Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

“This book makes a timely contribution towards understanding the relevance
and practicality of climate neutral and resilient farming systems with focus on
smallholder farms, and the potential for climate mitigation and the Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs). It adds new knowledge and is useful for a
wide audience in this field.”
Dr. V. Geethalakshmi, Ph.D., FAAM,
Vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore, India
“IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report of Working Group I stated in 2021 that ‘It is
unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’.
The agricultural sector should take immediate measures to mitigate and adapt to
the climate change due to global warming. For irrigation engineers, it is very sig-
nificant to have a firm grasp of the topic Climate Neutral and Resilience Farming
Systems (CNRFSs), which is the focus of this book.”
Tsugihiro Watanabe, Vice President of the International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), Professor
Emeritus of Kyoto University, Japan
“This book is very timely and a valuable knowledge contribution on managing

green-house-gas emissions in the agriculture sector. Each chapter underscores low
carbon emission agriculture in achieving the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement.
An insightful publication!”
Paxina Chileshe-Toe, Regional Climate and Environment
Specialist, Environment, Climate, Gender and Social
Inclusion Division, Strategy and Knowledge Department,
IFAD, Nairobi, Kenya
“We need to deploy innovative solutions at scale to tackle climate change. This
book is timely in helping to promote a gri-food systems as an important part of the
solution to the climate crisis, especially in the lead up to COP27 in Egypt and
beyond.”
Zitouni Ould-Dada, Deputy Director, Office of Climate
Change, Biodiversity and Environment (OCB), Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Via
delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy
Climate Neutral and Resilient
Farming Systems
This book presents e vidence-based research on c limate-neutral and resilient farm-

ing systems and further provides innovative and practical solutions for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impact of climate change.
Intensive farming systems are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions,
thereby contributing to global warming and the acceleration of climate change.
As paddy rice farming is one of the largest contributors, and environmentally
damaging farming systems, it will be a particular focus of this book. The mitiga-
tion of greenhouse gas emissions needs to be urgently addressed to achieve the 2°C
target adopted by COP21 and the 2015 Paris Agreement, but this is not possible if
local and national level innovations are not accompanied by international level
cooperation, mutual learning and sharing of knowledge and technologies. This
book, therefore, brings together international collaborative research experiences
on climate-neutral and resilient farming systems compiled by leading scientists
and experts from Europe, Asia and Africa. The chapters present e vidence-based
research and innovative solutions that can be applied or upscaled in different
farming systems and regions across the world. Chapters also present models and
technologies that can be used for practical implementation at the systemic level
and advance the state of the art knowledge on c arbon-neutral farming. Combin-
ing theory and practice, this interdisciplinary book provides guidance which can
inform and increase cooperation between researchers from various countries on
climate-neutral and resilient farming systems. Most importantly, the volume pro-
vides recommendations which can be put into practice by those working in the
agricultural industry, especially in developing countries, where they are attempt-
ing to promote climate-neutral and resilient farming systems.
The book will be of great interest to students and academics of sustainable
agriculture, food security, climate mitigation and sustainable development, in ad-
dition to policymakers and practitioners working in these areas.
Udaya Sekhar Nagothu is Research Professor and Director at the Centre for
International Development, NIBIO (Norsk Institutt for Biookonomi/Norwegian
Institute of Bioeconomy Research), Norway. He is the editor of The Bioeconomy
Approach (2020), Agricultural Development and Sustainable Intensification (2018),
Climate Change and Agricultural Development (2016) and Food Security and Devel-
opment (2015).
Earthscan Food and Agriculture
Farming with the Environment

Thirty Years of Allerton Project Research
Chris Stoate
Net Zero, Food and Farming

Climate Change and the UK Agri-Food System
Neil Ward
Conservation Agriculture in India

A Paradigm Shift for Sustainable Production
Edited by A.R. Sharma
Agricultural Commercialization, Gender Equality and the Right to Food

Insights from Ghana and Cambodia
Edited by Joanna Bourke Martignoni, Christophe Gironde, Christophe Golay,
Elisabeth Prügl and Dzodzi Tsikata
The Sociology of Farming

Concepts and Methods
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Commercial, Ethical and Health Considerations
Edited by Jasmeet Kour, Vishal Sharma and Imtiyaz Khanday
Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

Practical Solutions for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation
Edited by Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

books/series/ECEFA/
Climate Neutral and Resilient
Farming Systems
Practical Solutions for Climate Mitigation
and Adaptation
Edited by
Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Udaya Sekhar Nagothu; individual
chapters, the contributors
The right of Udaya Sekhar Nagothu to be identified as the author of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.
com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Nagothu, Udaya Sekhar, editor.
Title: Climate neutral and resilient farming systems : practical solutions
for climate mitigation and adaption / edited by Udaya Sekhar Nagothu.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022021933 (print) | LCCN 2022021934 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Sustainable agriculture. | Crops and climate. |
Agriculture—Environmental aspects.
Classification: LCC S600.5 .C556 2023 (print) |
LCC S600.5 (ebook) | DDC 630—dc23/eng/20220722
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022021933
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022021934
ISBN: 978-1-032-22579-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-22584-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-27317-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172
Typeset in Goudy
by codeMantra
Contents
Preface ix
List of figures xi
List of tables xv
List of boxes xvii
List of contributors xix
1 Climate change impacts on agriculture: Challenges and options

to reduce emissions through climate-neutral and resilient
farming systems 1
U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U, A N D R E W B O R R E LL , A N D M EH R E T E A B T E S FA I
2 Precision-based soil and nutrient management tools for

enhancing soil health while reducing environmental footprint 24
A M A R E SH K U M A R NAYA K, SA NGI TA MOH A N T Y, M EH R E T E A B
T E S FA I, R A H U L T R I PAT H I, A NJA NI K U M A R, A N D
U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U
3 Organizational alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation

management in rice by water user groups for reducing methane
emission and water saving 45
K I M I H I TO NA K A M U R A, LE X UA N Q UA NG, A N D S O K E N M AT S U DA
4 Integrated pest management in rice and the potential to

contribute to c limate-neutral and resilient farming systems 69
SH YA M A R A N JA N DA S MOH A PAT R A, NAJA M WA R IS Z A I DI, M I NAT I
MOH A PAT R A, U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U, R A D H A K RUSH NA
S E NA PAT I, M U N M U N MOH A PAT R A, BH U BA NA N DA A D H I K A R I,
S U BH E N D U S E K H A R PR A D H A N, A N D A M A R E SH K U M A R NAYA K
viii Contents
5 System of rice intensification: Empowering farmers to work
with nature to achieve productive, resilient and climate-neutral
farming systems in r ice-based landscapes 87
A BH A M ISH R A, JA N W I LLE M K E T E L A A R A N D M A X W H I T T E N
6 Direct seeded rice: A potential climate-neutral and resilient

farming system 106
A N JA NI K U M A R, A M A R E SH K U M A R NAYA K, M EH R E T E A B T E S FA I,
R A H U L T R I PAT H I, SA NGI TA MOH A N T Y, SH YA M A R A NJA N DA S
MOH A PAT R A, K I R A N MOH A PAT R A A N D U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U
7 Carbon-neutral farming solutions in rice farming systems in Europe 127

S T E FA NO MONAC O, PAT R I Z I A B O R S O T TO, ROB E RTO CAGLI E RO,
C H I A R A B E RTO R A, OM ED É GA B R I E LE , M A I T E M A RT Í N E Z-EI X A RC H
A N D L AU R A BA R DI
8 Agroecological farming approaches that enhance resilience and

mitigation to climate change in vulnerable farming systems 147
M E H R E T E A B T E S FA I, A L A M U O L A D EJI E M M A N U E L , JOYC E
BA K U WA N JO L OM A, U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U, A N D NGU M AYO JOE L
9 Transitioning toward climate-neutral and resilient smallholder

farming systems: An institutional perspective 169
GI AC OMO B R A NCA, LUCA CAC C H I A R E LLI, U DAYA S E K H A R
NAG O T H U, A N D C H I A R A PE R E LLI
10 Enhancing and scaling climate-neutral and resilient farming

systems: A summary and recommendations 191
U DAYA S E K H A R NAG O T H U
Acknowledgements 211
Index 213
Preface
We are now facing an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events due to
climate change, which is exacerbating temperature extremes and impacting soil,
water and growth conditions of crops. The agriculture sector is both a victim and
cause of climate change. To address the climate crisis, we need a transformative
change in the way we farm in the future and move from the intensive farming
systems towards carbon-neutral farming. The change implies a drastic reduction
in the use of external chemical inputs and adopting agroecological-based prac-
tices wherever possible. Any climate mitigation efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in agriculture and food systems must benefit other relevant sectors and
provide co-benefits to adaptation and resilience.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to address climate crisis. A mosaic of
adaptation and mitigation options that suit different situations considering the
environmental, social and economic contexts and vulnerabilities must be devel-
oped. The package of measures must include nature-based, cultural, physical and
biological solutions suitable for the agroecosystems. Further, the efforts need sup-
portive policies, collective stakeholder action, knowledge sharing and adequate
investments to promote systematic implementation. Though the limited funding
opportunities in developing countries will force governments to follow the eco-
nomic agenda rather than invest in climate action, there is still hope. One way to
address this challenge is by ensuring that development work is “climate proofed”
and climate action to be development oriented. In this way, governments can
justify their investments to combat climate change.
The various chapters in the book were drafted by 33 experienced research-
ers and consultants from several disciplines representing more than 20 agencies
worldwide, bringing together diverse field experiences. Several of the book chap-
ters focus on rice, the major cereal providing food security to millions of people
worldwide. Paddy rice is also one of the major sources of methane emissions and
facing several challenges due to high input prices, increased incidence of pests,
low market prices and labour shortages. The book emphasizes on the relevance
and use of agroecological-based soil, water and crop management practices that
have the potential for increasing productivity whilst reducing greenhouse gases
and addressing relevant SDGs (especially SDGs 2, 13 and 15). Addressing the
x Preface
c limate-related challenges will not be easy unless the farmers are motivated, in-
centivized and willing to adapt to the change. We must be optimistic, as it is
necessary to make farming systems resilient, and at the same time mitigate future
climate risks. The open access book will be useful to a wide range of audience
including scientific community, development agencies and policymakers.
Figures
1.1 Conceptual diagram showing pathways leading towards CNRFS 13

2.1 Trend of total food grain production and fertilizer N
consumption in India: 1974–2016 25
2.2 Framework of 4R Nutrient Stewardship for enhancing N use efficiency 27
2.3 Spread of CLCC across India. Source: Authors’ own compilation 31
2.4 Grain yield and PFPN of rice under different N application strategies 32
2.5 Comparative performance of r eal-time N application tools in
relation to grain yield of rice varieties: Naveen and Swarna Sub 1 33
3.1 Changes in the amount of irrigation by the block rotational
irrigation system in the water division work areas around Lake
Biwa in Japan. Unit No. 10 is a diversion area with unstable
water intake, while No. 11 is an area with stable water intake
(authors’ own compilation) 50
3.2 From lake water irrigation to cyclic irrigation system (authors’
own compilation) 52
3.3 Schematic diagram of the investigated paddy area divided into
three blocks with two water division works (authors’ own compilation) 53
3.4 Water division work with sluice gates for block rotational
irrigation. Source: Photo by S. Yonemura 54
3.5 Temporal changes in ponding water depths of the rice paddy
observation plots in each cropping season in 2016. WS is the
winter-spring season and SA is the summer-autumn season. CI,
WI, and SI are a conventional plot, weak-dry plot, and strong-
d ry plot, respectively. Black triangles represent the operation of
pumps. Source: adapted from Quang et al. (2019) 55
3.6 Temporal changes in methane emission fluxes in the rice paddy
observation plots in each cropping season in 2016. WS is the
winter-spring season and SA is the summer-autumn season. CI,
WI, and SI are a conventional plot, weak-dry plot, and strong-
d ry plot, respectively 55
3.7 Daily average methane emission fluxes converted to the
equivalent CO2 in the observation plots in each cropping
season in 2016. WS is the winter-spring season and SA is the
xii Figures
s ummer-autumn season. CI, WI, and SI are a conventional plot,
weak-dry plot, and strong-dry plot, respectively. Source: adapted
from Quang et al. (2019) 56
3.8 Yields of unhulled rice in the observation plots in each cropping
season in 2016. Error bars represent the standard deviation.
WS is the winter-spring season and SA is the summer-autumn
season. C1, W1, and S1 are a conventional plot, weak-dry plot,
and strong-dry plot, respectively. Source: adapted from Quang
et al. (2019) 56
4.1 A conceptual framework showing a transition from
conventional pest management to climate-smart and sustainable
IPM (authors’ own compilation) 73
4.2 Potential impacts due to climate-smart and sustainable IPM 78
5.1 Healthy rice paddy fields under optimum management of
ecosystem goods and biodiversity services facilitated by
agroecological principles-led SRI-IPM practices 90
5.2 Effects of planting density 93
5.3 Structural diagram of CFPAR and FPAR in one province 95
5.4 Average eco-efficiency of irrigated and rainfed production
systems with SRI practices in LMB countries 97
5.5 GHG emission estimation in SRI, SRI-T and FP at country and
regional levels in irrigated and rainfed systems of the LMB region 98
6.1 Different methods of DSR and its suitability in different rice
ecologies 108
6.2 Rice grain yield under different crop establishment methods 109
6.3 Representative studies reporting total water input in rice under
different water regimes 111
6.4 Comparison of cost of production and benefit-cost ratio under
DSR and TPR 111
6.5 Research findings on methane emissions (kg ha−1) from rice
cultivation under TPR, DSR and ZT. CT = conventional tillage,
TPR = transplanted puddled rice, DSR = direct seeded rice,
ZT = zero tillage 114
6.6 Comparison of cost of production and benefit-cost ratio under
DSR and TPR. DSR = direct seeded rice, TPR = transplanted
puddled rice 118
7.1 Planned public expenditure on Focus Area 5E per measure
(millions of euro) 130
7.2 GHG emissions and soil carbon sequestration under different
rice management referred to the surface (a) and rice product (b) unit 138
7.3 GHG emissions from all other sources except methane emissions
from paddies under different rice managements referred to the
surface (a) and rice product (b) unit 139
8.1 Three dimensions of agroecology 148
8.2 Map of the case study sites in the eastern Zambia 153
Figures xiii
8.3 Woman farmer incorporating Gliricidia tree leaves into the soils 156
8.4 Mean organic carbon, BD, and carbon stock estimates from
the seven treatment plots: T1: Gliricidia + Maize intercrop,
T2: sole Maize + Mineral fertilization, T3: sole Maize + no
Mineral fertilization, T4: Gliricidia + Soybean, T5: Gliricidia +
Groundnuts, T6: sole Soybean, and T7: sole Groundnuts 156
9.1 Institutional and policy factors affecting smallholders’ adoption
of CNRFS-related innovations: a conceptual framework 172
9.2 Theory of Change: introducing Brachiaria into the dairy VC in
Kangundo (Kenya) 180
9.3 Theory of Change: introducing Brachiaria into the dairy VC in
Nyamagabe (Rwanda) (authors’ own elaboration) 184
Tables
2.1 Basic principles of precision-based tools/techniques for N management 28

2.2 Performance of LCC-based N application compared to blanket
N application 30
2.3 Examples of previous research findings using SSNM approaches 35
5.1 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission (tCO2eq/ha) from SRI and
conventional fields 97
6.1 Main advantages and disadvantages of DSR compared to
transplanted puddled rice (TPR) 108
6.2 Desirable traits of rice cultivars suitable for DSR 110
6.3 Effect of greenhouse gas emissions, GWP on different crop
establishment techniques 116
6.4 Examples of research findings related to effective weed control
measures in DSR 119
7.1 Potential GHG savings from various measures in practice to
reduce EU agriculture and land use emissions 132
7.2 Rice farms analysed for carbon footprint evaluation 135
7.3 List of innovative agricultural practices applied in the subgroup
of rice farms 136
8.1 Potential AE contributions to relevant SDGs and specific targets
along with references 149
8.2 The ten elements of AE (FAO, 2019) and their implications
when put in practice 150
8.3 Summary of the general characteristics of the study sites in
eastern Zambia 154
8.4 Average grain yields of maize, groundnut, and soybean by
treatment (n = 15 demo plots) 157
8.5 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of maize by treatment
(n = 37) 158
8.6 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of soybean by
treatment (n = 26) 159
8.7 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of groundnut by
treatment (n = 25) 159
xvi Tables
8.8 Matching the AE practices/approaches implemented in the case
study sites with the most appropriate AE elements/principles 160
9.1 Ecological, nutritional, and socio-economic benefits provided by
Brachiaria forage 174
9.2 Socio-economic and physical characteristics of farmers in
Kangundo (n = 316) 177
9.3 Household socio-economic and physical characteristics in
Nyamagabe (308 HHs) 182
10.1 A list of farming systems to reduce GHGs, and improve
resilience to climate change 199
Boxes
2.1 4R Nutrient Stewardship principle 26

2.2 Green Seeker: Principles and Applications 34
6.1 Nutrient management recommendations for dry-DSR under
different agro-ecological settings 113
8.1 Components of sustainable intensification 152
Contributors
Bhubananda Adhikari is Research Scholar at Odisha University of Agricul-

ture & Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.
Laura Bardi is Director of Research at the Research Centre for Engineering and
Agro-
Food Processing, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics
(CREA), Italy.
Chiara Bertora is agroecologist and former researcher in the Department of
Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Italy.
Patrizia Borsotto is Researcher at the Research Centre for Agricultural Policies
and Bioeconomy of the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics
(CREA), Italy.
Andrew Borrell is Professor at Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food
Innovation (QAAFI), Hermitage Research Facility, University of Queensland,
Warwick, Australia.
Giacomo Branca is Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Engi-
neering, Society and Business, Tuscia University, Italy.
Luca Cacchiarelli is Researcher in the Department of Economics, Engineering,
Society and Business, Tuscia University, Italy.
Roberto Cagliero is Researcher at the Research Centre for Agricultural Poli-
cies and Bioeconomy of the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics
(CREA), Italy.
Alamu Oladeji Emmanuel is Food Scientist working at the International Insti-
tute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Zambia office.
Omedé Gabriele is Research Fellow in the Department of Agricultural, Forest
and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Turin, Italy.
Jan Willem Ketelaar is Chief Technical Advisor of the FAO Regional Integrated
Pest Management/Pesticide Risk Reduction Programme at FAO’s Regional
Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok.
xx Contributors
Anjani Kumar is Senior Scientist in the Division of Crop Production, National
Rice Research Institute (ICAR), Cuttack, India.
Maite Martínez-Eixarch is Researcher at the Institute of Agrifood Research and
Technology (IRTA), Continental and Marine Waters, Spain.
Abha Mishra is Director of ACISAI Center Asian Institute of Technology,
Khlong Luang, Thailand.
Soken Matsuda is Researcher at National Agriculture and Food Research Organ-
ization (NARO), Japan.
Sangita Mohanty is Senior Scientist in the Division of Crop Production, National
Shyamaranjan Das Mohapatra is Principal Scientist in the Division of Crop Pro-
tection, National Rice Research Institute (ICAR), Cuttack, India.
Kiran Mohapatra is Research Scholar in the Division of Crop Production,
National Rice Research Institute (ICAR), Cuttack, India.
Minati Mohapatra is Assistant Research Engineer at Odisha University of Agri-
culture & Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.
Munmun Mohapatra is Research Scholar at Odisha University of Agriculture &
Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.
Stefano Monaco is Researcher at the Research Centre for Engineering and Agro-
Food Processing, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA),
Italy.
Udaya Sekhar Nagothu is Research Professor and Director of Centre for Inter-
national Development, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås,
Norway.
Kimihito Nakamura is Professor of Hydrological Environment Engineering in
the Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Japan.
Amaresh Kumar Nayak is Principal Scientist and Head Division of Crop Pro-
duction at National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, India.
Joel Ngumayo is Senior M&E Specialist/Researcher at Community Markets for
Conservation (COMACO), Lusaka, Zambia.
Joyce Bakuwa Njoloma is Associate Scientist – Systems at World Agroforestry,
Malawi and Associate Professor at the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (LUANAR), Lilongwe, Malawi.
Chiara Perelli is Junior Researcher in the Department of Economics, Engineer-
ing, Society and Business, Tuscia University, Italy.
Subhendu Sekhar Pradhan is Computer Assistant in the Division of Crop Pro-
Contributors xxi
Le Xuan Quang is Associate Professor and Vice Director at the Institute for
Water and Environment, Vietnam Academy for Water Resources, Vietnam.
Radhakrushna Senapati is Senior Research Fellow in the Division of Crop Pro-
Mehreteab Tesfai is Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy
Research, Ås, Norway.
Rahul Tripathi is Senior Scientist in the Division of Crop Production, National
Max Whitten is Adjunct Professor in the School of Biological Sciences, The
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Najam Waris Zaidi is Senior Associate Scientist II at International Rice Research
Institute, New Delhi, India.
1 Climate change impacts on
agriculture
Challenges and options to reduce
emissions through climate-neutral
and resilient farming systems
Udaya Sekhar Nagothu, Andrew Borrell, and
Mehreteab Tesfai
Introduction
A global climate crisis is drawing the attention of activists, politicians, scientists,
and the general public at large, not only due to the increasing rate of extreme
climate events across the world and the severity of the destruction caused by
these events to communities and ecosystems but also due to their continuous
coverage in the media (WMO, 2021). At the same time, climate change debate
is shaping the political landscape in several countries, with some countries se-
riously concerned and pressing for immediate action, while others do not see it
as an immediate threat, even in the developed world. Lack of adequate infor-
mation, evidence-based data, and uncertainty in forecasts are helping sceptics
and politicians in both developed and developing countries to argue that climate
change is not an immediate threat to global society. Such ignorance leads to
short-sighted policy decisions and lack of needed transformative action and sup-
port for investments to combat climate crises. Since 1990, six assessment reports
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were prepared, and
recommendations were made for cutting down greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(IPCC, 2021). Unfortunately, some world leaders do not recognize the seriousness
of the threats and fail to stand by the commitments made to reduce emissions. As
long as these commitments are not put into action, it will not be possible to limit
global temperature rise to 1.5°C by the end of the century.
The IPCC on the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states that “it is unequiv-
ocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land” and
that “widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and
biosphere have occurred” (IPCC, 2021a). According to the Report, the world has
rapidly warmed by 1.1°C which is higher than pre-industrial levels, and is now
moving towards 1.5°C – a critical threshold level that world leaders agreed to
maintain and take measures to prevent warming above that level (IPCC, 2021b).
The complex shifts observed in recent years affecting our planet’s weather and
climate systems are contributing to the melting of glaciers, sea-level rise, and
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-1
2 Udaya Sekhar Nagothu et al.
increase in temperature. The atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a record
high in 2020, unprecedented in human history as the world was also grappling
with one of the worst pandemics (NORR, 2021). The year 2020 was also one of
the hottest years recorded globally, and the hottest ever in Europe that has led
to serious forest fires and floods (WMO, 2021). The wild fires in California and
Australia, the destructive floods in Germany, and the heat waves in Canada dur-
ing the summer of 2021 all indicate that the climate crisis is impacting seriously
and can no longer be ignored (GDACS, 2021). The scale of destruction not only
to property and infrastructure but also to human life and ecosystems cannot
continue to be tolerated, especially in regions and populations that are highly
vulnerable. Limiting global warming is only possible by taking drastic measures
to cut GHG emissions, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
through l arge-scale carbon sequestration measures (IPCC, 2021b). The economic
instability caused by COVID-19, with the focus by governments on funding
health initiatives combined with priorities to ensure jobs and economic growth,
will nevertheless pose a big challenge to combat the climate crisis.
This chapter provides an introduction to the climate crisis, followed by a brief
overview of the sources and extent of GHG emissions from various sectors in
general, and the agriculture sector in particular, and the challenges to reduce
emissions from the latter. The chapter then discusses the potential solutions for
reducing GHG emissions from the agriculture sector, including technological,
investment, and policy support required. A separate section is dedicated to intro-
duce the climate-neutral and resilient farming systems (CNRFS) concept and the
various steps necessary for assessing and developing suitable CNRFS. Towards the
end, the chapter provides an outline on the various chapters of the book.
Global warming and contribution from various sources

The sectors that contribute most to GHGs and global warming are energy, in-
dustry, agriculture, transport, and associated land-use changes. Per capita or per
person emissions of GHGs are the highest in the USA followed by Russia, Japan,
China, and the European Union (EU), ranked in the order given (C2ES, 2021). In
terms of contribution to total emissions, China ranks the highest followed by the
USA, the European Union, India, and Russia. Overall, carbon dioxide accounts
for 76% of total GHGs, while methane emissions, primarily from the agriculture
sector, contribute 16% of the GHGs (C2ES, 2021). The third largest contributor is
nitrous oxide, contributing 6% of the emissions mainly from industry and agricul-
ture, and the remaining 2% by various carbon and nitrogenous compounds (e.g.
CO, NO). Reducing emissions from various sectors has to be a collective effort
since the consequences of climate change are global.
Countries such as India argue that since its per capita emissions are much lower
compared to other nations, its responsibility to invest and reduce GHGs should
accordingly be less, a position with which other industrial nations do not agree
(UNEP, 2020). Lack of consensus to reduce emissions does not help to move for-
ward, as evident during various meetings since the Kyoto Protocol was established
Climate change impacts on agriculture 3
in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol set targets for 37 industrial nations to cut down
emissions, but only bound to developed countries under the principle of “common
but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities”, as these countries
were also responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions (UNFCCC,
2021). At the Doha Amendment in 2012, the Protocol was adopted for the sec-
ond commitment period ending in 2020, with the aim of reducing emissions by
18%. However, the results so far are not encouraging, with only a few scattered
transformative actions undertaken. The outcomes and agreements reached at the
COP26 summit in Glasgow (Scotland) are crucial for the global community to hit
net-zero emissions (WSJ, 2021). The years and months that follow will tell us the
extent to which the COP26 commitments will be acted on.
The agriculture sector as a contributor to GHG emissions

Agriculture accounts for approximately 20% of global GHG emissions when
viewed over a 2 0-year time frame, while forestry and land-use change account
for about 7%. Hence, the combined contributions from agriculture, forestry, and
changes to land use account for more than o ne-quarter of the world’s GHG emis-
sions. Without targeted action, these emissions are likely to increase as the pop-
ulation increases and the demand for food and raw materials continues to grow.
Agriculture contributes substantially to climate change by directly emitting
non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) gases, including methane (CH4) and nitrous ox-
ide (N2O), from crop and livestock production, and by affecting net CO2 emis-
sions from agricultural soils, forestry, and other land use (OECD, 2021). After
livestock, rice production is the second largest contributor of agricultural CH4
emissions, with the remaining emissions from the burning of savanna and the use
of crop residues for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, agriculture accounts for
80% of total N2O emissions, mainly from the application of fertilizers, including
both synthetic and organic nitrogen (Reay et al., 2012). These non-CO2 gases are
significantly more powerful than carbon dioxide in driving warming over a 20-
year span (Myhre et al., 2013). For example, over a span of 20 years, methane is
84 times more powerful than CO2 in forcing temperature increases, and nitrous
oxide is 298 times more powerful. However, CH4 has a much shorter lifetime
in the atmosphere, lasting only 12 years, meaning that reducing CH4 emissions
should help to limit temperature increases in the short term, which is necessary.
Estimates of global CH4 emissions from paddy fields alone range from 31 to 112
Tg/year, accounting for up to 19% of total emissions, while 11% of global agricul-
tural N2O emissions come from rice fields (Win et al., 2020). In Asia, paddy rice
systems alone (besides livestock and energy use) are the second largest emitter
of GHG emissions. At the same time, GHG emissions from rice cultivation are
increasing in other rice growing regions of the world. Rice is the staple food for
more than half of the world’s population and the dominant crop in South and
Southeast Asia (FAO, 2013). More than 3.5 billion people depend on rice for
nearly 20% of their daily calories (FAO, 2018). Therefore, rice production has to
be made sustainable through use of viable technology options to reduce GHG
emissions, especially methane. Reducing emissions from the agriculture sector –
largely methane and nitrous o xide – can play a significant role in climate change
mitigation (Lynch and Garnett, 2021).
The current farming systems worldwide are intensive and unsustainable, as they
mostly rely on high external inputs to increase crop yields, e.g. water, chemical
fertilizers, and pesticides, and contribute to serious degradation of soils, pollution
of water and air, and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Foley et al., 2011).
In general, intensive agricultural land-use systems are a major source of GHG
emissions, thereby contributing to the acceleration of climate change (FAO,
2020). This, in turn, results in frequent extreme weather events, i.e. droughts,
floods, and heat stress (Mwangi et al., 2020). Climate warming is substantially
increasing crop losses due to the increased spread of insect pests, with strong-
est yield reductions in temperate and subtropical climatic zones for major staple
grains including rice, maize, and wheat (Boetzl et al., 2020; Deutsch et al., 2018).
These studies highlight that the agricultural sector is both a contributor to and
casualty of accelerated climate change, and that there is an urgency to promote
new systemic solutions to promote sustainable CNRFS.
The challenges in reducing GHG emissions

The 2018 report by IPCC makes it clear that if the impact of climate change is to
be limited to 1.5°C, a “rapid and far-reaching” transition will be required (IPCC,
2018). Achieving this goal would require keeping within the cumulative carbon
budget of 570 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2), attaining net-zero carbon
dioxide emissions globally around 2050, including significantly reducing the emis-
sions of other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
The focus on the agriculture sector to reduce GHGs has increased since the
Paris Agreement in 2015, where 196 countries signed a legally binding treaty on
climate change to limit global warming to well below 2°C, and preferably below
1.5°C (UNFCCC, 2015). It was also agreed in Paris that countries prepare their
plans for nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by 2020, together with the
long-term low GHG emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) embedded into
the NDCs. However, practical implementation of NDCs is still at a nascent stage
in most cases. So far, the attempts to reduce emissions are not encouraging in
agriculture, livestock, and land use sectors. It can be challenging for sectors such
as agriculture to monitor and measure the emission reductions due to the diffused
and unorganized nature of the small-scale farms. In light of the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic and shifting g eo-political power alignments, the question
of who should support and invest in climate mitigation measures remains deeply
contested. While debates at the global climate negotiation meetings are often
focused on the extreme and contentious views and options, there should be a
spectrum of nuanced views that will be useful to look at and move beyond the
contentious positions. A transparent negotiating environment will help develop-
ing countries to engage actively in reducing emissions. This should be particularly
useful for sectors such as agriculture that are highly relevant in these countries.
Reducing emissions within the agriculture sector will be challenging, mainly due
to lack of investments and capacity, small-scale nature of farming, lack of political
will, and incentives for adopting climate smart solutions (FAO, 2015). Evidence-
b ased and proven practical solutions to reduce emissions in the agriculture sector are
still relatively rare and some are in the piloting stage. The type of solutions that we
develop will have implications for overall food systems and for global food and nu-
trition security at large. We need to understand that emissions from agriculture are
different from other sectors (especially in relation to carbon dioxide), and thus the
mitigation pathways also need to be different. The overall sustainability challenges
related to food production, and possible solutions, have to be considered while de-
veloping CNRFS (UNFCCC, 2018; FAO, 2019). Climate change mitigation within
the agricultural sector can be addressed effectively if local and national level ac-
tions are accompanied by international and regional level cooperation and sharing
of knowledge. In this context, international collaborative research and the related
co-learning have to be supported at all levels. This book focuses on the unique op-
portunity to cooperate and bring together experts from Asia, Australia, Europe, and
Africa to share their experiences with CNRFS that can potentially contribute to
GHG emission reduction and carbon sequestration (including carbon storage in ag-
ricultural soils) and, at the same time, foster climate resilience and contribute to
overall sustainability. Regarding the implications for farmer income and livelihoods,
food sovereignty cannot be ignored in this context, since success depends on the
farm-level implementation of CNRFS-proposed innovations and the benefits gained.
The agriculture sector as a potential solution

Major changes in the agriculture sector would be required if the impact of climate
change is to be limited to 1.5°C. Overcoming the challenges to reduce GHGs in
the agriculture sector will require technological, investment, and policy solutions.
These solutions will need to be targeted at the global as well as specific scales, at
developed and developing countries, and at l arge-and s mall-scale agriculture, and
should be environmental friendly, socially acceptable, and economically feasible.
Technological solutions
It is technically feasible for agriculture to become close to carbon neutral, relying
on supply-side mitigation measures alone, although this depends on optimistic
assumptions about the potential of soil carbon sequestration (SCS). Based on full
deployment of available emission reductions, coupled with carbon sequestration
opportunities, the global technical mitigation potential of the agricultural sector
in 2030 is estimated to be 5,500 to 6,000 MtCO2eq yr1 (Smith, 2016).
Global versus local scales

Targets are usually set at global or national levels, putting together the required
emission reductions for various sectors. It has been suggested that the first step in
reducing emissions from agriculture is to produce food as efficiently as possible,
i.e. changing how we farm (McKinsey & Company, 2020). The report found that
a set of proven GHG-efficient farming technologies and practices (which are al-
ready being deployed) could achieve about 20% of the sector’s required emission
reduction by 2050. The report found that top 15 mitigation measures could de-
liver about 85% of the total 4.6 GtCO2e mitigation potential from G HG-efficient
farming by 2050, compared with business-as-usual emissions. These measures
included reducing GHG emissions in farm machinery (zero-emissions on-farm
machinery), livestock sector (breeding for reduced GHG emissions, improving
animal health, optimizing livestock feed, and increasing production efficiency),
crop management (direct seeding in rice), water management (improve paddy rice
water management), fertilizer management (improve nitrogen fertilization strate-
gies in rice, nitrification inhibitors, expand slow release fertilizers), and soil man-
agement (minimum tillage and/or no-tillage practices). The various chapters in
this book focus on some of these selected G HG-reducing measures in the farming
systems.
According to McKinsey & Company (2020), there is also a need to change
our dietary patterns, i.e. what we eat, and reduce food wastage. Overall, achieving
emissions-reduction goals is not possible without billions of people p ro-actively
changing their diets by eating less beef and lamb meat. There is room for im-
provement here, as the current average global consumption of ruminant animal
protein (mainly beef and lamb) is three times the recommended level, and almost
one-third of all food produced in the world is wasted. Reducing food waste and
shifting to plant-based protein diets will be beneficial to both the environment
and human health (Tziva et al., 2020).
Developed versus developing countries

In general, developing countries are the largest and fastest growing source of
GHG emissions. Between 1990 and 2014, they were largely responsible for the
15% increase in global n on-CO2 emissions from agriculture (Blandford and Has-
sapoyannes, 2018), whereas OECD countries (the Organisation for Economic C o-
o peration and Development, OECD) as a whole experienced a slight reduction in
non-CO2 emissions over the same period. Improvements in production efficiency
have contributed to this reduction by lowering the emission intensity of agri-
cultural output (MacLeod et al., 2015). However, the rate of decline in intensity
appears to be slowing (OECD, 2021). Reduced deforestation rates and increased
afforestation in several regions of the world have resulted in net CO2 emissions
from forestry and other land uses, falling in both developed and developing coun-
tries (Blandford and Hassapoyannes, 2018; IPCC, 2019; Smith et al., 2016).
Reducing GHG emissions must also be considered in relation to food security
issues, particularly in the developing world. A useful entry point for mitigation
would be a focus on reducing emissions intensity by addressing productivity im-
provements and yield gaps (IPCC, 2019). This approach can simultaneously meet
food security, rural development, and climate change mitigation goals (Vermeulen
et al., 2012; Wollenberg, 2017). The extent to which reducing emissions intensity
will result in reductions of absolute emissions depends on changes in total produc-
tion (Leahy, 2020). Absolute emissions will generally rise if increased productivity
is used to generate more food to meet nutritional or economic goals, and reducing
emissions intensity will only reduce absolute emissions if total production does
not increase at a faster rate (Gerber et al., 2013). Recent studies suggest that ag-
ricultural land could expand further in the absence of changes to technological
progress, dietary patterns, food distribution, and markets (Roos et al., 2017).
Some technological solutions will require proactive strategies for implemen-
tation in the developing world. For example, disruptive change from novel mit-
igation technologies, such as methane vaccines and methane and nitrous oxide
inhibitors, could produce significant global benefits, but special effort needs to be
given to adoption pathways in developing countries. Development of methane
inhibitors is largely being carried out in developed countries, with the most ad-
vanced product (3-NOP) so far showing high efficacy (>30% reduction) in feedlot
systems (Hristov et al., 2015), with limited suitability for grazing-based systems
(Reisinger et al., 2018).
Approximately one-third of all food produced is never consumed. Food loss
takes place early in the supply chain during production, transportation, and stor-
age, particularly in developing countries where losses are driven by lack of access
to technology and cold-storage infrastructure. In developed countries, food waste
more likely occurs at the retail and consumption stages and is prevalent in higher-
i ncome regions (Nicastro and Carillo, 2021). To meet a 1.5°C target, food loss and
waste would need to fall from about 33% in recent years to under 30% by 2030,
and 20% by 2050. This would result in reducing overall emissions from food waste
by about 40% globally. Large-scale awareness programmes, educating youth and
fixing accountability, is the way to go forward to reduce food wastage.
Large scale versus small scale

New farm practices and technologies need to be relevant to small-scale farms
around the world, since most farms in developing countries are small. In fact,
farms of two hectares or smaller produce 3 0–34% of the global food supply and
account for about 75% of farms (Lowder et al., 2016). The pace of change in ag-
riculture is slow, partly due to this fragmentation, particularly when it comes to
adoption of new technologies (Gandhi et al., 2016).
Investment solutions
The private sector is driving policy around reducing GHG emissions in the ag-
ricultural sector, with governments struggling to keep up to some extent. Gov-
ernments are potentially being outflanked by targets and requirements set by
large international food companies. The o n-farm supply chain emissions of such
companies can often account for significant proportions of their total GHG foot-
print (Leahy et al., 2020). For example, 57% of Danone’s “scope 3” GHG emis-
sions are related to the purchase of agricultural products such as milk (Danone,
2017). Many international food and beverage companies (e.g. Danone, Mars Inc.,
Nestle, Tesco, Coca-Cola Co., Kellogg, PepsiCo., Unilever PLC) are driving cli-
mate goals (Leahy et al., 2020). These companies are setting ambitious emissions
targets and increasingly mandating that their suppliers also provide a product that
meets the company’s stated climate agenda.
Considering the extent of emissions from livestock industries, it is critical that
industries actively drive the adoption of c limate-smart policies and invest signif-
icantly. Total GHG emissions from livestock supply chains alone are estimated
to be around 7.1 Gt CO2eq/yr (Gerber et al., 2013). The GHG emissions of 35
of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies are reported to account for up
to 1 Gt CO2eq/yr (14%). The on-farm supply chains from these companies are a
major source of emissions (GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, 2018). It is likely that these company goals, coupled with global market
dynamics, will increasingly shape production systems of the future. While this
approach may influence internationally traded products, it may have limited im-
pact on subsistence and smallholder farmers that provide more than half of total
food production in many developing countries (Rapsomanikis, 2015). Invest-
ment, development, commercialization, and scaling of next-horizon technologies
should greatly accelerate efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture
sector.
There are a range of promising technologies at various stages of development
that could have significant GHG abatement potential in the crop and livestock
sectors. These include gene editing for disease resistance or for enhanced carbon
sequestration, plant and soil microbiome technology, aerobic rice, direct methane
capture from beef and dairy cattle, perennial row crops, inhibition of enteric fer-
mentation through vaccines, and novel feed additives (Al-Azzawi, 2021, IGI, 2021;
ITIF, 2020; McKinsey & Company, 2020).
Policy solutions
To achieve any given level of mitigation in GHG emissions at minimum eco-
nomic cost, two requirements are necessary for policy measures (OECD, 2021).
The first requirement is the use of m
arket-based policy instruments that achieve a
common price for GHG emissions (such as an emissions tax or emissions trading
scheme). The second is that coverage of the m arket-based policy includes the
largest possible share of global emissions from all regions and sectors. These two
policy requirements should ensure that the lowest cost mitigation measures are
adopted, given the large heterogeneity in marginal abatement costs among agents,
sectors, and regions.
So far, no single country has set a mandatory carbon price for agricultural
emissions and current evidence suggests considerable reluctance to applying other
climate policies with comparable stringency to agriculture (Leahy et al., 2020).
A recent review on agricultural GHG mitigation pathways stated that a more
realistic view is needed if we are to avoid modelled emission scenarios providing
an overly optimistic picture of mitigation potentials from the agricultural sector
(Leahy et al., 2020). While there are entry points for mitigation of agricultural
GHGs outside government price policies, many questions remain unanswered
around their efficacy and scalability, requiring a concerted effort to bridge the gap
from modelled emissions to realistic policy pathways.
Integrated policy interventions that span supply and demand approaches will
be required to achieve agricultural mitigation pathways that are aligned with
the 1.5ºC pathway (IPCC, 2019). Agricultural trade is subject to a wide range
of constraints and distortionary subsidies that reflect powerful special interests.
Furthermore, developing countries’ desire for food self-sufficiency and protection
from food price spikes must be considered. It is worth noting that some of these
spikes have been linked to increased biofuel demand driven by climate policies in
the energy sector of developed countries (Anderson, 2016). Hence, international
coordination is fundamental to addressing concerns about competitiveness, en-
suring environmentally effective outcomes, and avoiding negative consequences
at the trans-national scale (Blandford and Hassapoyannes, 2018).
Current evidence suggests reluctance to apply rigorous climate policies to agri-
culture, even in developed countries. In theory, substantial reductions in agricul-
tural emissions could be attained through a number of mechanisms, including the
widespread introduction of p rice-based policies or other measures with an implicit
price (Leahy et al., 2020). However, there appears to be little current interest
in such strategies. For example, New Zealand is the only country actively con-
sidering a compulsory price on agricultural emissions, although more than 100
countries have included agriculture mitigation in their NDCs (Richards, 2019).
Global versus local scales

The global desire to reduce GHG emissions in agriculture is currently weak and
needs to be strengthened or the lack of progress will stifle efforts to meet the
goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C or well below 2°C
(OECD, 2021). Only 38% of agriculture emissions are covered by nationally deter-
mined commitments under the Paris Agreement (Hönle et al., 2019). This shows
that governments are not prioritizing actions to cut emissions and combat climate
change. However, policy solutions do exist, despite the reality of barriers to pol-
icy implementation. Solutions include choosing policy options that can navigate
trade-offs in economic impacts between different interest groups. Other options
could address the practical challenges and transaction costs related to measuring,
reporting, and verifying the extent of reductions in GHG emissions.
To achieve a 1.5°C pathway, 6 –8 Gt of carbon dioxide sequestration is re-
quired. If all of this was to be delivered through forestry, it would require refor-
esting 50–60% of the total area that has been deforested over the past 150 years.
However, there are other options for enhancing soil carbon through regenerative
agricultural practices such as low-and n
o-till agriculture, green manuring, com-
posting, cover crops or crop rotations, and legumes sown in pastures (Raphaela,
2016).
Developed versus developing countries

It is estimated that smallholder farming contributes about 1.7 Gt CO2eq/yr emis-
sions (Vermeulen and Wollenberg, 2017). Given the concerns about food security,
self-sufficiency, food sovereignty, and rural poverty, most developing countries
will find price-based policies or stringent regulatory policies targeting agricul-
tural GHG emissions even harder to implement than developed countries (IPCC,
2019). Therefore, implementation of policies to reduce GHG emissions from the
agriculture sector is highly challenging for both developed and developing coun-
tries, although there are different constraints, depending on the context.
Modelling studies support this view (Hasegawa et al., 2018), concluding that
climate change mitigation actions could have potentially adverse side effects on
food security for some populations. More nuanced implementation and targeted
support mechanisms for vulnerable groups could overcome many of the nega-
tive consequences arising from blunt price-based policies (Fujimori et al., 2018;
Loboguerrero et al., 2019). However, the question remains as to whether finance,
governance, and institutional capacity exist, together with the political will, to
deliver policy arrangements of such complexity at the necessary scales required
(Grewer et al., 2018).
Climate action and sustainable development goals

The sustainable development goal (SDG) 13 is about climate action and it is
one of the United Nations 17 SDGs (United Nations, 2020). The SDGs provide
economic and political legitimacy to introduce sustainable initiatives. Address-
ing climate action must be seen as an opportunity by countries and not merely
an obligation. At the same time, climate action will address other SDGs and,
in the process, support global consensus and fulfil national commitments to
sustainably manage the Earth’s resources. Countries rebuilding economies after
COVID-19 should seize this occasion to include green solutions or green growth
strategies that can also address climate change. If carefully planned and imple-
mented, actions could simultaneously address SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 2 (Zero
Hunger), and SDG 13. A good example could be to introduce d irect-seeded rice
(DSR) to reduce methane emissions in areas where transplanted paddy rice is a
dominant system, without compromising on productivity. In dry DSR systems
with a different water regime, and less anaerobic conditions, methane emis-
sions could be substantially reduced compared to transplanted paddy rice, due
to lower CH4 production and release (Li et al., 2019). Thus, smallholder rice
farmers practising DSR will be able to realize good yields (SDG 2) and, at the
same time, contribute to methane reductions from rice fields (SDG 13). A sus-
tainable food system incorporating improvements at all levels of the value chain
from production to consumption, in other words a green transition from farm
to fork, is the way forward. Implementation of the commitments made in the
Paris Agreement to combat the climate crisis is essential for the achievement
of the SDGs.
Innovative and systemic solutions: c limate-neutral and resilient

farming systems
Given the huge challenges facing farming systems in general (soil and water pollution
and degradation, biodiversity decline, emerging pests and diseases, GHG emissions, etc.)
and conventional systems such as transplanted paddy rice (low water and nutrient use
efficiency, high GHG emissions), as well as other unforeseen shocks and risks, there
is an increasing need for systematically identifying, demonstrating, implementing,
and assessing/evaluating innovative solutions that are sustainable and reduce GHGs.
Need for assessing current systems and developing appropriate

CNRFS
A transition to sustainable CNRFS can be achieved, first, by obtaining a better
understanding of current systems, including their strengths and weaknesses at
field/landscape scale, their dynamics, interdependencies, local knowledge, drivers
and barriers, as well as existing resources and institutions. Adopting a systems
approach is the way to better understand and synthesize the complexity of exist-
ing farming systems in particular regions in a stepwise manner by: (i) analysing
the problems, root causes, opportunities to improvements; (ii) examining tech-
nological, social/policy, and economic factors (e.g. market constraints and con-
sumer’s preferences to assess the opportunities and the willingness to pay for the
products); and (iii) developing pathways to transform the existing value chains
towards more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable ones.
At the same time, attention must be paid to environmental conditions in-
cluding functional a gri-biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services, damage
due to pests, diseases and resilience against weather extremes. In order to ensure
farmer adoption of CNRFS, it will be necessary to consider the farm household
resource-use patterns for on-farm and off-farm activities, the cooperation along
agro-food value chains, the embeddedness of farming systems and practices in
agro-ecological settings, economic opportunities (and limitations), institutional
context, and cultural values. The related data should ensure that interdependen-
cies, dynamics, and farmer or local knowledge, as well as existing resources and
institutions, are duly considered while designing CNRFS.
The participatory diagnosis and co-analysis of given farming systems should
include quantitative and qualitative methodologies and tools. The analysis must
make use of and combine concepts and approaches from the natural sciences
and social sciences, including quantitative meta-analyses of available data. Good
baseline data and indicators derived from the analysis would be necessary for
measuring and monitoring progress observed with the introduction of CNRFS.
Co-designing and promoting CNRFS

After taking inputs from the initial assessment of current systems, the next step
should be co-designing combinations of the most effective solutions that are suita-
ble for particular agro-ecological settings that can lead to improvements (Dainese
et al., 2019). An important advancement would involve combining nature-based
and technology-based solutions supported by the right institutional and p olicy-
b ased approaches. Such a combination, where simple and easy to adopt local-and
nature-based solutions in many settings could, in fact, help in carbon assimila-
tion, as well as reducing GHGs (EEA, 2021). Emerging evidence indicates that
managing whole landscapes has tremendous potential for translational changes
in sustainability and CNRFS (Martin et al., 2019). Landscape factors that pro-
mote the richness and abundance of functional groups, such as natural enemies
and pollinators, enhance the provision of multiple ecosystem services and con-
tribute to crop yield quantity and quality (Martin et al., 2019, Dainese et al., 2019).
First, one must prioritize to upscale proven local solutions. Second, the aim should
be to combine upscaling of local solutions with management of landscapes. These
include (i) the restoration of green infrastructure, i.e. perennial near-natural or
semi-natural habitats that act as sources for beneficial organisms such as crop pol-
linators and arthropod and vertebrate predators of pest insects (Beddington et al.,
2002), and (ii) the management of crop diversity. Both factors have been shown to
improve natural pest control (Martin et al., 2019).
The CNRFS chosen should be sustainable in environmental terms (in par-
ticular contributing to CNRFS), in economic terms (e.g. relatively low cost and
cost-efficient, contribute to farmer income), and in social terms (e.g. fostering di-
verse diets, minimizing health risks, appropriate to the particular socio-cultural
context).
Only if farmers and a gri-food chain actors and stakeholders can gain from
the new CNRFS will they be motivated to actually adopt and use the solutions?
The sustainable solutions need to address the needs in the pre-production phase
(inputs: seeds, nutrients, water, crop and livestock management), as well as in
the post-production phase (outputs: grains, bio-residues, storage), and market pref-
erences (e.g. consumer choices, increasing demand for healthy diets). However,
for successful adoption and upscaling, the innovative systemic solutions require
enabling institutions and policy support (Nagothu, 2015). The systemic context
shaping farmer’s/stakeholder’s ability to implement these solutions is depicted in
Figure 1.1, where a transition from the current system towards CNRFS involves
interventions at different levels.
In order to design promising CNRFS pathways that are appropriate to the
different agro-ecological zones, particular attention should be paid to replacing
external farm inputs (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides) with internal farm inputs (i.e.
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N 2O
Existing conditions increasing GHGs emissions, CNRFSs reducing GHG emissions, increasing C
loss of Carbon storage
SOIL: Precision soil/fertilizer management (e.g., soil
SOIL: Unbalanced & excess use of fertilizers metagenomics, N- inhibitors)
WATER: Inefficient water management WATER: Water use efficiency and improvement
CROP: Laqck of integrated systems, Puddled pathways (efficient irrigation and cropping systems)
paddy rice cultivation, chemical pest control, CROP: Integrated and diverse cropping systems,
burning crop residues Alternate climate neutral cereal-legume, crop-
MARKETS: Lack of market access and livestock systems
consumers MARKETS: Favourable markets and consumer
support for greener products
Transition to
Business as Usual CNRFSs Carbon neutral & resilient farming systems
farms
Enabling institutions & policies to foster transition to

climate neutral and resilient farming systems
Figure 1.1 Conceptual diagram showing pathways leading towards CNRFS.

