystem health, including biological cycles and soil biological activity (Box 11.2). It is based on minimizing the use of external inputs, and represents a deliberate attempt to make the best use of local natural resources. Methods are used to minimize pollution of air, soil and water (FAO/WHO, 1999), although they cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues, because of general environmental pollution. Organic agriculture comprises a range of land, crop and animal management procedures. Unlike food labelled as “environmentally friendly”, “natural” or “free-range”, organic agriculture is circumscribed by a set of rules and limits, usually enforced by inspection and certification mechanisms. Other terms used, depending on the language, are “biological” or “ecological”. “Biodynamic” refers to commodities that are produced according to organic and other additional requirements.

Synthetic pesticides, mineral fertilizers, synthetic preservatives, pharmaceuticals, GMOs, sewage sludge and irradiation are prohibited in all organic standards. Plant nutrient or pesticide inputs derived directly from natural sources are generally allowed, as is a minimum of pretreatment before use (water extraction, grinding, etc.). Industrially produced pesticides, for example, may not be applied in organic agriculture, but an extract of neem (Azadirachta indica) leaves, which have biocidal properties, is currently allowed.

Most industrial countries, but few developing countries, have national organic standards, regulations and inspection and certification systems that govern the production and sale of foods labelled as “organic”. At the international level, the general principles and requirements applying to organic agriculture are defined in the Codex guidelines (FAO/WHO, 1999) adopted in 1999. The growing interest in organic crop, livestock and fish products is mainly driven by health and food quality concerns. However, organic agriculture is not a product claim that organic food is healthier or safer, but rather a process claim intending to make food production and processing methods respectful of the environment.

Organic agriculture, broadly defined, is not limited to certified organic farms and products only. It also includes non-certified ones, as long as they fully meet the requirements of organic agriculture. This is the case for many non-certified organic agricultural systems in both developing and industrial countries where produce is consumed locally or sold directly on the farm or without labels. The extent of these systems is difficult to estimate since they operate outside the certification and market systems (El-Hage Scialabba and Hattam, 2002).

Organic practices that encourage soil biological activity and nutrient cycling include: manipulation of crop rotations and strip cropping; green manuring and organic fertilization (animal manure, compost, crop residues); minimum tillage or zero tillage; and avoidance of pesticide and herbicide use. Research indicates that organic agriculture significantly increases the density of beneficial invertebrates, earthworms, root symbionts and other micro-organisms (fungi, bacteria) (FiBL, 2000). Properly managed organic agriculture reduces or eliminates water pollution and helps conserve water and soil on the farm. Some countries (e.g. France and Germany) compel or subsidize farmers to use organic techniques as a solution to nitrate contamination in groundwater.

11.3.1 Land under organic management

Growth rates of land under organic management are impressive in western Europe, Latin America and the United States. Between 1995 and 2000, the total area of organic land tripled in western Europe and the United States. In the United States, land under certified organic agriculture has been growing by 20 percent p.a. since 1989, while in western Europe average annual growth rates have been around 26 percent since 1985 (with greatest increases since 1993). In 1999 alone, the United Kingdom experienced a 125 percent growth of its organic land area. However, these dramatic increases must be viewed against the small starting base levels. In some cases they may reflect a reclassification of land rather than an actual switch in farming systems.

Policy measures were instrumental in persuading small farmers to convert to organic farming by providing financial compensation for any losses incurred during conversion. The guidelines established by the organic agriculture community in the 1970s were formalized by national and supranational legislation and control systems (e.g. first in Denmark in 1987, followed in 1992 by Australia and the EU: Reg. no. 2092/91). The role of organic agriculture in reaching environmental policy objectives, including sustainable use of land set-aside (Lampkin and Padel, 1994), led to the adoption of agri-environmental measures that encourage organic agriculture (e.g. the 1992 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and accompanying EU Reg. no. 2078/92).

The estimates given below are derived from a compilation of available information by the Foundation Ecology and Agriculture (SÖL) in Germany. In the absence of a statistical database on organic agriculture in FAO, this is the most comprehensive source available (Willer and Yussefi, 2002). SÖL reports a global area of land under certified organic agriculture of 15.8 million ha of which 48.5 percent are located in Oceania (Australia 7.7 million ha); 23.5 percent in Europe (with Italy having the highest area, nearly 1 million ha); 20 percent in Latin America (with Argentina having 3 million ha); 7.4 percent in North America (United States nearly 1 million ha); 0.3 percent in Asia; and 0.1 percent in Africa.

