Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
The sustainable intensification of agriculture
It is clear that agricultural production gains across the world have helped millions of
people to escape poverty, removed the threat of starvation, and provided a platform
for rural and urban economic growth in many countries. Between 1961 and 2007,
world agricultural production almost tripled whilst population doubled. The green
revolution drove this production growth with new varieties, inputs, water manage-
ment and rural infrastructure. Most increases in food production were ahieved on
the same agricultural land, with net area only growing by 11 per cent over this peri-
od.
All commentators now agree that food production worldwide will have to in-
crease substantially in the coming years and decades (World Bank, 2007; IAASTD,
2009; Royal Society, 2009; UNEP, 2010; Godfray
et al
., 2010). But there remain very
diferent views about how this should best be ahieved. Some still say agriculture
will have to expand into new lands, but the competition for land from other hu-
man activities makes this an increasingly unlikely and costly solution, particularly
if protecting biodiversity and the public goods provided by natural ecosystems (for
example, carbon storage in rainforest) are given higher priority (MEA, 2005). Others
say food production growth must come through redoubled efforts to repeat the ap-
proahes of the green revolution; or that agricultural systems should embrace only
biotehnology or become solely organic. What is clear, despite these diferences,
is that more will need to be made of existing agricultural land. Agriculture will,
in short, have to be intensified. Traditionally, agricultural intensification has been
defined in three different ways: increasing yields per hectare, increasing cropping in-
tensity (i.e. two or more crops per unit of land) or other inputs (water), and hanging
land-use from low-value crops or commodities to those that receive higher market
prices.
It is now understood that agriculture can negatively affect the environment
through overuse of natural resources as inputs, or through their use as a sink for
waste and pollution. Suh efects are called negative externalities because they im-
pose costs whih are not relected in market prices (Baumol and Oates, 1988; Dobbs
and Prety, 2004). What has also become clear in recent years is that the apparent
success of some modern agricultural systems has masked significant negative ex-
ternalities, with environmental and health problems documented and recently cos-
ted for many countries (Pingali and Roger, 1995; Norse
et al.
, 2001; Tegtmeier and
Dufy, 2004; Prety
et al.
, 2005). These environmental costs shift conclusions about