Source: Authors’ own design.
nature-based solution such as biopesticides/biocontrol, biological solutions, im-

proved soil services, conservation agriculture, organic farming). The key would
be to increase both sustainability and resilience against future climate stresses
and extremes. Examples of improved management practices that will be further
discussed in subsequent chapters include the following:
• Soil/nutrient management using soil metagenomics: An important area, which

has the potential for GHG reduction if precise management is applied. This
can be enhanced by innovative information and communication tools/
sensors/mobile apps for upscaling and improving precision use of farm inputs
(Chapter 2).
• Water management: Improving water use efficiency/water productivity (e.g.
alternate wetting and drying/drip irrigation, conservation agriculture) that
can significantly reduce GHGs (Chapter 3).
• Integrated pest, weed, disease management: Using nature-based solutions,
e.g. through enhanced farm and landscape functional diversity, integrat-
ing physical and other n on-chemical measures to manage pests and diseases
(Chapter 4).
• Crop management: Improving efficiency through systems such as climate resil-
ient rice systems/agro-ecological farming practices, short duration flood and
drought tolerant crop varieties and cover/catch crops. Here it is also impor-
tant to consider specific genetic solutions for adaptation to a particular en-
vironment or climate while developing the new crop management practices
(Chapters 5–8).
• Post-harvest, processing, marketing/distribution to consumption: Key questions
relate to consumer preferences, the sharing of higher production costs along
the value chain (including the shares that consumers are willing to cover),
addressing fluctuations in market prices and feedback mechanisms on prod-
ucts and production systems (Chapter 9).
Irrespective of farm size, ecologically sound practices (e.g. minimum tillage, leg-
ume N-fixing crops, stubble retention) that can reduce environmental impacts,
thereby enhancing climate neutrality and keeping food production systems in safe
spaces, should be introduced (Bommarco et al., 2013, Dainese et al., 2019). Fur-
ther, combining local measures with landscape management concepts (through
permanent green infrastructure, enhanced crop diversity, and coordinated place-
ment of agri-environment schemes) provides a novel pathway to more sustainable
agriculture (Martin et al., 2019).
Digital and space-based technologies represent another line of promising and
emerging solutions to counter environmental costs of crop production systems,
improve efficiency, and enhance climate resilience (King, 2017). Such solutions
include precision farming with threshold-based and spatially targeted applica-
tion of pesticides and fertilizers, more efficient irrigation systems, and sensor-
and remote sensing-based monitoring of crop growth and potential risks (King,
2017). A key factor to bridge gaps between scientific theoretical knowledge and
practical implementation is the continuous involvement, training, and co-
d esign of solutions with farmer’s communities and other stakeholders (Kleijn
et al., 2019). Combining the n ature-and technology-based components to pilot
and upscale systematically designed innovative solutions will be the way forward
in the future. Thus, it should be possible to overcome the limitations and risks of
current conventional farming systems, including stagnation of yields, increasing
yield losses due to pests and extreme weather events, degradation of soils, and
emission of GHGs.
Institutional changes involve a whole range of factors such as implementa-
tion of conducive policies, enabling environments and effective value chains
(Glover et al., 2019). Also the influence of risk and uncertainty in relation to
socio-economic and marketing constraints will be important to include while
implementing new systems (Reardon et al., 2019). The diffusion of CNRFS will
depend on the role of service providers (e.g. business, advisory, information,
extension) to a large extent. The transformation process should adopt a wider
stakeholder perspective in order to come up with strategies for fostering collab-
oration among actors and enhancing uptake of innovations (FAO, 2014). The
overall aim is to reach n et-zero emissions, together with reduced external in-
puts and more stable yields that can contribute to sustainability along agri-food
chains. An important step in the process is to address the economic, social,
and environmental sustainability challenges related to current farming systems
and develop measurable baseline indicators, some of which have already been
addressed in the previous stages. Attention is needed to reduce GHG emission
in the process.
Multi-actor partnerships to enhance CNRFS
An inclusive m ulti-actor approach aims at a more d emand-driven innovation pro-
cess through the genuine involvement of diverse actors all along the project and
different segments of the agri-food chains, from farm to fork. Multi-actor platforms
(MAPs) have the potential to bring diverse actors together in a structured pro-
cess of interactive learning, sharing, empowerment, and collaborative governance
(Brouwer et al., 2015). Together, the actors can discuss opportunities and the ways
to achieve a desired set of goals. The MAPs can promote innovation in the face
of complexity, uncertainty and risk, and strengthen science-policy linkage. This is
achieved by building trust and continuous dialogue among the actors with inter-
connected but potentially divergent interests or viewpoints (Brouwer et al., 2015).
A multi-actor approach involves working directly with farmers, managers, civil
society groups (e.g. youth, indigenous groups, and women); n on-governmental or-
ganizations (NGOs); and scientific, policy, and business communities (EIP-AGRI,
2020). Their involvement in analysis, co-design, piloting, and upscaling of prom-
ising CNRFS will be highly relevant for promoting new CNRFS. The knowledge
and experience of key agri-food actors combined with scientific knowledge will
help to develop applicable best practices. Setting up sustainable MAPs, however,
is a significant challenge (Reid et al., 2014), requiring a whole range of skills, sup-
port, structure, and process.
The regional and sectoral needs and contexts (environmental, socio-economic,
geographical, cultural) must be considered from an early stage in the process of
transition to CNRFS. The process should ensure that all relevant food systems
stakeholders are actively engaged so that:
• potential improvements to existing food, farming, and cropping systems can

be jointly identified together with all stakeholders engaged in the MAPs. The
cross-sectoral representation in MAPs and use of systemic solutions will en-
sure that co-created solutions will go far beyond mere technological innova-
tions and that a cross-sectoral agri-food chain (markets, consumer, demand)
perspective is applied (European Commission, 2017).
• it becomes easier to build on the existing MAPs (including youth and women
organizations, government agencies, small medium enterprises (SMEs), pro-
ducers, processors, retailers, food service providers, consumers), rather than
creating new ones. Comparable structures comprised of representatives from
producer associations, farmer innovation/learning circles, and supply chain
initiatives, already identified, should be engaged (Nagothu et al., 2018).
In line with the multi-actor approach, defining and prioritizing the research needs
together with the MAPs should be done simultaneously, including piloting the
most appropriate combinations of solutions to accelerate the transition to CNRFS
(Nagothu et al., 2018). Specific care should be taken to engage young professionals
(e.g. young farmers, young fishers, young researchers, young entrepreneurs), SMEs,
consumers, and citizens.
Stakeholder perceptions about climate change
While drafting this book chapter, farmers, scientists, and government agencies in
some of the rice growing regions in Piedmont, northern Italy, and the Odisha and
Assam provinces in India, were contacted during S eptember-October 2021. The
purpose was to seek their opinion and perceptions on the current climate crisis
and associated vulnerability and the implications of the Sixth IPCC report. In
general, stakeholders in both India and Italy perceived the climate crisis as an im-
mediate threat – exhibited by temperature changes, i.e. long dry periods alternat-
ing with unexpected intensive rainfall, warmer in the winter months and during
early spring. Farmers, whether in Italy or in India, viewed that changes to climate
will have a serious and direct influence on food production due to extreme climate
variability. According to the respondents, farmers will be one of the communities
most affected by the climate crisis because it is difficult to plan and grow crops in
highly variable environments.
During the discussions, farmers and government agencies suggested combat-
ing climate crisis with climate-neutral solutions in agriculture that can create
maximum impact – and able to address both adaptation and mitigation simul-
taneously (to reduce GHGs and store carbon in the soils). Some of the measures
suggested were (i) minimum tillage of the soil, (ii) growing climate resilient crop
varieties with short duration (to reduce GHGs and fix soil carbon), (iii) diverse
crops, cereal-legume rotations, and (iv) mulching with biomass to increase or-
ganic matter in the soils and enhance soil health. Wherever possible, farmers
were of the opinion that these practices should be combined with agroforestry to
increase agri-biodiversity. One farmer practising organic rice farming in Piedmont
suggested that incentives should be given for regenerative organic agriculture,
training agricultural technicians who could, in turn, assist farmers in the green
transition movement. The farmers also expressed that exploitation of alternative
energies such as solar and wind in the agriculture sector should be explored as
they contribute to reduction of GHG emissions.
Although there are incentives or subsidies, they are not directly given to farm-
ers or to support actions that can help in combating the climate crisis. Overall,
the farmer and other stakeholders’ perception was that investments for scaling up
climate-neutral agricultural technologies that can reduce GHG emissions are go-
ing to be a challenge. Farmers in the two countries also expressed concerns that
current agricultural insurance programmes do not cover crop damages and losses
due to climate extremes.
During the interviews, stakeholders expressed that in Europe it may be pos-
sible to tap the European funds for the Regional Rural Development Plan for
supporting farmers to reduce GHG emissions (European Commission, 2017). The
current Horizon Europe programme provides an opportunity for scientists and
stakeholders across the EU to cooperate on research and development to develop
carbon-neutral and green technologies (European Commission, 2021). Whereas
in countries such as India, although subsidies exist in the farming sector, it will
be challenging to access funding for reducing emissions from agriculture, as the
country priorities are different compared to the EU region. It can be worse in
African regions, where funds are even more limited.
The EU is in the forefront when it comes to policy support (EU level and
national) to address the climate crisis. In irrigated regions, it will be important
to make regulations for water use and irrigation and improve efficiency. Farmers
during the interviews expressed that access to climate-neutral technologies, bio-
based solutions, and inputs are important to reduce GHG emissions from the
agriculture sector.
Outline of the book

This book is divided into different thematic chapters with a common objective
and at the same time cover c ross-cutting issues related to technology,nature-
based solutions, socio-economic and policy perspectives relevant for upscaling the
CNRFS.
The first chapter provides a comprehensive review of the concept of climate-
neutral farming systems, main sources of GHG emissions, risks, and transition
pathways to develop and promote CNRFS that can contribute to relevant SDGs
(especially SDGs 2, 13, and 15) and policy implications. This is followed by sev-
eral chapters demonstrating promising CNRFS in rice and other food crop sys-
tems, based on experiences from different regions/countries including South and
SE Asia, Europe, and Africa.
A separate chapter discusses the relevance of value chain analysis and inte-
grating cross-cutting issues, including stakeholder engagement and m ulti-actor
partnerships, and market and policy perspectives relevant for upscaling the
CNRFS. Towards the end, the last chapter summarizes the key messages and les-
sons learnt from each chapter with specific policy recommendations and frame-
work conditions necessary to be put in place to upscale the innovative CNRFS
at a systemic level.
Conclusions
Achieving the major changes required to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions to
meet the necessary targets may be more challenging for agriculture than for other
sectors. In addition, the agriculture sector has a number of other complex objec-
tives to consider alongside climate goals, including food and nutritional security,
biodiversity, and the livelihood of farmers and farming communities.
Rather than just dwelling on how we produce our food, we must change the
way and what we eat, how we reduce food wastage, how we manage our forests and
carbon sinks, and how we apply next-horizon technologies. But we need to act
swiftly; otherwise, emissions in agriculture will continue to grow and contribute
to heating the planet to dangerous levels.
However, we must not lose hope. Agriculture has responded to humanity’s
greatest challenges throughout the course of human history, and there is no rea-
son why the current challenges cannot also be addressed. As evidence of this, in
the past 50 years the agriculture sector has increased food production to a level
that many believed impossible. During this crucial window for global action on
climate change, the sector now has another opportunity to make a major contri-
bution to humanity’s success.
References
Al-Azzawi, M., Bowtell, L., Hancock, K. and Preston, S. (2021) ‘Addition of Activated
Carbon into a Cattle Diet to Mitigate GHG Emissions and Improve Production’, Sus-
tainability, vol. 13(15), p. 8254.
Anderson, K. ( 2016) ‘ International Food Price Spikes and Temporary Trade Policy
Responses’, Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy. In: Agricul-
tural Trade, Policy Reforms, and Global Food Security, pp. 177–206. Palgrave Macmillan,
New York.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernandez, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda,
L., Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. T. (2002) ‘Green Infrastructure: Smart Conser-
vation for 21st Century’, Renewable Resources Journal, vol. 20, pp. 12–17.
Blandford, D. and Hassapoyannes, K. (2018) ‘The Role of Agriculture in Global GHG
Mitigation’, Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/da017ae2-en
Boetzl, F. A., Schuele, M., Krauss, J. and S teffan-Dewenter, I. ( 2020) ‘
Pest Control
Potential of Adjacent Agri-Environment Schemes’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 57,
pp. 1482–1493.
Brouwer, H., Jim Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K. and van Vugt, S. (2015) ‘The
MSP Guide, How to Design and Facilitate M ulti-stakeholder Partnerships’, The Centre
for Development of Wageningen UR, Netherlands, ISBN 978-94-6257-542-4.
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. and Potts, S. G. (2013) ‘Ecological Intensification: Harnessing
Ecosystem Services for Food Security’, Trends in Ecological Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 230–238.
C2ES ( 2021) ‘ Global Emissions’. Available at: https:// w ww.c2es.org/ content/
international-emissions/
Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, M. A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R. and
Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2019) ‘A Global Synthesis Reveals Biodiversity-mediated Benefits
for Crop Production’, Science Advances, vol. 5(10), pp. 121.
Danone ( 2017) ‘ Environmental Performance’. Available at: http:// iar2017.danone.
com/performance-in-2017/key-performance-indicators/environmental-performance/
Deutsch, C. A, Tewksbury, J. J., Tigchelaar, M., Battisti, D. S, Merrill, S. C., Huey, R. B.
and Naylor, R. L. (2018) ‘Increase in Crop Losses to Insect Pests in a Warming Climate’,
Science, vol. 361, pp. 916–919.
European Commission (2017) ‘Rural Development Programs by Country’. Available at:
https://e c.europa.eu/i nfo/food-farming-f isheries/ key-p olicies/c ommon-a gricultural-
policy/rural-development/country_en
European Commission (2021) ‘Horizon Europe’. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/
research-a nd-i nnovation/f unding/f unding-opportunities/f unding-programmes-a nd-
open-calls/horizon-europe_en
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2021) ‘Nature-based Solutions in Europe: Policy,
Knowledge and Practice for Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction’.
Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications
EIP-AGRI (2020) ‘EIP-AGRI Brochure Horizon 2020 Multi-actor Projects’. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-brochure-horizon-2020-
multi-actor
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2013) ‘FAOSTAT Emissions Database’. Avail-
able at: http://faostat.fao.org/
FAO ( Food and Agriculture Organization) ( 2014) Developing Sustainable Food Value
Chain: Guiding Principles. Rome: FAO.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2015) ‘Climate Change and Food Security:
Risks and Responses’. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i5188e/I5188E.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2018) The State of Food Security and Nutrition
in the World. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2019) FAOSTAT. Rome: FAO. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
FAOSTAT (2020) World Food and Agriculture: Statistical Year Book 2020. Rome: FAO.
Available at: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1329en/
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston,
M. and Zaks, D. P. (2011) ‘Solutions for a Cultivated Planet’, Nature, vol. 478(7369),
pp. 337–342.
Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Rogelj, J., Su, X., Havlik, P. and Krey, V. (2018) ‘Inclusive
Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security Policy Under 1.5°C Climate Goal’, Envi-
ronmental Research Letters, vol. 13, p.074033.
Gandhi, P., Khanna, S. and Ramaswamy, S. (2016) ‘Which Industries Are the Most
Digital (and Why)?’. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/04/a-chart-that-shows-which-
industries-are-the-most-digital-and-why
GDACS (2021) ‘Overall Green Alert Drought for Southern Canada and Northern USA-
2021’. Available at: https://www.gdacs.org/media.aspx?eventtype=DR&eventid=1014320
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A.
and Tempio, G. (2013) Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment
of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO).
Glover, D., Sumberg, J., Ton, G., Andersson, J. and Badstue, L. (2019) ‘Rethinking Tech-
nological Change in Small and/or Large Scale Farmers’, Agriculture Outlook, vol. 48(3),
pp. 169–180.
GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2018) ‘Emissions Impossi-
ble: How BigMeat and Dairy Are Heating Up the Planet’. Available at: https://www.
grain.org/article/entries/5976-emissions-impossible-how-bigmeat-and-dairy-are-heating-
up-the-planet
Grewer, U., Nash, J., Gurwick, N., Bockel, L., Galford, G., Richards, M., Junior, CC.,
White, J., Pirolli, G. and Wollenberg, E. (2018) ‘Analyzing the Greenhouse Gas Impact
Potential of Smallholder Development Actions Across a Global Food Security Pro-
gram’, Environment Research. Letters, vol. 13, p. 044003.
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch,
D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,
Takemura, T. and Zhang, H. (2013) ‘Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing’.
In: Climate Change 2013’: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V.
Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Bodirsky, B. L., Doelman, J. C., Fell-
mann, T., Kyle, P., Koopman, J. F. L., L otze-Campen, H., Mason-D’Croz, D., Ochi, Y.,
Domínguez, I. P., Stehfest, E., Sulser, T. B., Tabeau, A., Takahashi, K., Takakura, J.,
van Meijl, H., van Zeist, W.-J., Wiebe, K., and Witzke, P. (2018) ‘Risk of Increased Food
Insecurity Under Stringent Global Climate Change Mitigation Policy’, Nature Climate
Change, vol. 8, pp. 699–703.
Hönle, S. E., Heidecke, C. and Osterburg, B. (2019) ‘Climate Change Mitigation Strat-
egies for Agriculture: An Analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions, Biennial
Reports and Biennial Update Reports’, Climate Policy, vol. 19(6), pp. 688–702.
Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Giallongo, F., Frederick, T. Q., Harper, M. T., Weeks, H. L., Branco,
A. F., Moate, P. J., Deighton, M. H., Williams, S. R. O., Kindermann, M. and Duval,
S. (2015) ‘An Inhibitor Persistently Decreased Enteric Methane Emission From Dairy
Cows With No Negative Effect on Milk Production’, Proceedings of National Academy of
Science, vol. 112, pp. 10663–10668.
IGI (2021) IGI Launches New Research in N et-Zero Farming and Carbon Capture. Available
at: https://innovativegenomics.org/news/net-zero-farming-carbon-capture/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2018) ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C, å’.
Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2019) ‘IPCC Special Report on
Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management,
Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems: Summary for Pol-
icymakers’. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2021a) ‘Climate Change, Wide-
spread, Rapid and Intensifying’. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-
20210809-pr/
IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ( 2021b) ‘ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report’. Available at: https://www.ipcc.
ch/report/ar6/wg1/
ITIF (2020) ‘Gene Editing for the Climate: Biological Solutions for Curbing Greenhouse
Emissions’. Available at: https://www2.itif.org/2020-gene-edited-climate-solutions.pdf
King, A. (2017) ‘The Future of Agriculture: A Technological Revolution in Farming Led
by Advances in Robotics and Sensing Technologies Looks Set to Disrupt Modern Prac-
tice’, Nature, vol. 544, p. s23.
Kleijn, D., Bommarco, R., Fijen, T. P. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Potts, S. G., and van der Putten,
W. H. (2019) ‘Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Prac-
tice’, Trends in Ecological Evolution, vol. 34(2), pp. 154–166.
Li, H., Guo, H., Helbig, M., Dai, S., Zhang, M., Zhao, M., Peng, C., Ming, X. and Zhao,
B. (2019) ‘Does Direct-seeded Rice Decrease Ecosystem-scale Methane Emissions?—A
Case Study from a Rice Paddy in Southeast China’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
vol. 272–273, pp. 118–127.
Leahy, S., Clark, H. and Reisinger, A. (2020) ‘Challenges and Prospects for Agricultural
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Pathways Consistent with the Paris Agreement’. Available
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00069/full
Loboguerrero, A. M., Campbell, B., Cooper, P., Hansen, J.W., Rosenstock, T. and Wollen-
berg, E. (2019) ‘Food and Earth Systems: Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation for Agriculture and Food Systems’, Sustainability, vol. 11, p. 1372.
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. and Raney, T. (2016) ‘The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms,
Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide’, World Development, vol. 87, pp. 16–29.
Lynch, J. and Garnett, T. ( 2021) ‘
Policy to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions’: Is
Agricultural Methane a Special Case? Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12317?af=R
Leahy, S., Clark, H. and Reisinger, A. (2020) ‘Challenges and Prospects for Agricultural
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Pathways Consistent with the Paris Agreement’, Frontiers
of Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 4, pp. 69.
Martin, E. A., Dainese, M., Clough, Y., Báldi, A., Bommarco, R., Gagic, V. and
Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2019) ‘The Interplay of Landscape Composition and Configura-
tion: New Pathways to Manage Functional Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Services
Across Europe’, Ecology Letters, vol. 22 (7), pp. 1083–1094.
McKinsey & Company (2020) ‘Agriculture and Climate Change – Reducing Emissions
through Improved Farming Practices’. Available at: https:// www.mckinsey.com/~/
media/mckinsey/i ndustries/agriculture/our%20insights/reducing%20agriculture%20
emissions%20through%20improved%20farming%20practices/agriculture-and-climate-
change.pdf
MacLeod, M., Eory, V., Gruère, G. and Lankoski, J. ( 2015) ‘ Cost-
Effectiveness of
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Agriculture: A Literature Review’, OECD
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrvvkq900vj-en
Mwangi, M., Kituyi, E., Ouma, G. and Macharia, D. (2020) ‘Indicator Approach to Assess-
ing Climate Change Vulnerability of Communities in Kenya: A Case Study of Kitui
County’, American Journal of Climate Change, vol. 9, pp. 53–67.
Nagothu, U. S. (2015) The Future of Food Security: Summary and Recommendations.
In: Nagothu, U. S. (ed.) Food Security and Development: Country Case Studies. London:
Routledge, pp. 274.
Nagothu, U. S., Bloem, E. and Andrew, B. (2018) Agricultural Development and Sustain-
able Intensification: Technology and Policy Innovations, In: Nagothu, U. S (ed.) Agri-
cultural Development and Sustainable Intensification, Technology and Policy Challenges in
the Face of Climate Change, London: Routledge, pp. 1–22.
Nicastro, R. and Carillo, P. (2021) ‘Food Loss and Waste Prevention Strategies from Farm
to Fork’, Sustainability, 13, pp. 5443.
NORR (2021) ‘Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’. Available at: https://www.
climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-
dioxide
OECD (2021) ‘Enhancing Climate Change Mitigation Through Agriculture’. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/publications/enhancing-the-mitigation-of-climate-change-though-
agriculture-e9a79226-en.htm
Raphaela, J. P. A., Calonegoa, J. C., Milorib, D. M. B. P. and Rosolema, C. A. (2016) ‘Soil
Organic Matter in Crop Rotations Under No-till’, Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 155,
pp. 45–53.
Rapsomanikis, G. (2015) ‘The Economic Lives of Smallholder Farmers. An Analysis
Based on Household Data from Nine Countries’. Available online at: http://www. fao.
org/3/a-i5251e.pdf
Reardon, T., Echeverria, R., Berdegué, J., Minten, B., Liverpool-Tasie, S., Tschirley, D. and
Zilberman, D. (2019) ‘Rapid Transformation of Food Systems in Developing Regions:
Highlighting the Role of Agricultural Research & Innovations’, Agricultural Systems,
vol. 172, pp. 47–59.
Reid, S., Hayes, J. P. and Stibbe, D. T. (2014) ‘Platforms for Partnership: Emerging Good
Practice to Systematically Engage Business as Partner in Development’. Available at:
https://thepartneringinitiative.org/publications/research-papers/platforms-for-partnership-
emerging-good-practice-to-systematically-engage-business-as-a-partner-in-development/
Reay, D. S., Davidson, E. A., Smith, K. A., Smith, P., Melillo, J. M., Dentener, F. and
Crutzen, P. J. (2012) ‘Global Agriculture and Nitrous Oxide Emissions’, Nature Climate
Change, vol. 2(6), pp. 410–416.
Reisinger, A., Clark, H., Abercrombie, R. M., Aspin, M., Ettema, P., Harris, M. and
Sneath, G. (2018) Future Options to Reduce Biological GHG Emissions O n-farm: Critical
Assumptions and National-scale Impact. Report prepared for the Biological Emissions
Reference Group. Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries, 80’. Available at: https://
www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32128/send
Richards, M. (2019) ‘National Plans to Address Adaptation and Mitigation in Agricul-
ture: An Analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions. CCAFS Dataset’, Wagen-
ingen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS). Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/101189
Roos, E., Bajzelj, B., Smith, P., Patel, M., Little, D. and Garnett, T. (2017) ‘Greedy or
Needy? Land Use and Climate Impacts of Food in 2050 Under Different Livestock Sys-
tems’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 47, pp. 1–12.
Smith, P. (2016) ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration and Biochar as Negative Emission Technolo-
gies’, Global Change Biology, vol. 22/3, pp. 1315–1324.
Tziva, M., Negro, S. O., Kalfagianni, A. and Hekkert, M. P. (2020) ‘Understanding the
Protein’, Transition: The Rise of P lant-based Meat Substitute’. Available at: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422419302552
United Nations ( 2020) ‘ Sustainable Development Goals’. Available at: https:// www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/
UNEP (2020) ‘Emissions Gap Report’. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/
handle/20.500.11822/34438/EGR20ESE.pdf
UNFCCC (2015) ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’, Available at: https://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
UNFCCC (2018) ‘Climate Action Now Summary for Policymakers 2018’. Available at:
https://unfccc.int/resource/climateaction2020/spm/introduction/index.html
UNFCCC ( 2021) ‘ What is the Kyoto Protocol’. Available at: https:// unfccc.int/
kyoto_protocol
Vermeulen, S. J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B. M. and Chal-
linor, A. J. (2012) ‘Options for Support to Agriculture and Food Security Under Climate
Change’. Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 15, pp. 136–144.
Vermeulen, S. J., and Wollenberg, E. K. (2017) ‘A Rough Estimate of the Proportion of
Global Emissions from Agriculture Due to Smallholders. CCAFS Info Note’. Avail-
able at: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/rough-estimateproportion-global-emissions-
agriculture-due-smallholders#.XfFhLOgzaUk
Win, E. P. and Win, K. K. (2020) ‘GHG Emissions, Grain Yield and Water Productivity’.
Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters-
increase-over-past-50-years-causing-more-damage-fewer
WMO ( World Meteorological Organization) ( 2021) ‘ Greenhouse Gas Bulletin:
Another Year, Another Record’. Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-
release/greenhouse-gas-bulletin-another-year-another-record
Wollenberg, E. (2017) ‘The Mitigation Pillar of C limate-Smart Agriculture (CSA): Targets
and Options’, Agricultural Development, vol. 30, pp.19–22.
WSJ (2021) ‘COP26: What Is the Climate Summit in Glasgow and Why Does It Matter?’ Avail-
able at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/cop26-glasgow-climate-summit-2021-11611254971
2 Precision-based soil and
nutrient management tools
for enhancing soil health
while reducing environmental
footprint
Amaresh Kumar Nayak, Sangita Mohanty, Mehreteab
Tesfai, Rahul Tripathi, Anjani Kumar, and Udaya
Sekhar Nagothu
Introduction
Soil is one of our most important natural resources that provide us with vital
goods and services to sustain life on land. If soils are healthy and sustainably
managed, they can provide adequate food, clean water, habitats for biodiversity,
and other important ecosystem services while contributing to climate resilience,
adaptation, and mitigation (Stolte et al., 2016). Soils act as source and sink for
greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide
(Oertel et al., 2016). As a source, soil emits nitrous oxides from applied nitrogen
fertilizers and as sink, soil increases carbon sequestration including carbon storage
via fixation and organic fertilizer addition while reducing environmental foot-
prints from rice cultivation.
Rice is one of the staple foods of India that occupies about 24% of its total
cropped area and contributes 42% of total food grain production. Being input-
intensive crop, rice requires around 15–20 kg of nitrogen to produce 1,000 kg
of grain (e.g., Peng et al., 2010). Most Indian soils contain low-to-medium plant
available nitrogen (N), and therefore the yield potential of rice or other crops
largely depends on the exogenous application of nitrogen fertilizers (Panda et al.,
2019). Rice cultivation alone accounts for 37% of the total N fertilizer consump-
tion in India (FAI, 2018). However, more than 60% of this applied N is lost to
environment in the form of N2O, NH3, and NO3. The conventional practice of
rice cultivation in India involves ponding water between 5 and 7 cm depth in the
soil for a considerable part of the growing period. Such soil m icro-environment
accelerates the processes of nitrogen transformation and its losses through nitrifi-
cation, denitrification, volatilization, leaching, and runoff, which has resulted in
low nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). NUE of a cropping system is defined as ‘the
proportion of all N inputs that are removed in harvested crop biomass, contained
in recycled crop residues, and incorporated into soil organic matter and inorganic
N pools’ (Cassman et al., 2002). As we are aware, use of fertilizer N for crop
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-2
Precision-based soil and nutrient management tools 25
production influences soil health primarily through changes in organic matter
content, microbial life, and acidity in the soil (Bijay Singh, 2018).
Soil health and nitrogen management

Soil health is defined as the continued capacity of soils to function properly and pro-
vide the required ecosystem services and goods (EC, 2021). We take the soil services
for granted, but in fact soils are n on-renewable and a threatened resource globally.
The effects of climate change are putting further pressure on the soil resources and
overall health of the soil. Most of the agricultural soils in the world are unhealthy,
mainly because of unsustainable soil management practices. Some of the soil health
improving practices generally adopted by farmers include conservation agriculture
(minimum soil tillage, residue mulching, crop rotations), intercropping with legumes, trees
alley cropping, green manuring, and composting, which have a potential to reduce the
exogenous application of mineral N fertilizer applications (refer Chapter 8 of this
book). However, farmers do not receive any incentives for adopting such soil practices.
Nitrogen is one of the most limiting nutrients for rice production and is a sig-
nificant source of N2O (a potent greenhouse gas: GHG) from agricultural soils.
The direct N2O emission from synthetic N fertilizers used in agriculture has been
estimated to be 0.9 N2O Tg N per year (Syakila and Kroize, 2011). One of the
non-point sources of pollution that cause serious threat to water environments is
reactive N losses in the form of NO3.
During the green revolution, nitrogen fertilizers were one of the key drivers
to food production and have transformed the Indian agriculture to become the
worlds’ second leading food grain producer. Nitrogen fertilizer consumption in
Indian agriculture witnessed a whooping increase from 3.4 million tonnes (in the
late 1970s) to 16.9 million tonnes in 2 017–2018 (Figure 2.1). The trend will con-
tinue to increase further to attain the national yield target of 350 million tonnes
300 20
Total food production (million
N consumption (mill. tonnes)
18
250 16
200 14
12
tonnes)
150 10
8
100 6
Total food grain production(million tonnes)
50 4
N consumption( million tonnes) 2
0 0
2010-11
1980-81
1990-91
2000-01
2012-13
1982-83
1992-93
2002-03
2004-05
2014-15
1974-75
1984-85
1994-95
2006-07
2016-17
2008-09
1976-77
1986-87
1996-97
1978-79
1988-89
1998-99
Figure 2.1 Trend of total food grain production and fertilizer N consumption in India:
1974–2016.
Source: Fertilizer statistics (
2018–
2019). Data adapted from https://
w ww.faidelhi.org/
statistics/
statistical-database
26 Amaresh Kumar Nayak et al.
of food grains (cereals and pulses) in India by 2050, to feed around 1.8 billion
people (Kumar and Sharma, 2020). During these years, not only the consumption
of fertilizer N will increase tremendously but also the flow of reactive N from
agroecosystems and associated environmental losses.
However, the increased food production during the Green Revolution (e.g., by
applying nitrogen fertilizers) was at the expense of environmental degradation. It
has caused severe degradation of land and water resources, soil pollution, and high
levels of GHG emissions (Rahman, 2015). To address these challenges, research
on nitrogen fertilizer management focused more on nutrient stewardship princi-
ples that entail right rate, right time, right methods, and right source (4R) of nutrient
application (IFA, 2009).
The above-mentioned 4R principles of nutrient stewardship (Box 2.1) are not
new. This chapter, however, attempted to present and discuss c ontext-specific pre-
cision nutrient management tools and techniques that can effectively support the
4R principles in the context of rice cultivation to improve soil health while reduc-
ing environmental footprints. The 4R principles could be applied using p recision-
b ased tools such as remote sensing, Geographic Information System (GIS), Global
positions systems (GPS), and simulation modelling. One of the key factors in im-
plementing precision nutrient management is the ability to provide timely infor-
mation regarding spatial distribution of crop N status within a field. From this
perspective, determining plant N concentration by proximal or remote sensing
techniques is much more appealing than the traditional destructive chemical
analyses on soil/plant samples considering the cost and time required.
Box 2.1 4R Nutrient Stewardship principle
4R Nutrient Stewardship is a new innovative approach for fertilizer best

management practices that considers economic, social, and environmental
dimensions of fertilizer management and is essential to sustainability of
agricultural systems. The concept is simple: apply the Right source of nutri-
ent, at the Right rate, at the Right time, and in the Right place. All farmers –
irrespective of the size of farm, knowledge and awareness levels – consider
what fertilizer to apply, how much, when, and how before making a ferti-
lizer application decision in any crop. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship prin-
ciples connect these fertilizer application decisions to scientific principles
and guide the application decisions to specific crops, soils, and local site.
Moreover, the four ‘rights’ provide a simple checklist to assess whether a
given crop has been fertilized properly. Asking ‘was the crop given the right
source of nutrients at the right rate, time, and place?’ helps farmers and ad-
visors to identify opportunities for improvement in fertilizing each specific
crop in each specific field.
Source: Adapted from Sapkota et al. (2016)
Moreover, a declining trend of NUE in terms of partial factor productivity and
recovery efficiency of nitrogen in the Indian agriculture (Bijay Singh, 2017) calls for
a more precise nutrient stewardship approach in the context of rice cultivation that
ensures environmental sustainability and improves soil health. N fertilizer recovery
efficiency (REN) is defined as ‘percentage of fertilizer-N recovered in aboveground
plant biomass during the growing season’ and partial factor productivity of N
(PFPN) also called agronomic N use efficiency (AEN) is ‘the ratio of crop yield per
unit of applied N fertilizer’ (Cassman et al., 2002). Understanding the reasons for
the declining trends of NUE and the prognosis for improving them depends on
knowledge of the factors that govern N demand and supply in rice cropping systems.
The objectives of the chapter are to review and analyse research findings in
precision nutrient management tools and techniques with special focus to N fer-
tilizer use efficiency in rice cultivation. The chapter also discusses soil manage-
ment interventions that can improve soil health while at the same time reduce
environmental footprints and their policy implications for large-scale adoption.
Methodological framework
The 4R Nutrient Stewardship framework was applied in the Norwegian funded
Resilience project (www.resilienceindia.org) in the case studies of Odisha state
(India) by adopting best management practices for soil and nutrients focusing
on Nitrogen. The 4R principles aim to enhance production, increase NUE, and
increase farmer profitability while reducing environmental footprints (Figure 2.2).
• Modeling approach
• STCR • Critical stage based
• SSNM • Real time Application
• RS based N (CLCC, riceNxpert)
management zone
Right Rate Right Time
4R Nutrient
Stewardship
Right
Source Right Place
• EENFs
• Controlled Release Fertilizers • Deep placement
(SCU, NCU ) • Root zone application
• USG, Urea briquette • Foliar spray
Figure 2.2 F ramework of 4R Nutrient Stewardship for enhancing N use efficiency.

Source: Authors’ own compilations. Soil T est-based Crop Response (STCR), Site-Specific Nutrient
Management (SSNM), Remote Sensing (RS), Customized Leaf Colour Chart (CLCC), Enhanced
Efficiency of N Fertilizers (EENFs) that includes Sulphur-Coated Urea (SCU), Neem-Coated Urea
(NCU), and Urea Super Granules (USG).
Table 2.1 Basic principles of precision-based tools/techniques for N management
Precision-based tools Principles and applications
Soil test-based crop Precise fertilizer recommendations are made after the
response approach establishment of a significant relationship between soil test
values, added fertilizer nutrients, and crop response for a
particular soil type (Singh et al., 2021)
Site-specific nutrient Supplying plants with nutrients to optimally match their
management approach inherent spatial and temporal needs for supplemental
nutrients by using different tools such as remote sensing,
GPS, and GIS systems (Verma et al., 2020)
Leaf colour chart A diagnostic tool used to determine N level in rice plants
relative to greenness of the leaves, containing at least four
panels of colour, ranging from yellowish green to dark
green (Nayak et al., 2013)
Sulphur-coated urea Slow-release fertilizer made by coating urea with sulphur
and wax that increases NUE, improves plant growth, and
reduces water pollution (Shivay et al., 2016)
Neem-coated urea Nitrification inhibitor which increases yield, uptake, and use
efficiency of applied N fertilizer in rice (Meena et al., 2018)
Urea super granules Fertilizer applied at 8 –10 cm soil depth saves 30% N,
increases absorption rate, improves soil health, and
ultimately increases rice yield (Sarker et al., 2012)
Source: Authors’ own compilation from different literatures.
The precision-based tools/techniques for N management (Table 2.1) were as-

sessed using PFPN or AEN and REN which are relatively easy to measure and are
often used as indicators of NUE.
PFPN or AE N = kg grain yield (ha −1 / kg −1N applied ha −1) (2.1)

RE N = (U N − U 0 ) FN ) × 100 (2.2)
where UN is the plant N uptake (kg ha−1) measured in aboveground biomass at

physiological maturity in a plot that received N at the rate of FN (kg ha−1), and U0
is the N uptake measured in aboveground biomass in a plot without the addition
of fertilizer N.
Results and discussion

In this section, selected research findings on NUE in rice growing areas of India
and other Asian countries were reviewed and discussed. In addition, research data
from the Resilience project (www.resilienceindia.org) were analysed to show the
performance of precision-based tools and soil management practices in Odisha.
The soil management practices used were conservation agriculture (e.g., minimum
tillage, no-till farming), crop diversification (including crop rotations and inter-
cropping), crop residues mulching, composting, green manuring, and biofertilizers.
Precision tools for nutrient management
Several precision tools and techniques were tested in the Resilience project to
assess and guide farmers in the real-time crop N need in line with the 4R Nutrient
Stewardship principles. These include from simple/easy-to-use and inexpensive
diagnostic tools like the leaf colour chart to highly sophisticated optical sensors
for precision-based fertilizer recommendations using drone-mounted sensors.
i Leaf colour chart

The leaf colour chart (LCC) monitors relative greenness of a rice leaf and can
be used as an indicator of the crop N status for determination of crop N demand
in the season. However, the critical colour for N application may vary with cul-
tivars, agro-climatic situations, and growing season and varieties grown. This re-
quires cultivar specific standardization of LCC and calibration and validation of
critical colour code. In response to this, a customized leaf colour chart (CLCC)
was developed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, National Rice
Research Institute (ICAR-NRRI) based on leaf colour analysis of hundreds of
rice varieties (Nayak et al., 2013). Results from field trials showed yield advan-
tages of 0.5–0.7 t ha−1 with C LCC-based N application (25% lower than the
normal recommended dose of N) (Nayak et al., 2017; Nayak et al., 2018), which
implies less cost of fertilizers for farmers and reduced environmental footprint.
The CLCC-based urea-N application increased yield by 10–13% in direct
seeded rice (DSR) and 10–11% in puddled transplanted rice (PTR) over con-
ventional systems (Mohanty et al., 2017). However, when neem-coated urea
(NCU) was applied based on CLCC recommendations, the yield advantage
further maximized to 21–23% for DSR and 15–16% for PTR (Mohanty et al.,
2021). A possible explanation for higher yield could be attributed to the
synchronized application of NCU, which reduces nitrification but increases
plant available N, which results in higher PFPN or AEN. The performance
of LCC-based N application compared to blanket application in terms of
increasing grain yield and enhancement of NUE is shown in Table 2.2.
Depending upon crop management and agro-
climatic conditions, the
real-time N application using LCC can potentially increase yield by 10–22%
(Mohanty et al., 2018) and save N fertilizer consumption by up to 50 kg ha−1
(Bijay Singh et al., 2003). Similar studies by Kumar et al. (2018) also observed
significantly higher grain yield of rice with C LCC-based N application, com-
pared to blanket method of N application.
The values for NUE ranged from 7.9% (REN), 44% (AEN), to 57% (PPF N)
under no basal/basal + LCC (3–4) based top dressing (Table 2.2). The low
RE could be a consequence of greater N losses via nitrate leaching and N2O
emission. This is in line with results from a study by Andrés-Barbieri et al.
(2018) who reported that RE was 29% (on average) for urea which is low
because of greater N mineralization from organic matter, N losses by denitri-
fication, or immobilization.
An application of N fertilizer with NCU using CLCC readings reduced
N2O emission by 13–14% in DSR and 16–23% in PTR (Mohanty et al., 2017).
Table 2.2 Performance of LCC-based N application compared to blanket N application
Application method Grain yield NUE References

increase (%) enhancement (%)
Basal + LCC (4.0) based top 20 15–57 (PPF N) Ali et al. (2017)
dressing
Basal + LCC (4.0) based top 22 7.9 (REN) Mohanty et al. (2018)
dressing
Basal + CLCC (≤ 3.0) based 10–13 8.9–12.4 (REN) Mohanty et al. (2021)
top dressing
No basal + LCC (4.0) based 12–16 19–44 (AEN) Shukla et al. (2004)
top dressing
No basal + LCC (≤ 4.0) top 11.3 13 (REN) Bhatia et al. (2012)
dressing
REN: recovery efficiency of N, AEN: agronomic efficiency of N, PPFN: partial productivity factor of N.
Source: Adapted from several sources.
Though DSR reduces CH4 emission as it uses less water during initial crop-
ping, it can increase N2O emissions. The C LCC-based NCU application ad-
dresses the trade-offs between CH4 and N2O emissions by translating their
emissions into global warming potential (GWP). In other words, minimum
cumulative radiative forcing of the two gases on GWP is the possible op-
tion to minimize the t rade-off and effect of GHG emissions (Susilawati et al.,
2019). Moreover, the CLCC-based NCU application minimized yield loss,
and resulted in 20–25% reduction of GHG index through DSR (Mohanty
et al., 2017). Thus, the GHG index (GHGI) that compares GWP and grain
yield shows a lower value for DSR, implying that DSR mitigates GHG emis-
sion and produces more rice.
Research on LCC-based N application in other rice growing areas of Asia
also showed similar results about saving of N. For instance, savings of N by
up to 25% by Alam et al. (2006) and 8.3% N by Sen et al. (2011) using LCC-
based N management in different rice genotypes compared to the prescribed
dose of N application (120 kg N ha−1). Moreover, the rice grain yields were 4.8
t ha−1 and 4.3 t ha−1 with variety NDR-359 and Sarju-52, respectively.
Since the CLCC is user friendly to small-scale farmers, several state gov-
ernment departments, Indian Council of Agricultural Research institutes,
and state agricultural universities in India have taken the initiatives to de-
velop region-specific CLCC and are upscaling it through various schemes
(Figure 2.3). Today, more than 500,000 units (cards) of the Indian Rice
Research Institute (IRRI)-LCC type have been produced and distributed to
farmers through collaboration with the National Agricultural Research and
Extension Systems. The IRRI-Hyderabad, India centre developed a five-panel
modified LCC for irrigated rice. Similarly, the Punjab Agricultural University
(PAU) has come up with a six-panel LCC for major food crops such as rice,
wheat, and maize. Studies in the Punjab state of India indicated an average
saving of 30 kg N ha−1 due to the use of the P AU-LCC.
CLCC number
< 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1500
1500 - 3000
3000 - 5000
> 5000
400 200 0 400 Kilometers
Figure 2.3 Spread of CLCC across India. Source: Authors’ own compilation.
The CLCC developed by ICAR-NRRI (Cuttack, Odisha) provides cultivar-

specific N recommendation for rainfed lowland, submerged/flood prone low-
land, rainfed upland, and irrigated rice of eastern India (Nayak et al., 2013).
So far, more than 200,000 units of CLCCs were distributed in several states
of eastern India.
ii Android-based mobile app: riceNxpert
Android-based real-time N application ‘riceNxpert’ app developed by the
ICAR-
NRRI under the Resilience project gives recommendations for in-
season N application on the basis of leaf colour analysis. The riceNxpert is a
cost-effective app for real-time N application, is user friendly, has a potential for
wider adaptation, and avoids the need for purchase CLCC every year. Research
results showed that r iceNxpert-based N application enhanced rice yield by 6.
6–23.8% over RDN application and by 38% over normal farmers’ practice
(Nayak et al., 2021). This implies a yield advantage of 0.5–1.1 t ha−1 over RDN,
and the riceNxpert-based N application in fact can give monetary benefits
ranging from INR 9,000 ha−1 to INR 20,000 ha−1 (~US$118–263) over RDN.
Moreover, riceNxpert has a potential to cut down N use by 15–25% in rice
production and hence bring significant reduction of India’s subsidy bill for urea.
Farmer-led field experiments using riceNxpert in eastern India have in-
creased crop yield and PPF N by 12–13% compared to RDN (Figure 2.4).
However, trials conducted using riceNxpert-based N application in the re-
search farm have enhanced PPF N by 3 0–40% and REN by 9–15% compared
to RDN. The performance between riceNxpert and CLCC on crop yield and
NUE (AEN or PFPN) was compared, and results are presented in Figure 2.4.
iii Chlorophyll meter and SPAD meter
The chlorophyll meter and the soil plant analysis development (SPAD) meter
are also real-time N application tools/techniques. The chlorophyll meter pro-
vides the relationship of chlorophyll content of leaf with that of N contents
which is more of quantitative indicator for crop N status. The SPAD meter
estimates chlorophyll content of leaf in the field by measuring difference in
light attenuation at 430 (spectral transmittance peaks for chlorophyll a, b)
and 750 nm wavelength, near-infrared spectral region (Schröder et al., 2000).
SPAD with threshold 36 could save N fertilizer by 20–35% while maintain-
ing the same level of yield and improves REN by 1 4–19% (Ghosh et al., 2013).
iv Comparative performance of LCC, riceNxpert, and SPAD
The performances of real-time N application tools such as riceNxpert,
CLCC, and SPAD meter were compared under field trials in the Resilience
project (Figure 2.5). The difference in the performances of the three tools in
6.0
80
5.0
70
Grain yield (t ha-1)
4.0 60
PPFN (kg kg-1)
50
3.0
40
2.0 30
20
1.0
10
0.0 0
CLCC
CLCC
RDN
RDN
practice
RiceNxpert
RiceNxpert
Farmers'
Farmers'
practice
N management strategy N management strategy
Figure 2.4 G
rain yield and PFPN of rice under different N application strategies.
Source: Field data from Resilience project.
6 RDN riceNxpert CLCC SPAD
Grain yield (t ha-1) 4
0
Naveen Swarna Sub 1
Figure 2.5 C
omparative performance of real-time N application tools in relation to grain
yield of rice varieties: Naveen and Swarna Sub 1.
Source: Field data from Resilience project.
terms of grain yield in the two rice varieties (Naveen and Swarna Sub) was
on-significant (Figure 2.5). However, the mean difference in grain yield was
n
statistically significant (P<0.05) between the tools and RDN. There was on
average an 8 –13% increase in grain yield using the precision-based tools over
RDN. The grain yield of Swarna Sub variety was higher than Naveen variety in
all real-time N application tools including RDN but not significant (P<0.05).
Studies comparing real-time N management tools between SPAD and
CLCC are limited and showed varying results. For instance, Patil et al. (2018)
observed that N application using LCC (threshold 4) produced 8.5% higher
yields and using SPAD (threshold 40) produced 5% higher yields than RDN
application. An LCC-based application saved 30 kg N ha−1, while SPAD saved
only 10 kg N ha−1 compared to RDN application. This indicates the need for
situation-specific standardization of SPAD threshold for N application.
An application of 30 kg N ha−1 at ≤3.0 LCC led to additional application
of 42 kg N ha−1 over RDN and contributed to a yield increase by 3.5–19.8%,
whereas an application of 30 kg N ha−1 at ≤35 SPAD produced 0.6 –15.4%
higher yield than RDN (Jahan et al., 2018). This implies that rice crop show-
ing less than 4 LCC reading requires more N application than using SPAD
meter. Other studies conducted by Ali et al. (2015) showed that applying
30 kg N ha−1 at <4 LCC saved up to 40 kg N ha−1, whereas using SPAD
(reading < 37) savings increased to 70 kg N ha−1 while producing similar
yield. In other words, applications of N using SPAD (with 35–37) save more
N than LCC (<4) based applications without yield loss.
Other precision tools and approaches

Green Seeker is another precision tool used to assess the real-time crop N
(Box 2.2). It is an optical s ensor-based tool that can be used to calculate season N
requirement as per site-specific need of the crop.
Box 2.2 Green Seeker: Principles and Applications
Green Seeker measures normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

based on reflectance of radiation in the red and n ear-infrared bands. The
NDVI can be used to predict biomass, leaf N concentration, plant N up-
take, photosynthetic efficiency, and potential yield. The N management
strategy involves the application of a moderate amount of N at planting and
crown root initiation stages. This is followed by a corrective Green Seeker-
guided N application at weeks 5–6 or 7–8 which resulted in higher yield
and NUE than the blanket recommendation. The adoption of sensor-based
N management strategy, consisting of 30 kg N ha−1 at transplanting and 45
kg N ha−1 at active tillering stage followed by a Green S eeker-guided dose
at panicle initiation stage, rendered 5–22% higher N recovery efficiency.
Source: Bijay-Singh et al. (2015)
There are also models such as Quantitative Evaluation of Tropical Soil Fertility
(QUEFTS), decision support tools (remote sensing, GIS), enhanced efficiency of
N fertilizers (e.g., SCU, NCU, and USG), and precision-based approaches such as
STCR and SSNM, which are coming into use these days to assess the real-time
crop N need (refer Table 2.1). Recommendations from the precision tools must be
put into wider practice in the cultivation of major cereal crops such as rice and
wheat to increase environmental sustainability and reduce GHG emissions.
Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)

Different models such as QUEFTS and tools (e.g., remote sensing, GPS) are used
to implement the SSNM approach as shown in Table 2.3. The major steps in
SSNM are fixing an attainable yield target and estimating nutrients required to
attain the yield by (i) harnessing the available nutrient supply from all possible
sources, and (ii) filling the gap between crop nutrient need and indigenous nutri-
ent supply (Verma et al., 2020).
i Models and decision support tools

Several dynamic crop growth simulation models have been developed in re-
cent years to predict the crop yield which is crucial for estimating the nutri-
ent needs. The QUEFTS model has been effectively applied to a variety of
crops, including maize and rice. The algorithms of SSNM generated based
upon QUEFTS model are embedded into a web-based decision support tool
known as nutrient manager for rice (Buresh et al., 2014), which was later
renamed as Rice Crop Manager (RCM). The RCM can provide field-specific
recommendations with respect to rate and time of fertilizer application.
Web-based decision support tools such as Nutrient Expert and RCM have
a potential to scale up precise nutrient recommendations to a wider area.
Table 2.3 Examples of previous research findings using SSNM approaches
SSNM approaches/tools Key research finding
Models (e.g., Field evaluation (n = 209) in six agro-climatic zones of Odisha
QUEFTS) and showed RCM recommendation provided yield advantage of
decision support 23% over farmer’s practice and income increased by US$188
tools ha−1 per season on average (Sharma et al., 2019)
Soil test-based crop STCR enhanced grain yield by 20% and increased REN by 18%
response under DSR (Singh et al., 2021)
(STCR)
Remote sensing Multispectral data provided by the MODIS satellite were used
and GIS-based N to predict leaf N status in rice. It indicated the in-season N
application need of the crop which varied between 60 and 120 kg N ha−1
for rice growing areas in Odisha. This enhanced rice yield by
8 –12% over blanket recommendation (Tripathi et al., 2017)
Promising initiatives are being undertaken by the NARES and state agri-
cultural extension departments to disseminate R CM-based recommenda-
tions through public extension services, private initiatives such as the village
knowledge centres (promoted by Resilience project), and e-service facilities.
These extension services are available at village level in India. More than
175,000 RCM-based nutrient recommendations have been generated to farm-
ers in Odisha that has increased the grain yield by 0.3–0.8 t ha−1 compared
to the normal farmers’ fertilizer practices and by 0.2–0.4 t ha−1 over blanket
fertilizer recommendation (IRRI, 2019).
ii Soil test-based crop response
It is evident that there is a linear relationship between crop yield and nutrient
uptake until a certain threshold. This linear relationship is used to estimate the
fertilizer requirement of a crop considering the efficiency of soil and fertilizer
nutrients. Based on the targeted yield approach, the ICAR initiated All India
Coordinated Research Project Soil Test Crop Response (AICRP-STCR). The
objective is to develop fertilizer prescription equations for different crops under
different agroecological regions. STCR studies have developed relationship be-
tween crop yield, on the one hand, and soil test estimates and fertilizer inputs,
on the other hand, using ‘targeted yield approach’ (Jat et al., 2015). An STCR-
based approach of nutrient application has advantage in terms of increasing
nutrient response ratio over RDN application and farmer’s practice. Despite
this, soil and plant leaf tests are time-consuming, inconvenient, and expen-
sive, and do not account spatial/temporal variability nutrient contents within
a field. Thus, remotely controlled drone-mounted sensors and associated tools
are required to implement precision-based N application over space and time.
iii Drone-mounted sensors, remote sensing, and GIS-based N application
Soil and plant sampling and tests using sensors attached on drones can col-
lect remotely sensed data from plant canopies, which can be used to measure
canopy greenness and precise N topdressing recommendations (Huuskonen
and Oksanen, 2018). D rone-mounted sensors, geospatial sciences, GIS, GPS, big
data analytics, and ICTs have a distinct advantage in terms of capturing the var-
iability of agricultural systems for spatio-temporal monitoring of crop and soil.
Remote sensing methods have been proposed to help in precision farming
to gather data, and with proper analytics, the growth during the season can be
monitored. Remote sensing provides spatially dense information that can be used
to assess the crop N status and understand and predict spatially variable crop N
needs. Tripathi et al. (2017) established a relationship between NDVI (obtained
from MODIS image) and leaf N concentration (field measurements) using uni-
variate regression analysis. They developed N fertilizer recommendation map
using MODIS NDVI and leaf area index for rice growing areas in Odisha.
The precision-based tools/techniques used for N management could promote
the effective implementation of soil management practices thereby improving
soil health and reducing environmental footprints in rice cropping systems.
Agroecological-based approaches for improving soil health

Selected conservation agriculture (CA) and/or agroecological (AE) based and in-
tegrated nutrient management practices that have the potential to improve soil
health were reviewed and discussed below.
Conservation agriculture and/or agroecological practices

The three major principles of CA are (i) minimal soil disturbance (minimum/zero
tillage) by direct sowing into the soil cover without seedbed preparation (refer
Chapter 6), (ii) keeping soil permanently covered by residue retention or growing cover
crops, and (iii) diversification including crop rotations and intercropping.
i Zero tillage and/or minimum tillage: There are several research studies that
demonstrate minimal soil disturbance improves soil health and reduces car-
bon or nitrogen losses. For example, a study conducted by Lal et al. (2019)
showed that zero tillage (ZT) lowered energy use by 56%, carbon footprints
by 39%, and N2O emissions by 20% compared to conventional tillage. Zero
tillage also contributes to improving soil health by enhancing the major plant
nutrients including N, labile pool of carbon and enzymatic activities in soil.
A study by Dash et al. (2017) found that the change in soil organic carbon
(SOC) stock was significantly higher under ZT transplanted rice by 5 –7% in
the dry season and 8 –10% in the wet season, compared to conventional tillage
practices. About 12% less methane emission was recorded under ZT treat-
ments over control. In the long run, ZT can aid in enhancing soil health and
reducing the environmental footprint of a rice cropping system despite a 1 0–
15% yield penalty in early years of the experiment. However, studies also (e.g.,
Yadav et al., 2021) reported that conventional tillage disrupts soil structure
and accelerates soil carbon loss by exposing the inter/intra-aggregate spaces of
carbon to aerobic microbes for rapid oxidation (Al-Kaisi and Yin, 2005).
ii Crop diversification ( intercropping): The rice-based
including crop rotations/
monocropping systems in India and other rice growing regions could bene-
fit by growing diverse crops/varieties over time and/or space. These benefits
include increased productivity, increased profitability, and reduced climate
change risks. Farmer-led demonstration trials were conducted in Odisha un-
der the Resilience project. The trials showed that the diversification of rice
fallow with toria (Brassica campestris L.) and green/black gram rendered ad-
ditional yield of 2 t ha−1 and increased system productivity from 4 t ha−1 to 6
t ha−1. Other studies, e.g., growing dry season crops such as green gram and
black gram, had reduced energy use and carbon footprints (Lal et al., 2020).
An inclusion of black gram and green gram in a r ice-based cropping system
enhanced yield of subsequent crop and resulted in 0.04% increase in SOC
content (Porpavai et al., 2011) and reduced GHG emission (Dash, 2019).
iii Crop residue mulching: Crop residue mulch-based ZT system can save energy
in the form of fuel and labour, reduce carbon footprints, and improve net
farm income, soil health, and environmental quality. However, organic sup-
plements are scarce in dry areas of the tropics and farmers use the crop res-
idues for feed, fuel, and/or construction materials. Burning of crop residues
emits GHGs, and causes problems of air pollution, health hazards, and loss of
nutrients which is a matter of serious concern in countries like India. Crop
residue retention in the form of residue mulching using rice straw enhanced
crop production, microbial biota, and enzymatic activities of soil (Lal et al.,
2019). It also has a potential to reduce carbon footprints by avoiding burning
of residues, e.g., in India in rice monoculture (Yadav et al., 2021).
Integrated nutrient management

Integrated nutrient management (INM) implies the application of chemical fer-
tilizers along with organic resource materials like farmyard manure, composting,
green manure, biofertilizers, and other organic decomposable materials which are
essential for sustainable crop production.
i Farmyard manure with chemical fertilizers: Shahid et al. (2017) reported that
the inclusion of farmyard manure enhanced crop yield and carbon seques-
tration in the long term. Higher carbon sequestration was reported in humid
climates of lower Indo Gangetic plains compared to semi-arid climate of the
upper Indo Gangetic plain (Nayak et al., 2012). The rate of increase in carbon
stock varied between 57 and 89 kg ha−1 yr−1 by applying chemical fertilizers
alone, whereas the rate of increase in carbon stock raised to 6 1–138 kg ha−1
yr−1 with the application of chemical fertilizers (NPK) plus farmyard manure.
This implies that combined application of chemical fertilizers along with or-
ganic materials like farmyard manure increases SOC stocks and sequestration
in the soils, which will contribute to reduction in GHG emissions.
ii Green manuring: Green manure has been identified as an important substitute
to chemical fertilizers in INM practices – particularly applying green manures
of leguminous agroforestry trees (e.g., Gliricidia sepum: refer C
hapter 8 of this
book) that provide multiple benefits such as fixing nitrogen and capturing
nitrate leaching. In eastern India, green manuring with Sesbania aculeata (in
direct seeded flood-prone lowland rice) accumulated 80–86 kg N ha−1 in pure
stand and 58–79 kg N ha−1 when intercropped with DSR at 50 days of growth.
Dhaincha (Sesbania aculeata) manuring was comparable with 40 kg N ha−1 as
urea in increasing yield of direct seeded and transplanted crops (Sharma and
Ghosh, 2000). In general, green manuring with Sesbania spp. enhanced labile
carbon fractions in soils, thereby enhancing microbial biomass.
iii Vermicomposting including biofertilizers: Vermicomposting is a biological pro-
cess using a variety of worms including earthworms to transform organic
waste into natural nutrient-rich compost, which breaks down organic mate-
rial through the interaction between worms and microorganisms (Rahman
et al., 2019). In India, the application of vermicompost at 20 t ha−1 to the
soil significantly improved soil porosity and aggregate stability (Ferreras et al.,
2006). In rice-legume cropping systems, an integrated application of 50%
vermicompost and 50% chemical fertilizer/biofertilizers resulted in 12–20%
higher grain yields compared with 100% chemical fertilizer alone (Jeyabal
et al., 2001). On-farm demonstration/training on vermicompost preparation
and its application was conducted for farmers in Ganjam project areas of
Odisha through the Resilience project training programme. Farmers realized
the benefits of applying vermicompost into the soils in terms of increase in
yields, benefit-cost ratio, and income compared to conventional composting.
Biofertilizers containing blue-green algae with microbial strains such as Pseudomonas

can potentially substitute part of the nutrient requirement of crops by fixing atmos-
pheric N and provide plant available N. An application of 50% RDN from urea,
25% RDN from blue-green algae, and 25% N from farmyard manure reduced N2O
emission by 25% compared to 100% RDN applied Urea alone. Biofertilizer formula-
tion containing Pseudomonas, Penicillium, and Actinomycetes species could enhance
total SOC content by 6% after three years of experiment (Debska et al., 2016).
Policy implications
Several schemes have been initiated by the Government of India recently to pro-
mote location-specific improved agronomic practices using soil health cards and
precision-based tools/techniques.
i Soil health card scheme