With 3 million ha, Argentina accounts for more than 90 percent of the certified organic land in Latin American countries and has the second largest area of organically managed land in the world after Australia. In both countries, however, most of this is grassland. Because of the large size of organic ranches in the pampas, the average size of organic farms is 3000 ha in Argentina. Some 85 percent of Argentina’s organic production is exported.

In 2000, agricultural land under certified organic management averaged 2.4 percent of total agricultural land in western Europe, 1.7 percent in Australia, 0.25 percent in Canada and 0.22 percent in the United States. In most developing countries, agricultural land reported under certified organic production is minimal (less than 0.5 percent of agricultural lands). However, some traditional farms in developing countries have adopted modern organic management to improve their productivity, especially in areas where pesticides and fertilizers are inaccessible. The extent of such non-market organic agriculture is difficult to quantify but some attempts have been made. The Ghanaian Organic Agriculture Network, for example, estimates that there are around 250000 families in South and East Africa farming around 60 million ha on an organic basis. Anobah (2000) estimates that over one-third of West African agricultural produce is produced organically.

A number of industrial countries have action plans for the development of organic agriculture. Targets are set for the sector’s growth and resources are allocated to compensate farmers during, and sometimes after, the conversion period, and to support research and extension in organic agriculture. For example, the United Kingdom increased the budget of the Organic Farming Scheme to support conversion to organic agriculture by 50 percent for 2001-02 (£20 million per year) and allocations in the United States for the organic sector include US$5 million for research in 2001. India and Thailand have established their own organic standards to facilitate exports and to satisfy domestic demand. China, Malaysia and the Philippines are at present working towards establishing national standards.

Figure 11.4 Farm area under certified organic management>

Source: Willer and Yussefi (2002).
Note: Australia (7.7 million ha) and Argentina (3 million ha) are not included in this graph because most of the organic land is extensive grassland

11.3.2 Yields and profitability

Typically, farmers experience some loss in yields after discarding synthetic inputs and converting their operations from conventional, intensive systems to organic production. Before restoration of full biological activity (e.g. growth of soil biota, improved nitrogen fixation and establishment of natural pest predators), pest suppression and fertility problems are common. The degree of yield loss varies and depends on inherent biological attributes of the farm, farmer expertise, the extent to which synthetic inputs were used under previous management and the state of natural resources (FAO, 1999h). It may take years to restore the ecosystem to the point where organic production is economically viable.

Transition to organic management is difficult for farmers to survive without financial compensation, especially in high intensive input agriculture and in degraded environments. After the conversion period, organic agriculture achieves lower yields than high external input systems. Depending on the previous management level of specialization, yields can be 10 to 30 percent lower in organic systems, with a few exceptions where yields are comparable in both systems. In the medium term, and depending on new knowledge, yields improve and the systems’ stability increases. In the longer term, performance of organic agriculture increases in parallel with improvements in ecosystem functions and management skills.

Yields do not usually fall, however, when conversion to organic agriculture starts from low-input systems (often traditional) that do not apply soil-building practices. A study from Kenya indicates that, contrary to general belief, organic agriculture in the tropics is not constrained by insufficient organic material (to compensate for the non-use or reduced use of external inputs), but instead shows a good performance (ETC/KIOF, 1998).

As discussed in Chapter 4, average fertilizer consumption will rise in developing countries. The average figure masks, however, that for many (especially small) farmers the purchase of manufactured fertilizers and pesticides is and will continue to be constrained by their high costs relative to output prices or simply by unavailability. Organic agriculture emphasizes understanding and management of naturally occurring production inputs (such as farmyard manure, indirect plant protection and own seed production) as an alternative to enhance yields. It will not be possible for organic agriculture to attain the high yields achieved with the use of synthetic inputs in high-potential areas. But organic management offers good prospects for raising yields and the sustainability of farming in resource-poor and marginal areas, and can raise the productivity of traditional systems while relying on local resources (Pretty and Hine, 2000).