A major policy measure to improve soil health in India is the Soil Health Card
(SHC) scheme which was initiated in 2015 by the Government of India under
the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. The scheme is to ensure soil
test-based fertilizer application and improve soil fertility throughout the coun-
try. The purpose of the SHC scheme is to provide information to farmers on
the soil nutrient status and customize fertilizer management strategy at the farm
level and thereby maintain the health of soils. Grids of 10 ha for rainfed and
2.5 ha for irrigated area are used as sampling unit in the SHC scheme. Since
2019–2020, more than 200 million SHCs were distributed to farmers in differ-
ent states of India. The implementation of the SHC scheme has shown a re-
duction in urea and DAP fertilizer application by 2 0–30% in paddy and cotton
growing areas. Moreover, it has reduced cost of cultivation by INR 2,500–10,000
ha−1 (~US$288–1,150 ha−1). There was also a significant increase in crop yield
with adoption of SHC-based fertilizer recommendation and increased farmers’
income on average by 30–40% (Reddy, 2018). There is variation in the imple-
mentation of the scheme at the state and district levels, with some states in
India taking proactive measures, while others still lagging behind.
Site-specific, need-based nutrient management practices and precision
tools support the SHC scheme of Indian government by providing evidence-
based information/data. This will contribute to improved soil health and
conserve the soil ecosystem sustainably. However, uniform grid size adop-
tion for soil testing in the SHC scheme may not represent the fi eld-to-
field soil variability. Therefore, grid mapping of soil heterogeneity index
using GIS-based soil fertility maps at block/village level is necessary. The
index will help to improve precision application of S HC-based fertilizer
recommendations.
ii Support to precision-based tools/techniques
One of the eight national climate missions of India developed under the
National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was the National Mis-
sion for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA). The NMSA was formulated to
enhance agricultural productivity by focusing on several programme com-
ponents such as soil health management. Under this component, creation of
database on soil resources through land use survey, soil profile study, and soil
mapping using precision-based tools/techniques (refer to early sections) are
one of the key implementation strategies of the NMSA.
The NMSA mission in coordination with other government schemes
and missions is promoting specific interventions of precision-based tools/
techniques. For example, the LCC technology is supported by NMSA in
coordination with other missions and schemes. The precision-based tools/
techniques for soil management practices have the potential to increase
carbon sequestration and reduce GHG emission. This will contribute to
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and net-zero emission target
of India if the initiatives are systematically followed, documented, and re-
ported. It will be necessary to incentivize farmers for generating carbon cred-
its through soil health improvement measures they undertake.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented and discussed some key research results from the ongo-
ing Resilience project to show the positive contributions of p recision-based tools/
techniques in nutrient management in rice cultivation in Odisha. In addition, soil
health improving practices that have the potential to reduce environmental foot-
prints and their policy implications for large-scale adoption were discussed.
i Precision-based tools/techniques for nutrient management
The precision nutrient and soil management techniques discussed in the
chapter have demonstrated advantages in terms of yield advancement, re-
source saving, enhancement in carbon stock, improvement in soil health,
and reducing environmental footprint. Some of the precision nutrient
management technologies involve high cost, sophisticated instruments, ad-
vanced data collection and analysis. However, data generated using these
technologies will be useful for validation and ground toothing while devising
large-scale remote sensing-based site-specific recommendation. The advent
of remote sensing system such as unmanned air vehicles equipped with mul-
tispectral, hyperspectral, and thermal sensors can deliver real-time data at
the spatial scale required for precision nutrient management.
The precision-based tools/techniques have considerable adaptation and
mitigation potential that could be exploited by providing policy support, ad-
equate funding, infrastructure and extension, and farmer training support as
needed. Government policy support and open collaboration with stakehold-
ers at all levels will facilitate adoption of precision soil and nutrient manage-
ment practices in agriculture.
ii Soil health improving practices
Agroecological approaches, such as conservation agriculture, with good agron-
omy and soil management practices such as zero tillage, crop diversifications,
and residue mulching have shown an increase in carbon storage and seques-
trations, and reduction in GHG emissions and GWP. This is in relation to
the emission of methane from rice paddies and nitrogen losses from inefficient
use of nitrogen fertilizers. India’s commitment for the NMSA – achieving its
NDCs, and attaining the goal of zero emission by 2070 – can be supplemented
to great extent by promoting cost-effective precision-based tools/techniques
with suitable soil health improving practices. In this connection, there is a
need to investigate low-cost precision-based tools/techniques for the effective
implementation of soil health management practices that are user friendly.
Acknowledgements
The chapter has benefited from the results of the Resilience project field trials
in Odisha. The authors would like to thank field enumerators and lead farmers
involved in the field demos. At the same time, they acknowledge the support of
the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs/The Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi
for funding and support to the Resilience project in India (2018–2023).
References
Alam, M.M., Ladha, J.K., Foyjunnessa Rahman, Z., Khan, S.R., Khan, A.H. and Buresh,
R.J. (2006) ‘Nutrient management for increased productivity of rice-wheat cropping
system in Bangladesh’, Field Crops Res, vol. 96, 374–386.
Ali, A.M., Thind, H.S., Sharma, S. and Singh, Y. (2015) ‘Site-specific nitrogen manage-
ment in dry d irect-seeded rice using chlorophyll meter and leaf color chart’, Pedosphere,
vol. 25(1), 72–81.
Ali, M.M., Al-Ani, A., Eamus, D. and Tan, D.K. (2017) ‘Leaf nitrogen determination using
non-destructive techniques–A review’, Journal of Plant Nutrition, vol. 40(7), 928–953.
Al-Kaisi, M.M. and Yin, X. (2005) ‘Tillage and crop residue effects on soil carbon and
carbon dioxide emission in corn–soybean rotations’, Journal of Environmental Quality,
vol. 34(2), 437–445.
Andrés, P.B., Rozas, H.R.S. and Echeverría, E.H. (2018) ‘Nitrogen recovery efficiency from
urea treated with NSN co-polymer applied to no-till corn’, Agronomy, vol. 8 (0154),
1–12.
Bhatia, A., Pathak, H., Jain, N., Singh, P.K. and Tomer, R. (2012) ‘Greenhouse gas miti-
gation in rice–wheat system with leaf color chart-based urea application’, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 184(5), 3095–3107.
Bijay-Singh (2018) ‘Are nitrogen fertilizers deleterious to soil health? A review’, Agronomy,
vol. 8, (48), 1–19.
Bijay-Singh (2017) ‘Management and use efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in production of
cereals in India: issues and strategies,’ In: The Indian Nitrogen Assessment, Sources of
Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Pol-
icies, eds Y.P. Abrol, T.K. Adhya, V.P. Aneja, N. Raghuram, H. Pathak, U. Kulshrestha,
et al., Cambridge: Elsevier, 9–28.
Bijay-Singh, Varinderpal-Singh, Purba, J., Sharma, R.K., Jat, M.L., Yadvinder-Singh,
Thind, H.S., Gupta, R.K., Chaudhary, O.P., Chandna, P., Khurana, H.S., Kumar, A.,
Jagmohan-Singh, Uppal, H.S., Uppal, R.K., Vashistha, M. and Gupta, R. (2015) ‘Site-
specific fertilizer nitrogen management in irrigated transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) us-
ing an optical sensor’, Precision Agriculture, vol. 1, 1–21.
Bijay-Singh, Singh, Y. and Bains, J.S. (2003) ‘Real-time nitrogen management using chlo-
rophyll meter and leaf color chart (LCC) in rice and wheat’ In: Nutrient management for
sustainable r ice-wheat cropping system, pp. 115–124. NATP, ICAR, New Delhi India and
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Buresh, R.J., Castillo, R., van den Berg, M., and Gabinete, G. (2014) ‘Nutrient manage-
ment decision tool for small-scale rice and maize farmers’. Technical Bulletin 190, Food
and Fertilizer Technology Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A. and Walters, D.T. (2002) ‘Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use
efficiency, and nitrogen management’, Ambio, vol. 31, 132–140.
Dash, P.K., Bhattacharyya, P., Shahid, M., Roy, K.S., Swain, C.K., Tripathi, R. and Nayak,
A.K. (2017) ‘Low carbon resource conservation techniques for energy savings, carbon
gain and lowering GHGs emission in lowland transplanted rice’, Soil Tillage Research,
vol. 174, 45–57.
Dash, P.K. (2019) ‘Carbon dynamics and associated diversities under resource conserva-
tion technologies in tropical low land rice’, PhD Thesis, Utkal University, Odisha.
Debska, B., Długosz, J., Piotrowska-Długosz, A., et al. (2016) ‘The impact of a bio-fertilizer
on the soil organic matter status and carbon sequestration-results from a field-scale
study’, J Soils Sediments, vol. 16, 2335–2343.
EC (European Commission) (2021) Soil Deal mission implementation plan, section 8B, avail-
able at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/implementation-plans-eu-missions_en
FAI (Fertiliser Association of India) (2018) Fertilizer Statistics 2017–18, 10th edn. New Delhi.
Ferreras, L., Gomez, E., Toresani, S., Firpo, I. and Ro-tondo, R. (2006) ‘Effect of organic
amendments on some physical, chemical and biological properties in a horticultural
soil’, Bioresource Technology, vol. 97, 635–640.
Ghosh, M., Swain, D.K., Jha, M.K. and Tewari, V.K. (2013) ‘Precision nitrogen manage-
ment using chlorophyll meter for improving growth, productivity and N use efficiency
of rice in subtropical climate’, Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 5, 253–266.
Huuskonen, J. and Oksanen, T. (2018) ‘Soil sampling with drones and augmented reality
in precision agriculture’, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 154, 25–35.
IFA (International Fertilizer Association) (2009) ‘The global “4R” nutrient stewardship
framework: developing fertilizer best management practices for delivering economic,
social and environmental benefits,’ Paper drafted by the IFA Task Force on Fertilizer
Best Management Practices. IFA, Paris, France.
IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) (2019) Annual Progress Report., Increasing
productivity of rice–based systems and farmers income in Odisha, India Office, IRRI, 172p
Jahan, N.A., Yeasmin, S., Anwar, M.P., Islam, M.A., Rahman, H. and Islam, A.M. (2018)
‘Efficacy and economics of different n eed-based nitrogen management approaches in
winter rice’, American Journal of Plant Sciences, vol. 9 (13), 2601–2611.
Jat, M.L., Majumdar, K., McDonald, A., Sikka, A.K. and Paroda, R.S. (2015) ‘Book of ex-
tended summaries, National Dialogue on Efficient Nutrient Management for Improving
Soil Health’, New Delhi, India, pp. 1–56.
Jeyabal, A. and Kuppuswamy, G. (2001) ‘Recycling of organic wastes for the production of
vermicompost and its response in rice legume cropping system and soil fertility’, Euro-
pean Journal of Agronomy, vol. 15, 153–170.
Kumar, P.P. and Sharma, P.K. (2020) ‘Soil Salinity and Food Security in India’, Front.
Sustain. Food Syst., vol. 4 (533781), 1–15.
Kumar, P.P., Abraham, T., Pattanaik, S.S.C., Kumar, R., Kumar, U. and Kumar, A. (2018)
‘Effect of customized leaf color chart (CLCC) based real time N management on agro-
nomic attributes and protein content of rice (Oryza sativa L.)’, ORYZA-An International
Journal on Rice, vol. 55(1), 165–173.
Lal, B., Gautam, P., Panda, B.B., Tripathi, R., Shahid, M., Bihari, P., Guru, P.K., Singh,
T., Meena, R.L. and Nayak, A.K., (2020) ‘Identification of energy and carbon efficient
cropping system for ecological sustainability of rice fallow’, Ecological Indicators, vol. 115
(106431), 1–11.
Lal, B., Priyanka, G., Nayak, A.K., Panda, B.B., Bihari, P., Tripathi, R., Shahid, M., Guru,
P.K., Chatterjee, D., Kumar, U. and Meena, B.P. (2019) ‘Energy and carbon budgeting of
tillage for environmentally clean and resilient soil health of rice-maize cropping system’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 226, 815–830.
Meena, A.K., Singh, D.K., Pandey, P.C. and Nanda, G. (2018) ‘Growth, yield, economics,
and nitrogen use efficiency of transplanted rice (Oryza sativa L.) as influenced by dif-
ferent nitrogen management practices through neem (Azadirachta indica) coated urea’,
International Journal of Chemical Studies, vol. 6(3), 1388–1395.
Mohanty, S., Nayak, A.K., Bhaduri, D., Swain, C.K., Kumar, A., Tripathi, R., Shahid, Md.,
Behera, K.K. and Pathak, H. (2021) ‘Real-time Application of N eem-coated Urea for
enhancing N-use efficiency and minimizing Yield Gap between Aerobic Direct-seeded
and Puddled Transplanted Rice’, Field Crop Research, vol. 264(108072), 1–12.
Mohanty, S., Swain, C.K., Tripathi, R., Sethi, S.K., Bhattacharyya, P., Kumar, A., Raja, R.,
Shahid, M., Panda, B.B., Lal, B., Gautam, P., Munda, S. and Nayak, A.K. (2018) ‘Nitrate
leaching, nitrous oxide emission and N use efficiency of aerobic rice under different N
application strategy’, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, vol. 64, 465–479.
Mohanty, S., Swain, C.K., Sethi, S.K., Dalai, P.C., Bhattachrayya, P., Kumar, A., Tripathi,
R., Shahid, M., Panda, B.B., Kumar, U., Lal, B., Gautam, P., Munda, S. and Nayak, A.K.
(2017) ‘Crop establishment and nitrogen management affect greenhouse gas emission
and biological activity in tropical rice production’, Ecological Engineering, vol. 104, 80–98.
Nayak, A.K., Tripathi, R., Mohanty, S., Shahid, Md., Besra, B., Panda, B.B., Priyadarsani,
S., Mohapatra, S.D., Sarangi, D.R., Saha, S., Kar, S., Swain, R., Rajak, M., Moharana,
K.C., Swain, C.K., Nagothu, U.S. and Pathak, H. (2021) ‘riceNxpert: A real time nitro-
gen application tool for enhancing N use efficiency of rice’, NRRI Technology Bulletin
162, ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, pp. 1–4.
Nayak, A.K., Mohanty, S., Chatterjee, D., Bhaduri, D., Khanam, R., Shahid, M., Tripathi,
R., Kumar, A., Munda, S., Kumar, U. and Bhattacharyya, P. (2018) ‘Nutrient manage-
ment for enhancing productivity and nutrient use efficiency in rice’, ICAR-NRRI.
Nayak, A.K., Mohanty, S., Chatterjee, D., Guru, P.K., Lal, B., Shahid, M., Tripathi, R.,
Gautam, P., Kumar, A., Bhattacharyya, P., Panda, B.B., and Kumar, U. (2017) ‘Placement
of urea briquettes in lowland rice: an environment-friendly technology for enhanc-
ing yield and nitrogen use efficiency’, Technical Bulletin No. 12. ICAR-National Rice
Research Institute, Cuttack, pp. 1–26.
Nayak, A.K., Mohanty, S., Raja, R., Shahid, M., Lal, B., Tripathi, R., Bhattacharyya, P., Panda,
B.B., Gautam, P., Thilagam, V.K. and Kumar, A. (2013) ‘Customized leaf color chart for ni-
trogen management in rice for different ecologies’, CRRI Technology leaflet, Cuttack, India.
Nayak, A.K., Gangwar, B., Shukla, A.K., Mazumdar, S.P., Kumar, A., Raja, R., Kumar,
A., Kumar, V., Rai, P.K. and Mohan, U. (2012) ‘Long-term effect of different integrated
nutrient management on soil organic carbon and its fractions and sustainability of rice–
wheat system in Indo Gangetic Plains of India’, Field Crops Research, vol. 127, 129–139.
Oertel, C., Matschullat, J., Zurba, K., Zimmermann, F. and Erasmi, S. (2016) ‘Greenhouse
gas emissions from soils—A review’, Chemie der Erde, vol., 76, 327–352.
Panda, D., Nayak, A.K. and Mohanty, S. (2019) ‘Nitrogen management in rice’, Oryza,
vol. 56 (5), 125–135.
Patil, V.B., Desai, B.K. and Jagadish. (2018) ‘Effect of nitrogen management through LCC
and SPAD meter on growth and yield in direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.)’, Interna-
tional Journal of Chemical Studies, vol. 6(4), 1074–1078.
Peng, S., Buresh, R.J., Huang, J., et al. (2010) ‘Improving nitrogen fertilization in rice by
site specific N management. A review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 30,
649–656.
Porpavai, S., Devasenapathy, P., Siddeswaran, K. and Jayaraj, T. (2011) ‘Impact of various rice-
based cropping systems on soil fertility’, Journal of Cereals and Oilseeds, vol. 2(3), 43–46.
Rahman, S. (2015) ‘Green revolution in India: Environmental degradation and impact on
livestock’, Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, vol. 12, 75–80.
Rahman, S. and Barmon, B.K. (2019) ‘Greening modern rice farming using vermicompost
and its impact on productivity and efficiency: an empirical analysis from Bangladesh’,
Agriculture, vol. 9 (239), 1–13.
Reddy, A.A. (2018) ‘Impact study of soil health card scheme’, National Institute of Agri-
cultural Extension Management (MANAGE), Rajendranagar, H yderabad—500030,
Telangana State, India, 106 pp, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3249953
Sapkota, T.B., Majumdar, K., Khurana, R., Jat, R.K., Stirling, C.M. and Jat, M.L. (2016)
‘Precision nutrient management under conservation agriculture-based cereal systems
in South Asia’. In: Nagothu, U.S (ed.) Climate Change and Agricultural Development:
Improving Resilience through Climate Smart Agriculture, Agroecology and Conservation.
New York: Routledge, pp: 131–160, ISBN: 978-1-138-92227-3.
Sarker, M.M.R., Shaheb, M.R. and Nazrul, M.I. (2012) ‘Urea Super Granule: A Good
Source of Nitrogen on Growth Yield and Profitability of Cabbage in Sylhet’, Journal
Environmental Science and Natural Resources, vol. 5(1), 295–299.
Schröder, J.J., Neeteson, J.J., Oenema, O. and Struik, P.C. (2000) ‘Does the crop or the soil
indicate how to save nitrogen in maize production? Reviewing the state of the art, Field
Crops Research, vol. 66(2), 151–164.
Sen, A., Srivastava, V.K., Singh, M.K., Singh, R.K. and Kumar, S. (2011) ‘Leaf color chart
vis-a-vis nitrogen management in different rice genotypes’, American Journal of Plant
Sciences, vol. 2(2), p. 223.
Shahid, M., Nayak, A.K., Puree, C., Tripathi, R., Lal, B., Gautam, P., Bhattacharyya, P.,
Mohanty, S., Kumar, A., Panda, B.B., Kumar, U. and Shukla, A.K. (2017) ‘Carbon and
nitrogen fractions and stocks under 41 years of chemical and organic fertilization in a
sub-humid tropical rice soil’, Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 170, 136–146.
Sharma, A.R. and Ghosh, A. (2000) ‘Effect of green manuring with Sesbania aculeata
and nitrogen fertilization on the performance of direct-seeded flood-prone lowland rice’,
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 57, 141–153.
Sharma, S., Panneerselvam, P., Castillo, R., Manohar, S., Rajendren, R., Ravi, V. and
Buresh, R.J. (2019) ‘Web-based tool for calculating field-specific nutrient management
for rice in India, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 113, 21–33.
Shivay, Y.S., Pooniya, V., Prasad, R., Pal, M. and Bansal, R. (2016) ‘Sulphur-coated urea as
a source of sulphur and an enhanced efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer for spring wheat’,
Cereal Research Communications, vol. 44 (3), 513–523.
Shukla, A.K., Ladha, J.K., Singh, V.K., Dwivedi, B.S., Balasubramanian, V., Gupta, R.K.,
Sharma, S.K., Singh, Y., Pathay, H., Pandey, P.S., and Yadav, R.L. (2004) ‘Calibrating
the leaf color chart for nitrogen management in different genotypes of rice and wheat
in a systems perspective, Agronomy Journal, vol. 96, 1606–1621.
Singh, V.K., Gautam, P., Nanda, G., Dhaliwal, S.S., Pramanick, B., Meena, S.S., Alsanie,
W.F., Gaber, A., Sayed, S. and Hossain, A. (2021) ‘Soil test based fertilizer application
improves productivity, profitability and nutrient use efficiency of rice (Oryza sativa L.)
under direct seeded condition’, Agronomy, vol. 11 (1756), 1–17.
Stolte, J., Tesfai, M., Øygarden, L., Kværnø, S., Keizer, J., Verheijen, F., Panagos, P., Bal-
labio, C., Hessel, R. (ed.) (2016) ‘Soil threats in Europe: status, methods, drivers and
effects on ecosystem services’, Soil Threats in Europe’; EUR 27607
Susilawati, H.L., Setyanto, P., Kartikawati, R. and Sutriadi, M.T. (2019) ‘The opportunity
of direct seeding to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from paddy rice field’, IOP Confer-
ence Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol., 393, 012042.
Syakila, A. and Kroeze, C. (2011) ‘The global nitrous oxide budget revisited’, Greenhouse
Gas Measurement & Management, vol. 1, 17–26.
Tripathi, R., Nayak, A.K., Raja, R., Shahid, M., Mohanty, S., Lal, B., Gautam, P., Panda,
B.B., Kumar, A., and Sahoo, R.N. (2017) ‘Site-specific nitrogen management in rice us-
ing remote sensing and geostatistics’, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
vol. 48(10), 1154–1166.
Verma, P., Akriti, C. and Ladon, T. (2020) ‘Site specific nutrient management: A review’,
Research Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, vol. 9 (5), 233–236.
Yadav, D.B., Yadav, A., Vats, A.K., Gill, G. and Malik, R.K. (2021) ‘Direct seeded rice in
sequence with zero-tillage wheat in north-western India: addressing system-based sus-
tainability issues’, SN Applied Sciences, vol. 3, 844.
3 Organizational alternate
wetting and drying (AWD)
irrigation management in
rice by water user groups for
reducing methane emission and
water saving
Kimihito Nakamura, Le Xuan Quang, and
Soken Matsuda
Introduction
Paddy rice agriculture needs to respond to two issues relevant to climate change:
one is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the other is to save water.
Paddy fields are an important source of methane (CH4), which is one of GHGs
responsible for global warming. Though nitrous oxide (N2O) is also one of GHGs
released from the agricultural fields (Nishimura, 2004), the carbon dioxide equiv-
alent of N2O released from rice paddies is lower than that of methane (Quang
et al., 2019). Therefore, methane is the focus in this chapter. Wetland soils are the
main natural source with an estimated emission of 100–200 Tg·year–1, whereas
the other sources are oceans, forest soils, termites, and wild ruminants. Of the an-
thropogenic emissions, domesticated ruminants (65–100 Tg·year–1) and rice fields
(25–150 Tg·year–1) are responsible for 1 5–40% of the total emissions. Human ac-
tivities, including the expansion of paddy rice, played an important role in the
observed long-term methane trend over the past two millennia (Sapart et al.,
2012). Hence, the need to reduce methane emissions from paddy fields is critical
for mitigation (Runkle et al., 2019).
The production and consumption of methane in soils is caused by the meta-
bolic activities of soil microorganisms. Soil organic matter is decomposed by a
series of microbial activities, and methane is finally produced by methanogenic
bacteria under strongly reducing conditions. When redox potential drops to
less than −150 mV (Gupta et al., 2021) or −200 mV (Jean and Pierre, 2001), the
methanogenesis process starts. After the production of methane, some of it is
consumed by methanotrophs in oxidized zones (rhizosphere, lower part of culms,
soil-water interface, and submersion water) (Jean and Pierre, 2001), and some of
it is released to the atmosphere. In planted rice fields, there are two pathways of
methane from soil to atmosphere: ebullition loss by the release of gas bubbles, and
plant transport, into the roots by diffusion and conversion to methane gas in the
aerenchyma and cortex of rice plants and concurrent release to the atmosphere
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-3
46 Kimihito Nakamura et al.
through plant micropores (Davamani et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2021). At the
beginning of the crop cycle, when rice plants are small, the main transfer mecha-
nism is bubble formation and vertical movement in the bulk of the soil. Diffusion
through the aerenchyma becomes the dominant process, which is responsible for
more than 90% of the methane emitted during the reproductive phase of the rice
plant (Cicerone and Shetter, 1981; Jean and Pierre, 2001).
The amount of methane released from rice paddies depends on the redox status
of the soil, so, if properly managed, it can be controlled by ponding water man-
agement. Draining the continuously flooded rice paddies once or more during
the rice-growing season would reduce global emissions by 41 Tg CH4 year−1 (Yan
et al., 2009). Therefore, rice paddy water management is very important for cli-
mate mitigation.
Paddy rice cultivation uses a large amount of water. There is a concern that
climate change will increase the frequency of drought risks (Aryal et al., 2020),
resulting in the loss of stable production of rice. Though paddy rice is convention-
ally grown in lowland systems under continuously flooded conditions, rice can
be successfully grown with less water by the adoption of new technologies and
various water-saving approaches which have been tested and disseminated (Ishfaq
et al., 2020). Water-saving irrigation to maintain rice productivity is required with
increase in extreme weather events leading to droughts (Bouman and Tuong,
2001). Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) has been attracting the attention of
scientists and farmers as one of the promising water-saving management methods.
In this chapter, the focus is on AWD irrigation. The chapter discusses the dif-
ferent options for the organization of irrigation water management for AWD im-
plementation based on experiences from Japan and Vietnam, and the challenges
in AWD adoption followed by potential pathways and conditions for upscaling
AWD.
Alternate wetting and drying

The AWD was originally proposed by the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium
(IRRC) of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) as a water manage-
ment technique for w ater-scarce areas (Enriquez et al., 2021). In AWD, irrigation
is applied intermittently with a period of non-flooding, whereas in traditional
cultivation, the paddy is continuously flooded during the cropping period. Thus,
in AWD continuous flooding is maintained for about two weeks after rice trans-
planting and about two weeks before and after the flowering period. The reason
for keeping the fields flooded for two weeks after planting is to suppress weeds
and to improve seedling growth. The temporary non-flooding during the crop-
ping season is already practiced in several countries, including China, India, and
Japan (Richards and Sander, 2014). In Japan, for example, the drying of rice fields
is carried out for about two weeks from about one month after transplanting.
This is called the midseason drainage. The purpose of the midseason drainage
is to suppress the production of hydrogen sulfide and organic acids due to soil
reduction, and to create oxidative conditions in the soil, which inhibits root rot,
AWD irrigation management in rice 47
promotes root elongation of the rice plant, and suppresses the development of
non-productive tillers (Shindo et al., 2017). Furthermore, by hardening the sur-
face of the rice fields, harvesting can be carried out smoothly using a harvester
even if the field is flooded until the late stage of maturity. Insufficient midseason
drying leads to excessive number of stems, which in turn leads to lodging, white
underdeveloped grains, additionally weak rooting, and a soft soil surface when the
rice reaches maturity. If water is drained early before harvesting, the vigor of the
rice will decline in the latter half of the maturity period. Furthermore, the inter-
mittent irrigation with alternating supply of water and oxygen is applied after the
midseason drainage, except for the period before and after the flowering period,
to keep the vigor of the rice plants intact. However, since most Southeast Asian
countries customarily use continuous flooding throughout the cropping season, a
non-flooding period is effective in saving water.
The AWD method can contribute to reducing methane emissions since the
aerobic soil environment is formed due to the non-flooded period and the meth-
ane production is suppressed. As shown by Enriquez et al. (2021), studies con-
ducted in various countries have shown that AWD can reduce GHG emissions
and irrigation water use without significant yield loss. Yagi et al. (2020) conducted
a meta-analysis, which indicated that water management options, including single
and multiple drainage approaches such as AWD, significantly reduced methane
emissions by 35% as a mean effect size based on 31 region-specific cases selected
for the analysis.
The widely publicized standard technique for intermittent irrigation is to in-
stall a field water tube (30 cm long, 15 cm in diameter, either plastic or bamboo
pipe with drilled holes) to monitor the water level in the paddy plot and to irrigate
water when the water level is 15 cm below the surface until the ponding depth is
3–5 cm. This is called the safe AWD (Rejesus et al., 2011). A depth of 15 cm is
the standard to avoid rice yield loss. To reduce yield loss, it is important to level
the paddy field surface properly and not to allow dry areas during flooding. The
area available for AWD increases in the dry season (Sander et al., 2017). In other
words, the effect of AWD varies depending on climatic conditions, especially the
amount of rainfall.
Challenges for adopting AWD

AWD is based on the knowledge that rice is tolerant to non-flooded conditions
(Kürschner et al., 2010), and does not involve major changes in irrigation facilities
or additional costs. However, it requires careful planning and managing irriga-
tion schedules. It is a technique that can be implemented if farmers are aware of
the AWD advantages and have a strong motivation. It is not easy to change the
mindsets of farmers to switch from the conventional continuous flooded irrigation
to AWD because of the risks of poor growth due to soil drying, and overgrowth
of weeds and pests. Even if water management is seen as a potential measure to
reduce GHG emissions and recommended to farmers, the effects cannot be seen
in the short term. Hence, it is difficult for farmers and local agencies to feel the
direct and visible benefits. In addition, it is necessary for farmers to monitor the
water level in each plot and manage water intake as needed, which can be labor
intensive when there are many plots to be managed. Therefore, it is not easy to
convince farmers to adopt the AWD system.
The incentives for farmers to adopt AWD also depend on the irrigation system,
the water availability, and the associated water pricing scheme. In the case of
gravity-driven canal irrigation, there is no incentive for farmers to adopt AWD
because the water usage fee is generally fixed per cultivated area or in some cases
free of charge, and thus there is no change in the compensation for irrigation wa-
ter saving, unless there is water shortage. Therefore, in a g ravity-irrigation system,
the number of farmers who adopt AWD tends to be limited. However, in case
where water is used by a pump, farmers have an incentive to adopt AWD because
it can save the pump fuel or electric costs for drawing water.
In general, water tends to be scarce in the downstream areas of an irrigation
scheme or region compared to the upstream areas. Hence, when AWD is imple-
mented in the upstream area, the possibility for the balanced distribution of water
to the downstream area increases, which can contribute to reducing conflicts be-
tween the upstream and downstream areas (Rejesus et al., 2014). In this case, it is
necessary to foster motivation of farmers especially in the upstream area.
For increasing the adoption of AWD, paddy fields suitable for AWD need to be
well considered in terms of irrigation conditions, and simultaneously irrigation
facilities need to be developed (Yamaguchi et al., 2019). Additionally, adequate
support by local government is essential, for example, training and education of
farmers. The economic incentives, organizational strengthening, and improve-
ment of the quality of irrigation infrastructure are important for the widespread
adoption of AWD (Enriquez et al., 2021).
Organization of irrigation water management and AWD

While individual farmers’ understanding and implementation of AWD is impor-
tant, relying solely on each farmer to implement AWD, especially when there is
no or insufficient direct benefit to the farmer, would not be easy for motivating
farmers. Therefore, if the irrigation management organization or water user group
can systematically distribute water according to the AWD cycles, the feasibility
of AWD irrigation management can potentially be increased. Locally based irri-
gation management organizations such as water user group (WUG) or water user
association (WUA) can play a key role in AWD adoption. The members of the
water user groups are basically farmers, but in some cases, experts are hired to
take on the role of water managers. Such water user groups can support irrigation
projects to control water distribution; operate and maintain irrigation facilities
(Teamsuwan and Satoh, 2009); and maintain and manage agricultural dams,
head works, pumping equipment, water division works, and main and branch ir-
rigation and drainage canals. However, after the water is distributed from the
diversion works, the management of intake and drainage of individual plots is
generally implemented by individual farmers.
Water user groups are considered important for the realization of participa-
tory water management (PIM). The policy of PIM has been adopted in several
countries to stimulate a more productive and self-reliant irrigated agriculture, and
an approach where farmers participate in all stages of irrigation development in-
cluding operation and maintenance (Hamada and Samad, 2011). For examples,
the Government of Egypt attempts to solve challenges related to irrigation water
shortage due to increases in water demands by strengthening WUA through the
PIM policy (Shindo and Yamamoto, 2017). In Korea, the irrigation management
transfer from the local government to the rural community corporation is an
emerging social issue (Choi et al., 2016). Similarly, in Japan irrigation projects,
all the irrigation facilities, including diversion dams, main and lateral canals,
are transferred to land improvement districts (LIDs), which are farmers’ auton-
omous irrigation associations with total responsibility for irrigation system man-
agement (Kono et al., 2012). Gany et al. (2019) reviewed institutional reforms in
the irrigation sector for sustainable agricultural water management undertaken in
14 countries and regions – including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, South Korea, Sudan, Chinese Taipei, Turkey,
and Ukraine – focusing on the legal and organizational framework structure
including WUAs for water supply services, PIM and management transfer, and
public-private partnership. The study showed that water user groups have a signif-
icant impact on the local hydrological cycle and environment in terms of manag-
ing the supply of water and improving irrigation and water-use efficiency.
There are several good practices for water saving or conservation where wa-
ter user groups can themselves manage irrigation and drainage water operations
and water quality by directly controlling the water supply. The following are two
examples of organized water management in the paddy field district area around
Lake Biwa, the largest lake in Japan: block rotational irrigation (BRI) and cyclic
irrigation (CI).
Block rotational irrigation

Lake Biwa covers an area of 670.25 km2 and the lake surface is roughly 85 m above
sea level. The water of Lake Biwa was utilized for a variety of purposes, includ-
ing domestic use, industry, agriculture, and power generation (Shiga Prefectural
Government, 2014). Water from the lake was used as a source of irrigation for rice
cultivation drawn by electrical pumps. In one of the rice growing areas near the
lake covering 1,244 ha, BRI was introduced after a severe drought in 1994 that
caused water shortage problems. Irrigation pumps were operated and managed by
a WUG (LID). The water pumped from the lake was distributed to all areas si-
multaneously through 13 division works in the pipeline system. After the 1994
drought, LID decided to introduce the BRI to ensure a stable supply of water. In the
BRI, the 13 terminal diversion work areas were divided into three blocks so that
the command area of each block was almost equal. The operation schedule was
managed such that water was delivered alternatively in two blocks on a given day
during the period from mid-July to August, when good water supply was required
after the midseason drainage. In other words, a block was irrigated for two days and
left without irrigation for one day repeatedly. Figure 3.1 shows an example of the
change in the amount of irrigation water supply through BRI for two water diver-
sion work areas (as shown for Unit No. 10 and 11). The extent of irrigation water
saving depended on the water diversion work area. The water saving was observed
in the No. 11 division area, but not in the No. 10 division area. This may be because
the amount of water discharged from the intake valves to paddy plots in the No. 11
division area was stable and intense before introducing BRI, while it was unstable
for that of the No. 10 diversion area. In the No. 11 diversion work area where the
water supply was stable, the farmers did not manage irrigation to paddy plots every
day and often left the intake valves open. As a result, the amount of water used
decreased in the BRI because the water was automatically shut off for one day due
to the operation of the pump by LID in the No. 11 division area. However, in the
No. 10 diversion work area where the water supply was unstable, the effect of the
BRI was not observed because the water was not readily available. The water supply
to paddy plots was automatically turned on and off due to operation of the block ro-
tational irrigation, and as a result automatic intermittent irrigation occurred. More
water saving would have been possible by controlling the water supply consciously
by the WUG. Such irrigation experiences from Lake Biwa offered important les-
sons for effective irrigation water management for other areas in Japan.
While it is important to raise individual farmers’ awareness of water saving
and management, it is difficult to properly manage water on individual paddy
plots in countries such as Japan due to the aging of the farmers, the shift to dual
occupation (part-time farming), or the increase in the scale of farming. If irri-
gation canals and drainage channels are maintained collectively, it may also be
possible for WUGs to control irrigation water to the individual paddy plots. Thus,
2500 2500
Unit No.10 Unit No.11

2000 July & August 2000 July & August
Irrigation (mm/2months)
Irrigation (mm/2months)
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
Not rotational (1989–1994, 2009–2011) Not rotational (1989–1994, 2009–2011)
Rotational (1995–2008) Rotational (1995–2008)
0 0
–500 0 500 –500 0 500
Rainfall–Evapotranspiration (mm/2months) Rainfall–Evapotranspiration (mm/2months)
Figure 3.1 Changes in the amount of irrigation by the block rotational irrigation system
in the water division work areas around Lake Biwa in Japan. Unit No. 10 is a
diversion area with unstable water intake, while No. 11 is an area with stable
water intake (authors’ own compilation).
WUGs can contribute to improved irrigation water management in each paddy
plot through the BRI system.
Cyclic irrigation
Drainage water from rice paddy areas contains nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, especially when the surface water of the rice paddies becomes turbid
during the puddling and transplanting seasons in rice paddy cultivation and is
discharged until the ponding water level reaches a shallow depth for rice trans-
planting. Thus, a large amount of nutrient load as well as suspended solids is dis-
charged downstream, affecting the water quality environment and ecosystem of
the downstream water body (rivers, lakes, and seas). Therefore, it was important
to take measures to reduce the load of nutrients and suspended solids from the
paddy fields around Lake Biwa, because the drainage water from the areas adja-
cent to the lake is immediately discharged back into the lake without undergoing
purification or sedimentation. One of the measures suggested was cyclic irriga-
tion, in which water drained from paddy fields was reused as irrigation water. This
method was originally developed as a technology to reuse drainage water in areas
where water was scarce, but it is now popular in Japan as a means to protect water
quality and the environment in general.
In some areas around Lake Biwa, lake water was pumped as the primary source
of irrigation water. Therefore, it was possible to install a gate in the drainage
channel located near the pumping station and provide a new conduit that diverts
the water from the drainage channel back to the irrigation water tank of the
pumping station at a relatively low cost. Irrigation water to the command area
could thus use water from the lake and the drainage water as well. The concept
of the cyclic irrigation system is shown in F igure 3.2. In some districts, in addition
to this improvement of water management infrastructures, a new pump only for
CI was installed. In one of the areas near the lake, water drainage from a 148 ha
area under paddy rice was monitored by Hama et al. (2010). The CI rate, which is
the ratio of drainage water to pumped water, was 60−80%. The study showed that
the CI system returned 118−199 kg ha−1 of suspended solids to the paddy fields,
indicating that the runoff loadings were controlled (Hama et al., 2010). Nitrogen
concentrations in irrigation water tended to be higher during the CI period than
during the lake water irrigation period. Nitrogen input from irrigated water ac-
counted for about 8−16% of the total input of nitrogen (Hama et al., 2011).
The basic management of CI was done by experienced WUGs such as the LID
in Lake Biwa, since it involves management of gates of drainage channels, water
supply to pumping stations, and management of pumps. This is also important,
since farmers will be accepting drainage water from other plots that they do not
manage and there is a risk that the entire command area will be affected by inap-
propriate use and management of pesticides and fertilizers, when drainage water is
reused for irrigation. Hence, WUGs can build consensus among all farmers which
is necessary in the process and can ensure that all farmers follow certain standard
environmental norms. As farmers prefer to take relatively low temperature lake
Figure 3.2 F rom lake water irrigation to cyclic irrigation system (authors’ own compilation).
water during the panicle emergence period, CI is generally limited only to pud-
dling and transplanting periods up to the midseason drainage, which could sig-
nificantly contribute to reduce the amount of runoff and effluent load of nutrients
and suspended solids from the paddy field area to outside the district.
Thus, the implementation of water quality protection measures through irrigation
and drainage management by WUGs with the consensus of farmers in the paddy
field areas can contribute toward better implementation and upscaling of AWD.
Field demonstration of organizational AWD

Using experiences from Japan, studies and demos of AWD management were
conducted in the low-lying rice paddies of Kim Dong district located in the Red
River Basin, Hung Yen province of Vietnam. The paddy field area in the com-
mand area was about 44 ha. Water was taken from an adjacent canal using pumps
and distributed to the district through an open canal. The pumps were managed
by cooperative agricultural services which is the WUG in the district. The canals
are of dual purpose, used for both irrigation and drainage. The distribution of
water in the district was not controlled, and the pumped water flowed into all
the channels at the same time. The pump operation time was longer and led to
unequal water distribution with overflows in the upper reaches, while there may
not be enough water to reach the fields in the lower reaches. In addition, the area
of a single paddy plot in the district was about 7 00–1,000 m2, and it was difficult
to implement AWD management for all plots individually.
Therefore, new diversion works were installed as shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 at
two locations along the main irrigation canal. Further, sluice gates were installed
for each of the branching canals. The district was divided into three blocks, and
one block was set as the conventional block, which was always flooded except
the midseason drainage by operating the gates (Block C). The other two blocks
were subjected to AWD conditions: one block was set to irrigate water when the
water level in the paddy plot near the division works was 15 cm below the ground
surface (Block S), and the other block was set to irrigate water when the water
level was 5 cm below the ground surface (Block W). Block W was the safer AWD
condition (weak-dry condition) than Block S (strong-dry condition). Water level
monitoring pipes were installed in the plots near the water division works, and
the water manager operated the pumps and gates by judging from the water level
in the plots. In this area, two seasons’ cropping is normally followed for rice: a
winter-spring (WS) crop from February to June and a s ummer-autumn (SA) crop
from June to September, and various upland crops are grown from October to
Figure 3.3 Schematic diagram of the investigated paddy area divided into three blocks
with two water division works (authors’ own compilation).
Figure 3.4 W
ater division work with sluice gates for block rotational irrigation. Source:
Photo by S. Yonemura.
February. The survey was conducted from the w inter-spring crop in 2015 to the
summer-autumn crop in 2017.
From the operation records of the pumps and sluice gates, and the temporal
changes in the ponding water depth in the observation plots set up in each block,
it was clear that the operation was not always ideal depending on the amount
and timing of rainfall. Since this was the first experience for water managers, it
was difficult for them to operate the system properly, especially in the first year.
Figure 3.5 shows the temporal changes in the ponding water depth of the obser-
vation plots in 2016. It was observed that water management using organizational
AWD method was followed in mid-April during the WS crop season and in July-
A ugust during the SA crop season. Figure 3.6 shows the temporal changes in
the methane emission fluxes of the observation plots. Comparing with Figure 3.5,
the methane emissions were decreased due to the influence of the ponding wa-
ter depth below the soil surface. The daily average of the cumulative methane
emissions in the observed plots divided by the observation period as shown in
Figure 3.7 indicated that the organizational AWD suppressed the methane emis-
sions by shortening the period of soil reduction through the ponding water depth
control. Figure 3.8 shows that the organizational AWD did not impact yields of
paddy rice. Thus, it demonstrated that methane emission could be suppressed
without reducing rice yield, if organizational AWD management could be carried
out by WUG using BRI to control ponding water depth.
The first challenge in implementing organizational AWD under field condition
was that it was difficult for water managers to achieve ideal ponding water depth
2016WS 2016SA
100 157.2 100 156.8
Ponding depth (cm) Rainfall (mm d–1)
50 50
0 0
40 C1 40 C1
20 20
0 0
–20 –20
40 W1 40 W1
20 20
0 0
–20 –20
40 S1 40 S1
20 20
0 0
–20 –20
Feb. Mar. Apr. May June June July Aug. Sep.
Figure 3.5 T
emporal changes in ponding water depths of the rice paddy observation plots
in each cropping season in 2016. WS is the winter-spring season and SA is
the summer-autumn season. CI, WI, and SI are a conventional plot, w eak-dry
plot, and strong-dry plot, respectively. Black triangles represent the operation
of pumps. Source: adapted from Quang et al. (2019).
2016WS 2016SA
3 C1 3 C1
2 2
CH4 flux (mg m–2 min–1)
1 1
0 0
3 W1 3 W1
2 2
1 1
0 0
3 S1 3 S1
2 2
1 1
0 0
Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep.
Figure 3.6 T
emporal changes in methane emission fluxes in the rice paddy observation
plots in each cropping season in 2016. WS is the winter-spring season and SA
is the summer-autumn season. CI, WI, and SI are a conventional plot, weak-dry
plot, and strong-dry plot, respectively.
Source: adapted from Quang et al. (2019).
management because the depth of water in the plots varied depending on rainfall
conditions. During the actual rainfall periods, the efforts to keep the paddy plots
under non-flooded condition were reduced. The second problem was that water
managers deliberately avoided running irrigation pumps as much as possible to
reduce operation costs. In addition, if farmers in the district do not fully under-
stand the implementation of organizational AWD, each farmer may use a small
2016WS
40
Daily average CH4 emission flux (g CO2 m–2 d–1)

30
20
10
0
C1 W1 S1
2016SA
40
30
20
10
0
C1 W1 S1
Figure 3.7 Daily average methane emission fluxes converted to the equivalent CO2 in the
observation plots in each cropping season in 2016. WS is the w inter-spring
season and SA is the summer-autumn season. CI, WI, and SI are a conven-
tional plot, w
eak-dry plot, and strong-dry plot, respectively. Source: adapted
from Quang et al. (2019).
2016WS
10
Yield of unhulled rice (× 103 kg ha–2)
0
C1 W1 S1
2016SA
10
0
C1 W1 S1
Figure 3.8 Yields of unhulled rice in the observation plots in each cropping season in
2016. Error bars represent the standard deviation. WS is the winter-spring sea-
son and SA is the summer-autumn season. C1, W1, and S1 are a conventional
plot, weak-dry plot, and strong-dry plot, respectively. Source: adapted from
Quang et al. (2019).
manual pump to irrigate water from the canal to each plot when the ponding
water depth in his plot is low. The organizational AWD does not work if there
is lack of cooperation between water managers and farmers. From the farmers’
questionnaire survey, some farmers indicated that they used manual pumps less
frequently, suggesting that when the BRI worked, the water level in the canal rose
to the downstream in each block compared to the simultaneous water distribution
to all plots in the district without the block rotation. Thus, it showed that the
BRI with proper operation of pumps and gates at the water division works enabled
farmers to realize that they no longer need to operate small manual pumps at
the individual plot level. Due to such complexity of the irrigation management,
it is likely that there was no clear effect of organizational AWD management
on ponding water depth varies and no difference in methane emissions in the
cropping seasons, except in 2016. The results of 2016 showed the potential of
organizational AWD.
Matsuda et al. (2021) observed the ponding water depth, soil redox potential,
and methane emission in 2017 in this district, and found that the methane release
could have been suppressed by a continuous n on-flooding period of three to eight
days after the switch from the flooded state to the non-flooded state, and that the
methane was re-emitted after a continuous flooding period of 14−22 days after the
switch from the non-flooded state to the flooded state. Therefore, the amount of
methane emission can significantly be suppressed by repeating the AWD cycles of
non-flooding period of three to eight days and the flooding period of 13–21 days.
Such schedules of ponding water depth management for reduction of methane
emissions would be useful for water managers. The organizational AWD can be
upscaled if such data are measured and made available for different paddy growing
regions.
Potential pathways and conditions for upscaling AWD
Multifunctionality and direct payments for environmental services

Demonstration of the organizational AWD in the Red River Basin of Vietnam
(Quang et al., 2019) showed that if minor changes were made in irrigation fa-
cilities by introducing water diversion facilities, and if pumps and gates of the
division works can be properly managed by WUGs, ponding water depth can
be managed as needed to suit AWD cycles through the BRI without individual
paddy plot water management by individual farmers. The results in such situa-
tion showed that the AWD management could significantly contribute to the
reduction of methane emissions without major operation costs. In addition, this
method enables sufficient water supply for each block, which is expected to avoid
the water shortage that has occurred in the downstream areas in the district. To
upscale this type of water management to larger areas, it is desirable that water
management organizations be financially incentivized or subsidized to implement
such environmentally friendly water management. It is also necessary to sup-
port the construction costs of necessary minor changes needed in the irrigation
facilities, which can contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions for reducing
global warming.
Matsuno et al. (2006) reviewed various multifunctionalities of agriculture and
the positive impacts of management measures such as flood control, groundwater
recharge, soil erosion prevention, landslide prevention, water quality protection,
organic waste decomposition, climate mitigation (heat island prevention), biodi-
versity conservation, landscape formation, and regional development. Some of
the major negative impacts include GHG emissions and water pollution of surface
water and groundwater due to runoff and infiltration of fertilizer and pesticide
components. A study by OECD (2003) indicated that the payment for environ-
mental services (PES) can be justified if the following three conditions can be
demonstrated: (1) the agricultural production and multifunctionality are strongly
linked; (2) the loss of agricultural production can significantly reduce multifunc-
tionality; and (3) the government support for enhancing multifunctionality and
reducing negative impacts is essential. Furthermore, cross compliance is a policy
mechanism to encourage farmers to meet certain conditions (e.g., environmental
requirements) in return for governmental support payments that had developed
in the United States and also gained political attention in the European Union
and was developed as a policy instrument (Meyer et al., 2014). This also implies
that it is justifiable to provide incentives in terms of financial support to farmers
and water management organizations that practice AWD properly to maintain
and enhance multifunctionality and in turn can reduce GHG emissions and wa-
ter pollution.
In Japan, based on the idea that agriculture and rural areas have the mul-
tifunctionalities, such as land conservation, water resource recharge, natural
environment conservation, landscape formation, and that the benefits of these
functions are widely enjoyed by the society at large, the government has intro-
duced three direct payment systems. This is to support local conservation activ-
ities and continuation of farming to fulfill the multifunctionalities of agriculture
and rural areas, and ensure that the multifunctionalities continue to be properly
fulfilled, and to support structural reforms of continuing farmers. The first is the
direct payment subsidy for multifunctional activities, which financially supports
the collaborative and organizational activities to keep and enhance multifunc-
tionalities and to improve the quality of regional resources. These activities are
specifically the basic conservation activities such as mowing the slopes of farm-
land, the removal of mud in water channels, maintaining the surface of farm
roads, extending the service life of agricultural facilities such as water channels,
irrigation reservoirs, and others, and landscape formation. The list also includes
some specific practices linked to rice cultivation, including the implementation of
paddy field dams to enhance flood mitigation (Yoshikawa, 2014), the installation
of paddy field fishways for fish-ecosystem conservation (Ohtsuka, 2014), cyclic ir-
rigation system (Hama et al., 2010; Hama et al., 2011), and groundwater recharge
from paddy fields (Iwasaki et al., 2014). The PES are provided to organizations
composed of farmers and others. The second is the direct payment subsidy for
farmers in the hilly and mountainous areas, which supports positive efforts to
continue agricultural production activities in the hilly and mountainous areas
where the population is aging and declining rapidly. The third is the direct pay-
ment for environmentally friendly agriculture, which supports agricultural pro-
duction activities that are highly effective in reducing the environmental impact
of agricultural production, preventing global warming, and conserving biodiver-
sity, and aims to contribute to increasing soil carbon stocks. The requirements for
this support include organic farming, cover cropping, composting, no-till sowing
of rice, and the prolonged mid-drainage drying in rice cultivations (more than 14
days), which is expected to be effective in reducing methane emissions (Itoh et al.,
2011; Kunimitsu and Nishimori, 2020), in addition to reducing the use of chemical
fertilizers and synthetic pesticides by at least 50% from the conventional level.
Direct payments are made to the organizations by farmers who engage in such
activities, as well as to single farmers and corporations with more than a certain
cultivated area.
Santos and Shimada (2019) estimated the economic effects of PES for envi-
ronmentally friendly agriculture on income of rice farmers in Shiga Prefecture,
Japan, in which farmers agreed on the following three points: (1) reducing the
use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers to less than 50% of the conventional
practice, (2) proper use and management of compost and agricultural wastewater,
and (3) the agreement period is to be implemented for five years. The study in
fact showed that the substitution of environmentally friendly agriculture in place
of conventional rice farming had resulted in increased farm income due to the
PES received. Kitano (2019) also showed that the direct payment program had
a positive influence on the spread of environmental conservation agriculture in
Shiga Prefecture.
In Korea, the multifunctionalities of paddy farming have been recognized and
the government has introduced a direct payment system for environmentally
friendly agriculture to conserve water source and national park areas since 1999,
including the minimization of using pesticides and fertilizer and the improvement
of water quality for reservoir, stream, and groundwater (Kim et al., 2006). Simi-
larly, Xuehai et al. (2018) concluded that one of the most important approaches
to agricultural green development in China is to shift the existing subsidy policy
from one which aims to ensure the yield by purchasing at a protective price, to
a green subsidy which focuses on agro-ecological compensation. The Vietnam-
ese government passed a national policy on payment for ecosystem services in
the hope of strengthening forest conservation, improving local livelihoods, and
generating revenue outside of the state budget for nature conservation (To et al.,
2012). In Asian countries, the functioning of the PES for agriculture so far seems
to be limited to Japan and South Korea.
It is necessary to develop similar support mechanisms in other countries to sup-
port farmers that will be responsible for carrying out climate change mitigation
and adaptation efforts, including organizational AWD in several countries. Since
the reduction of GHG emissions has a global benefit, it is necessary to develop a
framework at the global scale beyond the local or national level in the new initi-
atives to reduce methane from agriculture.
Water management with trade-offs
Agricultural water management affects the soil moisture status, thus altering the
soil redox status and chemical and biological reactions of the soil, and the unin-
tended substances are sometimes produced. It has been shown that AWD may in-
crease the emission of nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG, which has a greater warming
effect than methane (Sibayan et al., 2018). Balaine et al. (2019) mentioned that
given the high early season methane fluxes, drying earlier may result in greater
reductions of methane in wet seeded rice systems but this requires further study
as there may be negative effects such as increased N2O emissions. Additionally,
an increase in the n on-flooding period may lead to an oxidative environment
and may increase the production of n itrate-nitrogen (NO3–N), which may leach
into groundwater during re-flooding and contribute to an increase in NO3–N
in groundwater. AWD changes the anaerobic environment caused by continu-
ous flooding and accelerates the nitrification process, which improved the con-
sumption of ammonium-nitrogen (NH4–N) and expedite NO3–N loading to the
groundwater (Wang et al., 2018). The bypass or preferential flow and strengthened
nitrification-denitrification nitrogen transformation processes because of AWD
potentially increase the NO3–N loading to the groundwater (Tan et al., 2013).
However, Tan et al. (2015) estimated using HYDRUS-1D that the increased
NO3–N, which was formed from nitrification of NH4–N in drying and aerobic
phase, can be easily denitrified to N2 or N2O in the wetting and anaerobic phase.
In another study, Amin et al. (2021) showed nitrogen leaching depends on the
drying spell in AWD irrigation. It will be necessary to study how AWD can be
used to reduce the environmental impact of NO3–N and N2O.
In some soils, the presence of toxic elements such as arsenic (As) and cadmium
(Cd) can be absorbed by crops and become harmful to human health. The mo-
bilities of As and Cd in soils depend on soil redox potential. Paddy rice in flooded
soil is prone to As uptake in which reducing conditions increase As mobility
through reductive dissolution of As-bearing Fe and Mn oxides and drying cycles
create more oxidizing conditions that promote the precipitation of Fe and Mn ox-
ides and subsequent retention of As, which limits As mobility and availability for
plant uptake (Evans et al., 2021). However, soil drying may mobilize Cd as sulfide
in CdS minerals is oxidized to sulfate and AWD can increase Cd bioavailability
(Li et al., 2019). When As and Cd exist simultaneously in paddy soils, the water
and soil management must be designed to inhibit crop absorption of both sub-
stances. Seyfferth et al. (2019) suggested that a less severe water-saving approach
such as AWD in combination with rice residue amendment could limit Cd and
As uptake without compromising yield. They mentioned the flooding plus mixed
charred/ashed rice husk might limit Cd concentrations in rice and the limited
flooding plus Si-rich rice husk might limit As concentrations in rice.
In addition, climate change has already caused severe flood damage, and water
storage in rice paddies is expected to be a significant factor in flood prevention
in Japan. Efforts to control the amount of drainage from paddy plots as much as
possible without damaging the growth of rice are attracting attention (Yoshikawa,
2014). It should be noted that water management is not only about saving wa-
ter and reducing methane emissions, but also about recycling of nutrients that
would otherwise have been lost through drainage water to the surface water,
leaching water to the groundwater, or emissions to the atmosphere and other
multifunctionalities of paddy rice farming. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
more e vidence-based scientific knowledge on how to optimize AWD water man-
agement with such trade-offs in mind.
Development of necessary information for water management

For an organization to conduct efficient water management, it will be necessary
to spatially understand the meteorological conditions, the cropping conditions
in the area to be managed, and the characteristics of the field soil, especially the
permeability of the soils, which is an important factor that defines the amount of
water required. The use of remote sensing (Nagano et al., 2015) and unmanned
aerial vehicles can be effective for understanding the status (Krienke et al., 2017;
Campo et al., 2020). In addition to the estimations of the spatial distribution of
the required water quantity by the remote information systems, it is necessary to
comprehensively determine the water use status in the management area and the
status of agricultural water utilization facilities. Besides, detailed information on
the source water quantity, water level and flow rate in irrigation canals, water level
in regulating reservoirs, flow rate in diversion works, groundwater level, and so on
is to be regularly recorded in real time.
A variety of hydrological models, which are sometimes coupled with crop model,
have been developed for water resources management, agricultural water man-
agement, and crop management. Many physically based distributed hydrological
models such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Arnold et al., 1993),
the Système Hydrologique Européen (SHE) and MIKE SHE (Abbott et al., 1886a,
1886b), Soil and Water Integrated Model (SWIM) (Krysanova et al., 1998), and
others have been developed and widely applied. The WEP-L distributed hydrolog-
ical model, derived from the water and energy transfer processes (WEP), coupled
simulations of natural hydrological processes and water use processes by human
activities (Jia et al., 2006). Khadim et al. (2021) developed a numerical framework,
based on a groundwater model using MODFLOW-NWT (Niswonger et al., 2005),
coupled with the outputs of the DSSAT crop model (Jones et al., 2003) for agricul-
tural water management. Furthermore, to apply the hydrological models to Asian
regions dominated by paddy fields, for example, Xie and Cui (2011) customized the
SWAT model by incorporating new processes for irrigation and drainage.
The development of an integrated hydrological simulation model including ir-
rigation and drainage management in paddy and upland fields, and the operations
of agricultural water facilities (dams, head works, reservoir, water division works,
groundwater pumps, and so on) in addition to the natural s urface-subsurface hydro-
logical processes are necessary. Outputs from such models can provide accurate in-
formation that is necessary for water management organizations to operate AWD.
ICT in water management
With the advancement of information and communication technology (ICT), it
is relatively easy to implement not only remote acquisition of data such as water
flow and water level at agricultural water utilization facilities, but also remote op-
eration and control such as opening and closing of gates and valves and starting
and stopping of operation. In Korea, smart agricultural water resources manage-
ment systems have also been introduced in irrigation districts as the prototype
projects managing and monitoring the irrigation system from the water resources
to the irrigated fields and ICT can be an alternative solution to overcome vulner-
ability of agricultural water resources structures impacted by droughts and floods
(Choi, 2015). A study by Masseroni et al. (2018) evaluated the hydraulic, control,
and economical performances of the automatic and r emote-controlled system ap-
plied for traditional rice irrigation in Italy. The study demonstrated that the auto-
matic system allowed us to drastically reduce the time spent by workers for water
level control and flow regulation and the price of the automatic irrigation system
appeared to be in good agreement with respect to the willingness of farmers for
innovation. Although there are many hurdles to overcome in terms of installa-
tion and running costs, it will be useful for organizational AWD in the long term
as a labor-saving method if the operation of pumps and gates of diversion works
can be automated while monitoring the water level in the canal and the paddy
ponding water depth in the plots in the district. Furthermore, an automatic water
supply system that starts water intake at a certain time, stops water intake when
the water level in the paddy plot reaches the upper limit, and resumes water in-
take when the water level reaches the lower limit has been developed in paddy
fields in Japan. It is expected to facilitate more efficient irrigation management
(Nishida et al., 2022). The ICT water management system is technically feasible
for AWD management.
Conclusions
To reduce the contribution to GHG emissions from rice paddies, it is important
to focus on paddy water management with particular attention to methane re-
duction. In addition, it is important to have the potential ability for water-saving
paddy water management in response to climate change. To spread AWD in a
wide area and continuously, the organizational AWD irrigation system by WUGs
based on BRI with the operation of water diversion works along the irrigation
channels.
Since the reduction of methane emission by AWD contributes to the preven-
tion of global warming, it might be useful to promote AWD by establishing a PES
mechanism to benefit farmers at the national level for water management organ-
izations and farmer groups that strictly implement AWD with cross compliance.
Providing an appropriate paddy ponding management schedule considering
AWD to water management organizations and farmers is necessary. It should be
a specific water and soil management method according to the soil and climatic
characteristics of the region, not only considering methane emission and water
conservation, but also reducing the environmental load of nitrate nitrogen and
nitrous oxide and crop uptake of Cd, which are caused by the t rade-off between
the oxidative change of soil due to the non-flooding period increased by AWD.
In addition, it is necessary to establish sensing and analysis technologies to
obtain information on water consumption, especially from spatial and temporal
meteorological and agricultural crop conditions; to construct and operate a hy-
drological model that can indicate water management for agricultural water use
facilities and paddy fields based on the information; and to build a platform to
ensure that water management organizations and farmers can easily implement
the proposed appropriate water management using ICT.
Acknowledgments
AWD management demos were conducted under a joint initiative of the Institute
for Water and Environment under the Vietnam Academy for Water Resources in
Vietnam and the Industrial-Academic Cooperative Research for Irrigation Water
Management in Japan comprising Kitai Sekkei Co., Ltd. and Kyoto University.
The project was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Viet-
nam (Grant Number: NĐT.06.JPN/15), and the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (16H05799). We are grateful for the cooperation of
the farmers and the agricultural cooperatives involved, the Hinogawa River Basin
LID, the Kamogawa River Basin LID, the Konohama LID, the Shiga Prefecture
Office, the Kinki Regional Agricultural Administration Office of the Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan, JSPS KAKENHI (18H02297 and
20H03101), and “Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models
(TOUGOU program)” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology, Japan.
References
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O’Connell, P.E. and Rasmussen, J. (1986a) ‘An
introduction to the European hydrological system – Systeme Hydrologique Europeen,
“SHE”, 1: History and philosophy of a p hysically-based, distributed modelling system’,
Journal of Hydrology, vol. 87, pp. 45–59.
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O’Connell, P.E. and Rasmussen, J. (1986b)
‘An introduction to the European hydrological system – Systeme Hydrologique Europ-
een, “SHE”, 2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modelling system’, Journal of
Hydrology, vol. 87, pp. 61–77.
Amin, M.G.M., Akter, A., Jahangir, M.M.R. and Ahmed, T. (2021) ‘Leaching and runoff
potential of nutrient and water losses in rice field as affected by alternate wetting and
drying irrigation’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 297, 113402.
Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M. and Bernhardt, G. (1993) ‘A comprehensive surface-groundwater
flow model’, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 142, pp. 47–69.
Aryal, J.P., Sapkota, T.B., Khurana, R., K hatri-Chhetri, A., Rahut, D.B. and Jat, M.L.
(2020) ‘Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in
smallholder production systems’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 22,
pp. 5045–5075.
Balaine, N., Carrijo, D.R., Adviento-Borbe, M.A. and Linquist, B. (2019) ‘Greenhouse
gases from irrigated rice systems under varying severity of alternate-wetting and drying
irrigation’, Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 83, pp. 1533–1541.
Bouman, B.A.M. and Tuong, T.P. (2001) ‘Field water management to save water and in-
crease its productivity in irrigated lowland rice’, Agricultural Water Management, vol.
49, pp. 11–30.
Campo, L.V., Ledezma, A. and Corrales, J.C. (2020) ‘Optimization of coverage mission for
lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles applied in crop data acquisition’, Expert Systems
with Applications, vol. 149, 113227.
Choi, J.Y. (2015) ‘Irrigation and drainage in Korea and ICT applications’, Irrigation and
Drainage, vol. 65, pp. 157–164.
Choi, S.M., Yoon, K.S. and Kim J.S. (2016) ‘Irrigation management transfer between pub-
lic organizations and the role of participatory irrigation management under public irri-
gation management in Korea’, Irrigation and Drainage, vol. 65, pp. 69–75.
Cicerone, R.J. and Shetter, J.D. ( 1981) ‘
Sources of atmospheric methane: measure-
ments in rice paddies and a discussion’, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 86 (C8),
pp. 7203–7209.
Davamani, V., Parameswari, E. and Arulmani, S. (2020) ‘Mitigation of methane gas emis-
sions in flooded paddy soil through the utilization of methanotrophs’, Science of the Total
Environment, vol. 726, 138570.
Enriquez, Y., Yadav, S., Evangelista, G.K., Villanueva, D., Burac, M.A. and Pede, V. (2021)
‘Disentangling challenges to scaling alternate wetting and drying technology for rice
cultivation: Distilling lessons from 20 years of experience in the Philippines’, Frontiers
in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 5, p. 675818.
Evans, A.E., Limmer, M.A. and Seyfferth, A.L. (2021) ‘Indicator of redox in soils (IRIS)
films as a water management tool for rice farmers’, Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, vol. 294(15), p. 112920.
Gany, A.H.A., Sharma, P. and Singh, S. (2019) ‘Global review of institutional reforms in
the irrigation sector for sustainable agricultural water management, including water
users’ associations’, Irrigation and Drainage, vol. 68, pp. 84–97.
Gupta, K., Kumar, R., Baruah, K.K., Hazarika, S., Karmakar, S. and Bordoloi, N. (2021)
‘Greenhouse gas emission from rice fields: a review from Indian context’, Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, vol. 28, pp. 30551–30572.
Hama, T., Nakamura, K. and Kawashima, S. (2010) ‘Effectiveness of cyclic irrigation in
reducing suspended solids load from a paddy-field district’, Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, vol. 97, pp. 483–489.
Hama, T., Nakamura, K., Kawashima, S., Kaneki, R. and Mitsuno, T. (2011) ‘Effects of
cyclic irrigation on water and nitrogen mass balances in a paddy field’, Ecological Engi-
neering, vol. 37, pp. 1563–1566.
Hamada, H. and Samad, M. (2011) ‘Basic principles for sustainable participatory irrigation
management’, Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, vol. 45(4), pp. 371–376.
Ishfaq, M., Farooq, M., Zulfiqar, U., Hussain, S., Akbar, N., Nawaz, A. and Anjum, S.A.
(2020) ‘Alternate wetting and drying: A water-saving and ecofriendly rice production
system’, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 241, p. 106363.
Itoh, M., Sudo, S., Mori, S., Saito, H., Yoshida, T., Shiratori, Y., Suga, S., Yoshikawa,
N., Suzue, Y., Mizukami, H., Mochida, T. and Yagi, K. (2011) ‘Mitigation of methane
emissions from paddy fields by prolonging midseason drainage’, Agriculture, Ecosys-
tems & Environment, vol. 141, pp. 359–372.
Iwasaki, Y., Nakamura, K., Horino, H. and Kawashima, S. (2014) ‘Assessment of factors
influencing groundwater-level change using groundwater flow simulation, considering
vertical infiltration from rice-planted and crop-rotated paddy fields in Japan’, Hydrogeol-
ogy Journal, vol. 22(8), pp. 1841–1855.
Jean, L.M. and Pierre, R. (2001) ‘Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of
methane by soils: A review’, European Journal of Soil Biology, vol. 37, pp. 25–50.
Jia, Y., Wang, H., Zhou, Z., Qiu, Y., Luo, X., Wang, J., Yan, D. and Qin, D. (2006)
‘Development of the WEP-L distributed hydrological model and dynamic assessment of
water resources in the Yellow River basin’, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 331, pp. 606–629.
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A., Wilk-
ens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J. and Ritchie, J.T. (2003) ‘The DSSAT cropping sys-
tem model’, European Journal of Agronomy, vol. 18(3-4), pp. 235–265.
Khadim, F.K., Dokou, Z., Bagtzoglou, A.C., Yang, M., Lijalem, G.A. and Anagnostou, E.
(2021) ‘A numerical framework to advance agricultural water management under hydro-
logical stress conditions in a data scarce environment’, Agricultural Water Management,
vol. 254, p. 106947.
Kim, T.C., Gim, U.S., Kim, J.S. and Kim, D.S. (2006) ‘The multi-functionality of paddy
farming in Korea’, Paddy Water and Environment, vol. 4, pp. 169–179.
Kitano, S. (2019) ‘An evaluation of a direct payment policy for community-based environ-
mental conservation agricultural practices: A case of Shiga prefecture in Japan’, Journal
of Environmental Information Science, vol. 2019(1), pp. 43–52.
Kono, S., Ounvichit, T., Ishii, A. and Satoh, M. (2012) ‘Participatory system for water
management in the Toyogawa Irrigation Project, Japan’, Paddy and Water Environment,
vol. 10, pp. 75–81.
Krienke, B., Ferguson, R.B., Schlemmer, M., Holland, K., Marx, D. and Eskridge, K. (2017)
‘Using an unmanned aerial vehicle to evaluate nitrogen variability and height effect
with an active an active crop canopy sensor’, Precision Agriculture, vol. 18, pp. 900–915.
Krysanova, V., M uller-Wohlfeil, D.I. and Becker, A. (1998) ‘Development and test of a spa-
tially distributed hydrological/water quality model for mesoscale watersheds’, Ecological
Modelling, vol. 106, pp. 261–289.
Kunimitsu, Y. and Nishimori, M. (2020) ‘Policy measures to promote mid‑summer drain-
age in paddy fields for a reduction in methane gas emissions: the application of a dy-
namic, spatial computable general equilibrium model’, Paddy and Water Environment,
vol. 18, pp. 211–222.
Kürschner, E., Henschel, C., Hildebrandt, T., Jülich, E., Leineweber, M. and Paul, C.
(2010) ‘Water saving in rice p roduction-dissemination, adoption, and short-term im-
pacts of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) in Bangladesh’, SLE Publication Series
S241, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin.
Li, C., Carrijo, D.R., Nakayama, Y., Linquist, B.A., Green, P.G. and Parikh, S.J. (2019)
‘Impact of alternate wetting and drying irrigation on arsenic uptake and speciation in
flooded rice systems’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 272, pp. 188–198.
Masseroni, D., Moller, P., Tyrell, R., Romani, M., Lasagna, A., Sali, G., Facchi, A. and
Gandolfi, C. (2018) ‘Evaluating performances of the first automatic system for paddy
irrigation in Europe’, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 201, pp. 58–69.
Matsuda, S., Nakamura, K., Hung, T., Quang, L.X., Horino, H., Hai, P.T., Ha, N.D. and T.
Hama (2021) ‘Paddy ponding water management to reduce methane emission based on
observations of methane fluxes and soil redox potential in the Red River Delta, Viet-
nam’, Irrigation and Drainage, vol. 71(1), pp. 241–254.
Matsuno, Y., Nakamura, K., Masumoto, T., Matsui, H., Kato, T. and Sato, Y. (2006)
‘Prospects for multifunctionality of paddy rice cultivation in Japan and other countries
in monsoon Asia’, Paddy Water Environment, vol. 4, pp. 189–197.
Meyer, C., Matzdorf, B., Müller, K. and Schleyer, C. (2014) ‘Cross Compliance as payment
for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies’, Ecological Economics,
vol. 107, pp. 185–194
Nagano, T., Ono, Y., Kotera, A. and Singh, R. (2015) ‘Detecting fluctuation of rice cul-
tivated areas in semi-arid regions by combined use of MODIS and Landsat imageries’,
Hydrological Research Letters, vol. 9(4), pp. 107–112.
Nishida, K., Yoshida, S. and Shiozawa, S. (2022) ‘Numerical simulation on effect of irri-
gation conditions on water temperature distribution in a paddy field’, Paddy and Water
Environment, published online, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00884-1.
Nishimura, S., Sawamoto, T., Akiyama, H., Sudo, S. and Yagi, K. (2004) ‘Methane and ni-
trous oxide emissions from a paddy field with Japanese conventional water management
and fertilizer application’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol. 18, GB2017.
Niswonger, R.G., Panday, S. and Ibaraki, M. (2011) ‘MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton for-
mulation for MODFLOW-2005’, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods,
6-A37, 44 p.
OECD (2003) ‘Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications’, OECD.
Ohtsuka, T. (2014) ‘Nursery grounds for round crucian carp, Carassius auratus grandoculis,
in rice paddies around lake Biwa’, In: Usio, N. and Miyashita, T. (Eds.), Social-Ecological
Restoration in Paddy-Dominated Landscapes, Ecological Research Monographs, Springer,
Tokyo.
Quang, L.X., Nakamura, K., Hung, T., Tinh, N.V., Matsuda, S., Kadota, K., Horino, H.,
Hai, P.T., Komatsu, H., Hasegawa, K., Fukuda, S., Hirata, J., Oura, N., Kishimoto-
Mo, A.W., Yonemura, S. and Onishi, T. (2019) ‘Effect of organizational paddy wa-
ter management by a water user group on methane and nitrous oxide emissions and
rice yield in the Red River Delta, Vietnam’, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 217,
pp. 179−192.
Rejesus, R.M., Martin, A.M. and Gypmantasiri, P. (2014) ‘Enhancing the impact of nat-
ural resource management research: lessons from a meta-impact assessment of the Irri-
gated Rice Research Consortium’, Global Food Security, vol. 3, pp. 41–48.
Rejesus, M.R., Palis, F.G., Rodriguez, D.G., Lampayan, R.M. and Bouman, B.A.M. (2011)
‘Impact of the alternate wetting and drying (AWD) water-saving irrigation technique:
evidence from rice producers in the Philippines’, Food Policy, vol. 36, pp. 280–288.
Richards, M. and Sander, B.O. (2014) ‘Alternate wetting and drying in irrigated rice’,
Climate-Smart Agriculture Practice Brief, Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Runkle, B.R.K., Suvočarev, K., Reba, M.L., Reavis, C.W., Smith, S.F., Chiu, Y.L. and Fong,
B. (2019) ‘Methane emission reductions from the alternate wetting and drying of rice
fields detected using the eddy covariance method’, Environmental Science & Technology,
vol. 53, pp. 671–681.
Sander, B.O., Wassmann, R., Palao, L.K. and Nelson, A. (2017) ‘Climate-based suitability
assessment for alternate wetting and drying water management in the Philippines: a
novel approach for mapping methane mitigation potential in rice production’, Carbon
Management, vol. 8:4, pp. 331–342.
Santos, D.K. and Shimada, K. (2019) ‘Analysis of the effects of direct payment subsidies for
environmentally-friendly agriculture on income of rice farmers in Shiga, Japan’, Euro-
pean Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 8(4), pp. 325–336.
Sapart, C.J., Monteil, G., Prokopiou, M., van de Wal, R.S.W., Kaplan, J.O., Sperlich, P.,
Krumhardt, K.M., van der Veen, C., Houweling, S., Krol, M.C., Blunier, T., Sowers,
T., Martinerie, P., Witrant, E., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Röckmann, T. (2012) ‘Natural and
anthropogenic variations in methane sources during the past two millennia’, Nature,
vol. 490, pp. 85–88.
Seyfferth, A.L., Amaral, D., Limmer, M.A. and Guilherme, L.R.G. (2019) ‘Combined im-
pacts of Si-rich rice residues and flooding extent on grain as and Cd in rice’, Environ-
ment International, vol. 128, pp. 301–309.
Shindo, H., Saito, M., Sasaki, K. Sato, Y. and Katahira, M. (2017) ‘Characteristics of seed-
bed preparation work using a chisel plow and power harrow and rice plant growth on
non-puddling direct rice seeding cultivation in flooded paddy field soil’, Japanese Journal
of Farm Work Research, vol. 52(3), pp. 121–131. (in Japanese with English abstract)
Shindo, S. and Yamamoto, K. (2017) ‘Strengthening water users’ organization targeting
for participatory irrigation management in Egypt’, Paddy and Water Environment, vol.
15, pp. 773–785.
Sibayan, E., S amoy-Pascual, K., Grospe, F., Casil, M., Tokida, T., Padre, A. and Minami-
kawa, K. (2018) ‘Effects of alternate wetting and drying technique on greenhouse gas
emissions from irrigated rice paddy in Central Luzon, Philippines’, Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, vol. 64, pp. 39–46.
Shiga Prefectural Government (2014) ‘Lake Biwa Guidebook’, Environmental Policy Divi-
sion of Shiga Prefectural Government, 131 p, Available at: https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/
ippan/kankyoshizen/biwako/13473.html
Tan, X., Shao, D., Liu, H., Yang, F., Xiao, C. and Yang H. (2013) ‘Effects of alternate wet-
ting and drying irrigation on percolation and nitrogen leaching in paddy fields’, Paddy
and Water Environment, vol. 11, pp. 381–395.
Tan, X., Shao, D., Gu, W. and Liu, H. (2015) ‘Field analysis of water and nitrogen fate in
lowland paddy fields under different water managements using H YDRUS-1D’, Agricul-
tural Water Management, vol. 150, pp. 67–80.
Teamswan, V. and Satoh, M. (2009) ‘Comparative analysis of management of three water
users’ organizations: successful cases in the Chao Phraya Delta, Thailand’, Paddy and
Water Environment, vol. 7, pp. 227–237.
To, P.X., Dressler, W.H., Mahanty, S., Pham, T.T. and Zingerli, C. (2012) ‘The prospects for
payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A look at three payment schemes’,
Human Ecology, vol. 40, pp. 237–249.
Wang, M., Yu, S., Shao, G., Gao, S., Wang, J. and Zhang, Y. (2018) ‘Impact of alternate
drought and flooding stress on water use, and nitrogen and phosphorus losses in a paddy
field’, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 27(1), pp. 345–355.
Xie, X. and Cui, Y. (2011) ‘Development and test of SWAT for modeling hydrological
processes in irrigation districts with paddy rice’, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 396(1–2),
pp. 61–71.
Xuehai, J., Yinghao, X., Bin, X., Tuo, J., Zhiyu, X. and Shangbin, G. (2018) ‘Establishing an
agro-ecological compensation mechanism to promote agricultural green development
in China,’ Journal of Resources and Ecology, vol. 9(4), pp. 426–433.
Yagi, K., Sriphirom,P., Cha-un, N., Fusuwankaya, K., Chidthaisong, A., Damen, B and
Towprayoon, S. (2020) ‘Potential and promisingness of technical options for mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions from rice cultivation in Southeast Asian countries’, Soil Sci-
ence and Plant Nutrition, vol. 66(1), pp. 37–49.
Yamaguchi, T., Tuan, L.M., Minamikawa, K. and Yokoyama, S. (2019) ‘Assessment of the
relationship between adoption of a knowledge-intensive water-saving technique and
irrigation conditions in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam’, Agricultural Water Management,
vol. 212, pp. 162–171.
Yan, X., Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. and Akimoto, H. (2009) ‘Global estimations of the inven-
tory and mitigation potential of methane emissions from rice cultivation conducted
using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines’, Global Bioge-
ochemical Cycles, vol. 23, p. GB2002.
Yoshikawa, N. (2014) ‘Can paddy fields mitigate flood disaster? Possible use and technical
aspects of the paddy field dam’, In: Usio, N. and Miyashita, T. (Eds), Social-Ecological
Restoration in Paddy-Dominated Landscapes, Ecological Research Monographs, Springer,
Tokyo.
4 Integrated pest management
in rice and the potential to
contribute to climate-neutral
and resilient farming systems
Shyamaranjan Das Mohapatra, Najam Waris
Zaidi, Minati Mohapatra, Udaya Sekhar Nagothu,
Radhakrushna Senapati, Munmun Mohapatra,
Bhubananda Adhikari, Subhendu Sekhar Pradhan,
and Amaresh Kumar Nayak
Introduction
It is now 60 years since the book The Silent Spring was published in 1962 by Rachel
Carson, based on experiences of communities using persistent pesticides, which
caused serious damage to biodiversity, pollinators, wildlife, farm livestock, and
human health (NRDC, 2015). The book raised alarm about the negative im-
pacts of chemical pesticides on the environment and the future of the planet.
Her message is highly relevant even today, with the current climate crisis we are
facing, where agriculture is becoming both a victim and cause for climate crisis.
Although several measures were taken by governments to ban the use of toxic
pesticides, their use still continues in several parts of the world. The overall im-
pact of intensive agriculture promoted by the Green Revolution in the 1960s and
1970s, and the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals in the following years led
to irreparable damage to agroecosystems, the biodiversity they harbor, and an
increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) as discussed in Chapter 1. The Silent Spring
and other similar publications triggered environmental debates around the globe
that gradually increased awareness among scientists, stakeholders, and develop-
ment agencies about the importance of sustainable and integrated pest manage-
ment (IPM) with minimum impacts on the environment and human health.
Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, humidity, and droughts have
variable impacts on the different pest and disease species and their behavior,
which can become unpredictable with more increased frequency of extreme
weather events. One direct impact that is of concern to agriculture is increased
incidence and distribution of insect pests, diseases, and weeds, which leads to
low crop production and productivity (Oerke, 2006). Climate change is affecting
the outbreak of potential pests in a vast range of crops and landscapes (Heeb
et al., 2019). Due to the combined effect of climate change and unsustainable
agronomic practices, new invasive species occur, while some of the minor pests
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-4
70 Shyamaranjan Das Mohapatra et al.
and diseases are becoming a major problem (Mohapatra et al., 2008, 2016, 2021b;
Pretty and Bharucha, 2015).
A recent study revealed that there was an increase in the duration of the devel-
opmental period of yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas, in each stage of the
life cycle as the concentration of CO2 increases (Giri et al., 2022). However, the
study showed that the life span of the adult moth was significantly reduced under
elevated CO2 concentrations when compared with ambient CO2 concentrations
(Giri et al., 2022). Similarly, the Fall Army Worm outbreak in Africa and other
regions impacted by global warming has drawn the attention of several national
governments and international agencies to jointly develop an IPM framework to
check the spread of pests (Prasanna et al., 2018). There are several other examples
of such effects of rise in average temperature on other pests and diseases. There-
fore, future management strategies must consider not only the pest incidence and
control per se but also the climate and environmental risks. In this chapter, the
focus will be on c limate-sensitive and sustainable IPM practices in rice, which is
the major staple food for more than 60% of the population and of crucial impor-
tance to global food security (Yuan, 2014).
Pest and disease scenarios and dynamics of IPM in rice-

growing regions of Asia
Pests and diseases cause both direct and indirect losses to crops. The direct crop
yield losses roughly account for 2 0–40% (Teng, 1987; Oerke et al., 1996; Oerke,
2006). In rice, diseases such as rice blast, rice bacterial blight, and false smut,
and insect pests such as stem borers and brown planthopper (BPH) are the major
causes for crop damage. In addition, we are witnessing new invasive pests and
diseases entering new areas through import of seed/planting materials with the
increase in global trade of agricultural products, despite the quarantine regula-
tions in place (European Commission, 2016).
As farming practices evolved over time, associated pests have adapted to them.
Since the introduction of high yielding varieties during the Green Revolution,
combined with prophylactic use of chemical pesticides, the number of insect pests
and diseases also increased with a corresponding change in their intensity, diver-
sity, and distribution in rice crop (John and Babu, 2021). L
arge-scale outbreaks of
insect pests have occurred in the past, because of pesticide subsidies and subse-
quent overuse in some countries (Kenmore, 1996). A study by Rao and Rao (2017)
in India showed that 73% of farmers sprayed chemical pesticides as soon as they
noticed the first appearance of pests, irrespective of the need. Another study from
the Philippines reported that 80% of rice farmers’ pesticide sprays were not used
properly (Heong et al., 1995). Both insecticides and fertilizers then were subsi-
dized by governments and international Overseas Development Programs, some of
which continue even today. The negative impacts of chemical pesticides on human
health, food safety, and the ecosystem, including reduced biodiversity and eco-
system services were well documented in the past (Kishi, 2005; Pretty and Hine,
2005). In fact, Way and Heong (2021) concluded that insecticides were not needed
Integrated pest management in rice 71
in most cases to control pests, and pests can be controlled by adopting physical
and cultural measures that are e co-friendly. Subsequently, several agencies realized
the importance of agroecological-based approaches, stating that sustainable rice
intensification programs can be developed with minimal or no use of pesticides.
The Brown Plant Hopper (BPH) was a classic case that became serious because
of pesticide overuse in paddy rice cultivation in Asia. The natural BPH popula-
tions were otherwise kept under control by their natural enemies and predators
(Gill and Garg, 2014). It became a major threat to rice production in Asia and
many parts of India, starting as a sporadic pest during 1 958–1969, and later spread
to other rice-growing regions by 1982 causing huge losses to rice crops (ICAR-
NRRI, 2017). To combat the BPH, countries initiated IPM programs, as evident
from the steps taken in Indonesia and India (Thorburn, 2015; ICAR-NRRI, 2018).
The BPH offered vast experience to scientists, both positive and negative, and
showed the importance and need of a better understanding of the agroecosys-
tem, and the relevant ecological factors for developing future IPM programs. The
IPM program introduced in Indonesia to control the BPH during the 1990s was
supported by the innovative Farmer Field School (FFS) model – a farmer-driven
agroecosystem-based crop management to grow a healthy rice crop (Thorburn,
2015). The FFS approach at that time was a significant deviation from the top-
down conventional extension approach, where cooperation, co-development, and
co-implementation of IPM program was emphasized, which contributed to the
successful management of BPH on rice in countries where it was adopted. Thus,
BPH experience became a major entry point for IPM programs in other crops.
A similar initiative in the Lao PDR (2015–2017 period) was taken up, where 54
FFSs were set up involving 1,562 farmers (37% of them female). The farmers went
through participatory learning about the multiple goods and services derived from
paddy-based farming systems – the
importance of their management through
improved agronomic practices (e.g., wider plant spacing/reduced seeding rates),
improved water management (alternate wetting and drying), and reduced use of
chemical pesticides through the application of ecologically sound IPM and biolog-
ical control (Ketelaar et al., 2018). The FFS approach gradually evolved over the
last two to three decades to address a wide range of challenges and is currently
implemented in over 90 countries worldwide (FAO, 2019). Other good examples of
farmer participatory extension approaches were reported from India, for example,
the Village Knowledge Centres (VKCs) that are information and communication
technology (ICT) based knowledge exchange platforms, which encourage farmers
and scientists to work together in developing IPM programs, training through par-
ticipatory “plant clinics” and implementation (Swindell, 2006; Mohapatra et al.,
2019b, 2021a). However, the sustainability and upscaling of these programs de-
pend on funding, policy support, and farmer response.
Understanding the behaviors of the pest or disease alone does not help to de-
velop a good IPM program. Farmers and scientists must get a holistic understand-
ing of the ecology of the pest, pest-predator dynamics, multifunctional effects of
the rice agroecosystem, and the benefits and ecosystem services it generates if
managed well (Luka and Yusuf, 2012). This was one of the key factors emphasized
by the FAO-initiated IPM. In addition, the farmers’ abilities and capacity to use
the information and implement the selected measures in a timely manner are
equally important. According to Heeb et al. (2019), the cross-sectoral approach
in IPM that aims to reduce p est-induced crop losses will also improve ecosystem
services and reduce the GHG intensity per unit of food produced and make agri-
cultural systems more resilient to climate change.
As we are aware, paddy rice or w et-land rice is a vast h
uman-made wetland with
ecological complexity. The rich diversity of arthropods in the paddy agroecosys-
tem, both plant eating and predators, helps to keep their populations in balance,
especially abundance of the former groups that provide a good source of food for
the latter (Thorburn, 2015). The generalist predators (spiders, dragonfly, damsel-
fly, water striders, etc.) in turn help to keep the rice pest populations below the
economic threshold levels. Several species of host-specific parasites and parasitoids
play an important role within the complex ecological web. The behavior and pop-
ulation dynamics of the predator-pest species within an agroecosystem is heavily
influenced by the type of soil, water and crop management operations used, in-
cluding the agronomic management practices, and the use of external inputs, es-
pecially synthetic pesticides and inorganic fertilizers (Heong et al., 2021). The lack
of integrated measures to manage the pest with reliance on chemical pesticides
alone will not be enough; rather, it leads to negative impacts on the environment
and human health (Gill and Garg, 2014). Therefore, increasing awareness about
a holistic IPM approach and farmers’ c apacity-building is important for successful
adoption. In India, IPM trainings and awareness campaigns thus became a part
of the nationwide IPM program, as evident from the trainings that were con-
ducted during 1995–2021 for scientists, extension workers, and farmers through
formal courses, FFSs, and exposure visits (Government of India, 2021). However,
the results and outcomes of the trainings were not able to realize the expected
outcomes in the field, because of the lack of systematic f ollow-up and other critical
shortcomings. The rate of adoption of IPM technology by farmers varied and was
influenced by age, education, involvement in community-based organizations, and
the ability to recognize the pests and farm size (Rao et al., 2011). Other constraints
linked to lack of trained extension officers on IPM, and poor farmer integration in
the planning and implementation of IPM slowed down the IPM adoption.
A conceptual framework for sustainable and climate-smart

integrated pest management
During the last 60 years, IPM development across several countries has illustrated
how crop protection evolved over time with varied outcomes, including both suc-
cess and failures (Deguine, 2021). The main objective of IPM when it was first in-
troduced was to reduce the overuse of synthetic pesticides. During the late 1990s,
the importance of sustainable intensification in agriculture gained momentum
(Conway, 1999; Pretty and Bharucha, 2015). Consequently, the importance of
environment and human health in IPM started to become a priority together
with reducing crop damage and yield losses. More recently, with the emphasis on
climate action, new IPM programs are obligated to give due consideration to the
impacts they would have on climate or vice versa. Hence, the IPM interventions
must not only be sustainable and ensure environmental health but also contribute
to GHG reductions and carbon sequestration (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 illustrates a pathway for transition from conventional pest man-
agement (PM) toward climate-smart and sustainable IPM. First and foremost,
a good understanding of the potential of a healthy rice agroecosystem and its
multifunctionality will be a necessary step in IPM. At the next level, an ena-
bling institutional environment and policy support is essential for effective im-
plementation and upscaling of any IPM program, including the timely and right
advisory from scientific community and the genuineness of farmer participatory
extension approaches used, targeted trainings, adequate investments, and neces-
sary infrastructure.
Th choice of IPM measures must be based on the needs of the rice agroe-
cosystem with the appropriate combination of nature based, cultural, physical,
chemical, and biological measures that not only help to improve the agroeco-
logical processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, biological nitrogen fixation, soil carbon
sequestration, and predator activity) but also contribute to overall sustainability
of the agroecosystem (Thorburn, 2015; Ketelaar et al., 2018; Heong et al., 2021).
Habitat management in non-croplands

The main objective here is to protect the ecosystem and biodiversity around the
crop lands, especially the natural enemies and pests. A proper habitat management
High pest incidence and crop losses, habitat Reduced crop losses, higher yields, healthier
destruction agroecosystem, reduced GHG emissions
Lack of proper integration of pest IPM with proper combination of measures

management measures
Habitat management (non-croplands): by using
Monoculture of rice Nature/ecosystem-based measures
Deep tillage – harmful to soil biodiversity Habitat management (on croplands): by using
Unbalanced use of fertilizers-pollution agro-ecological/cultural /physical measures
Puddled paddy rice cultivation-higher GHG Crop and pest management: by using cultural/
emissions¨ physical/biological/monitoring tools
Excess use of synthetic/chemical pesticides Direct control with bio-based pesticides and
other measures
Conventional IPM Climate smart and sustainable

Transition to sustainable IPM
IPM
Enabling institutions (Public and private sector,

research, extension, and development organizations
to support climate smart and sustainable IPM
Figure 4.1 A
conceptual framework showing a transition from conventional pest manage-
ment to climate-smart and sustainable IPM (authors’ own compilation).
helps to establish a functional link between crop and non-crop lands, improves
the interactions of pest-predators, and, thereby, provides a healthy diverse habitat
for both beneficial insects and alternative hosts for pests. A groecosystem-based
measures are normally recommended for habitat management that include main-
taining graminaceous flora around paddy fields, planting catch crops, and growing
green manure crops like Chinese milk vetch Astragalus sinicus after the rice har-
vest, which can provide shelters for native natural enemies (Huang et al., 2005).
The numbers of species, individuals, and diversity index of natural arthropod
enemies were found to be significantly greater in Chinese milk vetch fields than
those in winter fallow fields (Yuan et al., 2010). Furthermore, the milk vetch fields
provide favorable conditions for natural wintering enemies where natural enemies
account for 67.9% of the total insect species. Field bunds around rice farms host
a number of arthropods that can effectively regulate the rice pest populations
increasing the parasitoid population within the rice fields (Gu et al., 1999; Xuetal,
2004; Zhu et al., 2015).
Habitat management within the croplands

The importance of soil biodiversity conservation in agriculture has not been
appropriately considered in the past. The focus has been mostly on increasing
crop productivity through agricultural intensification, whereas a sustainable
intensification-based IPM approach requires the adoption of nature c onservation-
b ased measures, including conservation agriculture (CA) practices (e.g., inter-
cropping, zero tillage, or minimum tillage), that benefit the diverse soil fauna and
flora and improve overall soil health in the croplands. Studies have shown that
microbial diversity and biological activity are higher in undisturbed soils under no
tillage or minimum tillage compared to soils subject to deep plowing (Nsabimana
et al., 2004; Spedding et al., 2004). Also, the abundance of mesofauna was greater
where CA was practiced in comparison to compacted soils (Rohrig et al., 1998).
One of the important ecosystem services generated by the soil flora and fauna is
the carbon sequestration in the soils, which can be a significant contribution to
the mitigation efforts in agriculture (IPCC, 2022).
Spiders constitute over 90% of the natural enemy population in rice fields,
which play an important role to contain the insect pests. Simple measures such
as fixing of straw bundles vertically with bamboo sticks after 15 days of rice trans-
planting (@20 bundles/ha), 15 cm above the water level, helped harboring 10–30
spider adults, 8 –10 spider egg masses, 500–600 spiderlings, and 20–30 earwigs
(Tanwar et al., 2011). Similarly planting wild sugarcane (Saccharum spontaneum)
twigs of 4 –5 feet in height and 4 –5 cm in diameter after 15 days of transplanting
in rice fields harbor the predators at the time of occurrence of leaf-roller, thereby
suppressing the incidence of pest. This was common in parts of India, as evident
from a study that showed 90% of farmers in the Benakunda village of the Ganjam
district in Odisha adopted the practice of planting wild sugarcane (Mohapatra
et al., 2019a). Another example is the Caseworm pest incidence in West Sin-
ghbhum district, Jharkhand state, India where farmers use fresh parasi leaves
(Cleistanthus collinus) once 5–10 days after transplanting on the insect-infested
rice field using a dosage of 5 kg leaves per 100 m2 to control the pest (Mishra et al.,
2020). Similar cultural measures for habitat management within the rice fields
were adopted by farmers, for example, protecting naturally occurring plants on
the farm bunds, which act as a source of food for natural enemies.
Avoiding insecticide sprays in the early crop stages helps maintaining arthro-
pod population, thereby decreasing the incidence of pest such as BPH develop-
ment. In Vietnam, a multi-media campaign was used to encourage farmers to
stop early season spraying, and the results showed that in provinces where the
campaign was implemented, farmers reduced insecticide sprays by 53% (Heong
et al., 1998). A balanced application of chemical fertilizer (major and micronutri-
ents) can improve the utilization efficiency and rice plant vigor and enhance the
resistant ability (de Kraker et al., 2000). For example, there is a positive relation-
ship between rice resistance to pests and application of silicon in rice. Silicon can
induce rice resistance or tolerance to adversities (Thripathi et al., 2014), such as
stem borer, rice blast disease (Zhang et al., 2003), and the white BPH eggs laid on
rice culm (Yang et al., 2014). Thus, micronutrients have multiple benefits, such as
reduced pest damage and increased yields.
Crop and pest management

By using a good combination of cultural, physical, and biological measures, it
is possible to manage the rice crop and relevant pests through IPM p rograms –
for example, changing planting and harvesting timings to avoid peak pest in-
cidence, use of pest and disease-tolerant rice varieties, use of biopesticides, rice
stubble management. Rice stubbles left in the field after harvest serve as the main
overwintering sites for several rice stem borers. Rice stubble management using
mechanized harvesting can significantly reduce the initial population by reducing
overwintering sites (Guo et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015). Agroecolog-
ical based measures such as intercropping and crop rotations help in suppressing
pest populations, and damage to rice crop (IPCC, 2022). Some examples of rice
crop and pest management are discussed later in this chapter from the authors’
own field study.
Monitoring and forecasting of insect pests

Insect pest monitoring these days is becoming an important component in IPM
programs as it increases the knowledge of the pest dynamics in the field that
helps growers in decision-making – for
instance, the intervention thresholds to
counteract a given insect pest infestation, optimizing the control strategy and
reduced use of chemical inputs (Mohapatra et al., 2016). Monitoring data can also
be used to develop phenological models that can predict insect population out-
break, which in turn will provide additional information to improve the control
techniques and optimize insecticide usage (Dent, 2000). Tools and methods such
as e-Pest Surveillance, Smart Light trap, and other devices for monitoring pests are
now available for improved pest monitoring and forecasting. Similarly, light traps
are useful in monitoring rice stem borers and planthopper populations. The clas-
sic monitoring approach of insect pests is by placing a series of traps in infested
rice fields which are monitored manually. More recently, software and image rec-
ognition algorithms have been used to support automatic trap usage to identify
and/or count insect species from pictures and enable real-time and online pest
monitoring (Mohapatra et al., 2019b). Farmers these days can opt for any model
of light trap based on the cost and availability of their power source, i.e., direct
electricity, battery, or solar energy as per the requirement/situation, with the costs
varying from approximately US$12 to US$200 (Mohapatra et al., 2019b). These
traps are eco-friendly, portable, easy to operate and no special skills are required
for installation.
Based on the peaks of its light-trap captures, forewarning models can be devel-
oped, for example, a model for rice leaf folder was developed using the light-trap
captures and weather variables such as maximum temperature, relative humidity,
and sunshine hours, which could explain 99% of the variability in leaf folder
light-trap peaks in a study in Punjab, India (Singh et al., 2015). Similar models
were analyzed for BPH to inform farmers about the pest incidence and measures
to be taken (Thakur et al., 2020). In general, pest weather relations have been
analyzed through empirical models, which behave on a location-specific man-
ner (Chander, 2010). The models such as DYMEX can forecast the impact of
climate on the dynamics of the rice yellow stem borer population and generate a
monthly or seasonal trend pattern, with R2 values of 0.74 (calibration) and 0.88
(validation) (Nurhayati and Koesmaryono, 2017). In addition, mobile applications
are becoming popular in agriculture, for example, the “riceXpertApp” developed
by the National Rice Research Institute (NRRI) in Cuttack is a multilingual mo-
bile app with a “pest solution” module to identify the pest and estimate the right
amount of pesticide to be used. The solution can help to create prescriptions auto-
matically for different rice pests (Mohapatra et al., 2018, 2019b). One of the main
objectives of the app is to increase the precision of pest control and avoid the use
of chemical pesticides wherever possible.
Direct pest control with bio-based products

Another category is the non-toxic bio-based products that can manage pests
and improve plant health without using chemicals that can harm people and
benefit insect populations. The bio-based pesticides used are naturally occurring
substances, such as microbes, bacteria, and plant extracts. The use of b io-based
products promotes plant and soil health, while managing weeds, pests, and plant
diseases in a broad range of agricultural, horticultural crops, as part of an IPM
strategy. Biological insecticides are now widely accepted and commonly used in
agriculture and increasingly available in the markets in India. Products derived
from the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) were traditionally used for controlling
pest in agriculture because of the presence of active ingredient Azadirachtin in
neem tree (Morakchi et al., 2021). Seed treatment with bio-based products helps
in reducing pest attack and damage to rice crop at a later stage. For example,
rice seedlings roots-dipped in 5% neem seed kernel extract for 12 hours reduced
egg laying and hatching of green leafhopper Nephotettix virescens (Abdul Kareem
et al., 1988). Similarly, seed treatment with Trichoderma viride was found to be
effective in controlling the rice seed-borne fungal pathogen, Rhizoctnia solani,
and foliar-borne bacterial pathogen like Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae (Bhat
et al., 2009; Tanwar et al., 2019). The studies reported that making the products
easily available to farmers and regular trainings about their usage would increase
adoption of these environmental friendly products.
Bacterial and microbial formulations are replacing chemical pesticides as their
availability is increasing in India. In addition, new trails and initiatives with mi-
crobial formulations by private and public research agencies across India are show-
ing promising results, which will help scientists to include the new products in
IPM programs. A recent field assay of the National Rice Research Institute, India,
Bt formulation showed LC50 (×107) values as 3.77, 5.29, 4.83 and 4.93, 4.42, 4.72
against third, fourth, and fifth instar larvae of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis respec-
tively (Ghosh et al., 2017). The isolates of Beauveria and Metarhizium spp. were
more effective in infecting 80–93.3% rice leaf folder larvae, compared to other
entomopathogenic fungi that infected only 20–23.3% larvae in 96 hours (Sahoo
et al., 2013).
In recent years, application of Trichogramma to control insect pests in rice has
become popular again since it meets the needs of food, ecological, and environ-
mental safety standards (Wang et al., 2015). The devices and technologies for
releasing Trichogramma in rice field have been improved (Zhang et al., 2003),
including the use of devices for releasing Trichogramma with nectar food supple-
ment and the recent techniques for releasing Trichogramma by unmanned aerial
vehicle in China (Li et al., 2013). The nectar food application studies carried out
to improve the biological control function in a r ice-based ecosystem (Gurr et al.,
2016), especially on flowering plants (Zhu et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) and
type of nectar food spray (Seagraves et al., 2011), will be useful to develop eco-
friendly IPM programs in the future. A field study carried out in India by Kumar
and Khan (2005) on the release of Trichogramma japonicum and T. chilonis (@ of
50,000 numbers/ha) showed a significant reduction in the tiller damage caused
by yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas), and folded leaves by rice leaf folder
(Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) from 50.1% to 61.3% and from 63.8% to 75.5%, respec-
tively. Similarly, reduction in tiller damage and folded leaves varied from 78.1% to
81.6% and from 72.6% to 81.8%, respectively, when egg parasitoids were released
at 100,000 numbers/ha.
There are numerous examples of non-chemical measures used and available
traditionally by farmers to control pests and diseases. We need to revisit them,
document the local knowledge and evidence systematically, and thereby put them
together with the scientific methods of pest control while developing new IPM
programs for rice and other crops. Mechanisms must be in place to acknowledge
the traditional practices and incentivize farmers that adopt them, in their efforts
to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
Impacts due to c limate-smart and sustainable IPM
The impacts of a w ell-planned climate-smart and sustainable IPM on the rice
agroecosystems can be multipronged. A right combination of IPM measures can
have positive impact on the environmental, socio-cultural, and economic sus-
tainability dimensions simultaneously (Figure 4.2). Figure 4.2 illustrates some of
the benefits, which are possible because of IPM. These indicators can be used to
develop a baseline and subsequently evaluate the impact due to the implemen-
tation of IPM. The impacts can be direct and/or indirect, which can be assessed
using quantitative and qualitative indicators. Predominantly, it was the yield and
crop damage that was given importance in IPM programs, whereas impacts on the
environment and human health were often ignored. It is important to show the
farmers, stakeholders, and policy makers about the multifunctionality that could
generate a wider support for IPM programs (Swaminathan, 2000; IAASTD, 2008;
NRC, 2010). In recent years, IPM has been evolving into a more broad based in-
tegrated pest and production management, where not only pest management but
multiple benefits to sustainable production are also targeted.
Studies combining selected IPM measures such as minimum tillage, agrofor-
estry, border crops outside croplands, crop rotation with legumes, the system of
rice intensification, and so on showed significant reductions in water savings, im-
proved soil nitrogen, and soil biodiversity (e.g., abundance of earthworms), besides
reduced pesticide use and increase in yield (Kartaatmadja et al., 2004; Pretty and
Bharucha, 2015). The hidden health benefits of reducing or “no pesticide use”
strategy are not easy to be assessed, which can be significant in most cases and the
benefits can be enormous in some cases. A recent assessment of the government
IPM- Socio-cultural Economic

Environmental
components sustainability sustainability
sustainability
Nature-based,
cultural, physical,
biological ● Increased
● Healthier ● Increased
measures,bio- knowledge of
ecosystem resource use
pesticides ecosystem
● GHG emissions efficiency
Farmer biodiversity
reduced ● Organic products
participatory ● Pesticide free
● Carbon storage with better
extension services agri-products
in soils increased markets
(FFS, VKCs) ● Reduced human
● Greater ● Increased farm
health problems
resilience income
Institutional and
● Farmer
● Biodiversity ● Enhanced value
policy support innovation
protected chain
-Research increased
-Public -
privatesector
services (inputs,
credit, marketing)
Figure 4.2 Potential impacts due to climate-smart and sustainable IPM.

Source: Authors’ own compilation.
showed that IPM initiatives in India have led to an increase in crop yields from
6.72% to 40% in rice, reduction in the use of chemical pesticide by 50–100%,
and an increase in the use of biopesticides from 123 million tons in 1994–1995 to
7,682 million tons by 2018–2019 (Government of India, 2021).
IPM impacts and results from Resilience and other

projects in India
IPM modules involve combining several measures targeting habitat management
both around and within the rice farms, in addition to the direct or specific meas-
ures included to manage the pests and diseases. In some cases, it targets a particu-
lar pest, where two or more measures are combined to manage the damage due to
a single pest, whereas in others combined effort targets to manage multiple pests.
In this section, some examples of field demos of selected IPM modules in rice
and their results from the ongoing Resilience project in Odisha, India (www.resil-
ienceindia.org) which is funded by the Government of Norway are presented. As
per the baseline survey conducted under the Resilience project, the major insect
pests observed were rice stem borer, rice bug, and termites, and diseases such as
rice blast, brown spot, and false smut that cause substantial losses to rice in the
project areas were observed. About 100 lead farmers were engaged in the training
and demonstrations of selected IPM modules targeting particular rice pests in the
project as described below.
A simple IPM module was developed for managing brown spot disease in low
land rice ecosystem, combining seedling dip in Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 3 × 106
cfu/ml and clipping of seedling tips and selected spraying of chlorantraniliprole
18.5 SC (soluble concentrate) @ 50g a.i. (active ingredient) per hectare at 25 days
after transplanting (DAT). This module recorded lowest brown spot incidence
(3.8%) compared to control treatment (12.0%).
Similarly, another IPM module for rice stem borer, combining seed treatment
with carbendazim @ 1 g a.i. (@ 2 g/kg seed) and an application of chlorantra-
niliprole 18.5 SC @ 50g a.i at 25 DAT, recorded the lowest percent dead heart
(2.4%) and white ear head infestation (2.0%) compared to control treatment, i.e.,
application of carbofuran 3G @ 3 g/m2 (nursery application) at 7 days before up-
rooting of seedling and thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 25 g a.i./ha (water dispersible
granule) at panicle initiation (PI) stage. Both the IPM modules – i.e., (1) chlo-
rantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 25 DAT and Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 3 × 106 cfu
and clipping of leaf tip at transplanting and (2) Carbendazim @ 2 g/kg seed (seed
treatment) and carbofuran 3G @ 3 g/m2 (nursery application) – registered
the
higher yield compared to control treatment.
Soil enzymatic activities such as dehydrogenase activity (DHA) of soil also
increased by 27% in treatments with chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC @ 50 g a.i./ha
(spray) over the control treatment with thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 25 g a.i./ha.
Similarly, fluorescein diacetate activity (FDA) increased by 18% due to the appli-
cation of chlorantraniliprole and carbendazim (for seed treatment), and the use
of Pseudomonas fluorescens over the application of Thiamethoxam and carbofuran
(soil application), thus safer to soils than in terms of the non-target effect of these
treatments on soil microbes and their activities. Chlorantraniliprole (18.5 SC) is a
reduced-risk pesticide that belongs to the pyrethroid group and is considered safe
to use in IPM. The overall soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) showed an in-
crease because of the IPM measures. These IPM measures demonstrated a positive
impact on the predators as evident from the increase in predator populations such
as damsel fly; ground beetle like Paedarus sp.; predatory bugs (Andrallusspinidens);
and spiders such as Pardosapseudoannulata, Tetragnatha, Xanthopimpla, and Tetras-
tichus observed in higher numbers than the control plots.
Another IPM module demonstrated in the farmer’s field at the Tangi block
in Cuttack district, Odisha under the Resilience project involved a combina-
tion of pheromone traps (@ 8 traps/ha) for monitoring yellow stem borer, com-
bined with solar powered light traps and the biological agents Trichogramma
japanicum, an egg parasitoid at a dose of 1 gram a.i. (@ 100,000/ha released
three times at an interval of seven to eight days). A need-based application
of foliar spray of flubendiamide 480SC @ 30g a.i. ha−1 against stem borer was
recommended only when the damage due to stem borer was observed. In ad-
dition, farmers were advised to place straw bundles in the field to increase the
spider population and also trained to collect nymphs and adults of rice gundhi
bug mechanically by using hand/sweep nets in the morning hours and reduce
chemical spraying.
Results in general showed that the fields with IPM demonstrated the advan-
tages in terms of yield ranging from 4.9 t/ha to 5.4 t/ha compared to control farm-
ers’ fields (4.8 t/ha) that used conventional PM practices. Furthermore, compared
to control plots, the use of chemical insecticide was reduced by about 1.5 appli-
cations in the IPM plots. Populations of natural enemies (e.g., spider) doubled
in the IPM demonstration plots. Pest populations in the IPM-treated plots were
higher in the early stages, but gradually the numbers reduced than in the control
fields toward the end of the cropping season because of IPM. This is in line with
observations from other studies that compare IPM-treated and insecticide-free
demos with conventional PM farms (Horgan et al., 2017). Higher pest numbers
at early crop stages are not generally considered problematic because rice com-
pensates for insect damage during tillering and p re-tillering stages, particularly
hybrid rice varieties (Horgan et al., 2016). Farmers were generally positive about
the IPM demo results that led to reduced pesticide use, increased cost effective-
ness, and increased rice yields. Farmer engagement in IPM planning and trainings
contributed to the adoption of IPM programs in the Resilience project villages in
Cuttack.
Policy measures in support of IPM

Upscaling the IPM requires policy support and funding from the governments,
and regular follow-up and monitoring of impacts. In Asia, awareness about the
importance of IPM increased since the m id-1980s, thanks to the effort of inter-
national agencies such as the FAO. Take, for example, the case of India, where
the central government has included IPM as one of the components in the over-
all Crop Production Programme since 1985 (Government of India, 1985). The
IPM program received a boost with the “Strengthening and Modernization of
Pest Management Approach in India in 1991–92,” which was launched together
with the establishment of 35 IPM centers across the country to support imple-
mentation. Further, the support for IPM was emphasized in the National Policy
on Agriculture – 2000 and the National Policy for Farmers – 2007. The overall
objective of IPM initiatives in India has been to increase crop production with
balanced use of pesticides, minimize environmental pollution and occupational
health hazards, and conserve ecosystem services. Although IPM is now a w ell-
recognized approach in India and other Asian countries both within the gov-
ernment and scientific communities, in practice it still has a long way to go; we
need more efforts to achieve the desired impacts. The policy and programs so far
appear to be promising and are a good basis on which the new c limate-smart and
sustainable IPM programs must be developed.
A study by Rao and Rao (2010) in India revealed that only 3.2% of the farmers
surveyed adopted IPM practices in various crops. Though IPM initiatives brought
out changes in the farmers’ attitude in PM and help to reduce the use of chemical
pesticides, there is a need for systematic follow-up to strengthen IPM adoption.
The study recommended readdressing the policies for encouraging eco-friendly
options and further strengthening extension services, involving farmers as one
of the top priorities. This is similar to the findings of Panda and Rathore (2017),
whose study recommended that IPM programs in India must be revised and made
specific to farmer and the particular agroecosystem needs.
Conclusion and way forward

Experiences so far have shown that a participatory e xtension-based IPM approach
is the way forward to realize the full benefits, prevent yield losses in major crops
such as rice, save on application of inputs, protect ecosystem, and reduce GHGs.
Based on the past experiences, the future IPM programs must be prepared encom-
passing site-specific based, cultural and physical measures combined with biolog-
ical control and/or plant origin pesticides that are environmentally friendly and
climate smart. IPM technology and experiences generated by scientists working in
national and international agricultural research centers must be combined with
local knowledge and customized to farmer and agroecosystem needs through co-
development for successful implementation. Wherever possible, new models and
tools must be used to improve forecasting of pest and disease occurrence and
increase precision in IPM programs.
Further research is needed to explore the full potential of natural enemies, mi-
crobial insecticides, and tolerant cultivars. Incentives for reducing use of chem-
ical pesticides and promoting use of bio-based pesticides must be systematized.
The net profits for the rice growers will increase by adopting IPM strategies prop-
erly, and thereby leading to reduced use of chemical pesticides while sustaining
the yield.
Acknowledgment
The chapter has benefited from the results of the Resilience project field trials in
Odisha. The authors would like to thank field enumerators and lead farmers in-
volved in the field demos. At the same time, they acknowledge the support of the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs/The Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi for
the funding and support to the Resilience project in India (2018–2023).
References
Abdul Kareem, A.A., Saxena, R.C., Palanginan, E.L., Boncodin, E.M. and Malayba,
M.T. (1988) Neem derivatives: effects on insect pests of rice and certain other crops in
the Philippines (laboratory and field evaluations 1986-881. Paper presented at the Final
Workshop of IRRI-ADB-EWC: Project on Botanical Pest Control in Rice-based Crop-
ping Systems, 1 2–16 December 1988. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños,
Philippines.
Bhat, K.A., Ali, A. and Wani, A.H. (2009) ‘Evaluation of biocontrol agents against Rhizoc-
tonia solani Kuhn and sheath blight disease of rice under temperate ecology’, Plant Dis-
ease Resistance, vol. 24(1), pp. 15–18.
Chander, S. (2010) ‘Simulation of insect population dynamics and c rop-pest interactions’,
pp. 74–80. In: Souvenir National Symposium on Perspectives and Challenges of Inte-
grated Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture, 19–21 November 2010, Dr. Y.S.
Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, India.
Chen, X.X., Liu, Y.Q., Ren, S.X., Zhang, F., Zhang, W.Q. and Ge, F. (2014) ‘Plant-mediated
support system for natural enemies of insect pests’, Chinese Bulletin of Entomology, vol.
51(1), pp. 1–12.
Conway, J.M. (1999) ‘Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84(1), pp. 3–13.
De Kraker, J., Rabbinge, R., van Huis, A., van Lenteren, J.C. and Heong, K.L. (2000)
‘Impact of n itrogenous-fertilization on the population dynamics and natural control of
rice leaffolders (Lep.: Pyralidae), International Journal of Pest Management, vol. 46(3),
pp. 225–235.
Deguine, J.P., Aubertot, J.N., Flor, R.J., Lescourett, F., Wyckhuys, K.A.G. and Ratnadoss,
A. (2021) ‘Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review’.
Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w
Dent, D. ( 2000) ‘ Insect pest management’, Journal of Applied Entomology, vol. 125,
pp. 287–288.
European Commission (2016) ‘Evaluation of Community Plant Health Regime’. Available
at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2016-10/ph_biosec_rules_annexes_eval_en.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019) ‘Farmers tak-
ing the lead-Thirty years of Farmer Field Schools’. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/
ca5131en/ca5131en.pdf
Ghosh, T.S., Chatterjee, S., Azmi, S.A., Mazumdar, A. and Dangar, T.K. (2017) ‘Virulence
assay and role of Bacillus thuringiensis TS110 as biocontrol agent against the larval
stages of rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis’, Journal of Parasitic Diseases, vol. 41(2),
pp. 491–495.
Gill, K.H. and Garg, H. (2014) ‘Pesticides: Environmental impacts and management strat-
egies’. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/46083
Giri, G.S., Raju, S.V.S., Mohapatra, S.D. and Mohapatra, M. (2022) ‘Effect of elevated
carbon dioxide on biology and morphometric parameters of yellow stem borer, Scir-
pophagaincertulas infesting rice (Oryza sativa)’, Journal of Agrometeorology, vol. 24(1),
pp. 77–82.
Government of India (1985) ‘Integrated Pest Management’. Available at: https://pib.gov.
in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110364
Government of India (2021) ‘IPM at a glance’. Available at: http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/
integrated-pest-management/ipm-glance
Gu, D.X, Zhang, G.R., Zhang, W.Q., Qu, D.S. and Wen, R.Z. (1999) ‘The reestablishment
of the spider community and the relationship between spider community and its species
pool in paddy fields’, Acta Arachnologica, vol. 8(2), pp. 89–94.
Guo, R., Han, M. and Shu, F. (2013) ‘Strategies and measures of green control of rice pests
based on reduction of pesticides application in paddy field’, China Plant Protection, vol.
33(10), pp. 38–41.
Gurr, G.M., Lu, Z.X., Zheng, X.S., Xu, H.X., Zhu, P.Y., Chen, G.H., Yao, X.M., Cheng,
J.A, et al. (2016) ‘Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological
intensification of agriculture’, Natural Plants, vol. (2), pp. 16014.
Heeb, L., Jenner, E. and Cock, M.J.W. (2019) ‘Climate-smart pest management: building
resilience of farms and landscapes to changing pest threats’, Journal of Pest Science, vol.
92, pp. 951–969.
Heong, K.L., Escalada, M.M. and Lazaro, A.A. (1995) ‘Misuse of pesticides among rice farm-
ers in Leyte, Philippines’. In: Pingali, P.L. and Roger, P.A. (Eds), Impact of Pesticides on
Farmers’ Health and the Rice Environment. Kluwer Press: San Francisco, CA, pp. 97–108.
Heong, K.L., Monina, E., Huan, N.H. and Mai, V. (1998) ‘Use of communication media in
changing rice farmers’ pest management in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Vo-Mai-2021099791
Heong, K.L., Lu, Z.X., Chien, H.V., Escalada, M., Settele, J., Zhu, Z.R. and Cheng, J.A.
(2021) ‘Ecological Engineering for Rice Insect Pest Management: The Need to Com-
municate Widely, Improve Farmers’ Ecological Literacy and Policy Reforms to Sustain
Adoption’, Agronomy, vol. 11, pp. 2208. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112208
Horgan, F.G., Crisol-Martínez, E., Almazan, M.I.P., Romena, A., Ramal, A.F., Ferrater,
J.B. and Bernal, C.C. (2016) ‘Susceptibility and tolerance in hybrid and p ure-line rice
varieties to herbivore attack: biomass partitioning and r esource-based compensation in
response to damage’, Annals of Applied Biology, vol. 169, pp. 200–213.
Horgan, F.G., Ramal, A.F., Villegas, J.M., Jamoralin, A., Bernal, C.C., Perez, M.O., Pasang,
J.M., Naredo, A.L. and Almazan, M.L.P. (2017) ‘Effects of bund crops and insecticide
treatments on arthropod diversity and herbivore regulation in tropical rice fields’, Jour-
nal of Applied Entomology, vol. 141, pp. 587–599.
Huang, D.C., Zeng, L., Liang, G.W. and Chen, Z.N. (2005) ‘Population dynamics of pests
and their enemies in different cultivated rice fields’, Chinese Journal of Applied Entomol-
ogy, vol. 16(11), pp. 2122–2125.
IAASTD (2008) Agriculture at a Crossroads. Island Press: Washington, DC.
ICAR-NRRI (2017) ‘Brown Plant Hopper outbreak in Odisha’. ICAR-National Rice
Research Institute, Cuttack, India.
ICAR-NRRI (2018) ‘Management of Brown Plant Hopper-An old foe in new form’, Avail-
able at: https://icar-nrri.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2.-Management-of-Brown-plant-
hopper-An-old-foe-in-new-form-2.pdf
IPCC (2022) ‘Climate change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and vulnerability’, Available at:
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
John, D.A. and Babu, G.R. ( 2021) ‘
Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Rev-
olution on Food System and Health’, Available at: https:// www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.644559/full
Kartaatmadja, S., Pane, H., Wirajaswadi, L., Sembiring, H., Simatupang, S., Bachrein, S.,
Ismadi, D. andFagi A.M. (2004) Optimising use of natural resources and increasing rice
productivity; Conserving Soil and Water for Society: Sharing Solutions, Proceedings of the
ISCO 2004—13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference; 4 –9 July
2004, Brisbane, Australia.
Kenmore, P.E. (1996). ‘Integrated Pest Management in rice’, In: Persley, G.J. (Ed.), Biotech-
nology and Integrated Pest Management, CABI International, Wallingford, pp. 76–97.
Ketelaar, J.W., Morales-Abubakar, A.L., Van Du, P., Widyastama, C., Phasouysaingam, A.,
Binamira, J. and Dung, N.T. (2018) ‘Save and Grow: Translating policy advice into field
action for sustainable intensification of rice production’, In: Nagothu, U.S. (eds) Agri-
cultural Development and Sustainable Intensification: Technology and Policy Challenges in
the Face of Climate Change. London, Earthscan from Routledge, pp. 23–51.
Kishi, M. (2005) ‘The health impacts of pesticides: What do we know?’ In: Pretty, J. (Ed.),
The Pesticide Detox. Earthscan, London, pp. 23–38.
Kumar, S. and Khan, M.A. (2005) ‘Bio-efficacy of Trichogramma spp. against yellow stem
borer and leaf folder in rice ecosystem’, Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, vol. 13(1),
pp. 97–99.
Li, D.S., Yuan, X., Zhang, B.X., Zhao, Y., Song, Z.W. and Zuo, C. (2013) ‘Report of using
unmanned aerial vehicle to release Trichogramma’, Chinese Journal of Biological Control,
vol. 29(3), pp. 455–458.
Luka, M. and Yusuf, A. (2012) ‘Environmental responsibility and performance of quoted
companies in Nigeria’, International Journal of Development Studies, vol. 5(4), pp. 262–278.
Mishra, A., Singh, S.R.K. and Raut, A.A. (2020) ‘Traditional Knowledge in Agriculture’.
Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR, New Delhi,pp.39.
Mohapatra, S.D. (2008) ‘Participatory appraisal for biointensive IPM research in basmati
rice: A case study’ Oryza, vol. 45(2), pp. 157–177.
Mohapatra, S.D., Rath, P.C. and Jena, M. (2016) ‘Sustainable management of insect pests
and diseases in rice in rainfed low land ecosystem: A case study’, Indian Journal of Plant
Protection, 44(2), pp. 189–191.
Mohapatra, S.D., Nayak, A.K. and Pathak, H. (2018) ‘NRRI ‘riceXpert’: An android app
decision support tool for smart rice farming’. Available at: http://ricecongress2018.irri.
org/conference program
Mohapatra, S.D., Tripathi R., Kumar A., Kar, S., Mohapatra, M., et al. (2019a) ‘Eco-smart
pest management in rice farming: prospects and challenges’, Oryza, vol. 56, pp. 143–155.
Mohapatra, S.D., Nayak, A.K., Panda, B.B., Tripathi, R., et. al., (2019b) ‘Integrated Pest
Management Strategies for Rice’, A Technical Brief, ICAR-National Rice Research
Institute, Cuttack, India.
Mohapatra, S.D., Banerjee, A., Senapati, R.K., Prasanthi, G., Mohapatra, M., Nayak, P.K.,
Nayak, A.K. and Maiti, D. (2021a) ‘Current status and future prospects in biotic stress
management in rice’, Oryza, vol. 58, pp. 168–193.
Mohapatra, S.D., Pradhan, S.S., Senapati, R.K., Prasanthi, G., Zaidi, N.W. and Nayak,
A.K. (2021b) ‘Rice Pest DSS in Sub’ ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack,
India’. Available at: http//ricepestinformatics.in
Morakchi, S.K., Goudjil, H.M. and Sifi, K. (2021) ‘Azadirachtin-Based Insecticide: Over-
view, Risk Assessments, and Future Directions’, Available at: https://www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fagro.2021.676208/full
Nsabimana, D., Haynes, R.J. and Wallis, F.M. (2004) ‘Size, activity, and catabolic diversity
of the soil microbial biomass as affected by land use’, Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 26(2),
pp. 81–92.
NRC (2010) ‘Towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century’. Committee on
Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture, National Academies Press; Washington, DC.
NRDC (2015) ‘The Story of Silent Spring’. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/
story-silent-spring
Nurhayati, E. and Koesmaryono, Y. (2017) ‘Predictive Modeling of Rice Yellow Stem Borer
Population Dynamics under Climate Change Scenarios in Indramayu’. Available at: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/315968756_Predictive_Modeling_of_Rice_Yellow_
Stem_Borer_Population_Dynamics_under_Climate_Change_Scenarios_in_Indramayu
Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., Schonbeck, F. and Weber, A. (1996). Estimated losses in major
food and cash crops. Agricultural Systems, vol. 51(4), pp. 493–495.
Oerke, E.C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 144(1),
pp. 31–43.
Panda, S. and Rahtore, R. (2017) ‘Prospects of Integrated Pest Management in India’. Avail-
able at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348192129_Prospects_of_integrated_
pest_management_in_India
Prasanna, B.M., Huesing, J.E., Eddy, R. and Peschke, V.M. (2018) ‘Fall Armyworm in
Africa: A guide for integrated pest management’, Available at: at: https://reliefweb.int/
sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/FallArmyworm_IPM_Guide_forAfrica.pdf
Pretty, J. and Bharucha, Z.P. (2015) ‘Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Inten-
sification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa’, Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553536/
Pretty, J. and Hine R. (2005) ‘Pesticide Use and the Environment’, In: Pretty, J. (Ed.), The
Pesticide Detox. Earthscan, London, pp. 1–22.
Rao, G.V.R. and Rao, V.R. (2010) ‘Status of IPM in Indian Agriculture’. Available at:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211013149.pdf
Rao, C.A.R., Rao, S.M., Srinivas, K., Patibanda, K. and Sudhakar, C. (2011) ‘Adoption,
Impact and Discontinuance of IPM Technologies for Pigeon Pea in South India’.
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269640363_Adoption_Impact_
and_Discontinuance_of_Integrated_Pest_Management_Technologies_for_Pigeon_
Pea_in_South_India
Rohrig, R., Langmaack, M., Schrader, S. and Larink, O. (1998) ‘Tillage systems and soil
compaction: their impact on abundance and vertical distribution of Enchytraeidae’, Soil
Tillage Research, vol. 46, pp. 117–127.
Sahoo, B., Behera, K.S. and Dangar, T.K. (2013) ‘Selection of effective natural fungal
pathogens of the rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocismedinalis (Guenee) by in vitro assay’,
Oryza, vol. 50(3), pp. 278–83.
Seagraves, M.P., Kajita, Y., Weber, D.C., Obrycki, J.J. and Lundgren, J.G. (2011) ‘Sugar
feeding by coccinellids under field conditions: The effects of sugar sprays in soybean’,
BioControl, vol. 56(3), pp. 305–314.
Singh. P., Chander, S., Husain, M., Pal, V. and Singh, P. (2015) ‘Development of a Fore-
warning Model to Predict Rice Leaf Folder (Cnaphalocrocismedinalis Guenee) Incidence
in Punjab, India’. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, India, Section B, Bio-
logical Science, pp. 1–6.
Spedding, A., Hamela, C., Mehuysa, G.R. and Madramootoo, C.A. (2004) ‘Soil microbial
dynamics in maize-growing soil under different tillage and residue management sys-
tems’, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 36, pp. 499–512.
Swaminathan, M.S. (2000) ‘An Evergreen Revolution’, Biologist. vol. 47, pp. 85–89.
Swindell, J. (2006) ‘The Village Knowledge Centres of Pondicherry: An Indian ICT
Adoption case study’. In: Leal W. (Ed.), Innovation, Education and Communication for
Sustainable Development, Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
Tanwar, R.K., Singh, S., Singh, S.P., Kanwar, V., Kumar, R., Khokar, M.K. and Mohapatra,
S.D. (2019) ‘Implementing the Systems Approach in Rice Pest Management: India con-
text’, Oryza, vol. 56, pp. 136–142.
Tanwar, R.K., Garg, D.K., Singh, S.P., Dhandapani, A. and Omprakash, B. ( 2011)
‘Enhancement of spider population through habitat management in rice (Oryza sativa)
fields’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 81, pp. 462–464.
Teng, P.S. (1987) ‘Crop Loss Assessment and Pest Management’. St. Paul, USA: APS Press.
Thakur, A., Vashistha, U. and Sharma, S. (2020) ‘Estimation of Brown plant hopper level
in rice crop using Artificial Neural Network’. 8th International Conference on Reliabil-
ity, Infocom Technologies and Optimization. (Trends and Future Directions) ICRITO.
Thripathi, D.K., Singh, V.P., Gangwar, S., Prasad, S.M., Maurya, J.N. and Chauhan, D.K.
(2014) ‘Role of silicon in enrichment of plant nutrients and protection from biotic
stresses’ In: Ahmad, et al. (Eds.), Improvement of Crops in the Era of Climate Changes.
New York, USA: Springer.
Thorburn, C. (2015) ‘The Rise and Demise of Integrated Pest Management in Rice in
Indonesia’, Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553486/doi:
10.3390/insects6020381
Wang, G.R., Han, R.P., Shen, Q., Yang, W.T., Wang, G.D., Lu, Z.X. and Zheng, X.S. (2015)
‘Effects of modified fertilizer application on rice pests, diseases and yields’ China Rice,
vol. 21(6), pp. 94–97.
Wu, S.W., Peng, Z.P., Jiang, G.F., Qin, G.Q. and He, C.Y. (2014) ‘Effects of harvest method
and treatment of rice stubble on over wintering of Chilosuppressalis’, Human Agricul-
tural Science, vol. 1, pp. 48–50.
Xu, Y.C., Xian, D.X., Yao, Q., Yang, B.J., Luo, J., Tang, C. and Zhang, C. (2015) ‘Automatic
identification of rice light trapped pests based on images’, Chinese Journal of Rice Sci-
ence, vol. 29, pp. 299–304.
Yang, G.Q., Hu, W.F., Zhu, Z.F., Ge, L.Q. and Wu, J.C. (2014) ‘Effects of foliar spraying of
silicon and phosphorus on rice (Oryza sativa) plants and their resistance to the white-
b acked planthopper, Sogatellafurcifera ( Hemiptera: Delphacidae)’, Acta Entomologica
Sinica, vol. 57(8), pp. 927–934.
Yuan, W., Liu, H., Zhang, S.X. and Li, W.Y. (2010) ‘Evaluation of communities of insect
pests and natural enemies in organic rice fields of Changjiang Farm’ Acta Agriculturae
Shanghai, vol. 26(2), pp. 132–136.
Zhang, C.Z., Shao, C.Q., Meng, K., Li, H.L., Han, X.F. and Zhang, J.S. (2003) ‘Study on
rice absorbing silicon characteristics and silica fertilizer effect under salinized moist in
coastal regions’, Journal ofLaiyang Agricultural College, vol. 20(2), pp. 111–113.
Zhu, P.Y., Lu, Z.X., Gurr, G., Zheng, X.S., et al. (2012) ‘Ecological functions of flowering
plants on conservation of the arthropod natural enemies of insect pests in agroecosys-
tem’, China Journal of Biological Control, vol. 28(4), pp. 583–588.
Zhu, P.Y., Zheng, X.S., Yao, X.M., et al. (2015) ‘Ecological engineering technology for en-
hancement of biological control capacity of egg parasitoids against rice planthoppers in
paddy fields’, China Plant Protection, vol. 35(7), pp. 27–32.
5 System of rice intensification
Empowering farmers to work with
nature to achieve productive,
resilient and climate-neutral
farming systems in rice-based
landscapes
Abha Mishra, Jan Willem Ketelaar and Max Whitten
Introduction
While the world is mid-way toward pursuing an ambitious agenda for global sus-
tainable development to be achieved by 2030, there is an increasing realization
that the associated 17 Sustainable Development Goals will not be achieved with-
out urgent action to deal with pivotal environmental concerns, most notably
the so-called Triple Challenge (biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution)
(UNEP, 2021). The agricultural sector, in particular, is responsible for – as well as
impacted by – this Triple Challenge. But it is also in the agriculture sector, espe-
cially the rice sector, where enormous potential and major opportunities exist for
dealing with these environmental challenges.
The IPCC (2007) has reported that agriculture is one of the major sources of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 12% of the GHG produced by
human-made activities. Trend analysis extending activity data and GHG emis-
sions from 1990 to 2010 indicated that agricultural emissions increased 0.7% an-
nually between 2000 and 2010, and accelerated to 1.2% per year in the subsequent
decade (IPCC, 2014). The food system alone may be responsible for one third of
global gas emissions (Crippa et al., 2021).
Rice production has received major attention as a culprit but is also a poten-
tial solution from the agriculture sector for substantial GHG emission reduction
(FAO, 2017). This is especially relevant for Asia, which accounts for 90% of global
rice area, and 20% of the total world cropland area along with 70% of the total
fresh water use for its production. Rice paddies are responsible for 5–20% of global
methane emissions from anthropogenic sources (IPCC, 1996). More particularly,
“business-in-as-usual scenario” will further intensify degradation of the natural
resources base, such as land and water, while exacerbating GHG emissions in the
region.
Therefore, GHG emission reduction from the rice sector, methane in particu-
lar, is crucially important and urgent. Recent studies on the technical potential
for methane mitigation, including through application of alternate wetting and
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-5
88 Abha Mishra et al.
drying (AWD), have shown that a 6 –9 Mt/yr reduction within the rice sector
is possible (UNEP and CCAC, 2021). Adoption of climate-smart practices has
received considerable attention in the Asia region. In this regard, c limate-smart
agriculture (CSA) has emerged as one of the strategies to address the emerging
needs. CSA is composed of three main pillars: (1) sustainably increasing agricul-
tural productivity and incomes; (2) adapting and building resilience to climate
change; and (3) reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions, where pos-
sible (FAO, 2016).
The climate-smart agroecological-based System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
defines a way forward for smallholders to grow healthy crops with less inputs
(land, water, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, labor and capital), and with greater
appreciation and reliance on robust local ecosystem goods and services that sup-
press pests and diseases, that enhance soils, that support food security and rural
livelihoods and, finally, that mitigate methane emission from the paddy system
(FAO, 2014; Thakur and Uphoff, 2017; Mishra et al., 2021).
By producing stable crop yields with low external inputs, SRI also provides
an opportunity for farm diversification, enhanced income generation and dietary
diversity that addresses the nutritional needs of smallholders. Thereby, SRI can
become the main climate change solution and support sustainable development
(Thakur et al., 2021).
SRI is based on four agronomic principles:
• transplanting young and healthy seedlings (at 2.5 leaf stage) or direct sowing
with relatively low seed rate;
• shallow transplanting (with minimum root disturbance) with wider spacing
providing enough space and less competitive plant’s micro-environment to
realize the fullest potential of seedlings/seeds;
• keeping soil preferably moist, not inundated, at least during vegetative stage
to allow root systems to grow larger and healthier, later maintaining shallow
water level, but never creating hypoxic soil condition, thus improving plant
and soil health and mitigating methane emission; and
• applying organic manure as much as possible to nurture the soil systems (feed
the soil to feed the plant) (Stoop et al., 2002, 2011; Mishra et al., 2006, 2013).
All four key principles are amenable for farmers’ experimentation, adaptation and
adoption, as the process does not require any external physical inputs. These SRI
practices – transplanting younger and single seedlings/hill with wider spacing, or
direct seeding with relatively lower seed rate, giving plants more space and avoid-
ing continuous flooding – when implemented together have, in many instances,
resulted in substantial increases in yield, and reduced GHG emissions (Dill et al.,
2013; Gathorne-Hrady et al., 2016; Mishra et al., 2021).
However, to have lasting impact, these ambitious goals need to be pursued
in an enabling social context. Pretty et al. (2020) have argued that the political
economy in past decades “prioritized unfettered individual action over the collec-
tive” thereby harming many rural institutions and “reducing sustainability and
System of rice intensification 89
equity”. Offsetting this trend, Pretty et al. note that, in recent years, changes in
national and regional policy have promoted the growth of social groups whose
existence supports “transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustain-
ability”. While their study cites integrated pest management (IPM) as a catalyst
in shifting the balance back from individual action to the collective, we propose
that SRI is an important complement to IPM in achieving those social and eco-
nomic objectives.
Thus, the chapter outlines a conceptual framework for optimizing rice produc-
tivity through responsible management of ecosystem goods and services reflective
of the rich biodiversity contained in healthy rice paddy fields. Furthermore, it
shares on-station research findings, coupled with participatory action research
and an outreach effort at scale that has empowered thousands of farmers in their
rural communities to appreciate and responsibly manage sustainable rice produc-
tion. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion about and recommendations
for a better enabling environment to allow for a real transformation toward more
sustainable intensification of rice production at landscape, national and global
levels. Such a transformation aligns well with the action called for in the UN
Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and is vital and urgent for the
world to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.
Conceptual framework for optimizing the management of