For example, India is collecting nationwide information regarding the experiments being carried out in organic agriculture, with a view to reintroducing it as part of its traditional “rishi agriculture”. In Latin America, hundreds of thousands of indigenous farmers along the Andes have turned to the organic movement to reinstate sophisticated agricultural practices developed by the Incas. Individual small family vegetable plots and groups/associations managing organic produce for domestic urban markets and small informal fairs are widespread. Cuba adopted organic agriculture as part of its official agricultural policy, with investments in research and extension, to compensate for shortages in external inputs. In 1999 (non-certified) organic urban agriculture (in self-provision gardens, raised container beds and intensive gardens) produced 65 percent of the country’s rice, 46 percent of fresh vegetables, 38 percent of non-citrus fruit, 13 percent of roots, tubers and plantains and 6 percent of eggs (Murphy, 2000).

In organic systems, external inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides and machinery are replaced by labour, most often increasing women’s work. Labour can either be a major constraint to organic conversion, or an employment provider to rural communities. Often the introduction of organic agriculture shifts gender distribution of labour as men prefer to be involved with mechanized agriculture. Women rarely own land and are dependent on access to common property. Since access to credit frequently requires land as collateral, women (and landless people) are largely excluded from the formal credit market. As a result, women seek methods that require little external inputs. Organic agriculture facilitates women’s participation as it does not rely on financial inputs and access to credit.

The economic performance of organic agriculture in industrial countries (mainly in Europe) is determined by financial support from governments, premium prices for produce and high labour costs. An extensive analysis of European farm economics in terms of labour use, yields, prices, costs and support payments, concludes that profits on organic farms are, on average, comparable to those on conventional farms (Hohenheim, 2000). However, only a few studies have assessed the long-term profitability of organic agriculture. Profitability of organic systems relates to whole-farm production (total production of a variety of species and not single crop yields) over the entire rotation period. This includes both marketed products and non-food production (to feed animals and soils). Incomes achieved over a given season may appear high because of price premiums when excluding the low profits over rotational seasons. Supply constraints faced by organic farmers, which are expected to increase if the sector expands, include the provision of adequate organic inputs such as organic seeds (e.g. GMO-free), natural pest enemies and mineral rocks (e.g. rock phosphate).

An increased organic food supply above a certain level would lead to a decline in premium prices. A study for Denmark (SJFI, 1998) concludes that the primary agricultural sector income may not fall if fewer than 25 percent of Danish farmers were to adopt organic methods. Most countries are far below such a threshold.

11.3.3 Demand for organic products

On the demand side, promotion and marketing strategies of retailers and supermarkets, in particular of major food-retailing chains, have created new market opportunities for organic agriculture in industrial countries. Food-retailing chains, which also stock and promote organic foods as a tool to improve their public image, account for a major share of the retail markets for fresh as well as processed organic foods. Concerns about growth-stimulating substances, GM food, dioxin-contaminated food and livestock epidemics (such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy) have given further impetus to organic food demand as consumers increasingly question the safety of conventional foods. The most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has added to concerns over the soundness of industrial agriculture. Several governments have responded with declarations of targets for the expansion of organic production. Many consumers perceive organic products as safer and of higher quality than conventional ones. These perceptions, rather than “science”, drive the market.

The market opportunities arising from these concerns have also opened possible niche markets for developing country exporters. Major industrial countries’ markets offer good prospects for suppliers of organic products that are not produced domestically (e.g. coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, sugar cane and tropical fruit) as well as off-season products (such as fruit and vegetables) and processed foods. Liberalization and privatization policies in developing countries open the way for a greater role for organic entrepreneurs and producers’ organizations. Markets for value-added products such as organic commodities can help counterbalance falling commodity prices and withdrawal of government support for agricultural inputs and other services. Price premiums range from 10 to 50 percent over prices for non-organic products. There is also government support for organic exports. Examples include the organic coffee programme of the Coffee Development Authority in Uganda; the promotion of organic exports by India’s Ministry of Commerce; and support by the Argentinean government for the export of over 80 percent of the country’s organic produce.

The size of domestic organic production is not necessarily related to the importance of organic markets. Australia, which has the world’s largest area of organic land, most of which is grassland, has a market of US$170 million of organic food retails. Japan, on the other hand, which has only 5 000 ha of organic lands, is the second largest world organic market (US$2.5 billion of retail sales in 2000). The largest markets of organic foods are in western European countries (Germany being the most important market at present), Japan and the United States. The UNCTAD/WTO International Trade Centre (ITC, 1999) estimated retail sales of organic foods in the largest markets at US$20 billion in 2000, of which US$8 billion in Europe and the United States each, and US$2.5 billion in Japan.