ecosystem goods and services and biodiversity in healthy rice
paddies while mitigating the climate change
Over the last 30 years, there have been widespread efforts to promote farmer-
centered agroecological innovation using Farmer Field School (FFS) with several
innovative efforts focused on the promotion of adoption of SRI (FAO, 2019; Ket-
elaar et al., 2020). These efforts aim to involve farmers as agent to improve paddy
productivity by managing household and environmental resources efficiently. Our
earlier study (Mishra et al., 2006) had conceptualized how the combination of
cultural practices recommended in SRI increases the physiological efficiency of
rice plants through enhanced root activity. The study also outlined many op-
portunities to enhance resource-use efficiency using S
RI-IPM to be explored by
farmers using the FFS approach.
In this chapter, we will illustrate how the paddy fields change under SRI-IPM
practices. Emphasis is placed on holistic management approach of the paddy
ecosystem. SRI fields that are managed without chemicals can enhance photo-
synthetic rate and capture more carbon and sequester more through enhanced
physiological activity of roots and shoots (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010, 2011; Mishra
and Uphoff, 2013). Addition of organic matter, including compost, as much as
possible would restore degraded soil biodiversity, rebuild soil organic matter and
restore the soil’s microbiome to promote nutrients (Figure 5.1).
By following alternate wet and dry (AWD) water management practices, it
is possible to improve the soil aerobic conditions, promote soil biodiversity and
therefore reduce methane production and emission from paddy fields. Even under
HERBIVORES
HIGHER
YIELD Resilience to
Erect flag leaf, climate and
higher rate of other stresses PREDATORS
photosynthesis More and heavier and
panicles PARASITOIDS
Delayed senescence
of shoots and roots Higher cytokinin
production
Lower leaves photo-
synthetically active Healthy root
systems = f (more
FILTER FEEDERS DETRIVORES
SRI PLANT
organic matter in
Higher root-
soil, fewer
available nitrogen
seedlings/ hill,
wider spacing,
Less CH4
MICRO-ORGANISM
AWD) = SRI
O2 DYNAMICS
emission from
SRI field O2 O2
O2 Feed the soil to
Larger aerobic feed the plant
rhizosphere
Beneficial microbes
oxidizes CH4
promote plant growth ORGANIC
& protect from pathogens MATTER
AEROBIC SOIL
CH4 production
(when excess water) ENVIRONMENT
(Wet/Dry)
Figure 5.1 H
ealthy rice paddy fields under optimum management of ecosystem goods
and biodiversity services facilitated by agroecological p rinciples-led S
RI-IPM
practices.
shallow flooded conditions for short periods, the higher root activity would keep
the rhizosphere aerobic facilitating methane oxidation and therefore less emission
from the field. A healthier soil also means more CO2 is taken out, or sequestered,
from the air. Avoiding large doses of pesticides by applying IPM principles would
restore and enhance the balance between pests and natural enemies as discussed
in Chapter 4. In this manner, empowered farmers combine IPM and SRI to pro-
mote above and below ground natural biodiversity. A healthy soil contains a vast
number of diverse microbes, which work in exchange with paddy plants growing
in the soil. Rice plants absorb carbon through photosynthesis, which helps them
to grow, and excess carbon is transported to the soil, where it becomes organic
matter. The carbon feeds the various microbes in the soil, which in return sup-
ply the plants with the nutrients they need. A healthy soil supports a balance
among all the components of the ecosystem. These sustainable intensification
approaches build on sound agronomy as well as on biodiversity and ecosystem
ecology for the purpose of raising crop yields and land productivity while captur-
ing and sequestering more carbon and reducing GHG emissions.
Large-scale adoption of SRI practices can be a major game changer in terms
of achieving greater land productivity while addressing key environmental chal-
lenges, including climate change. Below findings from on-station research as well
as engagement at the regional level in the Mekong River Basin region provide
some useful insights on the landscape-level effects: how SRI can sustainably in-
tensify rice production and mitigate GHG emission from the paddy fields.
On-station research findings on the effects of SRI practices on

root architecture and its impact on methane reduction
In the above section, we presented a model of a paddy production system that op-
timizes land productivity as well as the management of ecosystem goods and ser-
vices and biodiversity contained therein while capturing and sequestering more
carbon and reducing GHG emissions. Nurturing healthy root systems along with
healthy soil is one of the priorities to realize the benefits that we have outlined
in this model and the above explanatory section. In this section, we explore how
healthy root systems, i.e., enhanced root growth through morphological and phys-
iological plastic response observed under SRI practices, are linked to methane
emission mitigation.
Root growth can be altered through various mechanisms (by genetic and by
micro-environmental manipulation). But given climate change concerns, meth-
ane emission from paddy fields, as well as water constraints facing the rice sector
in many countries, the most important crop management practice, which attracts
major attention, from farmers, researchers as well as policy makers, is the cessa-
tion of continuous flooding, either through intermittent irrigation or by keeping
soil moist but preferably not continuously inundated. The intermittent irrigation
in rice or AWD is not something new. In fact, this has been supported earlier in
some rice-producing countries in an attempt to reduce the volume of irrigation
water used. The pros and cons of intermittent irrigation have been well reviewed
and referenced in our previous published study (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010). It has
been suggested that intermittent irrigation or AWD can reduce water use in rice
cultivation by 1 5–25% without affecting yields, and can lower methane emissions
by 30–70% (FAO, 2013). In addition, further reduction in methane emissions can
be realized through plastic response of shoot and root, the latter resulting into a
more aerobic rhizosphere (Mishra and Salokhe, 2011).
Research findings on the plastic response1 of rice plants that resulted due to
change in water regimes documented that rice root morphology and physiology
and consequently rice shoot growth are significantly affected by variations in
soil water conditions (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010, 2011). Root architecture (root
length density) and roots’ oxidizing activity rate are important factors influencing
higher yields. Such responses are quite plastic in nature and vary considerably
with varying water regimes and with varying soil microbial populations (Mishra
and Uphoff, 2013). Modifying water management to take advantage of plants’
inherent plasticity of morphological and physiological response can be one of the
adaptive strategies for achieving higher yield under reduced water condition along
with mitigation of methane production from rice fields (Mishra, 2019a).
The earlier findings have also shown that intermittent irrigation during vege-
tative growth stage along with sparse planting density of younger seedlings, i.e.,
single seedling transplant/hill with 20 × 20 cm spacing, increased root and shoot
growth. These practices induce different levels of physiological activity, resulting
into higher yields and higher dry matter production (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010).
Building on the earlier findings we estimated rate of oxygen release using the
Kirk (2003) root’ model calculation to understand the implication of morpholog-
ical and physiological plastic response on nutrient uptake and methane emissions
from rice fields.
Kirk (2003) indicated that for an aerobic rhizosphere, spacing is critical along
with number of primary roots per plant. Keeping the standard estimation typically
observed under average paddy fields in Asia,2 we calculated the rate of release of
oxygen under different planting densities and water regimes. The calculation re-
vealed that at flowering, the rate of release of oxygen per cm2 was higher under
P2 planting density (single seedlings/hill with 20 × 20 cm spacing) in both IV-F
(intermittent irrigation during vegetative stage) and CF (continuously flooded)
water regimes whereas it was drastically reduced at 20 days after flowering (DAF)
under flooded condition. The effect of spacing along with single seedlings/hill had
the maximum effect compared to other treatments.
Typically, maximum rates of N uptake by rice crops are 40 pmol cm−2 (soil sur-
face) s−1. Therefore, if half the O2 released from the roots was used to nitrify NH4+
in the rhizosphere ((NH4+ + 2O2 → NO3− + 2H+ + H2O) and half the NO3−
produced was recovered by the roots, an O2 release of 160 pmol cm−2 would be
sufficient to nitrify half the nitrogen absorbed by the roots. This is one of the pre-
r equisites, i.e., 50% N uptake should be in the form of NO3 to achieve the higher
yield under any field condition (Wang and Below, 1996; Briones et al., 2003).
Furthermore, it is known that up to 90% of the CH4 emitted in rice paddies
is released through rice plant transport (Conrad, 2007), while between 19% and
90% of the CH4 produced is oxidized, with up to 75% of the CH4 oxidation taking
place in the rhizosphere (Frenzel, 2000). Accordingly, strategies to lower net CH4
emission from rice fields include reducing CH4 production, increasing CH4 oxi-
dation and lowering CH4 transport through the plant. Among the CH4 emission
mitigation strategies that do not compromise rice productivity, the introduction
of drainage periods during the crop cycle appears to be the most efficient (Neue,
1993). Thus, it has been estimated that intermittent drainage periods by applying
intermittent irrigation in poorly drained rice fields could reduce to 10% of the
agricultural CH4 emissions (Kern et al., 1997).
It is expected that the higher root activity rate (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010)
along with higher release of oxygen for a longer duration (Figure 5.2), as appeared
in our studies, should further enhance CH4 oxidation in the rhizosphere because
of the prolonged oxygenated rhizosphere.
This benefit will be relatively higher under intermittent irrigation water re-
gimes but even under flooded condition (though relatively less) at flowering stage
if intra-hill competition is minimized to keep rice rhizosphere aerobic (Figure 5.2).
Optimizing planting density per unit area through SRI not only enhanced root
activity but also increased oxygen release under single seedlings/hill planting op-
tion. Thus, maintaining an aerobic rhizosphere for longer duration would not
500.00
450.00
400.00
IF-V IF-R CF
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Flowering 20 DAF Flowering 20 DAF Flowering 20 DAF
P1 P2 P3
Figure 5.2 Effects of planting density.
only facilitate higher uptake of nitrogen in the form of nitrate and ammonium for
higher biomass production but also support methane oxidation in the rice rhizos-
phere by 7 5–90%. Thus, there will be negligible methane emission from the rice
fields. Indeed, optimization in spacing and water management is needed in order
to enhance the oxygen release in rhizosphere that benefits plants, soil microbes
and environment without making it burden for plants as releasing oxygen in rhiz-
osphere is an energy-consuming affair for plant.
In addition, intermittent irrigation will reduce the aerenchyma formation rate
(Mishra et al., 2006). Since the aerenchyma acts as a channel for oxygen transport
from the atmosphere to the roots and CH4 transport from the site of produc-
tion to the atmosphere, reduced aerenchyma formation will lead to lowering CH4
transport through the plant. These benefits become more relevant in the pro-
spective scenario where rice production needs to be increased with both reduced
water applications and reduced “climate-forcing” practices.
Scaling up through farmers’ participatory action research

(FPAR) for transition toward a groecological-based SRI
methods
As discussed above and reported by many, SRI is considered as one of the best
currently available agroecological methodologies for sustainable intensification of
rice-based farming systems that involve farmers as agents to improve productivity
by managing environmental resources efficiently. We piloted several plot scale
efforts in the Lower Mekong River Basin countries to explore the usefulness of
SRI and IPM practices using the FFS approach for having farmers learn about
sustainable paddy production (Mishra and Kumar, 2009; Mishra et al., 2013). The
outcome of these collaborative initiatives gave impetus for scaling-up efforts to
the regional level. To learn more about the SRI’s usefulness for fueling innovation
at grass-root level involving smallholder farmers as a main agent, a regional col-
laborative project, funded by the European Union, was implemented in rainfed
areas of the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) countries (Cambodia, Laos, Viet-
nam and Thailand) involving more than 15,000 smallholder farmers directly (and
30,000 indirectly), researchers, extension personnel and development profession-
als, together with staff of relevant government ministries (www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/).
The six-year-long project’s objectives were to fuel local innovation to produce
healthier, more profitable rice crops with less energy and a lower carbon foot-
print by using the SRI method under rainfed conditions.3 The idea was also to
learn and advance knowledge on technical, institutional and organizational in-
novation needed for shift from ready-to-use to tailor-made solutions that address
location-specific issues along with global challenges.
Keeping this in mind, local, national and regional innovation platforms were
designed to systematize engagement and strengthen communication for fueling
innovation. This was a network building effort that was initiated by the project
and was expected to continue as a common meeting point at all levels. These
platforms facilitated policy dialogues on food security, research for development,
marketing improvements and extension capacity for the rainfed LMB region.
More than 15 institutions (academic, research and development) were involved in
the six-year-long farmers’ participatory action research (FPAR) field trials located
in the 33 rainfed districts of 11 provinces in the LMB countries (Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand and Vietnam). SRI’s agronomic principles were used as “entry points”
for such engagement-led transition. The number of farmer-participatory experi-
ments conducted was more than 1,052 at >500 sites across the LMB region. As
a part of this FPAR intervention, the common issues and interests expressed by
farmers producing under rainfed conditions in all four countries were to achieve
higher yield with reduced costs of production by reducing input use for cost saving
and for making rice cultivation more efficient and profitable.
Using results of baseline survey, including information generated through var-
ious group-dynamic tools such as sub-group discussion, visual tools and brain-
storming sessions, a range of experimental options were selected for each of the
target areas that revolved around the integration of a few SRI principles with ex-
isting conventional practices to be applied on a learning plot for location-specific
adaptation. As part of these field experiments, farmers were also encouraged to
apply the full set of SRI principles on a demonstration plot which served as a “test
site” to show the full potential of SRI methods at smallholder farmers’ field level.
For comparison purposes, the practices that were applied were categorized into (1)
Baseline (indicated as CP), (2) Farmer’s practices (FP), (3) SRI-demonstration
(SRI-D) and (4) SRI-transition (SRI-T).
Baseline – the existing conventional management practices (CP) generally fol-
lowed in the target area as identified through the baseline survey prior to action
research set-up.
Farmer’s practices (FP) – the existing management practices generally fol-
lowed in the target areas and set up by farmers as FP plots for comparisons pur-
pose during the action research field experiment set-up.
SRI-demonstration (SRI-D or SRI) – where the full set of SRI practices was
applied.
SRI-transition (SRI-T) – where a few principles of SRI were applied in com-
bination with modified or existing conventional practices by farmers. The word
“transition” was used because the practices are generally transitioning toward SRI
with different degrees of SRI adoption and types. These practices do not fall in
either category of SRI or FP. Instead, these practices were modified by farmers, im-
proved and considered better than FP. These plots were also termed as “learning
plots”. Details of the experiment along with the specific details of the SRI-D or
SRI, SRI-T and CP alternatives can be seen in Mishra et al. (2021).
Aligned with the Farmer Field School (FFS) interventions, FPAR structure and
research/outreach implementation design was established (Figure 5.3). At some
places, the structure was adapted based on the existing local government exten-
sion department’s program implementation structure and also according to the
farmer’s needs and requirements. The design involved 50% women (at least) and
10% landless to have an inclusive intervention.
This structure facilitated the systematic introduction of SRI/ IPM/FFS ap-
proaches for the development of knowledge-intensive and location-
specific
technologies by bringing farmers, researchers, trainers and other stakeholders
FPAR sites
1st post FFS site (2 FT)
2nd post FFS site (2 FT)
3rd post FFS site (2 FT)
4th post FFS site (2 FT)
FPAR sites
FPAR sites

3rd post FFS site (2 FT) 3rd post FFS site (2 FT)
4th post FFS site (2 FT) 4th post FFS site (2 FT)
Figure 5.3 Structural diagram of CFPAR and FPAR in one province.

together, and by fueling their innovative capacity. Apart from these tangible and
quantifiable direct benefits to the target groups of farmers, locally developed tech-
nologies for rice and other crops could take a horizontal spread pathway and reach
other farmers in neighboring communities (approx. 50,000 farmers, based on past
FFS experience in the region) through field days. Through this learning-centered
approach, we also refined the curricula options for women and landless in order to
capitalize on the opportunity that the action presented for furthering the leader-
ship and empowerment of women, especially in household d ecision-making and
income generation activities. The process of engagement led to the development
of informal farmers’ groups and networks in all four countries.
The FFS interventions also facilitated systematic data collection. The data
were compiled at provincial, at country and, finally, at regional level using online
project database ( see User’s guideline for online database: http:// sri-
lmb.ait.asia/
downloads/User’s%20guide%20on%20online%20database%20for%20SRI-LMB.pdf).
Furthermore, the structure helped in creating a way forward for participatory
policy and program development for ensuring better market access, price and re-
turns, also as a step toward NDCs contribution under the Paris Agreement along
with achieving its SDGs. The research conducted on the policy environment,
and the institutional responses to the adaptation, revealed that the adaptation
and adoption of agroecological practices like SRI in the region need to be further
strengthened realizing that the macroeconomic situation across LMB countries is
at different stages of development, and still evolving (done by Oxfam and com-
piled in Mishra, 2019b).
Nevertheless, the results of this collaborative engagements showed that SRI
principle-led practices helped to improve conditions in rainfed areas across the
LMB region in numerous ways: average rice yield increased by 52%, and net o n-
farm economic returns were raised by 70% because of lower production costs.
Labor productivity was increased by 64%, water productivity by 61% and the effi-
ciency of mineral fertilizer use rose by 163%. The total energy input required for
farming operations was decreased by 34% per hectare (Mishra et al., 2021). The
data also showed that per hectare emissions of GHG were significantly reduced,
by 14% with irrigated rice production, and by 17% from a lower level in rainfed
cropping (Mishra et al., 2021, Table 5.1) due to less input usages. In terms of aver-
age reduction in GHG emissions from SRI fields in the three countries (Thailand,
Vietnam and Laos), it was 25% from irrigated and 30% from rainfed systems.
Therefore, the eco-efficiency (Ecoefficiency (USD/tCO2 eq/ha/year) = Net in-
come (USD)/Total GHG emissions (tCO2 eq/ha/year)) was also increased under
SRI and SRI-T practices compared to the baseline. Interestingly, when the eco-
e fficiency of rainfed and irrigated production systems was compared, it was found
that rainfed production was more eco-efficient compared to irrigated systems
(Figure 5.4). These findings were based on the general bio-physical properties of
the production environment where trials were conducted and on the cropping
pattern followed in those areas (for details see Mishra et al., 2021).
If we look across the four countries, 64% area is rainfed (74.1% in Thai-
land, 83.7% in Cambodia, 41.1% in Vietnam and 81% in Laos), and only 36%
reenhouse gas (GHG) emission (tCO2eq/ha) from SRI and conventional
Table 5.1 G
fields
Countries Irrigated Rainfed
SRI Baseline % change SRI Baseline % change

with respect with respect to
to baseline baseline
Thailand 1.86 2.52 −26 1.42 2.07 −31

Vietnam 2.35 2.92 −20 1.9 2.48 −23
Laos 1.17 1.74 −33 0.73 1.3 −44
Cambodia 2.20 1.54 42 1.76 1.09 61
Regional (av. of four 1.89 2.18 −13 1.45 1.74 −16.67
countries)
Regional (av. of three 1.79 2.39 −25.1 1.35 1.95 30.76
countries: Thailand,
Vietnam and Laos)
Source: Based on authors’ own data from field.
Eco-efficiency (USD/tCO2eq/ha/year)
350.0
Eco efficiency (USD/tCO2eq/ha/year)
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
287.0
268.0
100.0
127.9 140.4 128.1

114.4
50.0 101.4
90.4
0.0
TH-IR TH-RF CA-IR CA-RF VTM-IR VTM-RF LAO-IR LAO-RF
Figure 5.4 Average eco-efficiency of irrigated and rainfed production systems with SRI
practices in LMB countries.
is irrigated in the region. Using the data from our research findings to calculate
the GHG emissions from current conventional practice for the LMB region as a
whole, it was estimated to be 6.41 million tCO2eq from rainfed and 5.18 million
tCO2eq from the irrigated regions of the four countries. With adoption of SRI-D
methods, the GHG emission will be 5.13 million tCO2eq from rainfed and 4.11
million tCO2eq from irrigated rice areas, which is an overall reduction of 20%
(Figure 5.5).
GHG Emissions Million t CO2 eq. for
COUNTRY IRRIGATED AREA
16
GHG Emissions. Million t CO2 eq.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR
SRI FP SRI-T Baseline
GHG Emissions Million t CO2 eq. for

COUNTRY RAINFED AREA
16
14
GHG Emissions. Million t CO2 eq.
12
10
0
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR
SRI FP SRI-T Baseline
Figure 5.5 GHG emission estimation in SRI, SRI-T and FP at country and regional levels
in irrigated and rainfed systems of the LMB region.
These figures show that the absolute gain for GHG reduction could be more in
the rainfed parts of the region compared to the irrigated ones. The rainfed pro-
duction systems have not received much policy attention but there is an opportu-
nity to investigate “underexplored” production systems that can provide multiple
wins: addressing food security and nutrition of smallholders, poverty alleviation,
natural resource conservation, restoring and nurturing ecosystems and creating
circular economy and supporting socially just equitable development.
Discussion: Opportunities, challenges and recommendations
Rice farming systems of the future must produce more grain while minimizing en-
vironmental impact to achieve sustainable food security goals. Higher yields and
increased resource-use efficiencies are not necessarily conflicting goals and recent
publications indicate that there remains tremendous scope for productivity gains
and higher resource-use efficiencies in most rice production landscapes (FAO,
2014, 2016). In particular, pesticide use and nitrogen balance per unit of produc-
tion are disproportionately higher in a number of cropping systems in Southeast
Asia and South Asia. Our results suggest that greater adoption of agroecological
approaches (e.g., SRI/IPM) for sustainable rice intensification would increase yield
with increased resource-use efficiency and reduced carbon footprints.
SRI provides opportunities for climate-smart paddy production and has oppor-
tunities to become a valuable climate solution. SRI agronomic practices increase
deep root system expansion and thereby allocating more carbon to the deeper
soil layer. Further, with higher photosynthetic rate and hence higher capture of
CO2 from the atmosphere for longer duration (Mishra and Salokhe, 2010) along
with the application of organic manure and/or compost (as much as possible),
the carbon content in soil will be increased. Therefore, soils can also store more
water (either rainwater or irrigation), and this is particularly important for rainfed
production systems. Given that the water stored in the soil serves as the source for
90% of the world’s agriculture production (FAO, 2021), it is therefore evident that
soil with higher carbon content would be more productive with clear implication
for achieving higher levels of global food security.
The multiple benefits of these practices especially with regard to climate
change and water uses would be more appreciated when production practices
recognize and value the total virtual water usages (rainfed plus irrigated), along
with other environmental footprints, such as conservation of ecosystems services.
The World Economic Forum’s global risks survey has identified water scarcity as
one of the top five global risks affecting people’s w ell-being (WEF, 2021). And
it is known that for each 1% increase in soil organic matter, soil can store an
additional 20,000 gallons of water/acre (about 0.4 ha). Indeed, the importance of
increasing soil organic carbon has been stressed in recent years, presenting an op-
portunity to help addressing water scarcity issues along with meeting the targets
of the Paris Agreement.
In addition, certain SRI practices such as intermittent irrigation and fewer rice
seedlings/hill transplanted with wider spacing create conditions for a larger and
longer lasting aerobic rhizosphere. These conditions enable more CH4 oxidation
in the rhizosphere, reducing methane emissions from rice fields (Mishra, 2019a,b).
In practice, SRI encourages location-specific adaptation for such gains to mate-
rialize. This requires active participation between farmers, researchers and other
stakeholders to ensure a successful and evidence-based shift toward a more sus-
tainable intensification of rice-based farming systems and landscapes (Ketelaar
et al., 2020).
Our regional collaborative multi-
stakeholder’s intervention confirmed that
the SRI-IPM-FFS empowerment philosophy can contribute to poverty reduction
while making smallholder farming more attractive, profitable and smart. Small-
holders’ rice farmers can feed themselves and help feed the rest of the world while
minimizing the environmental costs of agricultural intensification. Such efforts
can be extended to farming systems of many scales provided that farms’ heter-
ogeneity is taken into consideration while implementing the action. This was
encouraged through the flexibility that is part of the SRI approach.
The results also showed the contribution of rainfed production systems in
terms of GHG mitigation aligned with sustainable development goals and the
Paris Agreement. Currently, rainfed rice accounts for 33% of the total rice pro-
duction area in the world. Because of relatively low yields (2–3 t/ha compared to
the global average of 4.5t/ha) (Hayashi et al., 2018), rainfed rice production land-
scapes provide only 19% of world rice production. Therefore, improving produc-
tivity in rainfed rice with active community participation is imperative not only
to lessen the burden on irrigated production systems but also to enhance efficient
use of green water and other natural resources for food supply for local as well as
global population. The effort will not just address poverty, food insecurity, rural
development and support ecosystem benefits. It will also alleviate the pressure on
irrigated rice production, which withdraws 70% of fresh water and is blamed for
the bulk of CH4 emissions.
The Southeast Asian regional policy, presented in the ASEAN Integrated Food
Security Framework and the Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security, has high-
lighted a strategy to attain long-term food security and improve the livelihoods
of farmers in the region (ASEAN, 2015). Particularly in the context of climate
change, the Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security for 2015–2020 included
as one of its “strategic thrusts” the introduction of climate-smart agriculture in
the ASEAN member states. Accordingly, the plan recommended pilot testing
of integrated technologies and practices, such as SRI and CA (Conservation
Agriculture).
However, there is as of yet little evidence for the implementation at scale of
such recommendations, not just for SRI but for any agroecological practices that
demand knowledge and skill-intensive capacity building. Without substantial
investments in farmer education and empowerment, it is unlikely that greater
adoption rates of such knowledge-intensive agroecological practices will ever be
realized. In tandem with such investments and other enabling conditions, a real
transformation of the rice sector will require major changes in policies and regula-
tions as well as the removal of perverse subsidies, including on chemical fertilizers
and pesticides (FAO, 2016; Ketelaar et al., 2018).
That said, Vietnam is showing the ASEAN region that national policy support
combined with enabling conditions, including quality capacity building inter-
ventions (e.g., Farmers Field Schools) for scaling out agroecological rice intensi-
fication (e.g., SRI, IPM), can lead to major advances in sustainable development.
Some 4 million rural households in Vietnam currently apply SRI each production
season with the government investing annually in farmer training and outreach
activities (MARD, 2016). In 2020, the Vietnamese government declared SRI a
climate-policy “breakthrough” to increase agricultural production while reducing
methane emissions from rice paddies. Other ASEAN countries could do well to
follow this great example and put similar policies and actions in place.
Greater investments in the rice sector as well as adoption of sustainability
standards, such as the Sustainable Rice Platform Standard,4 should also facili-
tate a transformation in the rice sector toward greater sustainability, including
mitigation of GHG emissions.5 While international and domestic markets in the
ASEAN region are increasingly concerned about sustainability issues, adoption
of the SRP Standard can help de-risk supply chains and therefore also entice
the private sector to invest. SRI fits perfectly well within the scope of the good
practices promoted by the SRP Standard and greater adoption of SRI in the rice
sector can assist countries deliver on key SDGs, including Zero Hunger (SDG2)
and Climate Action (SDG12) (Thakur et al., 2021).
Apart from social barriers, limited infrastructure, limited market connectivity,
conflicting connection between policies and actions and incompatibility, there
are limited innovative approaches available and/or being generated to shift from
ready-to-use technological solutions to tailor-made solutions for a genuine transi-
tion toward greater sustainability in the rice sector. In short, there is considerable
focus on the rhetoric of the “what” and “why” rather than local farmer engage-
ment on the “how” for co-generated solutions that work for the millions of rice
producing smallholder farmers around the world.
The effort for redesigning agroecology-based sustainable paddy systems requires
technical, institutional and organizational change through innovation in agri-
cultural practices and substantial investments, including in capacity building of
smallholder farmers. Equally, multi-actor agricultural innovation platforms along
with the value chains should be based on demand-driven survey and analysis, as
we did in our intervention. Extension and advisory services should become more
flexible, user-driven and focused on local problems. Knowledge-intensive agroeco-
logical practices, such as those promoted in SRI and IPM, require substantial in-
vestments in capacity building of extension systems and their main beneficiaries,
smallholder farmers (Swanson and Rajalathi, 2010).
Such transformed extension and advisory systems should also assist on utiliza-
tion of different dimensions of interaction and learning processes such as farmer
to farmer, market actors to farmers, input suppliers to farmers, processors to farm-
ers, public and private extension and advisory services to farmers. And on top of
that, such efforts should generate returns on four capitals: social capital (creating
jobs, education and business); natural capital (restoring biodiversity, soil, water
quality and carbon); financial capital (realizing long-term sustainable profit); and
inspiration (being a sort of emotional or psychological capital) by giving a sense
of purpose, value and relevance to people.
The current modern industrialized production system relies mainly on the
highest returns on investments, but without sufficient regard to the sustainability
and other negative externalities. The S RI-like approach requires integration of
ecology with economics, and values empowerment and sustainability.
To date, IPM is often recognized as an ideal entry point to farmer empower-
ment and a re-invigoration of social capital in sustainable food production, e.g.,
Pretty et al. (2020). In this chapter, we would contend that SRI, to the extent
that it embraces IPM, is perhaps a bolder platform for optimizing social capital for
securing sustainable rice production. Additionally, as noted by Uphoff and others,
both IPM and SRI principles extend well beyond rice and have relevance for other
crops, under the label “System of Crop Intensification (SCI)”, and therefore have
wider relevance for sustainable food security.
Thinking more broadly, the C OVID-19 pandemic has revealed how closely, hu-
man, animal and ecological health and production systems are linked. The crisis
has revealed the socio-ecological fragility of current industrialized-globalized food
systems and the effects on farming and food supply. Indeed, a transition to more
socially just, ecologically resilient, localized food systems that requires less energy
and has potential to become c limate-smart solution is urgently needed. With the
changing pandemic-led global environment, the year 2021 has seen the conver-
gence of national as well as global policy goals. For example, the India delegation
at the COP26 highlighted the need for global support for local adaptation for
climate change amelioration. The UNEP and FAO jointly declared a formal call
for the protection and revival of millions of hectares of ecosystems all around the
world for benefit of people and nature. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
aims to prevent, halt and reverse ecosystems’ degradation. Implementing the UN
message can help to end poverty, combat climate change and prevent further
biodiversity loss. However, this would require adequate investments to support
farmers implementing the climate mitigation measures. Empowered farmers, as
custodians and managers of their local biodiversity (Whitten and Settle, 1998),
are critical to realizing the UN’s aspirations. Integrating S RI-IPM with the FFS
empowerment approach provides a compelling example of a way forward.
Notes
1 The ability to change phenotypically/physiologically and adapt in response to var-
iations in the environment depending on the epigenetic processes, often termed as
phenotypic plasticity.
2 We used FO2 AR (where FO2 = flux of oxygen across root surface, and AR = sur-
face area of roots capable of absorption) = 0.2 nmol s−1 (which is standard rate under
flooded condition).
3 Managing water in a rainfed conditions through prescriptive intermittent irriga-
tion method was a challenge and therefore not recommended in our intervention.
Although there was broader realization to avoid continuously deep flooded soil con-
dition, efforts were made to avoid continuously flooded soil condition, where needed,
to keep the root system healthy. In fact, rainfed environment is naturally intermittent
flooded and indeed not continuously flooded.
4 Sustainable Rice Platform – Feed the world. Sustainably.
5 https://foodplanetprize.org/entry/reducing-methane-emissions-from-rice/
References
ASEAN (2015) ‘ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework and Strategic Plan
of Action on Food Security in the ASEAN Region (SPA-FS), 2015–2020’. Available at:
https://www.asean-agrifood.org/?wpfb_dl=58
Briones, A.M., Okabe, S., Umemiya, Y., Ramsing, N. B., Reichardt, W. and Okuyama, H.
(2003) ‘Ammonium-oxidizing bacteria on root biofilms and their possible contribution
to N use efficiency of different rice cultivars’, Plant and Soil, vol. 250, pp. 335–348.
Conrad, R. (2007) ‘Microbial ecology of methanogens and methanotrophs’, Advance
Agronomy, vol. 96, pp. 1–63.
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E. and Monforti, F. (2021) ‘Food systems are responsible for a third of
global anthropogenic GHG emissions’, Nature Food, vol. 2(3), pp. 1–12.
Dill, J., Deichert, G. and Le, T.N.T. (2013) ‘Promoting the system of rice intensification:
Lessons learned from the Tra Vinh Province. GIZ and IFAD’. Available at: https://
wocatpedia.net/images/f/f2/Giz2013-0503en-rice-lessons-learned-vietnam.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2014) ‘The multiple goods and services of
Asian rice production systems’, Rome. ISBN 978–92–5–108447-2’. Available at: https://
www.fao.org/3/i3878e/i3878e.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2017) ‘The future of food and agriculture:
Trends and challenges’. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2019) ‘Farmers taking the lead: thirty years
of Farmers Field Schools’. Available at: Farmers taking the lead: thirty years of farmer
field schools (fao.org)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021) ‘Key messages, global symposium on soil
organic carbon’. Available at: https://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-
symposium/key-messages/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021) ‘Bringing climate change adaptation
into Farmers Field Schools: A global guidance note for facilitators’. Available at: https://
www.fao.org/3/cb6410en/cb6410en.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2016) Save and Grow
in Practice—Maize, Rice, Wheat: A Guide to Sustainable Cereal Production’. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/3/i4009e/i4009e.pdf
Frenzel, P. ( 2000) ‘
Plant-
associated methane oxidation in rice fields and wetlands’,
Advanced Microbial Ecology, vol. 6, pp. 85–114.
Gathorne-Hardy, A., Narasimha Reddy, D., Venkatanarayana, M. and Harris-White, B.
(2016) ‘System of rice intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at
the expense of social sustainability: A multidisciplinary analysis in India’, Agricultural
Systems, vol. 143, pp. 159–168.
Hayashi, K., Liorca, L., Rustini, S., Setyanto, P. and Zaini, Z. (2018) ‘Reducing vulnera-
bility of rainfed agriculture through seasonal climate predictions: A case study on the
rainfed rice production in Southeast Asia’, Agricultural Systems, vol. 162, pp. 66–76.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) ‘Climate change 1995: the
science of climate change, Summary for Policy-m akers’. Contribution of working group 1
to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) ( 2007) ‘
Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’. Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) ‘Climate Change 2014: Syn-
thesis Report’. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 88 pp.
Kern, J.S., Gong, Z.T., Zhang, G.L., Zhuo, H.Z. and Luo, G.B. (1997) ‘Spatial analysis of
methane emission from paddy soil in China and the potential for emission reduction’,
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem, vol. 49, pp. 181–195.
Ketelaar, J.W., Morales-Abubakar, A.L., Van Du, P., Widyastama, C., Phasouysaingam, A.,
Binamira, J. and Dung, N.T. (2018) ‘Save and Grow: Translating policy advice into field
action for sustainable intensification of rice production’, In: Agricultural Development
and Sustainable Intensification: Technology and Policy challenges in the face of Climate
Change. London: Earthscan, pp. 23–51.
Ketelaar, J.W., Abubakar, A.L., Phasouysaingam, A., Chanthavong,V., Dung, N.T., Flores-
Rojas, M., Mishra, A. and Sprang, P. (2020) ‘Save and Grow: Sustainable intensification
of crop production and innovative market linkages for building resilient rural economies
in rice landscapes in the Greater Mekong S ub-region’, In: The Bioeconomy Approach:
Constraints and Opportunities for Sustainable Development, Nagothu, US. (eds). ISBN
9780367335717. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, United Kingdom.
Kirk, G.J.D. (2003) ‘Rice root properties for internal aeration and efficient nutrient acqui-
sition in submerged soil’, New Phytologist, vol. 159, pp. 185–194.
MARD (2016) ‘The 10 years journey of SRI in Vietnam’. Available at: https://vietnamsri.
wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-10-years-journey-of-sri-in-vietnam/
Mishra A. (2019a) ‘Boosting Yields, Raising Incomes, and Offering Climate-Smart Options:
The System of Rice Intensification Paves the Way for farmers to Become More Success-
ful “Agripreneurs”’. Available at: http://www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/downloads/SRI-LMB%20
Final%20Report2019.pdf
Mishra, A. (2019b). ‘Morphological and physiological root plasticity and its relationships
with shoot growth of rice’, In: Root Biology – Growth, Physiology, and Functions, Takuji
O. (eds). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87099.
Mishra, A. and Kumar, P. (2009) ‘Southeast Asia Regional Knowledge Exchange on SRI
Producing More with Less Water’, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand,
109 pp.
Mishra, A. and Salokhe, V.M. (2010) ‘The effects of planting pattern and water regime
on root morphology, physiology and grain yield in rice’, Journal of Agronomy and Crop
Science, vol. 197, pp. 368–378.
Mishra, A. and Salokhe, V.M. (2011) ‘Rice root growth and physiological responses to SRI
water management and implications for crop productivity’, Paddy and Water Environ-
ment, vol. 9, pp. 41–52.
Mishra, A. and Uphoff, N.T. (2013) ‘Morphological and physiological responses of rice
root and shoot to varying water regimes and soil microbial densities’, Archive of Agron-
omy and Soil Science, vol. 59, pp. 705–731.
Mishra, A., Ketelaar, J., Uphoff, N. and Whitten, M. (2021) ‘Food security and climate-
smart agriculture in the lower Mekong basin of Southeast Asia: Evaluating impacts of
system of rice intensification with special reference to rainfed agriculture’ International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 19, pp. 152–174. Available at: https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2020.1866852
Mishra, A., Kumar, P. and Noble, A. (2013) ‘Assessing the potential of SRI management
principles and the FFS approach in Northeast Thailand for sustainable rice intensifica-
tion in the context of climate change’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
vol. 11, pp. 4 –22.
Mishra, A., Whitten, M., Ketelaar, J.W. and Salokhe, V.M. (2006) ‘The System of Rice
Intensification (SRI): A challenge for science, and an opportunity for farmer empower-
ment towards sustainable agriculture’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
vol. 4(3), pp. 193–212.
Neue, H.U. (1993) ‘Methane emission from rice fields’, Bioscience, vol. 43, pp. 466–474.
Pretty, J., Attwood, S., Bawden, R., van den Berg, H., Bharucha, Z., Dixon, P., Flora,
J., Gallagher, C.B., Genskow, K., Hartley, S.E., Ketelaar, J.W., Kiara, J., Kumar, V.,
Lu, Y., MacMillan, T., Marechal, A., M orales-Abubakar, A.L., Noble, A., Prasad, P.V.
and Yang, P. (2020) ‘Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agricul-
ture and land management’, Global Sustainability, vol. 3, e23. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Stoop, W.A., Uphoff, N.T. and Kassam, A. (2002) ‘A review of agricultural research is-
sues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities
for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers’, Agricultural Systems, vol. 71,
pp. 249–274.
Stoop, W.A. (2011) ‘The scientific case for system of rice intensification and its relevance
for sustainable crop intensification’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
vol. 9(3), pp. 443–455.
Swanson, B.E. and Rajalathi, R. (2010). ‘Strengthening agricultural extension and advi-
sory systems: Procedures for assessing, transforming and evaluating extension systems’.
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 45. Washington, DC. The Interna-
tional Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank.
Thakur, A.K. and Uphoff, N.T. (2017) ‘How the system of rice intensification can contrib-
ute to climate-smart agriculture’, Agronomy Journal, vol 109, pp. 1163–1183.
Thakur, A.K., Mandal, K.G., Mohanty, R.K. and Uphoff, N.T. (2021) ‘How agroecological
rice intensification can assist in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals’. Availa-
ble at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1925462
United Nations Environmental Programme (2021). ‘Making peace with nature. A scien-
tific blue print to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies’. Available
at: https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature
United Nations Environmental Programme & Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2021)
‘Global methane assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions’.
Available at: Methane|Climate & Clean Air Coalition (ccacoalition.org) & Global
Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions|UNEP –
UN Environment Programme.
Wang, X.T. and Below, F.E. (1996) ‘Cytokinins in enhanced growth and tillering of wheat
induced by mixed nitrogen source’, Crop Science, vol. 36, pp. 121–126.
Whitten, M.J. and Settle, W.H. (1998) ‘The Role of the Small-scale Farmer in Preserving
the Link between Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture’, p. 187–207, In: Chou, C.H.
and Shao, K.-T. (Eds.), Frontiers in Biology: The Challenges of Biodiversity, Biotechnology
and Sustainable Agriculture Proceedings of 26th AGM, International Union of Biological
Sciences, Taiwan 17–23 November 1997, Academia Sinica, Taipei 1998.
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2021) ‘The Global Risks Report 2021’, 16th Edition,
World Economic Forum, ISBN: 978-2-940631-24-7, Available at: https://www3.weforum.
org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf
6 Direct seeded rice
A potential climate-neutral and
resilient farming system
Anjani Kumar, Amaresh Kumar Nayak, Mehreteab
Tesfai, Rahul Tripathi, Sangita Mohanty, Shyamaranjan
Das Mohapatra, Kiran Mohapatra and Udaya Sekhar
Nagothu
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the principal staple food crops, which ensures food
and nutritional security to a large percent of the global population, especially
in Asia. It is cultivated globally by more than 95 countries and occupies 11%
of the world’s arable land with an annual production of about 678 million tons
(https://www.statista.com). Thus, rice is an important cereal crop on which global
food security is dependent. The three major rice producing countries are China
followed by India and Indonesia, which are also the three of the most populated
countries. To satisfy the global food demand, food production needs to be in-
creased by 70% by 2050 (Muthayya et al., 2014). The changing trend of farming
and other land uses has decreased the availability of arable land for rice farming
that limits further expansion of rice cultivation. Thus, increasing the rice produc-
tivity through intensification is one option to meet the growing demand for rice
production. However, the intensification must be done in a sustainable manner
with minimum environmental impacts (FAO, 2011, 2014, 2016). We need to learn
from the past experiences, and any future strategy to increase rice production
must be performed without further increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
particularly methane and nitrous oxide.
Conventionally, rice is grown by puddling the rice fields and transplanting the
seedlings in the puddled land. The main advantage of this system includes in-
creased nutrient mobility due to the continuous presence of standing water in the
field, weed suppression and a stable yield. However, the anticipated climate change
will negatively affect the precipitation pattern and crop water requirement, which
in turn will affect the timely availability of irrigation water for sustaining rice
production (IPCC, 2007). In Asia, anticipated water crisis is reported to be the
root cause of ‘physical water scarcity’ for nearly 39 million ha of irrigated rice by
2025 (Tuong and Bouman, 2003). This would ultimately result in 30% decline
in agricultural production by 2050 (Hossain and Siddique, 2015). Moreover, the
presence of standing water in the traditional lowland paddy fields causes arsenic
toxicity and emits significant amount of methane gas, which contributes to global
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-6
Direct seeded rice 107
warming (Kumar et al., 2016). The other challenge is the migration of labour
force from rural to urban areas, as a result of which the availability of labour for
agricultural work is at stake in most parts of South and Southeast Asia.
Thus, rice cultivation is faced by two risks in Asia mainly from anticipated
irrigation water scarcity due to climate change and variability and increased la-
bour costs (Pandey and Velasco, 2005). In addition, there are other constraints
including the availability of seeds and timely extension services support. Thus,
rice demands continuous efforts to ensure a resource-efficient sustainable alterna-
tive system to cope with the vagaries of climate change and other growing risks.
A viable alternative rice establishment technology, which can produce more
grain with less labour and ensure optimal water use in an e co-friendly manner,
would potentially be direct seeded rice (DSR).
The main objective of this chapter is to assess the performance of DSR com-
pared to conventional puddled and transplanted rice, and further recommend
strategies that can promote adoption and scaling up of DSR as a potential climate-
n
eutral and resilient rice farming system (CNRFS). The chapter was arranged as
follows: first, the introduction section that described the main challenges of rice
production, followed by the principles and practices of DSR, its advantages and
limitations. Then, the performance of DSR compared to conventional puddled
and transplanted rice was assessed using evidence-based field data from India and
other countries under both dry and wet conditions. The performance indicators
that were evaluated included grain yield, nutrient and water use, GHG emissions
and socioeconomic benefits. Finally, the chapter recommended strategies to pro-
mote adoption and scaling up DSR.
Direct seeded rice

Direct seeded rice (DSR) is an establishment technique in which seeds are sown
directly in the main field rather than by transplanting seedlings from the nursery.
This technique has several advantages; however, there are some challenges that
limit the adoption of DSR (Table 6.1). The main challenges include high weed
infestation, root-knot nematode infestation, nutrient deficiency (e.g., Bui et al., 2021)
and relatively lower grain yield compared to conventional transplanted rice. Some
of these problems can be effectively handled by following integrated approaches
of nutrient, pest and weed management.
Methods of direct seeded rice

The main methods of DSR are dry-DSR, wet-DSR and water seeding (Figure 6.1).
i DSR with dry seeding (dry-DSR): The practice of dry seeding involves sowing
of seeds in the field with optimum moisture conditions. Seeds are sown with
pre-sowing irrigation to enhance a good seed germination rate and establish-
ment before the onset of monsoons. This practice ensures timely crop estab-
lishment, which ensures higher productivity; in addition, it is less demanding
in labour, water and energy compared to conventional paddy transplantation.
108 Anjani Kumar et al.
ain advantages and disadvantages of DSR compared to transplanted
Table 6.1 M
puddled rice (TPR)
Advantages of DSR References
• Saves irrigation water use by 30–50% and increases Kumar et al. (2019)
water productivity, if properly managed Field study (Figure 6.4)
• Reduces GHG emissions (mostly methane) Singh et al. (2005)
• Saves labour requirement up to 60% (no transplanting, Kumar and Ladha (2011)
puddling and maintenance of standing water), thus Field study (Figure 6.6)
reduces labour cost and renders higher net profit
• Maintains soil aggregates, reduces percolation losses, Sharma et al. (2003)
avoids formation of hard pans in the root zone and
ensures favourable soil condition for succeeding crops
Disadvantages of DSR
• Weed emergence in DSR puts a strong competition Bista and Dahal (2018)
for nutrients, moisture, space and light, and results in
reduction of economic yield
• Nutrient uptake by rice roots under DSR is decreased Johnson et al. (2005)
due to change in nutrient dynamics, compared to TPR
• Higher occurrence of root-knot nematode which results Prot et al. (1994)
in severe damage to rice in all ecologies
Direct seeded Rice
Dry direct seeded rice Wet direct seeded rice Water seeding
Dry direct seeded rice in upland Wet direct seeded rice in dry season Water seeding after dry tillage
Dry direct seeded rice in lowland
Wet direct seeded rice in wet season Wet seeding after wet tillage
Dry direct seeded rice in medium and shallow
lowland
Figure 6.1 Different methods of DSR and its suitability in different rice ecologies.
ii DSR with wet seeding (wet-DSR): The main agronomic practices involved in
wet seeding are the sowing of sprouted seeds (seed rate = 50 kg ha−1) on the
puddled bed with the help of drum seeder. The advantages of this method in-
clude reduction in labour costs and drudgery, besides, timely and better crop
establishment (De Datta, 1986). The pre-requisites for successful wet-seeded
rice are carefully levelled field and effective weed control (Balasubramanian
and Hill, 2002).
iii Water seeding: Water seeding is mostly practised in irrigated lowlands where
standing water of 5–15 cm is present. In this practice, land is dry ploughed,
harrowed but puddling is avoided after dry tillage. Pre-germinated seeds are
broadcast in the standing water of 10–15 cm depth; however, after wet tillage,
puddling is practised.
In the following section, the performance of DSR was compared to conventional
transplanted rice (TPR). The assessment was performed using some key indicators
including grain yield, water input and water use efficiency, nutrient use, GHG emis-
sions, farm mechanization and benefit-cost ratio of DSR. The results were discussed
using the research findings from various studies conducted in different rice growing
areas of India and other parts of Asia, under both dry and wet conditions. The data
from the Government of Norway-funded Resilience project (www.resilienceindia.
org) focusing on climate-smart rice production systems (2018–2022) were analysed
to show the performance of DSR in Cuttack district, Odisha state of India.
Performance of DSR
i Grain yield: Performance of DSR in terms of grain yield is dependent on
many factors such as climatic condition, crop establishment, precise management
of inputs (irrigation water and nutrients), crop lodging and stakeholder’s knowl-
edge (e.g., efficient use of machinery) on different farm operations (Rao et al.,
2007).
Pilot demonstrations conducted under the Resilience project in Cuttack ,
Odisha (2018–2022) showed that grain yields of wet-DSR and dry-DSR were
significantly higher than the TPR. The rice yield in DSR increased by 6.
71–13.3% in the wet season and by 6.45–11.5% in the dry season compared
to TPR. This contrasts with a study conducted by Kumar and Ladha (2011)
that showed reduction (9–28%) in grain yield under dry-DSR compared to
conventional TPR. This may be due to different agro-ecological settings in
which the two studies were carried out.
Grain yield under different crop establishment methods is summarized in
Figure 6.2. In general, the grain yield under DSR varied from 3 t ha−1 (Farooq
et al., 2009) to nearly 6 t ha−1 (Sharma et al., 2004). In most of the studies,
Grain Yield
6
4
t ha-1
0
TPR DSR TPR DSR TPR DSR TPR DSR TPR DSR TPR DSR TPR DSR D-DSR W-DSR TPR
Harada et al., Mitchell et al., Farooq et al., Hobbs et al., Sharma et al., Ko and Kang, Sarkar et al., Resilience project
2007 2004 2009 2002 2004 2000 2003
Figure 6.2 R
ice grain yield under different crop establishment methods.
Table 6.2 Desirable traits of rice cultivars suitable for DSR
Desirable traits for DSR References
• Lodging resistance Mackill et al. (1996)

• Early seedling vigour for weed competitiveness Zhao et al. (2006)
• Vigorous root system for better anchorage and soil moisture Pantuwan et al. (2002)
extraction
• Anaerobic germination Ismail et al. (2009)
• Rapid shoot and root growth Cui et al. (2002)
• Shorter duration of the crop Dingkuhn et al. (1991)
• High crop growth rate during the reproductive phase Kato et al. (2009)
the grain yield under DSR was higher than under TPR except in one study
reported by Farooq et al. (2009). One of the reasons for the better perfor-
mance of DSR was probably the desirable traits (Table 6.2) of the improved
rice cultivars used and the good agronomic practices applied.
ii Water input and water use efficiency: One of the critical factors for high wa-
ter productivity in dry and wet seeded rice is precision water management.
Maintaining aerobic conditions in the field is essential for promising crop
stand establishment and high seedling vigour in early stages of dry seeding,
whereas in wet seeded rice, precision water management is required for better
performance of the applied herbicides and crop growth. Several studies were
carried out during the last two decades, analysing the performance of wa-
ter productivity and water savings under different rice systems. The research
findings on total water inputs in rice under the different water management
methods are summarized in F igure 6.3. The total water input ranged from
about 3,500 mm under flooded and transplanted (Kato et al., 2009) to 500
mm under alternately submerged/non-submerged conditions (Belder et al.,
2004) under different rice ecologies. The total water input under D-DSR,
W-DSR in the Resilience project was lower than 1,000 mm except in TPR.
Experiments conducted under the Resilience India project reported that
water saving was higher by 1 8–19.5% in w
et-DSR and by 4 3–45% in dry-
DSR over TPR (Figure 6.4). Similar findings were reported by Sharma et al.
(2002) that observed 12–60% water savings under DSR and 1 3–30% under
TPR. However, the water productivity under DSR in dry conditions (0.4–0.5
kg m−3) was higher than that under DSR in wet conditions TPR (0.2–0.3
kg m−3) (Figure 6.2). The water productivity can further be increased under
DSR by precise land levelling using laser land leveller. This ensures uniform
distribution of water, proper seed germination and weed control and good
crop establishment, resulting in higher yield (7–24%) and irrigation water
saving by 12–21% (Choudhary et al., 2002).
In DSR, precision irrigation practices like micro-irrigation, drip irriga-
tion and other automated irrigation technologies can be used for enhanc-
ing water use efficiency. However, this requires additional investments that
4000
3500
3000
Water input (mm)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Daily irrigation
AWD (40 kPa)
AWD (30 kPa)
AWD (30 kPa)

AWD (0.2 bar)
D-DSR
ASNS
ARDS
W-DSR
RB20
FLTP
AWD
AWD
TPR
TPR
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
Beldar et al., Beldar et al., Choudhary Matsuo et Kato et al., Ghosh et al, Yadav et al., Kadiyala et Kumar et al., Resilience project
2004 2005 et al., 2007 al., 2009 2009 2010 2011 al., 2012 2017
Figure 6.3 Representative studies reporting total water input in rice under different water
regimes.
0.6
0.5
Water Productivity kg kg-3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
WDSR DDSR TPR
WS DS
Figure 6.4 Comparison of cost of production and benefit-cost ratio under DSR and TPR.
smallholders cannot afford unless they are supported by subsidies from the
government and maintenance of equipment. The Government of India has
initiated country-wide programmes for upscaling precision irrigation systems
for fruit crops, which may be eventually extended to rice (Agricoop, 2021).
Drip and sprinkler irrigation technologies were found effective in saving ir-
rigation water in rice up to 67%, and two-fold increase in the yield (Arns,
1999). Other advanced studies have shown that the application of artificial
intelligence in automation of drip and sprinkler irrigation systems can further
improve the application efficiency over surface irrigation method (Bhoi et al.,
2021). However, drip and sprinkler methods are not commonly practised by
farmers in the rice growing countries, due to difficulties in maintenance and
initial establishment costs.
At the same time, we are observing a shift towards adoption of sensor-
based technologies for site-specific and need-based application of irrigation
water in India and other regions within the agriculture sector. Some of the
sensor-based technologies used for scheduling irrigation include gypsum block
sensor, time-domain reflectometry (TDR), frequency-domain reflectometry
(FDR) and neutron probe sensors. Recently developed advancement in preci-
sion irrigation management is the development of Customized Colour-Coded
Tensiometer (Kumar et al., 2021a) and the NRRI ARM sensor (Kumar et al.,
2021b). Some of these sensors are being made farmer friendly and easy to
handle and have the potential to save irrigation water, which can be up to
41% without any significant decline in the grain yield (Kumar et al., 2021a,b).
iii Integrated nutrient and fertilizer management: Site-specific or precision nutri-
ent management is becoming important in rice and other cropping systems
to improve productivity (Dobermann and Witt, 2004; Sapkota et al., 2016).
This will not only reduce overuse of fertilizers but also reduce GHGs sig-
nificantly. Proper dosage, and right time and method of application play an
important role in nutrient management in rice. Otherwise, it can lead to
losses of reactive nitrogen (N) through denitrification, volatilization and
leaching, as observed under dry-DSR, which is higher compared to TPR
(Davidson, 1991). As a result, the availability of plant nutrients such as nitro-
gen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn)
also reduced (Ponnamperuma, 1972), which hinders optimum plant growth
and yield under DSR. There are several fertilizer management practices that
can contribute to an improvement in the nutrient availability in DSR.
a Split fertilizer application: The dose of N fertilization used in DSR is
higher than that used in TPR to compensate the higher losses of reactive
N (Gathala et al., 2011). Normally, under DSR, one-third of the full dose
of N, P and K is applied as basal dose, which enhances the fertilizer use
efficiency by facilitating the availability of nutrients to the plants. The
remaining two-thirds dosage of N is applied in equal splits at vegetative
(active tillering) and reproductive (panicle initiation) stages (Kamboj
et al., 2012). Such type of fertilizer application increases the grain yield
and maximizes N use efficiency. More details about the dosage and tim-
ing of fertilizer application for DSR in different agro-ecological settings
are provided in Box 6.1. Awareness about the fertilizer management
suitable to DSR needs to be increased among farmers through regular
trainings and information.
b Green/brown manuring: In conventionally tilled DSR, the use of chem-
ical N fertilizer can be significantly reduced by applying green/brown
manuring such as Sesbania (Farooq et al. 2021). The seeds of Sesbania spp
Box 6.1 Nutrient management recommendations for dry-DSR under

different agro-ecological settings
a Upland rice: Well-decomposed farmyard manure or cow dung @ 2t acre−1

should be applied at the time of final land preparation, followed by a blan-
ket dose of 24:12:12 kg of N:P:K acre−1. For broadcast crop, the full dose of
P and K during the final land preparation should be applied, and 75% of
N after the first intercultural operation and rest 25% N at the panicle ini-
tiation (PI) stage. For line sown crops, 25% N + full P and K as basal dose
and band placement is recommended and 50% N at three weeks after the
first intercultural operation and rest 25% N at the PI stage. However, in
sandy soils, K should be applied in two equal split doses (50% as basal and
rest 50% at PI stage), whereas in acid soils, 50% P as SSP and rest 50%
P through rock phosphate should be applied. Phosphorous solubilizing
bacterial culture @ 25 g kg−1 is recommended to enhance availability
of P in soil, whereas integration of 50% recommended dose fertilizer +
Gliricidia @ 2.5 t ha−1 + Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria @ 2.5 kg ha−1 +
Azotobactor @ 2.5 kg ha−1 is recommended for autumn rice.
b Deep water rice: Blanket recommended dose is N:P:K @ 1 6–8–8 kg acre−1.
It is desirable to apply 8 kg P2O5 acre−1 during land preparation. The pre-
vailing water regime does not allow application of nitrogenous fertilizer
from late July to October. It is desirable to apply nitrogen fertilizer in one
or two doses before water accumulates to depth of 5 –10 cm in the field.
Usually, fertilizer is placed in bands at sowing with seed-cum-fertilizer
drill, hand plough or behind the country plough. For higher nitrogen use
efficiency, 8 kg N acre−1 as basal and rest 8 kg is applied before flooding.
Source: Adapted from Saha et al. (2012).
@ 19.76 kg ha−1 are broadcast three days after rice sowing and allowed to
grow for 2 5–30 days. It is then dried by spraying 2,4-D Ethyl Easter. In the
case of broadcast rice, at the time of beushening (a traditional system of
rice cultivation common in rainfed regions), harvested Sesbania foliage is
incorporated in soil, whereas in the case of line sowing the incorporation
is done at the time of manual weeding. This practice supplies about 14
kg of N per acre1, adds organic matter to soil and helps in maintenance
of overall soil health. Thus, a part of nitrogenous fertilizer (up to 25%)
can be replaced by brown manuring. The occurrence of nematode infes-
tation in DSR can be minimized by growing summer legume crops such
as green gram in rice-wheat or green manuring of Crotolaria juncea L.
c Fertilizer and seed treatment: One of the important factors in sustainable rice
production is integrated nutrient management, to improve the availability
of nutrients applied through several fertilizer and seed treatment tech-
niques. These techniques help not only in increasing the nutrient use effi-
ciency but also reducing environmental pollution. The use of neem-coated
urea (slow/controlled release of N fertilizers) and real-time N management
significantly enhances the yield and nitrogen use efficiency. In the real-
time N management practice, about 50% N application is adequately fol-
lowed by split application based on the value shown by leaf colour chart,
which is easy to use by farmers even without much literacy. In the case of K,
split application (50% basal and 50% at panicle initiation stage) has proved
to be more advantageous under the DSR condition (PhilRice, 2002). Seed
treatment with suitable microbial inoculants helps DSR farmers for better
nutrient cycling and enhancing the nitrogen use efficiency.
iv Greenhouse gas emissions: Irrigated rice is one of the major sources of meth-
ane emissions (nearly 1.5% of total global GHG), a GHG which is more than
30 times as potent as carbon dioxide (Searchinger and Wiate, 2014). There
are several studies that showed the practice of alternate wet and dry irrigation
cycles in rice significantly helps in reducing CH4 emission (Wang et al., 2012;
Kumar et al., 2016). Some of the mitigation measures to GHG emissions from
DSR based on previous research findings and the Resilience project results
are presented in Figure 6.5. The findings showed that methane emission was
lower in all DSR demo plots under wet/dry and zero tillage conditions than
under the conventional TPR. The emissions were even lower under dry-DSR
than under wet and/or zero tillage DSR. Careful land and water management
in DSR with proper sequence of wetting and drying has the potential to re-
duce significant methane by 40–50%.
a Water management practices: Water management practices like midsea-
son drainage and intermittent drainage reduce emission of CH4 more
Seasonal methane emission

450
400
350
300
250
kg ha-1
200
150
100
50
0
CT TPR CT DSR CT TPR CT Wet CT TPR CT Dry CT TPR CT Wet CT TPR CT Dry ZT Dry TPR ZT Dry CT TPR CT Dry
seeding seeding seeding seeding seeding seeding DSR
Ishibashi et al., 2001 setyanto et al., 2000 Ko and Kang 2000 Corton et al., 2000 Ko et al., 2002 Tsuruta et al., 2002 Singh et al., 2009
esearch findings on methane emissions (kg ha−1) from rice cultivation under
Figure 6.5 R
TPR, DSR and ZT. CT = conventional tillage, TPR = transplanted puddled
rice, DSR = direct seeded rice, ZT = zero tillage.
compared to flooded rice. However, earlier studies have also shown that
midseason drainage and intermittent drainage increase N2O emissions
(e.g., Kumar et al., 2016). Li et al. (2011) reported that the timing and
duration of midseason aeration affected the trade-off between CH4 and
N2O emissions. It shows there is a potential for reducing GHG emissions
from rice fields by adopting suitable water management practices (refer
Chapter 3). Farmers need to be trained on the timings and method of
water application to the rice fields for achieving net reductions in GHGs.
Where farmers are dependent on canal irrigation, water management has
to be coordinated by farmer groups and irrigation agencies collectively.
b Crop establishment methods: Under different crop establishment methods,
Kumar and Ladha (2011) reported a higher N2O-N emission under differ-
ent dry-DSR practices (1.3–2.2 kg N2O-N ha−1 in bed-dry-DSR and ZT-
dry-DSR compared to 0.31–0.39 kg N2O-N ha−1 in conventional TPR).
These findings clearly indicate that although DSR has the capacity to
reduce methane emission, it increases the N2O emissions. The trade-off
between CH4 and N2O emissions should be the basis for devising water
management strategy under DSR for mitigating overall global warming
potential (GWP) from rice fields. Crop establishment strategies that
would reduce GWP will be ideal for fitting into the r ice-based systems as
alternatives for conventional practices.
F armer-led demo trials during the years 2 019–2021 (under the Resilience project)
in the Tangi area of Cuttack district (Odisha state) reported that cumulative N2O
emission flux was between 1.1 and 1.5 kg N2O-N ha−1 under DSR, which is higher
than that under TPR by almost 42%. Similar results were found by Kumar and
Ladha (2011) who reported higher N2O emission flux (0.90–1.1 kg N2O-N ha−1)
under conventional dry-DSR practice. The cumulative CH4 emissions in WDSR
and DDSR were 30.3% and 39% less than in TPR in wet season, whereas 36.8%
and 47% less than in TPR in dry season (Table 6.2). The cumulative CO2 emis-
sion flux in WDSR, DDSR and TPR were 1,323, 1,474 and 1,647 kg ha−1 in wet
season and 1,520, 1,576, 1,656 kg ha−1 in dry season, respectively (Table 6.3). The
cumulative GWPs were 20.5–21.6% less in WDSR and 22.7–23.3% less in DDSR
compared to TPR. Other studies have reported similar results showing that the
overall net effect of DSR in GWP was decreased by 16–33% compared to conven-
tional rice production methods (Pathak and Aggrawal, 2012). Harada et al. (2007)
reported that replacing conventional TPR by DSR in the Indo-Gangetic Plains
can reduce the global warming potential by 25%. Thus, DSR provides an oppor-
tunity for the agriculture sector to contribute to mitigation efforts if included and
supported within the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) initiatives.
Farm mechanization
The small landholding size of many Indian farmers (<2 ha) is a major constraint
to promote farm mechanization at the individual farm level. However, there is an
Table 6.3 Effect of greenhouse gas emissions, GWP on different crop establishment
techniques
Treatment CH4 CO2 N2O GWP % of GWP cut-off

(kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (kg CO2 ha−1) from FPR
WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS
WDSR 75.1 52.3 1,323 1,520 1.07 1.13 3,657 3,163 20.5 21.6
DDSR 65.5 43.1 1,474 1,576 1.48 1.46 3,552 3,099 22.7 23.3
TPR 108 82.8 1,647 1,656 0.92 1.10 4,598 4,038 – –
DSR – wet direct seeded rice, DDSR – dry direct seeded rice, TPR – transplanted puddled rice.
W
Source: Authors analysis of research data from Resilience project sites.
increasing trend of shifting towards farm mechanization due to labour shortage

in India and other regions of South and Southeast Asia. The use of agricultural
machinery like seed drills, power sprayers, combine harvesters and other agricul-
tural implements is gradually increasing, which is an enabler for the successful
adoption of DSR. Farmers adopting mechanized DSR can make use of power
seed drills to reduce the seed rate significantly compared to the manual practice
(Kumar and Ladha, 2011). Optimum farm mechanization has the potential to
save time and labour, and curtail the cost of production and post-harvest losses.
The downside of farm mechanization is increased use of fossil fuels that will con-
tribute to GHG emissions. Hence, it is necessary to supplement with renewable
energy source (e.g., solar) wherever possible, and hand-driven tillers and smaller
machinery that are climate neutral.
Precision seed drills are gaining popularity due to their cost effectiveness and
effective operation. The metering unit (roller type/spiral grooved) present in pre-
cision seed drills ensures the uniform seeding operation because they are easy to
adjust for varying speed of operation. The seed rate of modern seed drill having
fluted roller type metering mechanism varies from 25 to 30 kg ha−1 and for inclined
plate and cup type metering mechanism, it varies from 15 to 20 kg ha−1. Further
lowering of seed rate can be achieved by using precision vacuum type metering
unit. Seeding by precision seed drills resulted in an increase in seedling emergence
by 7.8 –8.7% (Zhang et al., 2017). Under wet-DSR condition, optimum seeding can
be achieved by use of drum seeders. For better performance, the orifice diameter
on its circumference, optimum speed of rotation, forward speed of operation and
forward speed of operation to peripheral speed of drum needs must be standard-
ized. Drought-or fl ood-tolerant seeds are not easily accessible and expensive for
small farmers. Hence, lowering seed rate will also help farmers to reduce their
input costs and help more farmers to access the climate-resilient seed material.
Despite the advantages of mechanization in DSR, the affordability and use of
agricultural implements by smallholders continues to be low. This is due to the
lack of availability of implements at an affordable price, inappropriate synchroni-
zation between demand and supply, lack of custom hiring centres, limited access
to credit and lack of required technical knowledge and awareness on the efficient
use of machinery for different farm operations. The Farmer Producer Organiza-
tions (FPOs) in India are setting up custom hiring centres (like case study districts
of Assam and Cuttack in Odisha in the Resilience project) that will be useful for
smallholders who do not have the capacity to purchase machinery on their own.
Results from the Resilience project have shown that FPOs have the potential to
support farmers to access farm machinery, seed material, training and marketing
will help in upscaling of DSR.
DSR and advantages to women and youth

DSR provides several advantages to marginal and smallholder farmers in particu-
lar to women and youth. It saves labour requirement by up to 60% as it does not
require transplanting, puddling and maintenance of standing water. Given the fact
that women contribute a large share of the labour force for transplanting rice (and
possibly the accompanying drudgery), adoption of DSR will give more time for
women farmers to engage in other activities (e.g., household management, alterna-
tive income generating activities). Studies show that women are in favour of adopt-
ing DSR and are willing to learn and pay for technology such as DSR that reduces
the agricultural workload (Khan et al., 2016). Youth can be trained and engaged in
operating seed drills and combines increasingly used in DSR upscaling. Moreover,
the practice of DSR enhances smallholder farmers’ resilience and adaptation to
climate change and variability, e.g., during times of drought and flooding. Thus,
DSR has a potential to improve farmers’ livelihood by increasing productivity and
income as shown also in the studies conducted under the resilience project villages.
Economics of DSR
There are several determinants of cost of cultivation like labour wages, machine
use, and irrigation cost (Tripathi et al., 2014). The profitability under DSR is lo-
cation specific. Areas with cheaper labour cost and easy availability of irriga-
tion water recorded higher benefit-cost ratio under DSR compared to other areas.
There are several studies that showed economic prospects for DSR are highly
promising (Pandey and Velasco, 2002). The cost of cultivation under DSR re-
duced by 4 5–48% compared to TPR due to crop establishment, followed by water
management (Yaduraju et al., 2021). Other studies by Kumar and Ladha (2011)
reported a reduction in the cost of cultivation by 6 –32% under dry-DSR and by
2–16% under wet-DSR. This reduction in the production cost increases profita-
bility mainly due to less tillage operations, cheap labour and irrigation water and
more use of machines for different agricultural operations (Tripathi et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, the cost for weed control is about 20–38% higher in DSR compared
to TPR. Assuming other expenditures on crop cultivation in both TPR and DSR
similar, adoption of DSR practice may result in total net saving of Indian rupees
(INR) 9,114 to 10,192 per hectare. This implies that DSR adoption per million
hectares of land would result in an economic benefit range of INR 10.0 billion
(Yaduraju et al., 2021).
The inclusion of seed drill, power-operated boom sprayer and combine har-
vester in DSR (accessed by farmers through custom hiring centres) system con-
tributed to reduced cost of cultivation by 25%. Moreover, the use of modern seed
drills further decreased the seed rate under DSR by around 50% compared to TPR
(Dhakal et al., 2019).
The pilot demos conducted at the Resilience project site in Odisha state, India,
recorded a significantly higher benefit-cost ratio under DSR (1.6) compared to
TPR (1.8). The use of seed drills in the DSR demos resulted in significant reduc-
tion in labour and fuel costs, which led to enhancing the farm profitability (see
Figure 6.6).
Challenges and measures to upscale adoption of DSR

The practice of DSR is gaining popularity among rice farmers in water-scarce
areas. Globally, about 23% of rice area is already under DSR (Rao et al., 2007;
Kumar and Ladha, 2011). Adoption of DSR is increasing in rice growing areas
of Southeast Asia (Singh et al., 2005; Bhandari et al., 2020). This is due to the
advantages of DSR: it enhances water use efficiency, reduces methane emission,
reduces labour cost, renders higher net profit and maintains soil physical proper-
ties (see Table 6.1).
However, farmers in India face challenges in the transformation and adoption
of DSR. The main challenges are shortage of climate resilient rice varieties capable
of performing on par with puddle transplanted conditions; lack of effective herbi-
cides, crop lodging, iron deficiency, nematode infestation, non-availability of appropri-
ate machinery for seeding rice; and lack of awareness on improved DSR production
technology (Bhullar and Gill, 2020). Measures to overcome some of these chal-
lenges are discussed below:
Cost of Production Benefit - Cost ratio

70000 2
60000
1.5
50000
Benefit - cost ratio
Rupees ha-1
40000
1
30000
20000
0.5
10000
0 0
TPR DSR
Figure 6.6 Comparison of cost of production and benefit-cost ratio under DSR and TPR.
DSR = direct seeded rice, TPR = transplanted puddled rice.
i Shortage of climate resilient rice varieties: In this regard, one success case story
to mention is how the lack of good quality improved seeds was addressed by
the Resilience project in Assam (India). Two climate resilient varieties were
developed by the researchers and were introduced to farmers. As the demand
for these seeds was increasing, there was a need to develop a public-private
partnership between farmers and research community. The latter agreed to
provide foundation seeds to farmers directly for on-farm multiplication un-
der the supervision of the local research institute. This success has gener-
ated positive impacts among the farmers and increased the availability of
improved seeds in the area. In addition, adaptive research should be carried
out to produce rice varieties that adapt the local condition and tolerant to
lodging problem.
ii Lack of effective herbicides and nematode infestation: There are many species of
weed flora, of which hardy grassy weeds and sedges are more prevalent in DSR
(Caton et al., 2003; Rao et al., 2007). The weed problems in DSR can be con-
trolled using various measures that are context specific, as shown in Table 6.4.
To implement the above-mentioned measures effectively, it requires train-
ing of farmers, increasing awareness and informing farmers about the right
time and method for weed control during the cropping season and access to
purchase the inputs.
iii Nutrient uptake by rice roots and iron deficiency: Several research efforts have
been made on nutrient uptakes and iron deficiency in DSR (e.g., Zhang et al.,
2019). However, there is limited knowledge to improve nutrient u ptakes – in
particular iron deficiency in DSR in specific ecologies. In general, measures
such as applying site-specific nutrient management approach (refer Chapter 2)
and growing rice cultivars with high iron contents could improve rice nutri-
ent uptakes including iron in the soils.
iv N on-availability of appropriate machinery for seeding rice: This challenge
could be addressed by introducing services hiring centres that provide access
Table 6.4 E
xamples of research findings related to effective weed control measures in
DSR
Weed control measures References
• Use of manual and/or self-propelled weeders can play a Rao et al. (2007)
significant role in controlling weeds
• Mulching with wheat residue @ 4 t ha−1 inhibits emergence of Singh et al. (2007)
grassy weeds by 4 4–47% and broad leaf weeds by 56–72% in
dry-DSR
• Brown manuring reduces weed population at early stage due to
its high growth rate and competition
• Use of EMS mutant lines of Nagina 22 (N 22) was identified as Grover et al. (2020)
Imazethapyr resistant. The trait has been transferred to Pusa
Basmati 1121; non-genetically modified herbicide-tolerant rice
varieties
to farm machineries to smallholders, women and youth. For example, the
Resilience project established a Custom Hiring Centre (CHC) in Assam
(Golgahat district) to support farmers to provide farm machineries such as
power tillers, paddy threshers, straw choppers, power weeders and winnowers
at a subsidized hiring rate. The rent charge is used to cover the costs of main-
tenance and operation of CHC and the machineries. According to farmers,
the timely availability of farm machinery has enabled them to perform the
different farming activities efficiently.
v Lack of awareness on DSR cultivation methods: The virtual and/or physical Vil-
lage Knowledge Centre (VKC) services (ICT-based digital tools) introduced
in the Resilience project have increased farmers’ awareness about DSR. Par-
ticipatory extension services through VKCs and farmer-to-farmer learning
have encouraged other farmers to practise DSR. The VKCs extension per-
sonnel working in collaboration with the state-run farmer training centres
(KVKs) is helping in scaling up DSR.
Policy and institutional support for upscaling DSR

Extension activities can play a very important role in popularization of DSR,
which includes training, demonstration of DSR in farmer’s field, farmer-to-farmer
learning, on-farm trials related to various potential problems faced by farmers and
exposure visit of farmers to demo farms. In this regard, there are several opportu-
nities at international, national and state levels that can enhance upscaling DSR
practice in suitable rice ecologies.
Recent IPCC reports and other climate action initiatives globally are promot-
ing DSR as one of the most promising climate-neutral farming systems (Sulaiman
et al., 2018).
India is committed to fight the challenge of climate change considering
CoP26 commitments. One of strategies/pathways prioritized in the policy
agenda is to make Indian agriculture resilient and sustainable in a changing
climate. DSR is having the potential for reducing GHG emission and is being
included in the national missions that can help in achieving the target of n et-
z ero emissions by 2070, which India has pledged as per the CoP26 at Glasgow,
Scotland (Padhee and Whitbread, 2022). DSR has been prescribed as efficient
in terms of input use like water, labour and energy when compared to tradi-
tionally perceived water-guzzling crop like paddy. In this regard, one of the
salient recommendations that emerged during the First Indian Rice Congress
held in December, 2020 in India recognized the potential of DSR as one of
the promising climate-neutral and sustainable rice production option (Nayak
et al., 2020).
Some states in India such as Punjab are targeting to bring 1 million ha rice cul-
tivation under DSR technique. Efforts are underway in upscaling CSA technol-
ogies that include DSR with the support of KVKs and other stakeholders outside
the project areas.
Conclusions
This chapter analysed the performance of DSR on grain yield, nutrient manage-
ment, water use, GHG emissions and socioeconomic benefits and compared the
results with TPR under different rice ecologies. DSR can be a viable alternative
rice system to address the future challenges in the drier and warmer climate sce-
narios, provided enabling policy and institutional support are in place.
In general:
• DSR is promising as it overcomes the problem of labour and water scarcity.

• Adoption of DSR will benefit not only commercial farmers but also
smallholders
• DSR reduces agricultural workload and provides women and youth the op-
portunity to move into more remunerative o n-farm and off-farm employment.
• Further, application of modern biotechnology and development of effective
crop, water and soil management practices has the potential to optimize crop
yields under DSR.
• DSR can curtail methane emissions by 44%, and the cumulative GWP by
25% compared to TPR if properly managed.
A coordinated effort is needed to promote adoption and upscaling of DSR. In this

regard, researchers must focus on developing rice varieties that have early vig-
our, robust root architecture and weed competitiveness during early stages of crop
growth. Extension workers must increase demonstrations and training farmers
and other stakeholders about the practices of DSR and its benefits. Policy mak-
ers and government agencies should support the uptake and promotion of DSR
practice in the rice farming systems through investments and marketing support
measures. Finally, farmers practising DSR should be compensated for their contri-
bution to reduce GHG emissions.
Acknowledgements
The chapter has benefited from the results of the Resilience project field trials in
the Odisha state of India. The authors would like to thank field enumerators and
lead farmers involved in the field demos. At the same time, they acknowledge the
support of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs/The Norwegian Embassy,
New Delhi for funding and support to the Resilience project in India (2018–2023).
References
Agricoop (2021) ‘Annual report, 2020–2021’. Available at: https://agricoop.nic.in/sites/
default/files/Web%20copy%20of%20AR%20%28Eng%29_7.pdf
Arns, W. and Arns H (1999) ‘Growing rice with pivots–a step towards water conservation,
Rio Srande do sue region, South Porazil’, Available at: http://www.irri-ar.com.ar/
Balasubramanian, V. and Hill, J.E. (2002) ‘Direct seeding of rice in Asia: Emerging issues
and strategic research needs for the 21st century’. In: Pandey, S., Mortimer, M., Wade,
L., Tuong, T.P., Lopez, K. and Hardy, B. (Eds.) Direct Seeding: Research Strategies and
Opportunities, pp. 15–39, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines.
Belder, P., Bouman, B.A.M., Cabangon, R., Lu, G., Quilang, E.J.P.L.Y., Spiertz, J.H.J. and
Tuong, T.P. (2004) ‘Effect of water-saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typi-
cal lowland condition’, Asian Agricultural Water Management, vol. 65, pp. 193–210.
Belder, P., Bouman, B.A.M., Spiertz, J.H.J., Peng, S., Castaneda, A.S. and Visperas, R.M.
(2005) ‘Crop performance, nitrogen and water use in flooded and aerobic rice’, Plant
Soil, vol. 273, pp. 167–182.
Bhullar, M.S. and Gill, J.S. (2020) ‘Farmer’s apprehensions about DSR and possible solu-
tions’, The Times of India, 13 July 2020. p. 3.
Bhoi, A., Nayak, R.P., Bhoi, S.K., Sethi, S., Panda, S.K., Sahoo, K.S. and Nayyar, A. (2021)
‘IoT-IIRS: Internet of Things based intelligent-irrigation recommendation system using
machine learning approach for efficient water usage’, Peer Journal of Computer Sciences,
vol. 7: e578
Bhandari, S., Khanal, S. and Dhakal, S (2020) ‘Adoption of direct seeded rice over puddled-
transplanted rice for resource conservation and increasing wheat yield’, Reviews in Food
and Agriculture, vol. 1(2), pp. 59–66.
Bista, B. and Dahal, S. (2018) ‘Cementing the Organic Farming by Green Manures’, Inter-
national Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 87–96.
Bui, H.X., Oliveira, C.J., Desaeger, J.A. and Schroeder, N.E. (2021) ‘Rice root-knot nema-
tode Meloidogyne graminicola (Nematoda: Chromadorea: Tylenchida: Meloidogynidae:
Meloidogyne). Entomology and Nematology Department’. Available at: https://edis.ifas.
ufl.edu/publication/IN1350
Caton, B.P., Cope, A.E., and Mortimer, M. (2003) ‘Growth traits of diverse rice cultivars
under severe competition: implications for screening for competitiveness’, Field Crop
Research, vol. 83, pp. 157–172.
Choudhary, M.A., Gill, M.A., Kahlown, M.A. and Hobbs, P.R. (2002) ‘Evaluation of re-
source conservation technologies in r ice-wheat system of Pakistan: Developing an action
program for farm-level impact in r ice-wheat systems of the I ndo-Gangetic plains, p. 112.
Cui, K., Peng, S., Xing, Y., Xu, C., Yu, S. and Zhang, Q. (2002) ‘Molecular dissection of
seedling-vigor and associated physiological traits in rice’, Theoretical and Applied Genet-
ics, vol. 105, pp. 745–753.
Davidson, E.A. (1991) ‘Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems’,
The American Society of Microbiology, Washington, DC.
De Datta, S.K. (1986) ‘Technology development and the spread of direct-seeded flooded
rice in Southeast Asia’, Experimental Agriculture, vol. 22, pp. 417–426.
Dhakal, R., Bhandari, S., Joshi, B., Aryal, A., Kattel, R.R. and Dhakal, S.C. (2019) ‘Cost-
benefit analysis and resource use efficiency of rice production system in different agricul-
ture landscapes in Chitwan district’, Nepal. Archives of Agriculture and Environmental
Science, vol. 4, pp. 442–448.
Dingkuhn, M., Penning, de Vries, F.W.T., De Datta, S.K. and van Laar, H.H. (1991)
‘Concepts for a new plant type for direct seeded flooded tropical rice. Direct-seeded
flooded rice in the tropics’, Selected Papers from the International Rice Research Con-
ference, Seoul, Korea, 27–31 August 1990, pp. 17–38.
Dobermann, A. and Witt, C. (2004) ‘The evolution of site-specific nutrient management
in irrigated rice systems of Asia’, In Increasing productivity of intensive rice systems through
site-specific nutrient management (eds. Dobermann, A., Witt, C. and Dawe, D.) 410
(Science Publisher Inc. and International Rice Research Institute, IRRI).
Farooq, M., Basra, S.M.A., Ahmad, N. and Murtaza, G. (2009) ‘Enhancing the perfor-
mance of transplanted coarse rice by seed priming’, Paddy Water Environment, vol. 7,
pp. 55–63.
Farooq, M., Ullah, N., Nadeem, F., Nawaz, A. and Siddique, K.H. M. (2021) ‘Sesbania
brown manuring improves soil health, productivity, and profitability of post-rice bread
wheat and chickpea’, Experimental Agriculture, vol. 57, pp. 145–162.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2011) ‘Save and grow. A policymaker’s guide
to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production’, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2014) ‘Building a common vision for sustain-
able food and agriculture: Principles and approaches’, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2016) ‘Save and Grow in practice maize rice
wheat. A Guide to sustainable cereal production’, Rome.
Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Kumar, V., et al. (2011) ‘Tillage and crop establishment affects
sustainability of South Asian rice-wheat system’, Agronomy Journal, vol. 103, pp.961–971.
Grover, N., Kumar, A., Yadav, A.K., Krishnan, S.G., Ellur, R.K., Bhowmick, P.K., Vinod,
K.K., Bollinedi, H., Nagarajan, M., Viswanathan, C. and Sevanthi, A.M.V. (2020)
‘Marker assisted development and characterization of herbicide tolerant Near Isogenic
Lines of a mega Basmati rice variety, Pusa Basmati 1121’, Rice, vol.13 (1), pp.1–13.
Harada, H., Kobayashi, H. and Shindo, H. (2007) ‘Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
by no-tilling rice cultivation in Hachirogata polder, northern Japan, Life-cycle inven-
tory analysis’, Soil Science and Plant Nutrients’, vol. 53, pp. 668–677.
Hossain, M.A. and Siddique, M.N.A. (2015) ‘Water-A limiting resource for sustainable
agriculture in Bangladesh’, EC Agriculture, vol. 1(2), pp. 124–137.
IPCC (2007) ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working
group I’, In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B.,
Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ismail, A.M., Ella, E.S., Vergara, G.V. and Mackill, D.J. (2009) ‘Mechanisms associated
with tolerance to flooding during germination and early seedling growth in rice (Oryza
sativa L).’ Annals of Botany, vol. 103, pp. 197–209.
Johnson, S.E., Lauren, J.G., Welch, R.M. and Duxbury, J.M. (2005) A comparison of the
effects of micronutrient seed priming and soil fertilization on the mineral nutrition of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum), lentil (Lens culinaris), rice (Oryza sativa) and wheat (Triticum
aestivum) in Nepal’, Experimental Agriculture, vol. 41, pp. 427–448.
Kamboj, B.R., Kumar, A., Bishnoi, D.K., Singla, K., Kumar, V., Jat, M.L., Chaudhary, N.,
Jat, H.S., Gosain, D.K., Khippal, A., Garg, R., Lathwal, O.P., Goyal, S.P., Goyal, N.K.,
Yadav, A., Malik, D.S., Mishra, A. and Bhatia, R. (2012) ‘Direct seeded rice technol-
ogy in Western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: CSISA experiences’, CSISA, IRRI and
CIMMYT, p. 16.
Kato, Y., Okami, M. and Katsura, K. (2009) ‘Yield potential and water use efficiency of
aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Japan’, Field Crop Research, vol. 113, pp. 328–334.
Khan, T., Kishore, A. and Joshi, P.K. (2016) ‘Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences
for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India’, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01550.
Kumar, A., Nayak, A.K., Mohanty, S. and Das, B.S. (2016) ‘Greenhouse gas emission from
direct seeded paddy fields under different soil water potentials in Eastern India’, Agricul-
tural Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 228, pp. 111–123.
Kumar, A., Nayak, A.K., Das, B.S., Panigrahi, N., Dasgupta, P., Mohanty, S., Kumar, U.,
Panneerselvam, P. and Pathak, H. (2019) ‘Effects of water deficit stress on agronomic
and physiological responses of rice and greenhouse gas emission from rice soil under
elevated atmospheric CO2’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 650, pp. 2032–2050.
Kumar, A., Nayak, A.K., Tripathi, R., Mohanty, S. and Nayak, P.K. (2021a) ‘Customized
color coded tensiometer for scheduling irrigation in rice’, NRRI technology b ulletin-
1 54, Published by Director, ICAR – NRRI, Cuttack.
Kumar, A., Nayak, A.K., Hanjagi, P.S., Tripathi, R., Mohanty, S. and Panneerselvam, P.
(2021b) ‘NRRI-ARM sensor—A tool for real time soil moisture monitoring., NRRI
technology bulletin-175. Published by ICAR – NRRI, Cuttack, India.
Kumar, V. and Ladha, J.K. (2011) ‘Direct seeding of rice: recent developments and future
research needs’, Advances in Agronomy, vol. 111, pp. 297–413.
Li, D., Liu, M., Cheng, Y., Wang, D., Qin, J., Jiao, J., Li, H. and Hua, F. (2011) ‘Methane
emissions from double- rice cropping system under conventional and
no-
tillage in
Southeast China’, Soil Tillage Research, vol. 113, pp. 77–81.
Mackill, D.J., Coffman, W.R. and Garrity, D.P. (1996) ‘Rainfed lowland rice improvement’,
International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines.
Muthayya, S., Sugimoto, J.D., Montgomery, S. and Maberly, G.F. (2014) ‘An overview of
global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption’, Annals of the New York Acad-
emy of Sciences, vol. 1324 (1), pp. 7–14.
Nayak, A.K., Baig, M.J., Samantaray, S., Bhattacharyya, P., Mohapatra, S.D., Mondal,
B., Kumar, A., Adak, T., Raghu, S., Molla, K.A., Parameswaran, C., Hanjagi, P.S.H.,
Gowda B.G., Pradhan, A.K., Sinha, S.K. and Sethi, S.K. (2020) ‘Extended summaries,
rice research and development for achieving sustainable development goals, 1st Indian
Rice Congress – 2020, Association of Rice Research Workers, ICAR-National Rice
Research Institute, Cuttack – 753 006 (Odisha), India.
Padhee, A.K. and Whitbread, A (2022) ‘Indian agriculture: The route post-CoP 26’,
Available at: https://w ww.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate%20change/amp/i ndian-
agriculture-the-route-post-cop-26-81154
Pandey, S. and Velasco, L. (2002) ‘Economics of direct seeding in Asia: Patterns of adop-
tion and research priorities’, In: Pandey, S., Mortimer, M., Wade, L., Tuong, T.P., Lopez,
K., Hardy, B. (Eds.), Direct Seeding: Research Strategies and Opportunities, International
Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 3–14.
Pandey, S. and Velasco, L. (2005) ‘Trends in crop establishment methods in Asia and
research issues’, Rice is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. Proceedings of
the World Rice Research Conference, 4 –7 November 2004, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 178–181
Pantuwan, G., Fukai S., Cooper M., Rajatasereekul, S. and O’Toole, J.C. (2002) ‘Yield
response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to different types of droughts under rainfed
lowlands. Plant factors contributing to drought resistance’, Field Crops Research, vol. 73,
pp. 181–200.
Pathak, H. and Aggarwal, P.K. (2012) ‘Low carbon technologies for agriculture: a study
on rice and wheat systems in the I ndo-Gangetic Plains’, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi, pp. 12–40.
PhilRice (The Philippine Rice Research Institute). (2002) ‘Integrated nutrient manage-
ment for rice production’, In Rice Technology Bulletin No. 45, p. 24. The Philippine Rice
Research Institute (PhilRice): Maligaya, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
Ponnamperuma, F.N. (1972) ‘The chemistry of submerged soils’, Advances in Agronomy,
vol. 24, pp. 29–96.
Prot, J.C., Villanueva, L.M. and Gergon, E.B (1994) ‘T he potential of increased ni-
trogen supply to mitigate growth and yield reductions of upland rice cultivar UPL
Ri-5 caused by Meloidogyne graminicola’. Fundamentals of Applied Nematology, vol. 17,
pp. 445–454.
Rao, A.N., Johnson, D.E., Sivaprasad, B., Ladha, J.K. and Mortimer, A.M. (2007) ‘Weed
management in direct-seeded rice’, Advances in Agronomy, vol. 93, pp. 153–255.
Saha, S., Rao, K.S., Jena, S.R., Pande, K., Das, L., Behera, K.S. and Panda, B.B. (2012)
Agro-techniques of wet direct-sown summer rice. DST Project Technology Bulletin
No.1. Published by Director, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack – 753006.
Sapkota, T.B., Majumdar, K., Khurana, R., Jat, R.K., Stirling, C.M. and Jat, M.L. (2016)
‘Precision nutrient management under conservation agriculture-based cereal systems
in South Asia’ In: Nagothu, U.S (Ed.), Climate Change and Agricultural Development:
Improving Resilience through Climate Smart Agriculture, Agroecology and Conservation.
New York: Routledge, pp: 131–160, ISBN: 978-1-138-92227-3.
Searchinger, T. and Waite, R. (2014) ‘More rice, less methane’, Available at: https://www.
wri.org/insights/more-rice-less-methane.
Sharma, P.K., Singh, R.P. and Kumar, R. (2004) ‘Effects of tillage on soil physical prop-
erties and crop performance under rice-wheat system’, Journal of Indian Society of Soil
Sciences, vol. 52, pp. 12–16.
Sharma, P.K., Ladha, J.K. and Bhushan, L. (2003) Soil Physical Effects of Puddling in Rice-
wheat Cropping Systems. Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of Rice-wheat Sys-
tems: Issues and Impacts, ASA Special Publication, vol. 65, 2003.
Sharma, P.K., Bhushan, L., Ladha, J.K., et al. (2002) ‘Crop-water relations in rice-wheat
cropping under different tillage systems and w ater-management practices in a margin-
ally sodic medium textured soil’, Agronomy Journal, vol. 64, pp. 521–524.
Singh, Y., Singh, G., Johnson, D. and Mortimer, M. (2005) ‘Changing from transplanted
rice to direct seeding in the rice-wheat cropping system in India Rice is Life’: Scientific
Perspectives for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference, 4 –7
November 2004, pp. 198–201. Tsukuba, Japan.
Singh, S., Ladha, J.K., Gupta, R.K., Bhushan, L., Rao, A.N., Sivaprasad, B. and Singh, P.P.
(2007) ‘Evaluation of mulching, intercropping with Sesbania and herbicide use for weed
management in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.)’, Crop Protection, vol. 26, pp. 518–524.
Sulaiman, R.V., Chuluunbaatar, D. and Vishnu, S. 2018. Upscaling Climate Smart Agricul-
ture. Lessons for Extension and Advisory Services. FAO ROME.
Tripathi, R.S., Raju, R. and Thimmappa, K. (2014) ‘Economics of Direct Seeded and
Transplanted Methods of Rice Production in Haryana’, ORYZA International Journal
of Rice, vol. 51, 70.
Tuong, T.P. and Bouman, B.A. (2003) ‘Rice production in water-scarce environments:
Water productivity in agriculture’: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement, vol. 1,
pp. 13–42.
Wang, J., Zhang, X., Xiong, Z., Khalil, M.A.K., Zhao, X., Xie, Y. and Xing, G. (2012)
‘Methane emissions from a rice agroecosystem in South China: effects of water regime,
straw incorporation, and nitrogen fertilizer’, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 93
(1), pp. 103–112.
Yaduraju, N.N., Rao, A.N., Bhullar, M.S., Gill, J.S. and Malik, R.K. (2021) ‘Direct-Seeded
Rice (DSR) in India: New opportunities for Rice Production and Weed management
in post-COVID-19 pandemic period’, Weeds Journal of the Asian-Pacific Weed Science
Society, vol. 3(2), pp. 30–48.
Zhang, X., Liu, H., Zhang, S., Wang, J. and Changzhou Wei, C. (2019) ‘NH4−N alleviates
iron deficiency in rice seedlings under calcareous conditions’. Available at: www.nature.
com/scientificreports/
Zhang, M., Xiwen, L., Wang, Z., Wang, B. and Zhenlin, X. (2017) ‘Optimization design
and experiment of profiling and slide board mechanism of precision rice hill-drop drill-
ing machine’, Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, vol. 336,
pp.18–26.
Zhao, D.L., Atlin, G.N., Bastiaans, L. and Spiertz, J.H.J. (2006) ‘Cultivar weed compet-
itiveness in aerobic rice: Heritability, correlated traits, and the potential for indirect
selection in weed-free environment’, Crop Science, vol. 46, pp. 372–380.
7 Carbon-neutral farming
solutions in rice farming
systems in Europe
Stefano Monaco, Patrizia Borsotto, Roberto Cagliero,
Chiara Bertora, Omedé Gabriele, Maite Martínez-
Eixarch and Laura Bardi
Introduction
In Europe, rice cultivation in terms of area and production has been stable be-
tween 1994 and 2020. The amount of rice produced in 2019 was about 2.8 million
tonnes from a total cultivated area of about 428,000 ha, which represented 0.27%
of world’s rice production and 0.41% of world’s harvested area (FAOSTAT, 2019).
Due to temperature and water needs, rice in Europe is only cultivated in southern
regions and in specific areas or districts, mainly in Italy (53.2% of total area as of
2020) and Spain (23.9%), and to a lesser extent in Greece (8.4%), Portugal (6.2%),
France (3.6%), Bulgaria (2.9%), Romania (1.4%) and Hungary (0.7%). The pro-
duction provides nearly 60% of internal rice consumption needs in Europe; the
remainder 40% (approximately 1.2 million tonnes of milled rice per year, mainly
Indica/long grain rice) is imported, especially from Pakistan, Thailand, Myanmar
and Cambodia (EC, 2019a).
Though the rice production in the European Union (EU) is comparatively
smaller to the total global production, the rice farming systems in some of the
European regions have a long tradition and have important economic, cultural
and landscape relevance at local and regional scale. The current research on im-
proving sustainability and carbon neutrality of rice farming in Europe can there-
fore be useful to other rice growing regions in the world. This is one of the main
reasons for including this chapter in the book.
In the EU, rice is normally cultivated under flooding conditions, sown in spring
and harvested in autumn. Average yields range between 4 and 8 tonnes per hec-
tare, also depending on cultivars that mostly belong to Japonica rice varieties.
Flooded paddy landscapes providing habitats for many organisms including mi-
gratory birds are important for biodiversity conservation and artificial wetland
maintenance in Europe. This agroecosystem is similar to other rice growing re-
gions, where several environmental problems can be observed due to high use of
fertilizers and agrochemicals, leading not only to pollution of soil and water but
also to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Kraehmer et al., 2017). Moreover, cli-
mate change (CC) further increases the vulnerability of these specialized farming
systems due to the rise in water shortage, new pests and diseases and soil salinity
in coastal regions.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-7
128 Stefano Monaco et al.
GHG emissions from agriculture and rice farming systems in
the EU
Considering all sources and sectors, except for LULUCF,1 the total GHG emis-
sions decreased by about one-third in EU since 1990. A total of 3.6 Gt of CO2 eq
emissions was estimated in 2019 (EEA, 2019), which is about 10% of the global
GHG emissions (UNFCCC, 2019). According to the EEA, this is mainly due
to the implementation of the EU and national policies and measures that have
contributed to the decrease of GHG emissions in almost all sectors, particularly
in energy supply, industry and the residential sector, while emissions from agricul-
ture have increased in recent years. The EU has set new targets of 55% reduction
by 2030 compared with 1990 level and of achieving a climate-neutral economy
by 2050, which will need substantial efforts across all the sectors of the economy.
The agricultural sector has contributed to 12.7% of the total GHG emissions in
2019, mostly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (EEA, 2019). The shares of
CH4 and NO2 emitted from the agricultural sector are highly relevant in the EU,
because they correspond to 53.7% and 74.6% of total CH4 and NO2 emissions, re-
spectively. Although rice in the EU is usually cultivated under flooded conditions,
which causes high amount of CH4 emissions during crop growing season at field
scale, the contribution of CH4 from paddy fields to the total CH4 emissions is only
1.2%, due to the very limited area of rice cultivation, while the main sources are
represented by ruminants’ enteric fermentation (80.7%) and manure management
(17.4%). Nevertheless, as the contribution of CH4 emissions from rice paddies to
global warming is relevant at global scale, the effort for its reduction concerns
the entire global community, as recognized by the EU in its strategy to reduce
methane emissions (EC, 2020). Concerning N2O emissions, the direct and indi-
rect N2O emissions from agricultural soils are relevant, representing 88.6% of the
sector in 2019, while the remaining share originates from manure management
(11.2%). Policies on climate impacts or rice assume that N2O emissions from this
crop are negligible or very small, in fact, less than 10% of the total emissions, and
none of the rice growing countries include them in their national inventories.
Nevertheless, water-saving techniques, which have been developed and spread to
reduce water use and CH4 emissions from paddies, may increase N2O emissions
through a erobic-anaerobic cycling, which favours nitrification and less complete
denitrification. A more detailed account of the aerobic-anaerobic cycling and its
impact on N2O emissions is given in Chapter 3.
Besides the information on the contribution of the agriculture and rice sector
to climate change through IPCC-supported national GHG inventory method-
ology, several other methods have been proposed for calculating the magnitude
of impact per kilogram of food products and for understanding where the im-
pacts are concentrated within the production chain from field to supermarket.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the most utilized method for evaluating the en-
vironmental impacts of processes and products through indicators such as global
warming potential (GWP) and carbon footprint. In an LCA study carried out
in the Vercelli district, which is one of the most important rice producing area
Carbon-neutral farming solutions in rice farming systems 129
in Northern Italy, Blengini and Busto (2009) estimated that in the baseline rice
farming system, direct emissions from the field were the first source of GWP with
68% of contribution, followed by fertilizer production (9%) and product transpor-
tation (6%). They also investigated the effects of alternative rice farming systems
such as organic farming and water-saving techniques that provided interesting
results. For organic farming, a lower impact per hectare but a higher GWP per
unit mass of product was assessed, which increased by 20%, as expected due to
lower yields. As organic farming has other important beneficial effects, such as
biodiversity conservation and environmental pollution reduction, which are also
major concerns in large rice producing regions of Asia, the research strategies for
maintaining high yield and low GWP per product in the organic rice system have
become more important in recent years. The use of alternatives such as water-
saving techniques, which could also cause yield reductions and even concerns
about its feasibility and negative t rade-offs at large scale, has nonetheless the po-
tential to decrease GWP by about 50%.
EU policy aspects and economics drivers

Climate action is one of the EU’s key priorities and at the heart of European
Green Deal initiative (EC, 2019b). Climate and energy are one of the five fields
of action to which the EU has assigned specific objectives to be achieved within
the framework of the Europe 2030 strategy, the aim of which is to fill the gaps in
the EU growth model, thus creating the conditions for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. The EU pursues these objectives through a combination of pro-
grammes and financial support measures, including the European Structural and
Investment Funds, contributing to the thematic objectives of supporting the tran-
sition to a climate-neutral economy in all sectors and promoting climate change
adaptation, risk prevention and management.
Concerning the agricultural sector, a stronger focus on green issues is one of
the main emphases through innovations of the future Common Agricultural Pol-
icy (CAP), and it was already implemented partially in the 2014–2020 program-
ming period (Matthew, 2012). Under the first pillar, direct payments were subject
to cross-compliance, i.e. the observance of constraints aimed at environmental
protection, food safety, animal welfare and the maintenance of land in good con-
dition, in addition to commitments to the so-called “green payment” or greening.
Under the second pillar there was specific support for those farmers who, volun-
tarily exceeding the baseline of cross-compliance and greening, decided to adopt
more sustainable production practices on the farm. Besides CAP, the organization
of the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) foresees that resources are con-
centrated on several measures in order to achieve synergistically certain common
strategic priorities. It was possible to highlight Priority 5 that aims at “Promoting
resource efficiency and the shift to a low-carbon and climate resilient economy in
the agri-food and forestry sector”. This broader policy priority was broken down
into five specific areas of intervention, which are known as Focus Areas (FAs).
In the 2014–2022 program period, RDPs cover a specific Focus Area (FA 5E –
fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry) de-
signed to support actions that achieve carbon conservation and sequestration
in agriculture and forestry, although other interventions dedicated to the same
objective may have been introduced in other FAs (Figure 7.1). However, a recent
report from the European Court of Auditors found that CAP funds attributed
during 2014–2020 to climate action had little impact on agricultural emissions
and that most mitigation measures had low potential to mitigate climate change
while CAP rarely has been financing measures with high climate mitigation po-
tential (ECA, 2021). The EU has the target to mobilize 4 billion euros of public
expenditure, i.e. 2.5% of the total amount of the EU budget, to support 4 million
hectares of agricultural and forest land contributing to carbon sequestration and
conservation, which accounts for 2% of the EU agricultural and forest land. The
commitment made by the different member states is variable and the contribu-
tion of each single RDP to meet the European target can vary greatly: in some
cases, the RDPs have not even activated Focus Area 5E, in others the implemen-
tation of the Focus Area was quite ambitious. It shows that though policies have
been developed in the EU to address climate mitigation, their implementation
has not met the expectations.
Mitigation potential targets and methodologies to achieve them

To achieve 2030 and 2050 GHG emission targets, the EU should implement ef-
fective and verifiable measures to reduce net GHG emissions, including carbon
dioxide (CO2) removal actions. The agricultural sector could have a key role
in this strategy with several options for mitigation, including the recognition
Other
(M01,M02;M15;M06;M12;M11), 92
M16, 75
M04, 110
M13, 217
M10, 596
M08, 2838
Figure 7.1 P
lanned public expenditure on Focus Area 5E per measure (millions of euro).
Source: ENRD 2016.
and implementation of nature-based solutions as options for achieving climate
neutrality by 2050. Moreover, sequestration methodologies could also have
strong positive trade-offs, such as resilience increase of land and farming sys-
tems to climate change and other risks, improvement of resource use efficiency
and enhancement of soil health and biodiversity. Mitigation potentials of the
EU farming systems, together with feasibility, impact and cost effectiveness of
monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system of possible measures and
options, have been addressed in several research studies and in specific policy
reports (Martineau et al., 2016; Leip et al., 2017; COWI, 2021). The concept of
“Carbon farming” has been gaining more relevance in the EU context and its
implementation is expected to start in the coming years (EC, 2021). It refers to
the management of carbon pools, flows and GHG fluxes at farm level, with the
aim of reducing net GHG emissions for climate change mitigation. This objec-
tive can be achieved through measures that involve the management of land,
crops, soil and livestock.
Examples of mitigation actions at farm level to manage carbon and GHG
fluxes, identified as relevant within the EU context, are reported in Table 7.1
with estimates of their potential impact. Martínez-Eixarch et al. (2021) assessed
22 different actions reported in the table and their mitigation potential and
found that 11 could have substantial impact, with more than 5,000 kt of CO2
eq per year of reduction at EU level. Among them, eight actions were related
to carbon sequestration due to land use, land use change or crop production;
two were related to mitigation of N2O emissions from fertilizer application; and
one (carbon audits) was a means of identifying relevant actions at farm business
level. While the potential contribution to climate mitigation should be the first
aspect to consider in any assessment of future potential schemes, other factors
need to be considered as well. The permanence of the effect of the climate action
on carbon pool and GHG fluxes, and the associated risk of reversal processes
such as land management change or a catastrophic event such as fire, must be
adequately considered, together with the additionality of the effect that without
the action taken the results would not have occurred. Moreover, it is necessary
to evaluate the risk of the s o-called “carbon leakage”, which is the displacement
of the emission to another location, by emitting activities increase or land use
changes caused by the considered mitigation action. Another important aspect
is related to the evaluation of the achievement of the expected results in terms
of carbon stock increase or GHG emission reduction, and in terms of the asso-
ciated uncertainty, reliability and costs of the applied methodology that could
be based on direct measurements, assessment tools and/or modelling. These are
challenges that should be considered while planning for mitigation measures
and their actual implementing and monitoring at each farm level in the coming
years. This could be even a bigger challenge in scattered and small-size farms
in Asia or Africa, where farmers’ climate literacy could be limited. Any lessons
learnt from the EU small farms in this context could be relevant for small-scale
farming systems elsewhere.
Table 7.1 P
otential GHG savings from various measures in practice to reduce EU
agriculture and land use emissions
Mitigation
Range of values potential
Group Mitigation action utilized for the (kt CO2 eq/y)
assessment
Min Max
Land use Conversion of arable land to 2.2–7.3 t/ha/y CO2e 2,670 8,850
grassland sequestered in soil
New agroforestry potential 0.15–0.88 t/ha/y 257 1,560
CO2e sequestered
in soil
Wetland/peatland 1.3–8.2 t CO2e /ha/y 1.61 10.1
conservation/restoration
Woodland planting 1.47–1.83 t/ha/y 2,570 3,210
CO2e sequestered
in soil
Preventing deforestation and 0.73–7.3 t/ha/y 1,079 10,790
removal of farmland trees CO2e sequestered
in soil
Woodland, hedgerows, woody 0.37 t/ha/y CO2e 5,500 5,500
buffer strips and trees sequestered in soil
on agricultural land
(management)
Crop Reduced tillage 0.0059–0.0180 t 104.5 324
production CO2e /ha/y for
fuel saved
Zero tillage 0.0121–0.0359 t 809 2,467
CO2e /ha/y for
fuel saved
Leaving crop residues on the 0.11–2.2 t/ha/y CO2e 133.3 2,670
soil surface
0 –0.512 Mt per
Ceasing to burn crop residues 880
and vegetation member state
CO2e per year
Use cover/catch crops 0.88–1.47 t/ha/y 10,460 18,100
CO2e sequestered
in soil
Nutrient Soil and nutrient management 0.033–0.159 t CO2e 2,130 21,300
and soil plans /ha/y from N2O
management reduction
Use of nitrification inhibitors 0.003–0.017 t CO2e 29,700 89,100
/ha/y from N2O
reduction
Improved nitrogen efficiency 0.033–0.159 t CO2e 2,130 21,300
/ha/y from N2O
reduction
Biological N fixation in 0.006–0.042 t CO2e 6,390 12,400
rotations and in grass mixes /ha/y from N2O
reduction
Livestock Livestock disease management 1,060 10,600

production Use of sexed semen for 481 1,730
breeding dairy replacements
Breeding lower methane 21.3 44.4
emissions in ruminants
Feed additives for ruminant 860 1,730
diets
Optimized feeding strategies 280 850
for livestock
Energy Carbon auditing tools 12,900 19,900
Improved on-farm energy 3,090 6,280
efficiency
Adapted from Martineau et al., (2016).
Analysis of climate actions at farm scale