In spite of dramatic growth rates, sales of organic agricultural products in industrial countries in 2000 represented less than 2 percent of total food sales at the retail level. However, in particular countries and for particular products, the market share of organic agricultural products can be appreciably larger. Organic food sales in Germany are 3 to 4 percent of total sales, while individual commodities such as organic milk products have over a 10 percent market share, with the figure for organic ingredients in baby foods in the range of 80 to 90 percent. Organic coffee, which accounts for 0.2 percent of world coffee consumption, accounts for 5 percent of the United States coffee market (Vieira, 2001). Some 100 developing countries produce organic commodities in commercial quantities, most of which are exported to industrial countries. Where they exist, developing countries’ organic markets are still very limited and food is sold mainly in specialized stores in large cities. ITC (1999) estimates an annual sales growth of organic food between 10 and 40 percent over the medium term, depending on the market. Thus, organic food retail sales could grow from an average of 2 percent of total sales in 2000 to a share of 10 percent in major markets in a few years.

11.3.4 Long-term prospects for organic agriculture

The future growth of organic agriculture will depend more on supply constraints than on developments in demand, at least over the medium term. The tendency so far has been for the rate of demand growth to outstrip the rate of growth in available supplies. Developing countries are just starting to benefit from organic market opportunities but present conditions benefit primarily large producers and operators.

The supply and quality of organic raw material and rules governing organic production and processing might limit the extent to which developing countries could satisfy the demand for organic food in industrial countries. Organic food trade might be discouraged by difficulties in complying with foreign standards and costly control systems, especially if international equivalency is not established. Access to inspection and certification, as well as the need to develop new methods of processing organic food, are major challenges that are likely to be taken up by large and established food companies (Kristensen and Nielsen, 1997). Multinational food companies are expected to contract for and certify organic foods. In particular, the growth of processed organic foods will be facilitated by these companies’ capacities to assemble ingredients from different parts of the world and to guide production to meet their specific needs. At the same time there are numerous opportunities for developing country producers and exporters to enter the markets for value-added organic products using simple technology.

Further long-term impetus towards adoption of environmentally friendly farming systems, including organic agriculture, will stem from moves towards decoupling agricultural support from purely production-oriented goals. There will be increasing emphasis on support to agriculture’s role in providing public goods. Agricultural and environmental policies, including those responding to food safety concerns, will play a large role in facilitating or hindering the adoption of organic agriculture.

Besides financial support for conversion and regulations to protect the claim of organic producers, public investment in research and training is fundamental for such a knowledge- and management-intensive production system. It is still difficult for farmers and extension services to draw on a wide selection of well-researched methods and approaches. This often limits adoption to the most innovative farmers. Organic agricultural research receives only a fraction of the funds going to biotechnology research.

In developing countries, non-market organic agriculture and domestic certified organic agriculture are expected to increase in the long term. In particular, areas where economic growth is lagging (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa) and external inputs are unavailable or unaffordable, non-market organic agriculture could contribute to achieving local food security.

By about 2015, some organically produced tropical commodities (e.g. coffee, cocoa, cotton and tea) should have a moderate market share. The current tendency towards organic convenience food in industrial countries will increase, in particular for tropical beverages, baby food and frozen vegetables.

The oilcrops trade (especially soybeans and rape) is subject to major changes as oilcrops are the focus of biotechnology development. Future evidence on the safety of GM oilcrops might either increase their production or create new markets (and exports) for organic oilcrops. Cases are emerging where, because of the advent of GM crops, organic production will be constrained or no longer feasible; for example, organic farmers in Canada can no longer grow organic canola because of GM canola contamination in west Canada.

European governments’ year 2010 targets for conversion of agricultural land to organic agriculture are ambitious: some countries (the Netherlands and Norway) aim to have 10 percent of agricultural land converted to organic agriculture. Germany has set a target of 20 percent. The United Kingdom Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill aims to increase total organic area to 30 percent (and domestic organic food retails to 20 percent). Denmark and Italy each aim at 10 percent and Sweden at 20 percent, as early as 2005. In view of the present levels and these targets, the EU, on average, might possibly have a quarter of its total agricultural land under organic management by 2030.

It is hard to make estimates on future expansion of area under organic management in developing countries. Expansion will depend on technological innovations and unforeseen factors that challenge agricultural development as a whole, similar to the development of organic agriculture in Europe. Here it took 30 years for organic agriculture to occupy 1 percent of agricultural land and food markets, but food safety concerns resulted in its recent spectacular and unforeseen increase.

continued