In Italy, rice production is mainly concentrated in the n orth-western Po Valley,
covering 220,000 ha (Ente Nazionale Risi, 2020). In Vercelli, Pavia and Novara
provinces, rice cultivation constitutes about 81% of the land use and has a long
tradition of cultivation dating back to the 15th century. Currently, it represents
one of the most intensive rice production systems in the world. In this area, rice is
permanently flooded during most part of the growing season, from A pril-May to
August-September. It is mostly cultivated in specialized farms, with yields ranging
from 6 to 7 t ha−1 (Ente Nazionale Risi, 2020), depending on the type of cultivar
(i.e. round, Long A or Long B grain size), high level of mechanization (i.e. 628 kW/
farm) (RICA, 2019) and high use of chemical inputs, especially herbicides but also
nitrogen fertilizers, fungicides and insecticides. This type of farming system has
caused several negative environmental effects, such as water pollution, biodiver-
sity loss and soil fertility depletion, which, together with high costs of production
for inputs, the fluctuation of the global price of commodities and the reduction
of protection measures of EU agricultural policies, has strongly questioned its
economic and environmental sustainability in recent years. Climate change sce-
narios have further been enhancing the vulnerability of the rice farming system
in the Po Valley, due to the changes in the rainfall and snow regimes and the
increased frequency of extreme drought and water shortage events.
In this context, it is necessary to modify agricultural practices, and adopt new
technologies and nature-based innovations at farm and field scale to increase rice
farming system sustainability and resilience to climate change. Moreover, this
sector can play an important role in mitigation actions by reducing GHG emis-
sions and increasing C sequestration in land. Organic agriculture could represent
a potential solution in favour of both environmental and economic sustainability.
However, this farming system is a novelty and a challenge for the Italian rice
sector, meaning significant changes in the agricultural practices (e.g. introduction
of crop rotation, new practices for weed management) and uncertainty in terms
of productive performance (Orlando et al., 2020). This could also mean a risk
to farmers due to low productivity in organic rice production, despite its market
demand in the EU.
For this reason, a research project (Risobiosystems 2017–2020) funded by the
Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Policies (MIPAAF) and carried
out by CREA, together with other Italian research institutions and universities,
aimed at analysing national organic rice farming systems through a multidiscipli-
nary approach, considering key agronomic, environmental and socio-economic
aspects (SINAB, 2017). One of the research activities focused on studying a group
of organic rice farms in Northern Italy to identify the main strategies, in terms
of weed control, crop rotation and other agronomic and innovative aspects,
supported by evaluating their productive, environmental and economic perfor-
mances. The sample of farms was constituted by a network created by the Univer-
sity of Milan for the implementation of participatory research activities (Orlando
et al., 2020), which was expanded during the project.
The sample farms were in the Provinces of Vercelli, Pavia and Novara, and
specialized in rice production. Most of them adopted the organic rice farming
system on the entire farm area, while the rest had a mixed management: a part
of the farm was intended for conventional production and the rest under organic
farming. The mixed organic-conventional farming is allowed by the EU rules, and
it is common in the rice organic systems of Northern Italy. This is due to manage-
ment problems, especially related to the technical difficulties of managing large
farm areas under organic farming (e.g. additional time required due to mechanical
interventions), and economic reasons (e.g. risk of income reduction due to uncer-
tain and lower yields of organic rice and alternative crops). In the farm sample,
the conversion from conventional to organic farming was rather recent: two of
the farms shifted to organic in 2015, and two farms were under organic production
since 2000. With regard to land use and crop rotation, rice cultivation represented
about one-third of the area under organic farming, but the crop rotations adopted
were generally done with few crops that often were functional to rice cultivation
(i.e. cover crops for mulching or green manure). The choice of crops to be grown
in rotation alternating with rice is one of the most critical issues for the organic
rice system in Northern Italy, due to soil type and water management of paddy
fields that could limit the growth of alternative crops, the specialization of farms
and the economic value of the rice compared to other crops.
In a sub-sample of 12 farms, a study on the impact of organic practices and
other innovative solutions on GHG emissions, carbon sequestration and carbon
footprint was carried out (Table 7.2). Within this sample group, in each m ixed-
type farm, the organic and conventional lands were analysed separately. Organic
rice areas were managed differently with the introduction of different innovative
agricultural practices (Table 7.3).
Main strategies were especially targeted to weed control, which is the major
challenge in the Italian rice production system. In organic agriculture this is even
worse due to the prohibition of herbicides use: weed incidence was reported as the
Table 7.2 Rice farms analysed for carbon footprint evaluation
Farming type ID Utilized Geographic region Soil characteristics

agricultural
area
ha
Mixed Org01 95 Vercellese plain (VC) Silty loam, sub-acid or

acidic
Conv01 145 Silty loam, sub-acid
Conventional Conv02 210 Vercellese plain (VC) Silty loam, sub-acid or
acidic
Mixed Org03 44 Novarese plain (NO) Different soil textures,
Conv03 116 alfisol
Mixed Org04 75 Novarese plain (NO) Different soil textures,
Conv04 100 alfisol
Mixed Org05 13 Novarese plain (NO) Clay soil, difficult water
Conv05 37 drainage
Organic Org06 40 Baraggia vercellese Heavy soil, difficult
(VC) water drainage, acid
Organic Org07 46 Low plain in Sandy loam, sub-acid
Lomellina (PV)
Organic Org12 98 Low plain in Sandy loam
Lomellina (PV)
Source: Based on own data collection through farmer interviews and field survey.
main cause of yield variability and yield gap of organic paddies. The use of green
mulching from different cover crops was widespread in a major part of farms of
the sample, aimed to limit weed development through the physical obstruction
obtained by cover crop residue biomass and, to some extent, the phytotoxic action
of chemical compounds (e.g. organic acids) produced during its fermentation in
flooding water. In this technique, the rice seeds are broadcast or directly seeded on
the cover crop (e.g. ryegrass and/or vetch), left standing or rolled or chopped just
before field flooding, inducing biomass fermentation processes. This technique
was carried out solo in the entire rice farm area or in combination with a differ-
ent strategy, combining false seedbed preparation and mechanical weed control.
Green mulching is in general associated with dry seeding in farmland with light
soils and limited water availability, and it is carried out with a weeder harrowing
used several times at p re-seeding, during p re-emergence and after the three leaves
stage. In area with heavy soil with problems of water drainage, false seedbed and
Table 7.3 List of innovative agricultural practices applied in the subgroup of rice farms
Rice area Paddy yield

Farm Innovative rice cultivation practices
ha t ha−1
org01 Mulching with cover crop biomass, false seedbed, green 60 4.3
manure, manual weed control
org03 Mulching with cover crop biomass, mulching with 44 3.7
biofilm
org04 Mulching with cover crop biomass, minimum tillage 39 3.2
org05 Mulching with cover crop biomass 4 3.8
org08 Mulching with cover crop biomass, agroforestry 60 4.1
org09 False seedbed 21 3.6
org11 False seedbed 8 5.2
org12 AWD, transplant, interrow cultivator 30 5.0
conv01 Low chemical input use 145 4.4
conv02 Green manure 210 6.5
conv03 Winter flooding, mulching with cover crop, straw 116 7.5
removed
conv04 High chemical input use, precision farming, minimum 100 9.3
tillage
conv05 High chemical input use, precision farming 36.6 7.9
Source: Based on own data collected from field work.
mechanical weed management was carried out under saturated soil conditions
(i.e. “puddling technique”). An improvement of mechanical weed control was
carried out by seeding rice rows at 30 cm and using an interrow cultivator with
satellite control as observed in the sample farm org12. Other innovative practices
tested in the sample of farms included alternate wetting and drying (AWD) tech-
nique (Monaco et al., 2021), winter flooding, minimum tillage, mulching with
biofilm, transplanting and agroforestry. Low chemical inputs for herbicides and
fertilizers (conv01) and green manure (conv02) were tried out on the areas under
conventional farming. The precision agriculture technique carried out in conv04
and conv05 rice area consisted in variable fertilization rate, based on prescription
map, with the aim of yield maximization.
The carbon footprint of farms was calculated using the Cool Farm Tool©
(CFT) with the data collected through interviews. The tool which was developed
by the Cool Farm Alliance is an online tool used for the calculation of various
agro-environmental indicators (CFA, 2019). Among the different tools available
for calculating the “carbon footprint” on a farm (Whittaker et al., 2013), the CFT
was selected for the following reasons: (i) it includes all emission sources; (ii) it al-
lows us to manage the estimation for several farms simultaneously; and, above all,
(iii) it presents a specific modality for rice cultivation (Hillier et al., 2011). The soil
carbon sequestration was assessed using RothC model, one of the most popular
models for this research topic (Coleman et al., 1996). Due to the anaerobic condi-
tions of paddy soil caused by flooding, which slows down organic matter decom-
position, it was necessary to apply proper coefficients of the decomposition/and
mineralization rate to obtain reliable results for paddy, using the version devel-
oped by Shirato et al. (2005) in RothC-26.3. The application of CFT and RothC
focused on rice cultivation and the outputs were reported using both surface and
product as reference unit. The results of carbon footprint and carbon sequestra-
tion assessment are reported in Figure 7.2, while the detail of all other sources of
GHG emissions except methane from paddy is reported in Figure 7.3.
Total carbon footprint and field emissions

The results of the assessment showed that methane emissions from paddy fields
represented the highest GHG emission source in all cases considered in the study,
with an average value of 83% of total emissions, that is 5.2 out of 6.2 t CO2 eq
ha−1, and 1.2 out of 1.3 t CO2 eq per t of paddy produced. The different strat-
egies for weed control reached on average a similar total GHG emissions level
when referred to the surface unit: 5.6 and 5.7 t CO2 eq ha−1 for green mulching
(org05-06-07-10) and false seedbed (org09-11), respectively, while a different level
was assessed when referred to the product unit, that is 1.6 and 1.3 t CO2 eq per
t of paddy for green mulching and false seedbed, respectively. This difference is
mainly due to lower yields with green mulching. The Org12 farm showed lower
emissions (i.e. 4.5 t CO2 eq ha−1) due to the application of AWD associated with
false seedbed technique, which confirmed that the duration of soil anaerobic con-
ditions is one of the most important mitigation options. This was also highlighted
by farms conv02, conv04 and conv05, which showed a lower amount of field CH4
emissions (i.e. 3.9 t CO2 eq ha−1) due to a lower number of days of flooding with
respect to organic management, for drainage periods necessary to spread her-
bicides and fungicides. In addition, the adoption of winter flooding practice in
conv03 determined the highest GHG emissions assessed at surface level (i.e. 12.5
t CO2 eq ha−1), partially compensated by very high yield when referred to product
unit. The productive performance greatly influenced the total GHG emissions
based on product unit, leading to lower values, equal to 0.89, 0.75, 0.58 and 0.89 t
CO2 eq per t in org12, conv02, conv04 and conv05, respectively. The latter farms
achieved the highest yield levels by applying variable rate fertilizers based on yield
map.
The other sources of GHG emissions (Figure 7.3) were related to the use of
fertilizers, which caused direct field emissions, the management of residues, the
industrial production of chemical input, especially fertilizers, and the use of en-
ergy both for field operations and for grain drying. The production and use of
mineral fertilizers, especially nitrogen fertilizers (that require large amounts of
energy to be produced and induce high direct N2O emissions from the soil), rep-
resented a relevant emission source under conventional farming (0.7 t CO2 eq
ha−1), as well as for org01 and org12 (0.4 t CO2 eq ha−1) due to organic fertilizers.
Among the organic farming cultivation options, the application of false seedbed
14000
a)
12000
10000
kg CO2 eq ha-1 y-1
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
org04
org05
org06
org07
org08
org09
org10
org11
org12
conv01
conv02
conv03
conv04
conv05
org01
org03
-2000
Methane emissions from paddies GHG from all other sources
Soil carbon sequestration Carbon sequestration from wood biomass
2500
b)
2000
1500
kg CO2 eq t-1 y-1
1000
500
0
org04
org05
org06
org07
org08
org09
org10
org11
org12
conv01
conv02
conv03
conv04
conv05
org01
org03
-500
Methane emissions from paddies GHG from all other sources
Soil carbon sequestration Carbon sequestration from wood biomass
Figure 7.2 GHG emissions and soil carbon sequestration under different rice management
referred to the surface (a) and rice product (b) unit.
Source: Authors’ own data calculated with Cool Farm Tool and RothC using farms survey data.
2400
2200 a)
2000
1800
1600
kg CO2 eq ha-1
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
org10
org11
org12
conv01
conv02
conv03
conv04
conv05
org09
org06
org07
org08
org01
org03
org04
org05
350
b)
300
250
kg CO2 eq t-1
200
150
100
50
0
org01
org03
org04
org05
org06
org07
org08
org09
org10
org11
org12
conv01
conv02
conv03
conv04
conv05
Energy use for drier Energy use in the field

Pesticides production Field emissions
Fertilizers production Straw management
Figure 7.3 G
HG emissions from all other sources except methane emissions from paddies
under different rice managements referred to the surface (a) and rice product
(b) unit.
and mechanical weed control with high energy consumption represented a rele-
vant emission source in the sample farm org12 (1.5 t CO2 eq ha−1).
Carbon sequestration
Considering soil carbon sequestration calculated by R othC-26.3 model, which is
reported in Figure 7.2, the current management techniques would lead to an in-
crease of 0.2% in organic carbon in 20 years and will sequester 1.7 t CO2 ha−1 per
year on average for all farms, which corresponds to 27.6% of total GHG emissions.
Conventional management generally showed higher values than organic man-
agement. This was probably due to the calculation by the model of higher carbon
input from straw produced and returned to the soil. In the sample farm conv03,
where straw was removed, the soil carbon sequestration was lower. Moreover,
there was a large variability of results among organic farming, probably due to the
different soil characteristics and the initial level of soil organic matter. Neverthe-
less, the sample farm org09 was the only management option that showed a clear
trend of soil organic content depletion, which could be attributed to low yield
(and straw return) and absence of cover crops. Low values of carbon sequestration
were assessed when vetch was used as cover crop compared to ryegrass, due to low
biomass production and C input. In the sample farm org12, the result obtained
was very high, but this is mainly due to the very low initial carbon content. Posi-
tive variations largely depended on the initial conditions of the soil and therefore
comparisons with other situations can be difficult. The information per se is use-
ful for comparing different practices in a given area. Carbon sequestration due to
tree planting under agroforestry was observed on one of the sample farms (org08)
and was calculated using the CFT web application. Agroforestry is a practice that
has a high potential to store carbon effectively, yet its contribution in this case
was observed to be limited. The rather low result may be due to several factors,
including low tree density and inadequacy of CFT on carbon input estimates from
temperate climate tree crops.
Discussion and relevance to other rice growing regions

Rice crop in Europe is mostly cultivated under permanent flooding conditions,
which induces anaerobiosis in soil and consequently CH4 emissions, which rep-
resents the highest contribution to carbon footprint of rice production. Then,
the mitigation options for reducing CH4 emissions mainly deal with reducing the
flooding duration under both conventional and organic farming.
In European rice farming systems, the effects of different water manage-
ment techniques on GHG emissions and the resulting global warming poten-
tial (GWP) have been studied in Italy and Spain. Peyron et al. (2016) compared
both dry seeding and intermittent irrigation (dry seeding followed by intermit-
tent irrigation throughout the growing season) with permanently flooded irri-
gation system. While intermittent irrigation showed a larger mitigation capacity
(>70% reduction of GWP) than dry seeding (56%), with almost negligible CH4
emissions throughout the growing season, it induced significant yield losses; on
the contrary, dry seeding, which is a common practice in Italy, introduced and
widespread in the last years, maintains or even increases yield (Miniotti et al.,
2016). Similarly, Bertora et al. (2018) found a significant reduction of 69% of CH4
emissions in rice fields with dry seeding in comparison to permanently flooded
fields. However, it is worth to note that the CH4 mitigation capacity of dry seed-
ing when compared to sowing in water may depend on the reference cultivation
system. In Spain, M artínez-Eixarch et al. (2018) found very low emissions of CH4
during early vegetation stages under permanently flooded rice cultivation, likely
because of the large CH4 emissions during the preceding winter that depleted
labile organic matter. Therefore, an insignificant mitigation effect of dry seed-
ing under cultivation systems could be expected wherein fields are flooded over
winter. On the contrary, the AWD technique tested in Spain (Martínez-Eixarch
et al., 2021) significantly reduced CH4 emissions up to 95%: so, it could effectively
reduce the overall GWP of the rice fields, even when the increase in N2O emis-
sions is accounted for.
The main organic substrate providing methanogenesis is straw. In a pot experi-
ment, Bertora et al. (2020) found that, under flooded conditions, soils not receiv-
ing straw emitted, on average, 38% less CH4 than soils after straw incorporation,
due to higher concentrations of dissolved organic matter (DOC) in the topsoil.
Moreover, the authors tested a valuable mitigation option, consisting of collection
and treatment of rice straw through anaerobic digestion (transforming the most
labile C fractions into biogas) and returning the digestate to the paddy soil, to
avoid C depletion of soil but maintaining its content in a stable form. A scenario
of collection and selling of the rice straw was also assessed in Fusi et al. (2014),
with a reduction of 52.5% of CH4 emissions when compared to a baseline scenario
in which straw was incorporated into the soil.
The survey carried out by Risobiosystems project showed that, under organic
farming, rice cultivation in Europe follows different management strategies,
which lead to different impacts on carbon footprint. The strategy of mulching
from cover crop residues is highly innovative for rice crop in the area, and it brings
several environmental benefits such as biodiversity and water quality protection.
However, under long-term flooded conditions, cover crops represent a further C
input, leading to large CH4 paddy emissions. Organic farming is characterized
by great yield variability, and yields are usually lower when compared to the con-
ventional system (Bacenetti et al., 2016), mainly due to difficulties in weed man-
agement; and lower yields can cause a carbon footprint increase when referred
to the product unit base. However, identification of the factors that determine
yield variability and productivity gaps, as well as the use of genotypes with higher
potential yield and higher competitiveness with the weeds, could help increasing
rice productivity in organic farming (Orlando et al., 2020). Moreover, rotation sys-
tems typically practised in organic farming, in which rice cultivation is alternated
to non-flooded crops, have the potential, on a multi-year basis, to decrease GHG
emissions compared to conventional continuous system. The organic farming sys-
tem also implies a different fertilization management, based on N supply with
green manure, rotation with leguminous crops and organic fertilizers application;
while mineral fertilizers in conventional systems cause large GHG emissions due
to their industrial production and farm use, the use of organic fertilizers could
have variable effects in terms of direct and indirect emissions. In the sample farms
analysed in the Risobiosystems project, organic and mineral fertilizer production
causes similar indirect GHG emissions, while direct soil emissions are differently
affected. The type of organic fertilizer also influences the GHG emission: Bacen-
etti et al. (2016) found that the substitution of organic compost with cattle ma-
nure could reduce it.
Precision agriculture techniques applied in the sample farms of the Risobiosys-
tems project also deal with variable fertilizer rate under conventional system; the
application of this technology allowed us to increase rice yield and reduce GHG
emissions per unit of product. Precision agriculture is increasingly considered as
a powerful solution to mitigate the environmental impact of farming systems in
Europe, improving the efficiency in input use and increasing farm profits. In the
Italian rice system, Bacenetti et al. (2020), combining the use of remote sensing
and ground estimates to derive maps of nitrogen nutrition index, achieved a re-
duction of 11.2% of GHG emissions compared with the baseline scenario due to
yield increase.
Other mitigation options and carbon sequestration strategies that were adopted
in some of the sample farms in the Risobiosystems project were agroforestry and
minimum tillage. Agroforestry could improve carbon footprint performance also
because of increase in total yields, due a double yield of trees and rice. Lehman
et al. (2020) calculated land equivalent ratio (LER) values for agronomic produc-
tion evaluation in several agroforestry systems in Europe; they found a range of
1.36–2.00, indicating that agroforestry systems were more productive by 3 6–100%
compared to monocultures. In addition to environmental and economic benefits,
agroforestry represents a carbon sequestration strategy for the carbon stock both
in the biomass and in the soil, with variable mitigation potential, based on tree
species growth rate, plant density and C input to soil through litter and roots.
Carbon sequestration potential of conservation agriculture practices, such as
no or minimum tillage, could be higher than under conventional tillage. How-
ever, the increase in soil organic carbon may be due to the redistribution of car-
bon in the topsoil rather than a net increase in the overall soil carbon stock and
largely depends on carbon input from the crops. Perego et al. (2019) found that in
the paddy rice system in the Po Valley, the introduction of conservative practices
also increased the economic efficiency, due to the reduction of tillage operations
and related costs. However, the study concluded that the adoption of conserva-
tion agriculture practices is still in an initial phase in the area, and further the
environmental and economic feasibility needs to be evaluated.
The anaerobic conditions induced by long flooding periods slow down the de-
composition of organic matter, thus favouring soil organic carbon (SOC) storage.
While rice paddy areas worldwide represent 9% of the global cropland, they accu-
mulate 14% of total SOC pool in croplands, corresponding to 18 Pg SOC in the
upper 100 cm of depth (Liu et al., 2021). There are agronomic practices that have
proven to increase SOC stocks in rice paddies such as (i) addition of nitrogen and
other nutrients, (ii) conservation agriculture practices, such as minimum or no-
t illage, and (iii) returning rice straw into the soil (Chivenge et al., 2020).
Soil carbon sequestration practices deliver other environmental and agronomic
benefits such as increase of soil fertility and soil biodiversity. However, CH4 emis-
sions can be greatly increased either during growing or flooded fallow seasons
(Martínez-Eixarch et al., 2018; Martínez-Eixarch et al., 2021). Hence, the trade-off
between GHG emissions and gains in SOC stock needs to be carefully examined.
Soil C stock and net GWP have been studied in Spain by B elenguer-Manzanedo
et al. (2021) in rice fields submitted to a set of four different p ost-harvest manage-
ment options including the combination of timing of straw incorporation (early
incorporation, in October, immediately after harvest vs late incorporation, in
December) and flooding regime (winter flooding vs n o-winter flooding). Changes
in SOC stock were estimated by the net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB),
which was calculated as the difference between C inputs (net primary production
+ straw addition) and C outputs (emissions of CO2 and CH4+ grain removal at
harvest), while the net GWP, which estimates the global radiative forcing of the
agroecosystem, was calculated as the difference between the GWP (cumulative
CH4 and N2O emissions in CO2-equivalent units) and changes in SOC stock.
The results showed that rice fields acted as sink of carbon in all the treatments,
with values ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 Mg C ha−1, with the combination of no-winter
flooding and late straw incorporation management that provided the largest C
sink capacity, resulting from the less CH4 and CO2 emissions during fallow and
growing seasons, respectively. However, water management determined the over-
all C balance in terms of radiative forcing, turning rice fields from sink in un-
flooded to source of GHG emissions in flooded fields overwinter.
Conclusions and recommendations

The EU agricultural sector has had a limited contribution to GHG emission re-
duction until now, despite several measures that were taken to incentivize prac-
tices with expected positive impacts on Climate Change mitigation. However,
new EU targets and policy initiatives such as the Green Deal and Farm to Fork
strategies, as well as the increasing role of carbon sink as mitigation strategy set
by the 2015 Paris Agreement and COP26 Glasgow conference, and the increasing
perception of consumers of the impact of the agri-food sector, especially livestock,
on GHG emissions will drive the agricultural sector towards reinforcing its role
in the climate mitigation. Moreover, as climate change has direct negative effects
on agriculture, for instance represented by the increase of extreme weather events
and spread of new pests and diseases, farming systems are also looking for adapta-
tion measures that could also give mitigation benefits. Adaptation and mitigation
actions may also lead to further benefits to the farming systems, such as improve-
ment of soil health, biodiversity and farm diversification.
In the case study reported, innovations adopted by the farmers are mainly re-
lated to organic agriculture practices, which have relevant environmental benefits
but uncertain mitigation effects. While the reduction of herbicides and mineral
fertilizers has clear positive effects on water quality and ecosystem protection, a
low yield level due to poor weed control may lead to an increase of the carbon
footprint per unit of product in the organic rice system. It is therefore necessary
to improve agronomic strategies to close the yield gap and design rotation sys-
tems that have the potential, on a multi-year basis, to decreased GHG emissions
compared to the conventional continuous system. The GHG emission mitigation
strategies, such as water and straw management improvement, or carbon seques-
tration enhancement, such as conservative agriculture and agroforestry, can help
in designing new rice farming systems with multiple benefits.
Note
1 Greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land use change and forestry.
References
Bacenetti, J., Fusi, A., Negri, M., Bocchi, S. and Fiala, M. (2016) ‘Organic production sys-
tems: Sustainability assessment of rice in Italy’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
vol. 225, pp. 33–44.
Bacenetti, J., Paleari, L., Tartarini, S., Vesely, F.M., Foi, M., Movedi, E., Ravasi, R.A, Bello-
pede, V., Durello, S., Ceravolo, C., Amicizia, F. and Confalonieri, R. (2020) ‘May smart
technologies reduce the environmental impact of nitrogen fertilization? A case study for
paddy rice’, Science of The Total Environment, vol. 715, p. 136956.
Belenguer-Manzanedo, M., Martínez-Eixarch, M., Fennessy, S., Camacho, A., Morant, D.,
Rochera, C., Picazo, A., Santamans, A.C., Miralles-Lorenzo, J., Camacho-Santamans,
A. and Ibáñez, C (2021) ‘Environmental and human drivers of carbon sequestration and
greenhouse gas emissions in the Ebro Delta, Spain’, In: Krauss, K.W., Zhu, Z., and Stagg,
C.L. (eds.) Wetland Carbon and Environmental Management, pp.287–305. John Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Bertora, C., Cucu, M.A., Lerda, C., Peyron, M., Bardi, L., Gorra, R., Sacco, D., Celi, L. and
Said-Pullicino, D. (2018) ‘Dissolved organic carbon cycling, methane emissions and re-
lated microbial populations in temperate rice paddies with contrasting straw and water
management’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 265, pp. 292–306.
Bertora, C., Moretti, B., Peyron, M., Pelissetti, S., Lerda, C., S aid-Pullicino, D., Milan, M.,
Fogliatto, S., Vidotto, F., Celi, L. and Sacco, D. (2020) ‘Carbon input management in
temperate rice paddies: Implications for methane emissions and crop response’, Italian
Journal of Agronomy, vol. 15(2), pp. 144–155.
Blengini, G.A. and Busto, M. (2009) ‘The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative a gri-food
chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy)’, Journal of Environmental Management,
vol. 90(3), pp. 1512–1522.
CFA (Cool Farm Alliance) (2019) ‘CoolFarmTool’. Available at: https://coolfarmtool.org/
Coleman, K. and Jenkinson, D.S. (1996) ‘RothC-26.3-A model for the turnover of car-
bon in soil’, In: Evaluation of soil organic matter models, pp. 237–246. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Chivenge, P., Rubianes, F., Chin, D.V., Thach, T.V., Khang, V.T., Romasanta, R.R., Hung,
N.V. and Trinh, M.V. (2020) ‘Rice straw incorporation influences nutrient cycling and
soil organic matter’, In: Sustainable rice straw management, pp. 131–144. Springer, Cham.
COWI, Ecologic Institute and IEEP (2021) ‘Technical Guidance Handbook—setting up
and implementing result-based carbon farming mechanisms in the EU Report to the
European Commission, DG Climate Action, under Contract No. CLIMA/C.3/ETU/
2018/007’. COWI, Kongens Lyngby.
EC (European Commission) (2019a) ‘Agridata’. Available at: https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/
extensions/DataPortal/rice.html
EC (European Commission) (2019b) ‘Communication on the European Green Deal,
COM(2019)640’. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d
165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
EC (European Commission) (2020) ‘EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, COM
(2020)663’. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
52020DC0663&from=EN
EC (European Commission) (2021) ‘Sustainable Carbon Cycles, COM(2021)800’. Availa-
ble at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2021-12/com_2021_800_en_0.pdf
ECA (European Court of Auditors) (2021) ‘Special report. Common agricultural policy
and climate’. Available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_16/
SR_CAP-and-Climate_EN.pdf
EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2019) ‘EEA greenhouse gases—data viewer’.
Available at: https://w ww.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-
gases-viewer
ENRD (2016) ‘Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020: Key facts & figures FOCUS
AREA 5E: Carbon conservation /sequestration’. Available at: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/
sites/default/files/focus-area-summary_5e.pdf
Ente Nazionale Risi (2020) ‘Evoluzione di mercato e sue prospettive—Relazione MIPAAF
2020’. Available at: http://www.enterisi.it/upload/enterisi/bilanci/RelazioneMIPAAF20
20web_15916_2612.pdf
FAOSTAT ( 2019) ‘ Food and agricultural data’. Available at: https:// www.fao.
org/faostat/en/#home
Fusi, A., Bacenetti, J., G onzález-García, S., Vercesi, A., Bocchi, S. and Fiala, M. (2014)
‘Environmental profile of paddy rice cultivation with different straw management’, Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, vol. 494, pp. 119–128.
Hillier, J., Walter, C., Malin, D., Garcia-Suarez, T., Mila-i-Canals, L. and Smith, P. (2011)
‘A farm-focused calculator for emissions from crop and livestock production’, Environ-
mental Modelling & Software, vol. 26(9), pp. 1070–1078.
Kraehmer, H., Thomas, C. and Vidotto, F. (2017) ‘Rice production in Europe’, In: Rice
Production Worldwide, pp. 93–116. Springer, Cham.
Lehmann, L.M., Smith, J., Westaway, S., Pisanelli, A., Russo, G., Borek, R., Sandor, M.,
Gliga, A., Smith, L. and Ghaley, B.B. (2020) ‘Productivity and economic evaluation of
agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products’, Sustain-
ability, vol. 12(13), p. 5429.
Leip, A., Carmona-Garcia, G. and Rossi, S. (2017) ‘Mitigation Measures in the Agriculture,
Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector. Quantifying Mitigation Effects at the Farm
Level and in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories’. European Union, Luxembourg.
Liu, Y., Ge, T., van Groenigen, K.J., Yang, Y., Wang, P., Cheng, K., Zhu, Z., Wang, J., Li, Y.,
Guggenberger, G., Sardans, J., Penuelas, J., Wu, J. and Kuzyakov, Y. (2021) ‘Rice paddy
soils are a quantitatively important carbon store according to a global synthesis’, Com-
munications Earth & Environment, vol. 2(1), pp. 1–9.
Martineau, H., Wiltshire, J., Webb, J., Hart, K., Keenleyside, C., Baldock, D., Bell, H. and
Watterson, J. (2016) ‘Effective Performance of Tools for Climate Action Policy—Meta-review
of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Mainstreaming. Report for European C ommission-
DG Climate Action’. Ricardo-AEA, Didcot.
Martínez-Eixarch, M., Alcaraz, C., Viñas, M., Noguerol, J., Aranda, X., Prenafeta-Boldú,
F.X., Saldaña-De la Vega, J.A., Català, M. and Ibáñez, C. (2018) ‘Neglecting the fallow
season can significantly underestimate annual methane emissions in Mediterranean
rice fields’, PLoS One, vol. 13(5), p. e0198081.
Martínez-Eixarch, M., Alcaraz, C., Guàrdia, M., Català-Forner, M., Bertomeu, A., Monaco,
S., Cochrane, N., Oliver, V., Teh, Y.A. and Courtois, B. (2021) ‘Multiple environmental
benefits of alternate wetting and drying irrigation system with limited yield impact on
European rice cultivation: the Ebre Delta case’, Agricultural Water Management, vol.
258, p. 107164.
Matthews, A. (2012) ‘Environmental public goods in the new CAP: Impact of greening
proposals and possible alternatives’. European Union, Brussels.
Miniotti, E. F., Romani, M., S aid-Pullicino, D., Facchi, A., Bertora, C., Peyron, M., Sacco,
D., Bischetti, G. B., Lerda, C., Tenni, D., Gandolfi, C., and Celi, L. (2016) ‘Agro-
environmental sustainability of different water management practices in temperate rice
agro-ecosystems’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 222, pp. 235–248.
Monaco, S., Volante, A., Orasen, G., Cochrane, N., Oliver, V., Price, A. H., Teh, Y.A.,
Martínez-Eixarch, M., Thomas, C., Courtois, B. and Valé, G., (2021) ‘Effects of the
application of a moderate alternate wetting and drying technique on the performance
of different European varieties in Northern Italy rice system’, Field Crops Research, vol.
270, p. 108220.
Orlando, F., Alali, S., Vaglia, V., Pagliarino, E., Bacenetti, J. and Bocchi, S. (2020)
‘Participatory approach for developing knowledge on organic rice farming: Manage-
ment strategies and productive performance’, Agricultural systems, vol. 178, p. 102739.
Perego, A., Rocca, A., Cattivelli, V., Tabaglio, V., Fiorini, A., Barbieri, S., Schillaci, C.,
Chiodini, M., E., Brenna, S. and Acutis, M. (2019) ‘Agro-environmental aspects of con-
servation agriculture compared to conventional systems: A 3-year experience on 20
farms in the Po valley (Northern Italy)’, Agricultural Systems, vol. 168, pp. 73–87.
Peyron, M., Bertora, C., Pelissetti, S., S aid-Pullicino, D., Celi, L., Miniotti, E., Romani, M.
and Sacco, D. (2016) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions as affected by different water manage-
ment practices in temperate rice paddies’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol.
232, pp. 17–28.
RICA (2019) ‘Area – Analisi dei Risultati Economici Aziendali’. Available at: https://
arearica.crea.gov.it
Shirato, Y. and Yokozawa, M. (2005) ‘Applying the Rothamsted carbon model for long-
term experiments on Japanese paddy soils and modifying it by simple tuning of the
decomposition rate’, Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, vol. 51(3), pp. 405–415.
SINAB ( 2017) ‘ Sviluppo e trasferimento a sostegno della risicoltura biologica—
Risobiosystems’. Available at: https://www.sinab.it/ricerca/sviluppo-e-trasferimento-
sostegno-della-risicoltura-biologica-riso-biosystems
UNFCCC ( 2019) ‘ Greenhouse Gas Data’. Available at: https:// unfccc.int/process-
a nd-meetings#:0 c4d2d14-7742-48fd-982e-d 52b41b85bb0:adad877e-7830-4b8b-981a-
5cdd34249c9d
Whittaker, C., McManus, M. C. and Smith, P. (2013) ‘A comparison of carbon accounting
tools for arable crops in the United Kingdom’, Environmental Modelling & Software, vol.
46, pp. 228–239.
8 Agroecological farming
approaches that enhance
resilience and mitigation to
climate change in vulnerable
farming systems
Mehreteab Tesfai, Alamu Oladeji Emmanuel, Joyce
Bakuwa Njoloma, Udaya Sekhar Nagothu, and
Ngumayo Joel
Introduction
Current farming systems rely heavily on the intensive use of external resources
and inputs such as water, mineral fertilizers, and pesticides to increase agricultural
production (Bernard and Lux, 2017). Such farming systems have caused severe
degradation of land water resources, soil depletion, increased outbreaks of pests
and diseases, biodiversity loss, decline of ecosystem services (ESSs), and high lev-
els of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., FAOSTAT, 2020). There is a widespread rec-
ognition and growing concern that agricultural approaches based on high-external
inputs and resource-intensive farming systems cannot deliver sustainable food and
agricultural production (e.g., FAO, 2018) and it is likely that ‘planetary bounda-
ries’ will even be further exceeded by such systems (e.g., Struik and Kuyper, 2017).
Hence, more sustainable and affordable production methods are needed to pro-
tect and optimize the Earth’s natural resources, while increasing productivity, ad-
aptation, and mitigation to climate change. At the same time, the assumption is
that sustainable agroecological farming systems provide several economic, envi-
ronmental, social, and health benefits, and are the main prerequisite for food and
nutrition security (e.g., Nguyen, 2018).
In recent years, key actors including regional governments, international
agencies, civil society, and non-governmental organizations have demonstrated
their commitments to a new paradigm shift based on agroecology (AE). Some of
these initiatives include (i) the new research and innovation programme by the
European Commission (EC) (2020, 2021) ‘Horizon Europe – Cluster 6: “Food,
Bioeconomy, Natural resources, Agriculture and Environment”’ launched in
2021 that supports a number of sub-priority topics on agroecology, and (ii) the
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the FiBL project ‘SysCom’
in Kenya, Bolivia, and India (https://systems-comparison.fibl.org/). In addition,
assessment reports, e.g., by IPCC (2019), FAO (2019), HLPE (2019), and UN
Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025), have all emphasized AE’s potential
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-8
148 Mehreteab Tesfai et al.
contributions to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity preser-
vation, and ESSs. Other international and regional institutions and agencies like
the AGRA (2016) and IPES-Food (2016), and international peasants’ movement
(e.g., La Via Campesina: https://viacampesina.org/en/international-peasants-
v oice/) are promoting AE as a potential to c limate-neutral and resilient farming
systems (CNRFSs).
Definition and concepts of agroecology

There has been continuous debate about the definition of agroecology, as evi-
dent from the literature (e.g., FAO, 2018; Wezel and Silva, 2017), with no widely
accepted, common definition of agroecology yet. There are no clear, consensual
boundaries between what is agroecological and what is not (HLPE, 2019). How-
ever, there is a consensus that agroecology embraces three dimensions: a trans-
disciplinary science, a set of principles and practices, and a social movement that
is interlinked and complementary (Figure 8.1).
Agroecology is a powerful strategy that reduces the trade-offs between pro-
ductivity and sustainability of agriculture and food systems (social, economic,
and environmental) while ensuring ‘no one is left behind’ (Niggli et al., 2021).
It promotes the diversity of crops and livestock, fields, farms, and landscapes,
which altogether are key to improving the sustainability of food and agricul-
tural systems, food actors’ empowerment, and environmental health (von Braun
et al., 2021). The agroecology approach has the potential to contribute to sev-
eral Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations as listed in
Table 8.1.
The main objectives of the chapter are to (i) describe the common AE practices/
approaches implemented in agroforestry-based farming systems and discuss their
implications to ecological and socio-economic dimensions of AE; and (ii) recom-
mend optimal combinations of AE practices/approaches that enhance food secu-
rity, resilience, and mitigation to climate change in the different agroecological
settings.
• AE is a scientific research approach involving a holistic

AE as a science study of agro-ecosystems and food systems at different
scales
• AE is a set of principles and practices that enhances the

AE as a set of
resilience and sustainability of food and farming systems
priniciples/practices
while preserving social integrity
• AE is a socio-political movement, which focuses on the
AE as a social practical application and seeks new ways of agricultural
movement production, food processing, distribution and consumption,
and its relationships with society and nature
Figure 8.1 Three dimensions of agroecology.

Agroecological farming approaches to enhance resilience and mitigation 149
Table 8.1 Potential AE contributions to relevant SDGs and specific targets along with
references
SDGs Targets* References (examples)
SDG 1: no poverty 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 Niggli et al. (2021)

SDG 2: zero hunger 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 Deaconu et al. (2021)
SDG 3: good health and well-being 3.9 FAO (2018)
SDG 5: gender equality 5.1 von Braun et al. (2021)
SDG 6: clean water and sanitation 6.4 FAO (2018)
SDG 8: decent work and economic 8.3, 8.5 CNS-FAO (2021); ILO (2018)
growth
SDG 10: reduce inequalities 10.2 FAO (2018)
SDG 12: sustainable consumption 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 FAO (2018)
and production
SDG 13: climate action 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 Leippert et al. (2020)
SDG 15: life on land 15.1 Altieri and Nicholls (2018)
SDG 16: peace, justice, and strong 16.7 FAO (2018)
institutions
SDG 17: partnerships for development 17.6, 17.9 FAO (2018)
goals

* Note that the specific targets and corresponding indicator descriptions can be found at https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/.
Elements of agroecology and their implications for practice

able 8.2 provides the ten elements of the AE framework as defined by FAO
T
(2019), and their implications for practice. According to the report, the ten AE
elements encompass ecological characteristics of AE systems (diversity, synergies,
efficiency, resilience, and recycling), social characteristics (co-creation and sharing of
knowledge, human and social values, culture and food traditions), and the enabling
political and economic environment (responsible governance, circular and solidar-
ity economy). Most of these elements of AE relate well to the 13 principles of AE
developed by HLPE (2019).
The above-mentioned ten elements of AE are interconnected and interde-
pendent with one another. These elements of AE and their practices also fit well
with the aims and goals of the regenerative agriculture (e.g., produce more from
less: less land area, less input of chemicals, less use of water, less emission of green-
house gases, less risk of soil degradation, and less use of e nergy-based inputs).
However, a detailed discussion on regenerative agriculture is beyond the scope of
this chapter.
Main barriers for agroecology adoption

The multiple benefits of AE have been demonstrated in specific contexts and
gained prominence in scientific literature, and agricultural and political dis-
course. Despite this, AE has not been mainstreamed and not widely adopted in
Table 8.2 The ten elements of AE (FAO, 2019) and their implications when put in
practice
AE elements Implications for practice
• Diversity Producing and consuming a diverse range of cereals, pulses,

fruits, vegetables, and animal-source products contributes to
improved nutritional outcomes, diversity in diets and markets
• Synergies Combining annual and perennial crops, livestock and aquatic
farming, trees, soils, water, and others enhances synergies in
the context of climate change
• Efficiency Producers are able to use fewer external resources, reduce costs,
and reduce environmental impacts by enhancing bio-based
measures, biological control, recycling biomass, nutrients,
and water
• Recycling AE practices support biological processes by imitating natural
ecosystems that drive recycling of nutrients, biomass, and
water to minimize waste and pollution
• Resilience Diversified AE systems are more resilient and have greater
capacity to recover from extreme weather events (e.g., drought,
floods) and better resistance to pest and disease attack
• C
o-creation/sharing Blending indigenous knowledge, practical knowledge, and scientific
of knowledge knowledge addresses challenges across food systems and
resilience to climate change
• Human and social AE places a strong emphasis on human dignity, equity, inclusion,
values and environmental justice for all and thereby contributing to
improved livelihoods
• Culture and food AE plays an important role in re-balancing traditional and
traditions modern food habits by promoting healthy food production and
consumption, and by supporting food sovereignty (the right
to adequate food)
• Responsible Transparent, accountable, and inclusive governance mechanisms
governance support producers to transform their farming systems
following the AE practices
• Circular and AE seeks to reconnect producers and consumers, prioritizes local
solidarity economy markets, and supports economic development by creating
short circular value chains that reduce food losses and wastes
Source: Author’s own elaboration adapted from FAO (2019).
different farming systems and agroecological zones (AEZs) worldwide. The main
barriers to widespread adoption and upscaling of AE practices/approaches at field/
farm/landscape levels include the following:
i Lack of awareness and knowledge about AE: Despite successful AE experiences

in some regions of the world (CNS-FAO, 2021), there is a lack of aware-
ness among key stakeholders (e.g., decision-makers) and the public on the
potential of AE to tackle environmental, social, and economic challenges
posed by climate change and its contributions to achieving multiple targets
of the SDGs (see Table 8.1). Moreover, limited information is available on
the extent to which AE can be applied to larger farms (Parmentier, 2014) and
the economic and social impacts of AE for different groups in the farming
communities (Bezner Kerr et al., 2019). There are differences in approaches
and ideologies resulting in conflicts of interest between proponents and op-
ponents of AE. For example, ideological differences exist among scientific
communities and fertilizer companies (e.g., Yara International ASA) that
promote increased external farm inputs (e.g., chemical fertilizers). Such con-
flicts need to be resolved by minimizing the trade-offs while maximizing syn-
ergies and complementarities of ecological and socio-economic dimensions
of AE (Mockshell and Kamanda, 2018).
ii Insufficient investments on AE research and extension systems: Current research
and extension systems do not sufficiently address the key AE principles/
practices when compared to the investments on conventional agriculture
(IAASTD, 2009). There is a lack of incentive in long-term research and lim-
ited funding available, e.g., to assess the yield gap between ‘intensive farm-
ing systems’ and ‘AE systems’ (CNS-FAO, 2021). The current agricultural
research and extension systems predominantly focus on single disciplines,
single technology, and single commodity, and use t op-down extension mod-
els to transfer knowledge/technology.
iii Additional labour costs: Adoption of AE farming practices such as AC systems
with agroforestry incurs additional labour cost (Schoonhiven and Runhaar,
2018). This is a challenge for smallholder farmers who cannot afford espe-
cially in the initial year of establishment. Therefore, farmers are not moti-
vated to adopt unless the immediate net benefits or profits of AE farming are
visible.
iv Inadequate policy support, gender integration, multi-actor partnerships: Lack of
policy and institutional enabling environments deters widespread implemen-
tation of AE (Anderson et al., 2020). Gender integration in AE projects plays
a crucial role in adopting AE practices, for instance, in the African context
(Bezner Kerr et al., 2019). However, much has not been done at the policy
or practice level to strengthen gender integration in promoting agroecology.
There is a lack of coordination/collaboration among stakeholders in imple-
menting AE projects (Ayala-Orozco et al., 2018), probably due to the absence
of relevant platforms/networks/partnerships.
v Lack of evidence on the interactive effects across AE practices: Despite the ex-
tensive literature on AE farming systems in the form of scientific and pop-
ular publications, there is a lack of evidence on the optimal combinations of
integrated AE practices and their impacts in different agroecological regions,
farming context and scales.
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to AE farming system challenges (Schader

et al., 2014) but to use a combination of solutions. Combining sustainable intensi-
fication (SI) approaches with AE approach/practices is the way forward to address
the multiple challenges faced by smallholders. The key principles of SI (Box 8.1)
are in line with the principles of AE elements. Both SI and AE have a com-
mon objective, i.e., to achieve food and nutrition security (FNS) while reducing
Box 8.1 Components of sustainable intensification
i Increasing production, income, nutrition, or other returns on the same

amount of, or less land and water by efficient and prudent use of inputs
and productive use of knowledge and capacity to adapt, innovate, and
scale up.
ii Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing natural capital and
the flow of environmental services, and reducing impact on forests
through alternative energy sources.
iii Strengthening resilience and reducing environmental impacts by adopting
innovative technologies and processes while minimizing inputs that
have adverse impacts on people and environment.
Source: Pretty et al. (2011)
negative impacts on the environment (Bernard et al., 2017). They can generate
healthy soils, crops, and animals, which is a core element of regenerative agricul-
ture (Newton et al., 2020). One basic divergence between the two is SI focuses
on increasing the food production side of the food systems. At the same time, AE
addresses the whole food systems along their value chains and relationships with
society and nature (Lampkin et al., 2015). In this chapter, we will focus on the
convergence of SI and AE by promoting the essential elements of AE (Table 8.2)
and their implications to practice, science, and policy.
The chapter has been divided into four main sections. The first section in-
troduces AE definition and concepts, principles and practices, the potential for
sustainable developments, gaps and barriers for adoption and upscaling. This is
followed by case study descriptions of farmer-led AC with Gliricidia agroforestry
demonstration trials in Zambia and the methodological approaches used. Then, a
detailed analysis of the research results is presented and discussed including fun-
damental AE principles, practices, and policy. Towards the end, optimal combi-
nations of the AE practices that enhance food security, resilience, and mitigation
to climate change are recommended.
Case study and methods used

This chapter presents some findings from a multi-disciplinary alley cropping
(AC)-Gliricidia agroforestry project1 in Zambia, as a case study. Alley cropping
(also sometimes referred to as ‘Hedgerow intercropping’) is defined as the practice
of planting rows of trees and/or shrubs to create alleys with companion crops in
between. The AC with Gliricidia agroforestry system combines maize and legumes
(groundnuts and soybeans), where smallholder farmers have implemented a set
of AE principles/practices since 2019. The study’s primary objectives were to (i)
monitor the soil nutrients, in particular nitrogen and organic carbon inputs and
outputs, under agroforestry systems (e.g., Gliricidia sepium) at different levels of
intensification and measure crop yields and (ii) assess the impact of a groforestry-
based interventions on the nutrients of selected crops to address whether agrofor-
estry practices result in healthier and nutrient-rich food crops.
The study was conducted in maize growing districts of eastern Zambia in five
selected Chiefdoms (an area/region governed by a chief). The Chiefdoms cover-
ing the study are Mkanda (Chipangali district), Zumwanda (Lundazi district),
Mwasemphangwe and Chikomeni (Lumezi district), and Magodi (Chasefu district),
as shown in Figure 8.2 and Table 8.3.
The main farming system in the study areas is maize-based monocropping with
low-input and low-output smallholder agriculture (Table 8.3). Farmers (including
women) lack access to good quality seeds and adaptive knowledge about c limate-
resilient crops, crop residues, and soil management practices, among others.
Hence, gender integration becomes a challenge in the overall context of small-
holder agriculture. Crop diversification with legumes and/or agroforestry in par-
ticular AC systems will provide multiple benefits to smallholder farmers who are
vulnerable to climate change. Alley cropping (of m aize-legumes that includes
groundnuts and soybeans) with agroforestry trees such as Gliricidia sepium was
recently introduced in the study areas.
In the case study areas, soil fertility is declining over time due to several factors,
among others burning of crop residues, leading to low organic matter levels of the
soils. Soil health/soil quality, defined as ‘the continued capacity of soils to function
Figure 8.2 Map of the case study sites in the eastern Zambia.

Table 8.3 Summary of the general characteristics of the study sites in eastern Zambia
Features of study sites
Agro-climatic conditions Tropical Savanna

Elevation (above sea level) 1,140–1,143 meter
Precipitation (range) 923–1,023 mm/yr
Air temperature (range) 18–27°C
Soil types (dominant) Red-brownish clayey to loamy soils
Farming systems Maize-based monocropping under rainfed
Major crops Maize, groundnut, beans, cotton, sunflower, tobacco
On-farm tree (dominant) Gliricidia sepium
Livestock Chicken, cattle, goats, pigs
Ecological constraints Low soil fertility, erratic rainfall/dry spells, crop residues
burning
Socio-economic constraints Small land sizes, poverty, food/nutrition insecurity, high
population pressure, lack of access to quality seeds
Opportunities explored Farm diversification with maize, legumes, and alley
cropping
properly and provide the required ecosystem services and goods’, is essential for im-
proving crop yield and crop nutritional quality. The crop nutritional quality largely
depends on the composition and concentration of nutrients available in the soil.
Maintaining healthy soil ensures nutritious, tasty, and safe foods, and enhances
resilience and mitigation to climate change which are essential for achieving the
SDGs such as SDG 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 13 (climate action). Hence, there is
a need to understand whether crops produced under AC with agroforestry-based
systems are more nutritious than those produced in conventional systems.
A set of AE practices that include AC of maize, groundnuts, soybean with Gli-
ricidia, conservation agriculture, composting/leaf manuring, residue mulching were
implemented in selected on-farm demonstration trials (n = 15) in the eastern
province of Zambia through a farmer-led approach. Farmer-to-farmer extension
services backed these demo trials through farmer field days for broader adoption
of Gliricidia and knowledge sharing. Farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange on
AE farming practices was also carried out through multimedia platforms such as
weekly radio broadcasts to the farming community in the case study areas.
Data collection and analysis

The AC system with Gliricidia agroforestry project in Zambia involved seven
treatment (T) plots, i.e., intercropping of Gliricidia with maize (T1), soybean (T4),
groundnuts (T5) and sole cropping of maize with mineral fertilizer (T2), sole soy-
bean (T6), sole groundnut (T7) and sole maize with no mineral fertilizer (T3) used
as a control. Soil samples (n = 178) were collected from three random positions in
each treatment plot of the 15 on-farm demo trials. The soils were recovered from
the topsoil and subsoil layer using a soil auger and were analysed for selected soil
chemical and physical properties such as soil bulk density that was used in the
computation of estimating carbon stocks in the soils.
Crop samples of maize, soybean, and groundnuts (n = 88) were collected using
the standard sampling protocol developed for the project. The crop samples were
cleaned, subsampled, and milled to a 0.5 mm particle size. The milled samples
were evaluated for the nutritional contents (fat, ash, protein, starch, crude fibre,
sugar, amylose, and total carbohydrate) and antinutritional contents (phytate
and tannin) using standard laboratory methods of analysis of the Association of
Analytical Chemist International (AOAC). The data generated were analysed for
descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Analysis
Software (SAS) version 9.4. The F-test was used for statistical significance. The
treatment means were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) tests
at P < 0.05.
Results and discussion

In the following subsections, the effects of AC systems with Gliricidia agroforestry
interventions on soil health, crop yield, crop nutrient quality, and climate change
adaptation and mitigation are presented and discussed.
Soil health assessment

The status of soil health was assessed through a set of measurable physical, chem-
ical, and biological indicators. These include soil organic carbon (SOC) and/or
organic matter (OM), soil nutrients (in particular nitrogen), soil pH (acidity), and
soil structure related to bulk density of soils, used as a reflection of overall soil
health indicators.
Over the two growing seasons (2019/2020 and 2020/2021), the SOC contents
of the sampled soils (n = 182) varied in the range of 0.32% (0.60% organic mat-
ter, OM) to 1.10% (2.0% OM), which is very low to low despite some positive
increase observed since the incorporation of Gliricidia leaf manure (Figure 8.3)
into the treated soils (T1, T4, T5). The soils in the study sites would benefit from
additions of organic fertilizers obtained from Gliricidia leaf manure and nitrogen-
fixing legumes. However, retention and accumulation of OM and SOC storage in
the soil require considerable time. Thus, repeated application of diverse organic
sources (such as leaf biomass and crop residues) will stimulate microbial commu-
nity growth and sequestration of carbon in the soils (Moebius-Clune et al., 2016).
The mean carbon stock per treatment ranged from 17.6 to 25.6 C t/ ha
(Figure 8.4) and similar results have been reported in different farming systems.
For example, agri-silviculture agroforestry systems could store about 27 C t/ha and
rainfed crop production systems in semi-arid areas about 16 C t/ha. The highest
carbon stock was measured in T3 (sole Maize + no Mineral fertilization). The pos-
sible explanation for this could be that retention and accumulation of OM/OC
storage in the soil requires a considerable time. Repeated application of diverse
Figure 8.3 Woman farmer incorporating Gliricidia tree leaves into the soils.
1.6 30
1.4
25
OC (%);BD (Mg/cm3)
1.2
Carbon stock (t/ha)

20
1
0.8 15
0.6
10
0.4
5
0.2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatment
OC (%) BD (Mg/m3) C Stock (t/ha)
Figure 8.4 Mean organic carbon, BD, and carbon stock estimates from the seven treat-
ment plots: T1: Gliricidia + Maize intercrop, T2: sole Maize + Mineral fertili-
zation, T3: sole Maize + no Mineral fertilization, T4: Gliricidia + Soybean, T5:
Gliricidia + Groundnuts, T6: sole Soybean, and T7: sole Groundnuts.
Source: Authors’ own analysis.
organic sources (such as green manures and crop residues) in the long term will
stimulate both microbial community growth and the stabilization (sequestration)
of carbon in aggregates (Moebius-Clune et al., 2016). The magnitude of changes
in soil OM depends on the quantity and quality of prunings, pedo-climatic con-
ditions, and the system management as a whole (Makumba et al., 2007). There is
Table 8.4 Average grain yields of maize, groundnut, and soybean by treatment (n = 15
demo plots)
Treatment Maize (kg/h a) Soybean (kg/h a) Groundnut (kg/h a)
2019/2020 2020/2021 2019/2020 2020/2021 2019/2020 2020/2021
T1 819.3 4520 – – – –

T2 820.3 5954 – – – –
T3 540.1 1227 – – – –
T4 – – 329 910 – –
T5 – – – – 393.2 708
T6 – – 328.7 825 – –
T7 – – – – 372.4 737
T1: Gliricidia + Maize intercrop, T2: sole Maize + Mineral fertilization, T3: sole Maize + no Mineral
fertilization, T4: Gliricidia + Soybean, T5: Gliricidia + Groundnuts, T6: sole Soybean, and T7: sole
Groundnuts.
Source: Authors’ own analysis.
a great potential to mitigate climate change through AC systems with Gliricidia

agroforestry interventions in the study areas. Selling carbon credits may provide
another source of income for farmers, but policies need to be in place for encour-
aging carbon markets to benefit smallholders practising AE.
The bulk density (BD) of the soils ranged between 1.26 g/cm3 and 1.36 g/cm3,
which is within the range of 1.0 –1.7 g/cm3 for typical agricultural soils (Brady
and Weil, 2002). The soil bulk density serves as an indicator of compaction, root
growth, and water movement in the soils, and it is a good indicator for soil health.
Crop yield assessment

Table 8.4 presents average grain yields (kg/ha) of maize, groundnut, and soybean
by treatments. Gliricidia-maize intercrop (T1) and maize with 100% mineral fer-
tilizer (T2) did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). In the 2020/2021 season, the
yields (maize variety MZ521) are within the potential national yield range: 4,
500–6,000 kg/ha. The maize yield from the control plots (T3) rendered much
lower compared with T1 and T2. There was an increase in yields in the second
season for the groundnuts and soybeans with no significant differences between
treatments. In all treated crops, the grain yields increased by more than two to
three folds in 2020/2021. The yield increase can be attributed to good field man-
agement practices, including Gliricidia leaf biomass incorporation, conservation
agriculture practices, and crop diversification.
Crop nutrient assessment

able 8.5 shows the nutritional properties (NPs) and antinutritional properties
T
(ANPs) of maize samples by treatment. The treatment showed a significant im-
pact (P < 0.05) on all NPs and ANPs except for ash (inorganic matter) which was
not significant at P > 0.05. The non-significant difference with ash content of the
Table 8.5 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of maize by treatment (n = 37)
Properties T1 (Gliricidia + T2 (sole Maize T3 (sole Maize Pr > F Pr > F

Maize intercrop) + Mineral + no Mineral (T) (F × T)
fertilizer) fertilizer)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
MC, % 6.64 b 0.93 6.31 b 0.67 7.09 a 0.88 <0.0001 <0.0001

Ash, % 1.31 a 0.09 1.30 a 0.07 1.27 a 0.08 0.0927 0.0048
Fat, % 4.72 b 1.02 5.66 a 1.12 5.16 b 1.27 <0.0001 <0.0001
Protein, % 6.28 b 0.98 7.14 a 1.22 5.93 c 0.93 <0.0001 <0.0001
CF, % 4.00 b 1.28 4.06 b 1.26 4.41 a 1.49 <0.0001 <0.0001
Sugar, % 2.76 ab 0.8 2.63 b 0.72 3.01 a 0.79 0.0079 0.0130
Starch, % 71.89 b 1.05 72.42 a 1.12 72.55 a 1.19 <0.0001 <0.0001
Amylose, % 28.35 b 1.51 28.80 ab 2.48 29.55 a 2.6 0.0434 0.1604
CHO, % 77.05 a 2.65 75.53 c 1.96 76.14 b 2.19 <0.0001 <0.0001
Phytic acid, % 2.27 ab 1.97 1.98 b 1.71 2.52 a 2.18 0.0034 <0.0001
Tannin, mg/g 3.10 c 0.72 3.42 b 0.95 3.62 a 0.6 <0.0001 <0.0001
MC = moisture content; CF = crude fibre; CHO = total carbohydrate; SD: standard deviation, F: F
statistic, T: test statistic. Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different
at P <0.05. Pr > F: this is the P-value associated with the F statistic of a given effect and test statistic.
Source: Authors’ own analysis from field data.
maize samples agrees with the study by Ogunyemi et al. (2018), who also reported
no significant difference in the ash content of maize samples subjected to differ-
ent treatments (NPK and biochar fertilized). The mean values for ash, fat, and
protein contents obtained for the Gliricidia-Maize intercrop (T1) without mineral
fertilizer are higher than the results reported by Ogunyemi et al. (2018) for maize
using biochar fertilizer. It implies that Gliricidia has a better effect on nutritional
properties than mineral fertilizer (NPK) and biochar. Also, Gliricidia-Maize inter-
crop (T1) without mineral fertilizer significantly reduced the tannin and phytic
contents of maize samples compared with the control (T3).
Table 8.6 presents treatment effects on the soybean samples’ NPs and ANPs.
Both treatments had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on fat, amylose, total carbohy-
drate (CHO), energy, and ANPs. The result agrees with the studies by Etiosa et al.
(2017) and Alamu et al. (2019), who reported similar values for soya bean seeds.
A higher mean value was observed for protein, starch, amylose, crude fibre, and
CHO contents when Gliricidia + soybean intercrop (T4) was used. There were
lower mean values for ANPs in T4 but comparable ash contents and significantly
lower fat contents (P < 0.05). The observation is similar to what Alamu et al.
(2019) reported, where they observed low values of ANPs for the soybean samples
taken from integrated soil management practices plots. The amylose and CHO
contents were significantly increased while tannin and phytic acid contents were
reduced in T4. Some soybean samples from T4 showed higher ash, protein, and
carbohydrate contents but lower phytic acid and tannin contents than farmer
plots from T6 (sole soybean).
Table 8.6 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of soybean by treatment (n = 26)
Parameters T4 (Gliricidia + Soybean) T6 (sole Soybean) Pr > F(T) Pr > F

(F × T)
Mean SD Mean SD
MC, % 8.08 a 1.08 8.10 a 1.08 0.9763 0.0002

Ash, % 5.55 a 0.83 5.81 a 0.61 0.1080 0.0127
Fat, % 18.65 b 3.59 20.98 a 5.07 <0.0001 <0.0001
Protein, % 37.73 a 3.20 36.98 a 4.04 0.1065 <0.0001
Sugar, % 5.45 a 0.75 5.62 a 0.69 0.0786 0.0126
Starch, % 22.86 a 0.94 22.95 a 0.96 0.9306 0.0006
Amylose, % 1.76 a 0.51 1.64 b 0.30 0.0970 0.0049
CF, % 2.11 a 0.32 2.04 a 0.37 0.4271 0.7015
CHO, % 27.88 a 6.06 26.09 b 6.15 0.0134 <0.0001
Phytic acid, % 6.47 b 1.14 7.09 a 1.19 0.0758 0.1953
Tannin, mg/g 3.88 b 0.92 5.02 a 1.70 0.0006 0.0192
Table 8.7 Nutritional and antinutritional properties of groundnut by treatment (n = 25)
Properties T5 (Gliricidia + T7 (sole Pr > F Pr > F

Groundnuts) Groundnuts) (F) (F × T)
Mean SD Mean SD
MC, % 5.69 a 0.84 5.65 a 0.52 0.4305 <0.0001

Ash, % 2.57 a 0.15 2.60 a 0.16 0.0925 <0.0001
Fat, % 47.23 a 6.72 44.97 b 6.46 <0.0001 <0.0001
Protein, % 19.01 a 2.28 17.94 b 2.21 <0.0001 <0.0001
Sugar, % 4.05 b 0.61 4.15 a 0.66 <0.0001 <0.0001
Starch, % 23.77 b 1.08 24.08 a 0.92 0.0011 <0.0001
Amylose, % 1.66 a 0.50 1.68 a 0.59 0.4802 <0.0001
CF, % 3.29 b 0.83 3.44 a 0.92 <0.0001 <0.0001
CHO, % 22.22 b 7.27 25.42 a 7.23 <0.0001 <0.0001
Phytic acid, % 4.38 a 0.84 4.35 a 0.75 0.8221 <0.0001
Tannin, mg/g 6.44 a 1.90 6.09 b 2.02 0.0490 0.0008
Table 8.7 shows the mean values and treatment effects on NPs and ANPs of
groundnut. The result for nutritional properties of groundnut reported agrees with
previously published studies on the proximate composition of groundnut samples
(Asibuo et al., 2008; Atasie et al., 2009). Both treatments (T5 and T7) exhibited
a significant effect (P < 0.05) on fat, protein, sugar, starch, crude fibre (CF), total
carbohydrate (CHO), total energy, and tannin content of groundnut, but a non-
s ignificant effect on ash, amylose, and phytic acid at P > 0.05.
The mean values of crop samples from Gliricidia + Groundnut (T5) were higher
in fat, protein, tannin, and bulk density but lower in starch, CF, and CHO than
with sole Groundnuts (T7). The implication is that T5 significantly increased
the crop’s fat, protein, and tannin levels. Goudiaby et al. (2020) reported a
on-significant effect of groundnut intercropped with Eucalyptus camaldulensis
n
tree on the proximate content of the crop except for the grain yield. This implies
that the Gliricidia-groundnut intercropping improved nutritional properties of
groundnuts compared to treatment using E. camaldulensis.
It can be summarized that the Gliricidia + Maize intercrop (i.e., T1) showed the
highest mean value of ash, fat, protein, and total carbohydrate (CHO) contents.
A higher mean value of protein, starch, amylose, crude fibre, and CHO contents
was measured in Gliricidia + Soybean intercrop (T4). Gliricidia + Groundnut in-
tercrop (T5) significantly increased the fat and protein contents of groundnuts.
Gliricidia + Maize intercrop (T1) significantly (P < 0.05) reduced the tannin and
phytic contents of maize samples compared to the control (sole Maize: T3). Lower
mean values of tannin and phytic acid were observed in T4 than sole Soybean
(T6). A lower value of phytic acid but increased tannin level was measured in
T5. Thus, intercropping with the Gliricidia improves the nutritional quality of
maize, soybean, and groundnut and decreases the antinutritional qualities of the
legumes.
Optimal combinations of AE practices/approaches

Table 8.8 presents the different AE practices/approaches that have been imple-
mented in the case study sites of eastern Zambia (AC systems with Gliricidia agro-
forestry). The AE practices/approaches addressed more than one element/principle
of AE (see Table 8.2) and contributed to enhancing the sustainability of AE farm-
ing from the point of view of ecological, social, and economic dimensions.
For instance, crop diversification through intercropping of cereals with legumes
and AC with Gliricidia trees enhanced diversity (in crops, trees, habitat, food
diets, markets), synergies (combining annual and perennial plants), resilience (to
climate change), and culture and food traditions (increasing healthy food produc-
tion and consumption and supporting the right to adequate food).
Table 8.8 Matching the AE practices/approaches implemented in the case study sites

with the most appropriate AE elements/principles
Matching AE practices/approaches AE elements/principles
a), b), e) Crop rotation with legumes a) Diversity

a), b), e), h) Intercropping with legumes b) Synergies
b), c), e) Conservation agriculture c) Efficiency
a), b), e), h) Alley cropping with Gliricidia d) Recycling
c), d) Composting, leaf manuring e) Resilience
c), d) Residue mulching f) Co-creation and sharing of knowledge
a), e) Agrobiodiversity g) Human and social values
f) Multi-media platforms h) Culture and food traditions
b), f), g), i) Stakeholder engagement i) Governance (responsible/effective)
d), g), j) AE products value chain j) Circular and solidarity economy
Source: Author’s own analysis.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation
In the Gliricidia-treated plots (i.e., T1, T4, and T5), the main sources of addition
of nitrogen into the soils were the incorporation of leaf biomass from Gliricidia
trees, atmospheric N -fixation by legumes (in this case, groundnuts, soybeans, and
Gliricidia), and atmospheric deposition by rain. Total N inputs from these organic
sources were estimated at 4 68–500 kg N/ha (data not shown). However, only a
small proportion of this organic N becomes plant-available during a growing sea-
son (Horneck et al., 2011). The remaining part of the organic N will be mineral-
ized and made available for the succeeding crops.
However, the AC systems with Gliricidia have improved the soils’ organic mat-
ter content and increased carbon stocks (Figure 8.4). This will reduce the need for
nitrogen-based fertilizers, which contribute to mitigating nitrous oxide (N2O –N)
emissions, a potent green-house gas. The average carbon sequestration in the soils
was about 22 C t/ha (Figure 8.4). This implies that about 81 CO2 equiv. t/ha was
prevented from being released to the atmosphere, considering 1-tonne organic
carbon reduces about 3.7-tonne atmospheric CO2 equiv. In addition, reduced/no-
t illage practices using animal-drawn rippers and hand seeding will also minimize
carbon dioxide emissions in the long term. The AE practices such as intercrop-
ping legumes with Gliricidia agroforestry and soil mulching with residues can in-
crease climate resilience to drought and dry spells.
In the following subsections, a brief discussion is given on how the AC systems
with Gliricidia agroforestry project have addressed the key elements and principles
of AE.
Addressing the ecological dimensions of agroecology

i Diversity: Regarding crop/tree and food diversity, farmers planted Gliricidia
sepium seedlings in between maize, soybean, and groundnut fields (as AC)
for food and sale and soil fertility improvements. Farmers in the project have
diversified crop produce, of cereals (maize) and pulses (soybeans and ground-
nuts), contributing to diet diversity and improved nutrition. Multipurpose le-
guminous trees such as Gliricidia are used for improving soil fertility, reducing
soil erosion, controlling striga weed, providing fuelwood (including charcoal),
and forage for honey production. Gliricidia leaves are rich in crude protein
(>20%) and highly digestible, and low in fibre and tannin contents, making
it good fodder for livestock (refer Tables 8.5–8.7).
ii Synergies: The demonstration trials on AC with Gliricidia trees enhanced
synergies of resource use such as nutrients. For instance, the maize plants
received nitrogen from the nitrogen fixed by soybeans and/or groundnuts and
decomposed leaf biomass of Gliricidia tree. Synergistic interactions between
annual crops (maize, soybeans, and groundnuts) and the leguminous agro-
forestry trees (Gliricidia) enhance both soil and crop productivity resulting
in increased crop yields. However, trade-offs such as competition for light in
AC systems with agroforestry trees (e.g., Gliricidia) could be minimized by
adopting good agronomic practices such as seedbed preparation, early plant-
ing, and weed management (Sida et al., 2018).
iii Efficiency: Incorporation of Gliricidia leaf biomass improves resource use effi-
ciency. Gliricidia trees produce large quantities of leaf biomass and contribute
to increased soil productivity and crop yields over time. The decomposing
Gliricidia leaf biomass enriches the soils with macronutrients such as nitrogen
that support crop growth. This eventually leads to reduced external inputs
of chemical fertilizers. Gliricidia trees produce high-quality leaf biomass that
contains as much as 4% total N in their leaves.
Implementing AC that consisting of maize, different legumes, and trees
effectively contributes to improving land use efficiency where land equivalent
ratios are greater than >1. This indicates AC practices are more productive
in the use of land resources where landholding size is shrinking, e.g., in the
case of Zambia.
iv Recycling: Gliricidia sepium is a fast-growing leguminous agroforestry tree with
relatively deep root system that captures leached nutrients along the soil pro-
file. Thus, nutrients accumulated in layers below the root zone of annual
crops can be accessed. These nutrients absorbed by the root system of the
trees become inputs when transferred to the soil surface in the form of litter
and other plant residues. Incorporating n utrient-rich tree leaves, especially
leaves of leguminous trees like Gliricidia, can be considered as a potential
solution towards improving soil fertility due to its profuse growth, coppice
nature, rapid decomposition rate, and higher nutrient contents. Gliricidia-
maize/legume intercropping systems sequester more carbon in the soil via
continuous application of tree prunings and root turnover. Gliricidia sepium
can also replenish soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation and en-
hance recycling of nutrients in the soil through incorporation of nitrogen-
rich leaves as green manure (refer Figure 8.3).
v Resilience: Interplanting of Gliricidia and incorporation of its leaf biomass en-
hance resilience of farming systems to climate change. Gliricidia sepium is a
drought-resistant tree as it sheds most of its leaves during the dry season, thus
reducing water loss at the time of transpiration. When properly incorporating
the leaf biomass into the soils, G. sepium increases the organic matter content
of soils, improves soil aeration, reduces soil temperature, reduces soil erosion,
and contributes to weeds control (Akinnifesi et al., 2010). Thus, integrating
G. sepium in the AC systems will build up resilience to climate change adapta-
tion and mitigation. The farmers in the demo trials implement conservation
agriculture (CA) practices that include reduced tillage using animal-drawn
tillage implements called ripper, and retain crop residues to cover the soils
in ripper lines. These CA practices reduce soil erosion and improve moisture
content by avoiding water stress during dry periods (Thierfelder and Wall,
2009). However, there are challenges that hinder widespread uptake of the
Gliricidia agroforestry technology by small holder farmers. This includes land
shortage, insecure land tenure system, lack of tree seeds, and knowledge-
intensive nature of the Gliricidia agroforestry technology.
Addressing the socio-economic dimension of agroecology
vi o-creation and sharing of knowledge: Farmers in the study areas used to collect
C
the leaves of Gliricidia and apply it as mulch (by spreading the leaves/biomass
on the surface of soils) to fertilize their soils. Incorporation of the leaves into
the soil was not practised in the study areas due to lack of knowledge. The
farmer-led demo trials were used to showcase the benefits of incorporation
of leaf biomass into the soils, e.g., in terms of increasing plant-available N,
organic matter in the soils, carbon storage (see Figure 8.4), increasing crop
yields (refer Table 8.4), and enhancing co-creation of knowledge and resil-
ience to climate change. In this regard, a range of multimedia platforms (e.g.,
radio broadcast, newspaper, better-life booklets, and video documentaries)
were used to increase awareness and disseminate information about the ad-
vantages of on-farm Gliricidia tree plantings, leaf manure incorporation, and
general farm management. These platforms have reached out others like
neighbouring farmers, traditional leaders, district officials, and other stake-
holders who are not involved in the project. It was possible to reach out to
230,000 small-scale farmers (about 50% of them women) who are currently
practising agroforestry in the eastern districts of Zambia where the study was
undertaken. Social learning, and integrating scientific and local knowledge
were important for increased adoption of AE practices and the development
of Gliricidia agroforestry systems in the eastern Zambia.
vii Human/ social values ( including gender integration, labour cost): Women
farmers in the study areas are actively participating in a range of activities
such as raising/planting of the seedlings, incorporation of leaf biomass (see
Figure 8.3), and participation in leadership at the community level. Agrofor-
estry with Gliricidia intervention can empower rural women and smallhold-
ers with additional products that generate income. Access to seedlings and
water will promote the adoption of agroforestry. It appears that additional
farm labour is needed to plant the seedlings, to implement prunings of the
coppice, and to incorporate the leaf biomass into the soils. The costs of seed-
lings and their availability, opportunity costs, and low capacity of women
farmers to carry out tree plantings might pose limitations for increased adop-
tion of the AE practices. Although the total cost of Gliricidia agroforestry
interventions (CA practices, farm inputs inclusive of labour) is challenging
in the initial year, the cost is negligible in the subsequent years. It provides
multiple benefits in terms of ecological and socio-economic aspects (refer
Table 8.2). Once farmers observe the benefits of Gliricidia agroforestry, they
will be motivated to adopt the technology and build up resilience to climate
change.
v iii Policy/governance (measures for increased AE adoption): AC systems with
agroforestry tree such as Gliricidia is one alternative intervention for farm-
ers in the study area to increase AE adoption. However, AE transition re-
quires farmer motivation and capacity (Schoonhiven and Runhaar, 2018).
A collective effort is needed between state and n on-state agencies/actors to
increase the scale of AE adoption. These actors need to create enabling envi-
ronments through provision of incentives, credit facilities that provide access
to quality seeds, and market opportunities such as carbon credits sales. These
are channelized through carbon offset scheme (by the government) where
communities are then paid for their conservation efforts related to AE prac-
tices. In this regard, the Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO:
a project partner) is assisting farming communities/cooperatives in the case
study districts of eastern Zambia in collaboration with the local government.
COMACO is a social enterprise that supports s mall-scale farmers in Zambia
by promoting the adoption of AE practices such as conservation agriculture,
AC with agroforestry, and other income-generating activities (e.g., honey
production). This shows that interventions by such non-governmental or-
ganizations are necessary to promote agroecology approaches.
ix Culture/food traditions (traditional foods, nutrition quality): The small-scale
farmers in the study areas are facing food and nutrition insecurity due to
a range of ecological and socio-economic factors. Crops produced under
AC systems (legumes) with Gliricidia are organic as chemical inputs are not
added to the soil. Such systems improved the soil health, crop health, and
food quality as shown in Tables 8.5–8.7 and qualify for better market oppor-
tunities. In contrast, m aize-based monocropping systems that rely on exter-
nal inputs have resulted in poor soil health, lower yield, and poor nutritional
quality. Thus, AC with Gliricidia plays a vital role in r e-balancing traditional
and modern food habits by promoting healthy food production and consump-
tion, while ensuring the right to adequate food.
x Circular solidarity economy (including value chain improvements): Social and
institutional innovations play a key role in increasing AE production and
consumption. One such example is the role played by COMACO in the case
study area. COMACO connects producers and consumers, increases the
value addition of farmer produce, and opens new markets. The innovative
markets respond to consumers’ growing demand for healthier diets while en-
couraging AE production. This approach makes food value chains shorter
and more resource efficient. It also reduces food production losses or wastage
by enhancing FNS while reducing pressure on natural resources.
Conclusion
This chapter reviewed literature related to the key principles/elements of agroeco-
logy (AE) and elaborated their implications to science, practice, and policy. One
of the main barriers to adopting AE is the lack of evidence on the interactive
effects of the practices on AE elements. The case study (i.e., Gliricidia agroforestry
project in Zambia) has implemented a range of AE practices and approaches that
include intercropping, leaf manure incorporation, residue mulching, and value
addition on the AE farming products. The results demonstrated the synergistic
effects on adaptation and mitigation to climate change. More specifically, the
farmer-led demonstration trials on AC systems with Gliricidia agroforestry showed
positive impacts on the ecological/environmental and socio-economic dimen-
sions of AE elements and principles:
i Ecological dimension of AE elements/principles: Soil health and crop nutrition

were improved by incorporating bio-degradable leaf biomass of Gliricidia se-
pium in the AC systems. Combining maize-legume-agroforestry conservation
practices with Gliricidia provided multiple benefits and reduced risks to small-
holders. The use of AC practice with Gliricidia increased the production of
nutritious food crops (such as groundnuts and soybeans) and has improved the
quality of the crops. It enhanced the overall food and nutrition security and re-
silience to climate change adaptation and mitigation, as evident from the data.
ii Socio-economic dimensions of AE elements/principles: Farmers implemented
conservation agriculture practices ( reduced tillage using rippers, residue
mulching, and crop rotations), as an adaptation strategy to mitigate the ef-
fects of erratic rainfall. The Gliricidia leaf biomass incorporation into the
soils has provided an alternative for small-scale farmers to apply a low-cost or-
ganic fertilizer into their soils. The introduction of AC systems with Gliricidia
agroforestry in the eastern province of Zambia has prompted the adoption of
AE farming practices, despite additional labour costs required in the initial
year of the tree establishment due to the benefits it generated. In general,
the AC systems with Gliricidia agroforestry practices proved to be effective
on the key element of AE. However, good AE practices that could minimize
trade-offs in crop-tree-animal interactions in vulnerable farming systems in
different agroecological settings are recommended for further investigation.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the farmers and field enumerators of the
Gliricidia-Zambia project and the NORAD/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
for funding the project.
Note
1 https://www.nibio.no/en/projects/gliricidia?locationfilter=true
References
AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) (2016) ‘Africa Agriculture Status
Report 2016: Progress Towards Agricultural Transformation in Africa’. Available at:
https://agra.org/aasr2016/public/assr.pdf
Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C., Sileshi, G., Chirwa, P.W. and Jonas, C. (2010) ‘Fertilizer
Trees for Sustainable Food Security in the M aize-based Production Systems of East
and Southern Africa: A Review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development , vol. 30,
pp. 615–629.
Alamu, E.O., Gondwe, T., Akinwale, G., Suzuki, K., Chisonga, C., Chigeza, G. and Busie,
M.D. (2019) ‘Impact of Soil Fertility Management Practices on the Nutritional Quality
of Soybean (Glycine max (l.) Merr.) Varieties grown in Eastern Zambia’, Cogent Food &
Agriculture, vol. 5, pp. 10–13.
Altieri, M.A. and Nicholls, C.I. (2018) ‘Urban Agroecology: Designing Biodiverse, Pro-
ductive and Resilient City Farms’, AgroSur, vol. 46, pp. 49–60.
Anderson, C.R., Pimbert, M.P., Chappell, M.J., Brem-Wilson, J., Claeys, P., Kiss, C.,
Maughan, C., Milgroom, J., McAllister, G., Moeller, N. and Singh, J. (2020) ‘Agroecology
Now—Connecting the Dots to Enable Agroecology Transformations’, Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 44 (5), pp. 561–565.
Ayala-Orozco, B., Rosell, J.A., Merçon, J., Bueno, I., Alatorre-Frenk, G., Langle-Flores,
A. and Lobato, A. (2018) ‘Challenges and Strategies in Place-Based Multi-Stakeholder
Collaboration for Sustainability: Learning from Experiences in the Global South’, Sus-
tainability, vol. 10, p. 3217.
Asibuo, J.Y., Akromah, R., Safo-Kantanka, O., Adu-Dapaah, H.K., Ohemeng-Dapaah, S.
and Agyeman, A. (2008) ‘Chemical Composition of Groundnut, Arachis hypogaea (L)
landraces’, African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7 (13), pp. 2203–2208.
Atasie, V.N., Akinhanmi, T.F. and Ojiodu, C.C. (2009) ‘Proximate Analysis and Physico-
Chemical Properties of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)’, Pakistan Journal of Nutrition,
vol. 8(2), pp. 194–197.
Bernard, B. and Lux, A. (2017) ‘How to Feed the World Sustainably: An Overview of the
Discourse on Agroecology and Sustainable Intensification’, Reg Environ Change, vol. 17,
pp. 1279–1290.
Bezner Kerr, R., Young, S.L., Young, C., Santoso, M.V., Magalasi, M., Entz, M., Lupafya,
E., Dakishoni, L., Morrone, V., Wolfe, D. and Snapp, S.S. ( 2019) ‘ Farming for
Change: Developing a Participatory Curriculum on Agroecology, Nutrition, Climate
Change and Social Equity in Malawi and Tanzania’, Agric Hum Values, vol. 36 (3),
pp. 549–566.
Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R (2002) The Nature and Properties of Soils, 13th Edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 960 p; ISBN: 13-016763-0.
CNS-FAO (2021) ‘Pathways to advance agroecology. Overcoming challenges and con-
tributing to sustainable food systems transformation. Swiss National FAO Committee
(CNS-FAO), March 2021’. Available at: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/
files/cns-fao_working-document_advancing_agroecology_march_2021.pdf
Deaconu, A., Berti, P.R., Cole, D.C., Mercille, G. and Batal, M. (2021) ‘Agroecology and
Nutritional Health: A Comparison of Agro-ecological Farmers and Their Neighbours
in the Ecuadorian Highlands’, Food Policy vol. 101, pp. 1–14.
Etiosa, O.R., Chika, N.B. and Benedicta, A. (2017) ‘Mineral and Proximate Composition
of Soya Bean’, Asian Journal of Physical and Chemical Sciences, vol. 4 (3), 1–6.
EC (European Commission) (2021) Soil Deal mission implementation plan, section 8B. Avail-
able at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/implementation-plans-eu-missions_en
EC (European Commission) (2020) Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/46-new-
projects-start-their-research-agroecology-and-ocean-observation-2020-sep-28_en
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2018) The 10 Key Elements of Agroecology –
Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems. Rome: FAO. Availa-
ble at http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/I9037EN.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2019) TAPE Tool for Agroecology Performance
Evaluation 2019 – Process of Development and Guidelines for Application, Test Version.
Rome: FAO. Available at: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca7407en/
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2020) ‘FAOSTAT’. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/faostat/en/#home
Goudiaby, A.O.K, Diedhiou, S., Diatta, Y., Badiane, A., Diouf, P., Fall, S., Diallo, M.D.
and Ndoye, I. (2020) ‘Soil Properties and Groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) Responses to
Intercropping with Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn and Amendment with Its Biochar’,
Journal of Materials and Environmental Sciences, vol. 11, pp. 220–229.
HLPE ( High Level Panel of Experts) ( 2019) ‘
Agro-
ecological and Other Innovative
Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food
Security and Nutrition’, High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutri-
tion of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/
Horneck, D.A., Sullivan, D.M., Owen, J.S. and Hart, J.M. (2011) ‘Soil Test Interpreta-
tion Guide’, Oregon State University Extension Service, EC 1478, USA. Available at:
https://i r.library.oregonstate.edu/c oncern/a dministrative_report_or_publications/
2b88qc45x
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technol-
ogy for Development) (2009) ‘Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report’, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
ILO (International Labor Organization) (2018) ‘Decent Work and the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals: A Guidebook on SDG Labour Market Indicators’, Department of Statis-
tics, Geneva, ISBN 978-92-2-132117-0.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2019) ‘Climate Change and Land.
IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustain-
able Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Eco-
systems’. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
IPES-Food (2016) ‘From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift From Industrial Agri-
culture to Diversified Agro-Ecological Systems’, International Panel of Experts on Sus-
tainable Food Systems. Available at: https://ipes-food.org/reports/
Lampkin, N.H., Pearce, B.D., Leake, A.R., Creissen, H., Gerrard, C.L., Girling, R., Lloyd,
S., Padel, S., Smith, J., Smith, L.G., Vieweger, A. and Wolfe, M.S. (2015) ‘The Role of
Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification’, Report for the Land Use Policy Group,
Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm and Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. Avail-
able at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6746975937495040
Leippert, F., Darmaun, M., Bernoux, M. and Mpheshea, M. (2020) ‘The Potential of Agro-
ecology to Build Climate-resilient Livelihoods and Food Systems’, Rome. FAO and Bio-
vision. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0438en
Makumba, W., Janssen, B., Oenema, O., Akinnifesi, F.K., Mweta, D. and Kwesiga F (2007)
‘The Long-term Effects of a Gliricidia-maize Intercropping System in Southern Malawi
on Gliricidia and Maize Yields and Soil Properties’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-
ment, vol. 116, 85–92.
Moebius-Clune, B.N., Moebius-Clune, D.J., Gugino, B.K., Idowu, O.J., Schindelbeck, R.R.,
Ristow, A.J., van Es, H.M., Thies, J.E., Shayler, H.A., McBride, M.B., Kurtz, K.S.M.,
Wolfe, D.W. and Abawi, G.S. (2016) Comprehensive Assessment of Soil H ealth – The
Cornell Framework, Edition 3.2. New York: Cornell University.
Mockshell, J. and Kamanda, J. ( 2018) ‘ Beyond the Agro-
ecological and Sustaina-
ble Agricultural Intensification Debate: Is Blended Sustainability the Way For-
ward?’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. Available at: https:// doi.
org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1448047
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. and Johns, C. (2020) ‘What Is
Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on
Processes and Outcomes’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 4, p. 577723.
Niggli, U., Sonnevelt, M. and Kummer, S. (2021) ‘Pathways to Advance Agroecology for
a Successful Transformation to Sustainable Food Systems’, Food Systems Summit Brief
prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group. Available at: http://doi.org/10.48565/
Nguyen, H. (2018) ‘Sustainable Food Systems Concept and Framework’, Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. Available at: https://www.fao.
org/publications/card/en/c/CA2079EN/
Ogunyemi, A.M., Otegbayo, B.O. and Fagbenro, J.A. (2018) ‘Effects of NPK and Biochar
Fertilized Soil on the Proximate Composition and Mineral Evaluation of Maize Flour’,
Food Science & Nutrition, vol. 6, pp. 2308–2313.
Parmentier, S. (2014) ‘Scaling-up Agro-ecological Approaches: What, Why and How?’
Oxfam Solidarité.
Pretty, J.N., Toulmin, C. and Williams, S. (2011) ‘Sustainable Intensification in African
Agriculture’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 9 (1), pp. 5–24.
Schader, C., Grenz, J., Meier, M. and Stolze, M. (2014) ‘Scope and Precision of Sustaina-
bility Assessment Approaches to Food Systems’, Ecology and Society, vol. 19 (3), p. 42.
Schoonhiven, Y. and Runhaar, H. (2018)’ Conditions for the Adoption of Agro-ecological
Farming Practices: A Holistic Framework Illustrated With the Case of Almond Farm-
ing in Andalusia’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 16 (3), pp. 1–13.
Sida, T.S., Baudron, F., Hadgu, K., Derero, A. and Giller, K.E. (2018) ‘Crop vs. Tree: Can
Agronomic Management Reduce Trade-offs in Tree-crop Interactions?’ Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 260, pp. 36–46.
Struik, P.C. and Kuyper, T.W. (2017) ‘Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: The
Richer Shade of Green. A Review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 37, p . 39.
Thierfelder, C. and Wall, P.C. (2009) ‘Effects of Conservation Agriculture Techniques on
Infiltration and Soil Water Content in Zambia and Zimbabwe’, Soil & Tillage Research
Journal, vol. 105, pp. 217–227.
von Braun, J., Afsana, K., Fresco, L.O. and Hassan, M. (eds.) (2021) ‘Science and Inno-
vation for Food Systems Transformation and Summit Actions’, Papers by the Scien-
tific Group and its partners in support of the UN Food Systems Summit. Available at:
https://sc-fss2021.org
Wezel, A. and Silva, E. (2017) ‘Agroecology and Agro-ecological Cropping Practices’,
pp. 19–51: In: Agroecological Practices for Sustainable Agriculture: Principles, Applica-
tions, and Making the Transition, World Scientific, New Jersey, USA, 978-1-78634-305-5.
9 Transitioning toward
climate-neutral and resilient
smallholder farming systems
An institutional perspective
Giacomo Branca, Luca Cacchiarelli, Udaya Sekhar
Nagothu, and Chiara Perelli
Introduction
The global food production system faces many challenges, including increasing
food demand due to a growing population and climate change, which is expected
to affect food production and stress the natural resource base upon which agricul-
ture depends (IPCC, 2014). This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa, where
a fast-growing population, food insecurity, environmental degradation, resource
depletion, and increasing smallholder vulnerability to climate change is making
it difficult to scientists and policy makers to address the problems (Li et al., 2019).
For African smallholders, it is even more important to adopt climate-resilient
agriculture in order to make a sustainable transition toward climate-neutral
and resilient farming systems (CNRFS). However, the adoption and diffusion of
climate-smart technologies have been slow (Branca and Perelli, 2020). The un-
derdeveloped rural financial options, inadequate research and extension services,
insufficient market infrastructure, and lack of policy support often contribute to
the slow diffusion of innovation in the agriculture sector.
Value chains (VCs) represent one of the few options for small producers to
access larger markets and innovative technologies (World Bank, 2007). However,
the private sector does not see the smallholder segment as a potential market
source for its products and services and vice versa. Indeed, most smallholders in
developing countries face bottlenecks in accessing markets and in capturing the
value addition, which is often exploited by intermediaries along the VC. Unlock-
ing the complexity in VC pathways, strengthening linkages among the differ-
ent actors of the VCs, and supporting the development of innovative business
models for small producers can contribute to overcome such barriers to market
entry. This is particularly relevant for the smallholder adoption of CNRFS-related
innovations.
The objective of the chapter is to provide an institutional perspective about
innovations for a transition toward CNRFS, with a focus on VCs. In highlighting
the role played by stakeholders in the dynamics and partnerships for the diffusion
of climate-resilient innovative technologies, we focus on the how and who should
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-9
170 Giacomo Branca et al.
be engaged, and what are the benefits and challenges of such engagement. In
this context, the case of dairy VCs in two Eastern Africa countries (Kenya and
Rwanda) will be discussed, with focus on the socio-economic barriers faced by
smallholders. Adoption of technological innovations is dependent on the proper
institutional and policy support. The recommendations from the chapter can
help in developing frameworks for upscaling adoption of CNRFS. Right policy
and institutional settings are necessary to overcome barriers to innovation adop-
tion, and to foster coordination.
The chapter is organized as follows: the next section presents the conceptual
framework. The case studies are described in section “Case studies”, followed by
the results in section “Discussion”. Toward the end, conclusions are presented.
Conceptual framework
Multiple institutional factors can prevent primary producers from adopting inno-
vative technologies and, in turn, exploiting market opportunities and the business
environment (Poulton et al., 2006; Markelova et al., 2009; Nagothu, 2015, 2018).
They include (i) households’ socio-economic characteristics, including their as-
sets, education, gender, and property rights; (ii) limitations in infrastructure and
input markets, for instance, credit, seed, or fertilizer; and (iii) insecure access to
information services.
Smallholder farmers’ decision to adopt agricultural innovations requires a good
combination of the institutions and policies, which can help to overcome barriers
and limiting factors. From an institutional perspective, different models of VC
integration are possible (Montefrio and Dressler, 2019), ranging from informal
agreements to more complex and formalized relations such as o ut-grower schemes
(Branca et al., 2016). The VC partnerships are increasingly becoming useful
pathways to tackle these limitations, evidenced in the active promotion of multi-
stakeholder groups represented by the different VC actors – for instance, pro-
ducers, farmer organizations, input and service providers, private sector, research
institutions, government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that operate at different levels. The synergy
derived from the partnerships can overcome barriers in the adoption (Kolk et al.,
2008). Partnerships should be based on interactive learning, empowerment, and
collaborative governance that enables stakeholders with interconnected problems
and ambitions, but with different interests, to be collectively innovative and re-
silient when faced with the emerging risks, crises, and opportunities of a complex
and changing environment (Woodhill and van Vugt, 2011). By addressing the in-
stitutional business environment, partnerships can play a pivotal role in enhanc-
ing the chances for producers to be viable suppliers of VCs being a combination
of organizational activity functional to production and marketing (Wijk et al.,
2010). Partnerships can be vehicles for the diffusion of agricultural innovations
(Hermans et al., 2017).
Successful cases of innovation adoption invariably demonstrate a range of part-
nerships and network-like arrangements that connect knowledge users, knowledge
Climate-neutral and resilient smallholder farming systems 171
producers, and others involved in the market, policy, and civil society arenas
(Hall, 2012). In this context, public extension services can play a brokerage role,
beyond their traditional role of linking technology and farmers, networking with
relevant VC actors, and can help to negotiate changes in the policy environment
and investment arrangements. Several factors and processes enable or hinder in-
teractions, both within and external to m ulti-actor co-innovation partnerships
(Cronin et al., 2021). Factors that enable partnerships to achieve their own goals
are based on the inclusion of partners linked with already existing networks that
can facilitate internal collaboration and couple with external environment in-
cluding policy and market conditions.
Smallholder farmers need to be genuinely engaged with the VC actors so that
they benefit from the added value for their products (AFI, 2017). The success of a
particular product in VC development will depend on smallholder stewardship of
the program and their involvement early in the VC development process (CGI,
2016). On their own, small farmers who constitute a majority are disadvantaged
when it comes to accessing markets, credit, and agricultural resources. This is
one of the reasons for poor adoption of innovations on small farms. In response,
countries such as India have initiated Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) to
enable farmers work collectively to reduce costs, improve market access, drive
higher agricultural productivity, enhance food security and livelihood develop-
ment (Verderosa, 2021). The FPOs provide a good platform for strengthening
smallholder stewardship in the VC development.
From the policy point of view, a stable political environment with adequate
legislative measures can favor innovation adoption and encourage rural revitali-
zation (Kosec and Resnick, 2019; Branca et al., 2022). A wide variety of options
exist to create a policy environment conducive to innovation adoption (Lybbert
and Sumner, 2012), ranging from legislative and regulatory instruments to direct
investments, property right allocations, and economic incentives or subsidies.
The adoption of CNRFS will succeed when there are stable and assuring mar-
kets for the farmer’s produce also providing adequate opportunity to farmers to
earn higher incomes. The extent of adoption will also depend on social and en-
vironmental context, whether farmers are educated and used to new tools and
knowledge, age and gender (Nagothu, 2018). It is important to consider whether
the knowledge transfer takes into proper consideration factors such as gender with
differentiated needs. A transformative change of smallholders toward CNRFS
is required to cope with climate change and ensure food and nutrition security.
Climate-resilient innovative farming practices could include (i) improved agro-
nomic practices and effective crop management, (ii) tillage and residue man-
agement, and ( iii) efficient water management. A combination of improved
agronomic technologies and practices can be used to cope with the more unpre-
dictable conditions and the resulting impacts caused by climate change. Examples
of such technology packages comprise use of improved crop varieties (e.g., heat
and pest tolerant), implementation of crop rotation or intercropping (e.g., cereal-
legume), planting cover crops, and avoiding bare fallow (Scialabba et al., 2010).
Tillage cropping systems focus on minimum soil disturbance in conjunction with
the retention of crop residues on the soil surface (mulching) to enhance water in-
filtration, prevent runoff, and protect the soil from erosion and crusting by rainfall
(Scopel et al., 2004). Proper water management can help capture more rain, mak-
ing more water available to crops, and using water more efficiently (Rockstrom
and Barron, 2007; Vohland and Barry, 2009; Branca et al., 2013), e.g., through
planting pits and tied ridge systems which increase infiltration, reduce erosion
and the loss of water and soil from arable land (Wiyo et al., 2000). Such concep-
tual links are shown in Figure 9.1 and discussed below.
Households’ socio-economic characteristics. Socio-economic characteristics of
smallholder producers are highly heterogeneous (de Oca Munguia and Llewellyn,
2020). Their capacities can be different in terms of education and knowledge
intake. According to Huffman (2020), innovation adoption is facilitated by en-
hanced knowledge and access to formal education which may improve human
capital and management capacity. Besides, assuring physical assets’ property rights
(e.g., land tenure) can help farmers obtain long-term benefits from current invest-
ments, thereby increasing the likelihood of adoption (Kassie et al., 2015; Mwangi
and Kariuki, 2015; Branca and Perelli, 2020). In this context, social capital (e.g.,
inclusion in a social network) facilitates innovation adoption, especially on small-
holder farms (Husen et al., 2017). Social capital cannot ignore the importance of
women and their contribution to agriculture. However, agricultural research and
extension has been traditionally biased toward men and there has not been an
Figure 9.1 Institutional and policy factors affecting smallholders’ adoption of CNRFS-

related innovations: a conceptual framework.
adequate focus on women (Nagothu, 2015). This is a major challenge in societies
where the gender divide is large, and women are not allowed to make decisions on
par with men. CNRFS innovations that ignore the specific needs of women can
be a major setback to ensure the success of adoption. This can become a major
concern where out-migration of men is happening due to economic, climatic, and
other reasons, which leaves the burden of agriculture on women. This is the case
in several developing countries, including parts of Africa, where men and youth
are migrating to cities, as agriculture is becoming risky and is no longer profitable.
Infrastructure and markets. Poor infrastructure and marketing services, costly
inputs and transportation, limited access to output markets, and inadequateness
of post-harvest facilities (e.g., storage and a gro-processing options) represent crit-
ical barriers to vertical coordination, preventing smallholders’ market access and
value addition (Barrett, 2008). This can influence producers’ capacity and pro-
pensity to make investments in technology innovations, and to determine the ap-
propriate innovation strategy (Mutenje et al., 2016). Most smallholders in Africa
are not linked to markets due to various reasons including their remoteness in lo-
cation, low farm-gate prices, and lack of organization (Wiggins and Keats, 2013).
Often a catalyst is necessary to establish linkages between farmers and markets or
organize them into groups or collectives. In any case, functioning and accessible
markets, particularly for agricultural commodities, are vital for agricultural growth
to realize its potential as a powerful driver of rural poverty reduction (Kürschner
et al., 2016). Since farming is a risky business, planning and development of VCs
should consider all possible risks, including market and political, to ensure that
adequate mitigation measures are in place.
Information, extension, and advisory services. Access to information and knowl-
edge about agricultural innovations is another limiting factor of technology
adoption (Cafer and Rikoon, 2018). Public extension and advisory services (EAS)
often offer low-quality services but the increased private sector involvement in
public agricultural extensions (e.g., through public-private partnerships) may also
leave resource-poor farmers underserved (Birner et al., 2009; Branca et al., 2022).
Advisory services should be designed to facilitate smallholder households’ access
(Norton and Alwang, 2020) and to link technology adoption to enhancement
of market opportunities (Haug et al., 2021). Digital extension tools are being in-
creasingly used these days to bridge the knowledge, gender, and digital divides and
empower the rural community by fostering inclusive development and participa-
tory communication (Raj and Nagothu, 2016). An innovative example of digital
extension platform is the village knowledge center that can facilitate timely dis-
semination of knowledge through multiple communication tools.
Case studies
This section presents the results of two case studies in Eastern Africa (Kenya
and Rwanda).1 The case studies explore the socio-economic, physical, and agro-
ecological factors that influence o n-farm adoption of innovative c limate-smart ag-
ricultural practices and the related adoption barriers, with a focus on the VC and
the relevant institutional and policy perspectives. This chapter focuses on the in-
troduction of the Brachiaria grass forage to improve the livestock dairy value chain
and the factors that influenced its success in adoption. The forage is an innovation
in the case study areas and has contributed to increased climate resilience of the
current dairy production systems, fostering their transition toward CNRFS.
Brachiaria grass is a perennial tropical forage with high productivity in terms
of palatable and nutritious biomass, tolerates abiotic and biotic stresses, improves
soil fertility, produces more nutritious animal feed, and increases overall livestock
productivity (Mutimura and Ghimire, 2020). In addition to improvements in live-
stock productivity in terms of milk production, it is known to contribute signif-
icantly toward ecological restoration of degraded lands and soil erosion control
(Ghimire et al., 2015). With its appositive traits, it can be one of the promising
climate-neutral resilient forage and a good component that can strengthen adap-
tation and mitigation in crop-livestock integrated systems. In Rwanda, the Bra-
chiaria grass has proved to improve the resilience of mixed c rop-livestock systems
and a buffer against frequent crop failures due to extreme weather events and
climate change (Mutimura and Ghimire, 2020). It has large root systems, seques-
ters carbon into soils, resistant to droughts, performs well in low fertility soils,
and provides several environmental benefits in the form of ecosystem services
(Djikeng et al., 2014; Njarui et al., 2016, 2020). The fodder grass has a positive
impact not only on milk production but also on crop yields (in crop rotation
systems) due to the benefits it has on soil fertility. Overall, it generates significant
ecological, nutritional, and socio-economic benefits (Table 9.1).
The introduction of Brachiaria grass in the farming systems of the case study
areas has been achieved due to the promotion of a participative value chain gov-
ernance approach supported by multi-actor platforms (MAP) established in the
two cases, i.e., a partnership aimed at linking farmers’ organizations, scientific
community, public and private sector, n on-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and SMEs operating within the same product chain. The MAP members have
been involved in different activities, including validation, extension, providing
feedback, and upscaling of innovative Brachiaria-based dairy production sys-
tems. Experience has shown that the MAP members played an important role in
strengthening science-policy linkage.
Table 9.1 E
cological, nutritional, and socio-economic benefits provided by Brachiaria
forage
Ecological benefits Nutritional benefits Socio-economic benefits
• Increased livestock • Increased dairy cattle • Increased household

productivity and beef productivity income and improved
• Reduced GHG emissions • Improved household livelihood
• Greater climate nutrition and health • Adaptation through
resilience income diversification
Adapted from Ghimire et al. (2015).

Evidence shown here is supported by primary data collected through sample
household surveys and focus group discussions, MAP meetings, and key inform-
ant interviews conducted in the project sites from 2018 to 2020 through a H2020
project “InnovAfrica” funded by the European Commission (www.innovafrica.
eu). For each case study, we provide a list of actors operating at various stages of
the VC; a description of smallholder farmers’ characteristics, which are expected
to have an impact on the innovation adoption process (and descriptive statistics
resulting from the household survey); a catalog of the policies and institutions in
place; and a narrative about the potential strategies to overcome adoption barriers
along the VC, developed through the Theory of Change methodology through
MAP meetings.
The case study in Kenya

The study was carried out in the Kangundo subcounty, which is situated in the
eastern midlands. Most smallholders rely on agriculture income from the grow-
ing of maize and grain legumes and from livestock production. The introduction
of Brachiaria grass forage into the dairy cattle production system was expected
to generate benefits on biomass production and livestock productivity and, indi-
rectly, on smallholders’ livelihood and food security. The dairy VC is described
below. It was centered on small producers and comprises input providers, traders,
processors, and retailers.
The value chain structure

Input provision: Various entities supply inputs and services to farmers and dairy
cattle herders. Agro-dealers sell seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. The most pre-
ferred forage seed attributes are pasture quality, suitability for area/local climatic
conditions, and durability in terms of harvesting period. Sales arrangements in-
cluded cash, credit, discounted for bulk, and discounted for preferred customers.
Fertilizers were subsidized under the National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs
Access Program (NAAIAP). Agro-dealers were appointed as distribution agents
for subsidized inputs by the government. To sell seeds, a license is required, in ad-
dition to a business permit provided by the county government. A gro-vet compa-
nies and aggregators (cooperatives) supply feeds, supplements, drugs, and artificial
insemination (AI) services. They usually make a one-on-one contact with farmers
as well as site visits (in collaboration with extension agents). The government re-
quires that all agro-vets have an attendant trained in veterinary (e.g., a para-vets
or veterinaries registered with the Veterinary Board).
Output production: Small-scale dairy farmers account for about 80% of produc-
ers. On average, they own one milking cow per family with a calf per cow per year.
Daily milk production was about 5–7 liters per day per cow. Farmland size is 1,500
m2/family, which also includes both animal housing and family house. Land ded-
icated to cropland is approximately one acre per farmer household. The remain-
ing 20% of farmers are of medium and large scale. Productivity was estimated at
0–30 liters per day from three to four milking cows per household for medium-
2
s cale farmers, and at more than 150 liters per day from about ten milking cows for
large-scale producers.
Trading: Our study showed that raw milk was sold to aggregators/cooperatives
(32%), traders (23%), retailers (4%), and local basic processors (7%). Remaining
quantity was directly sold to consumers. Dairy cooperatives allowed farmers to
collectively market their produce and access various inputs and services as de-
scribed below:
a Limuro Dairy Cooperative, with around 8,000 active members. Services pro-
vided to members included raw material collection, processing and market-
ing, subsidized fertilizer provision, extension and technical services (e.g.,
veterinary, agriculture extension). Service provision to members is based on
a credit-system (i.e., costs are charged at the end of each month and deducted
directly from milk sales).
b Kambusu Cooperative is the largest cooperative in the area. It collects ap-
proximately 3,000 liters per day. Payments to members were made monthly
through a bank. Milk was mostly sold outside the area, while the remaining
30% was sold to local retail shops.
c Kakuyuni Cooperative was recently established. Its members are mainly small-
scale farmers.
Local traders connected farmers to milk outlets. They mainly comprised milk
hawkers who collected milk from farmers and supply to different buyers, including
hotels and schools. This marketing channel is preferred by farmers because of
prompt payments.
Processing: Processors purchased raw milk directly from individual farmers (e.g.,
New Kenya Cooperative Creameries) or from farmer cooperatives. The latter op-
tion reduces transport and logistics costs. Processing consists of pasteurization
and ultra-heating. Milk is then either packed into packets/containers or further
processed into yoghurts, butter, cheese, and ghee.
Retailing: Retailers include supermarkets, milk dispensing machines (ATMs),
mobile vendors, milk kiosks, and bars. Supermarkets sold a diverse range of dairy
products and can operate ATMs which were also operated by individual entrepre-
neurs. Mobile vendors sold milk to shops, outlets, and small hotels, using private
means of transport (motorcycles or bicycles). Milk kiosks or bars sold milk to
consumers on behalf of shops or hotels.
Farmers’ characteristics
The results of the survey conducted over a sample of 316 households indicated
that only 11% of the households in the study area included Brachiaria into their
farming systems. Table 9.2 reports the socio-economic characteristics of the sam-
ple. Most smallholder farmers are male, middle aged. They attended at least pri-
mary school. With reference to economic assets, households’ average monthly
Table 9.2 Socio-economic and physical characteristics of farmers in Kangundo (n = 316)
Variables Description Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Brachiaria use Household uses Brachiaria (1/0) 0.117 0.322 0 1
Household head characteristics

HH head gender Household head male (1/0) 0.759 0.428 0 1
HH head age Age of household head (years) 57.946 12.935 27 90
HH head education Household head attended at least 0.975 0.157 0 1
primary school (1/0)
Economic assets
HH total income Total farm income (USD) 233.724 232.503 4.95 2376
Credit Access to credit (1/0) 0.320 0.467 0 1
Subsidy fertilizers Subsidy’s access to buy fertilizers (1/0) 0.022 0.147 0 1
Physical assets
HH total area Total farm size (ha) 1.815 8.102 0.1 141.7
Local breed Household own local breed (1/0) 0.427 0.495 0 1
Exotic breed Household own exotic breed (1/0) 0.310 0.463 0 1
Crossbreed Household own crossbreed (1/0) 0.472 0.500 0 1
Fertilizers use Household uses of fertilizers (1/0) 0.665 0.473 0 1
Environmental context
emi-arid AEZ
S Agro-ecological Zone semi-arid (1/0) 0.981 0.137 0 1
Drought experience Household experienced drought (1/0) 0.911 0.285 0 1
Flood experience Household experienced floods (1/0) 0.025 0.157 0 1
Irregular rain Household experienced irregular rains 0.873 0.333 0 1
experience (1/0)
EAS
Extension provided by Access to extension services provided 0.206 0.405 0 1
government by government
private company by private company
NGO by NGO
Extension provided Access to extension services provided 0.098 0.298 0 1
cooperatives/farmers by cooperatives/farmers
bank/insurance by bank/insurance
Group participation Participation to groups (1/0) 0.449 0.498 0 1
Household food security

Food security Food Consumption Score 85.060 15.747 30 112
Based on own survey data collected.
income amounted to US$233.72. Nearly 32% of farmers had access to credit,

while only 2% benefited from input subsidies. Considering the physical assets, the
average land available to farmers is less than 2 hectares; most common livestock
species are local and crossbreeds; fertilizers were commonly used. With reference
to the environmental context, most farmers perceived climate alterations such
as droughts (91%) and irregular rains (87%). With regard to social capital, about
half of sampled households participated in some form of agricultural groups or
associations.
Policies and institutions

Policy context. The main policies implemented in the sector were as follows:
a Seed and fertilizer subsidies through the “Input policy”. They aim to provide
inputs to farmers at affordable prices, therefore expanding inputs access to
smallholders. However, inadequate funds allocated to this policy and target-
ing difficulties limited policy effectiveness.
b Public extension service support through the “Livestock policy”. It aims to fa-
cilitate demand-driven extension services and increase production efficiency
even if farmers lack awareness of its importance. The limiting factors to pol-
icy effectiveness were inadequate financial resources allocated to policy, lim-
ited capacity of extension workers, and lack of transportation means to reach
rural areas.
c Provision of small irrigation equipment through the “Agriculture irrigation
policy”. It aims to provide irrigation infrastructure to farmers in arid and
semi-arid land. Inadequate financial resources, scarce technologies, and in-
sufficient capacity of technical staff to facilitate implementation limited pol-
icy effectiveness.
d Establishment of appropriate storage facilities through the “Agribusiness pol-
icy”. It aims to provide storage facilities, make livestock commercially ori-
ented and competitive, and provide capacity building on agribusiness skills.
Inaccessibility of appropriate storage facilities (e.g., coolers), limited funds,
and insufficient awareness regarding the efficient handling of post-harvest
agricultural produce were found to be the main limiting factors.
Extension services: Extension service provision is guided by the National Agricul-

ture Sector Extension Policy (NASEP). It is emphasized that the private sector
should play a large role in providing extension services. Despite such a policy, the
extension personnel to farmer ratio remained low, the main provider being the
public sector. Also, budgetary allocation to extension services has dwindled, and
the quality of private extension is questionable. To enhance access to markets,
cooperative movements are promoted, but it is not adequate in their current form.
Market and other Institutions: More than three-quarters of sampled farmers had
access to the market through traders, cooperatives, and individuals. Low prices
and unstable prices were the most important constraints in marketing. Several in-
stitutions supported the dairy sector including the Kenya Dairy Board, responsible
for ensuring efficient production, marketing, distribution, and supply of milk and
dairy products; the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), with the responsibility of
setting and enforcing standards for all products; the Public Health Division of the
Ministry of Health, which ensured maintenance of hygiene standards along the
chain; and the Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization, which is
incharge of public agricultural research. The combined support from the govern-
ment agencies plays an important role in strengthening the livestock value chain.
Value chain development strategies

The Theory of Change developed was based on inputs from the MAP meetings
where members identified the following barriers to the adoption of Brachiaria,
including lack of information on forage grass, expensive forage seeds due to high
production costs and limited seed production capacity, small land size limiting
the possibility to develop fodder production, and lack of irrigation opportunities
and reliance on fluctuating rainfall patterns. Establishing knowledge platforms to
share information might overcome the lack of knowledge about forage grass in
general and Brachiaria in particular. Use of alternative propagation methods (e.g.,
splits) and wider involvement of public-private partnerships to multiply seeds are
plausible interventions to enhance Brachiaria multiplication. Increasing farmers’
knowledge about water harvesting techniques and mapping areas indicating suit-
able locations for irrigating pastures can support forage production expansion.
Smallholders’ access to inputs can be increased by expanding subsidy access
to a wider range of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, equipment) from a variety of pro-
viders, e.g., through the e-voucher digital service delivery. An increased efficient
use of inputs might also be achieved through enhancing public-private extension
and advisory services and strengthening linkages between research and farmers
through innovation sharing. A summary of the Theory of Change exercise is
reported in Figure 9.2.
The case study in Kenya

The case study refers to Nyamagabe district, situated in the Southern Province,
characterized mainly by maize-cattle-based farming systems.
The value chain structure

Input provision: Agro-dealer and a gro-vet companies supplied inputs and services.
Some agro-dealers also provided technical assistance to farmers, together with
public extension agents. Inputs’ selling prices are partially set by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) under the subsidy input policy.
However, most farmers cannot afford purchasing inputs, even if subsidized, due to
income constraints.
Output production: Dairy farmers are mostly (about 90%) small-scale producers
with an average of one to two dairy cows per household. Large dairy farmers owned
on average six dairy cows. Milk productivity was about 3 liters per cow per day.
Production within both small-and large-scale farming was based on integrated
crop-livestock systems. Dairy farmers sold milk to dairy cooperatives (30%), local
consumers (20%), and local traders (5%), while self-consumption varied between
Strategic Improve the selected VCs, and overcome the main weaknesses and adoption
Objective barriers to innovation
1. Availability of seed at 2. Increased farmers 3. Increased and stable feed

affordable prices knowledge availability
Strategic Outcomes
Expected Strategic
Outcomes
6. Enhanced compliance with the
4. Increased acreage of fodder 5. Increased milk production
dairy sector, land, seed regulations
1. Building capacity on 2. Identify appropriate

3. Build capacity on seed
alternative propagation public/private partners for seed
production
methods production
Components of a
possible
investment plan 4. Breed/select for high
5. Scaling up Brachiaria 6. Enforcement of the
yielding drought tolerant
seed/splits bulking regulations
pasture varieties
1. Use of alternative 2. Involvement of

3. Increase awareness on
propagation methods (e.g., public/private partners to
source of Brachiaria seed
splits) multiply seeds
Development
objectives
4. Harmonized implementation
Barriers and Weaknesses
of the dairy sector regulatory 5. Increased knowledge and

6. Use of high yielding varieties
framework at the grassroots capacity on seed production
level
1. Expensive forage seeds due

2. Small land size affecting
to high production costs as well 3. Lack of Brachiaria seeds
fodder production
as limited production capacity
Barriers-
weaknesses to be
addressed
5. Fragmentation of existing
4. Knowledge about source of regulatory framework 6. Low productivity
Brachiaria seeds governing the dairy sector
Figure 9.2 Theory of Change: introducing Brachiaria into the dairy VC in Kangundo

(Kenya).
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
30% and 50%. The minimum price for milk at the farm gate was set by the gov-
ernment and was 200 Rwandan franc (RWF) per liter2 in 2017. However, on the
informal market, the price for local consumers was 160 RWF per liter in the same
year. Farmers did not process raw material for the formal market, but they pro-
cessed fermented milk for self-consumption and for sales to local consumers.
Trading: One dairy cooperative collected the raw product through a milk col-
lection center. With reference to 2017 (when the data collection has been con-
ducted), despite its milk collection capacity of 5,000 liters per day, local dairy
farmers supplied only between 500 and 800 liters per day (in the dry and wet
season, respectively). The cooperative bought raw milk from local dairy farmers
(at a price of 200 FRW per liter) and from local traders (at 220 FRW per liter).
The collected and cooled milk was sold at 250 FRW per liter to local traders, res-
taurants, and single consumers. Local traders in the area operated at two different
levels, playing an intermediary role in two stages of the supply chain: (i) they
bought milk from farmers at 200 FRW per liter and resold it to the dairy coop-
erative at 220 FRW per liter; (ii) they bought milk from the dairy cooperative at
250 FRW per liter and resold it to local supermarkets and local restaurants at 300
FRW per liter.
Processing: Packed milk was supplied by national processors, who bought milk
from farmers located in other production areas. The largest national company
was Inyange Industries, which processes and distributes most produced milk in the
country. It processed a wide variety of dairy products (packed milk, pasteurized
milk, flavored milk, ghee, butter, yoghurt). Products were also exported to Sudan,
South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. Within the domestic market, dairy
products were supplied to retailers via independent or own distributors.
Retailing: Independent distributors were registered with the Inyange Industries.
They bought packed milk at 880 FRW per liter from national processors and sold
it to the groceries/supermarket at 930 FRW per liter. Raw milk was bought by dis-
tributors at 350 FRW per liter and sold to local groceries at 400 FRW per liter. At
the retail level, consumer prices were 1,000–1,200 FRW per liter for packed milk
and 430 FRW per liter for raw milk (consumers bring their own containers). Dis-
tributors sold packed milk on various markets in the country, whereas individuals
mostly sold unpacked cooled milk mainly in urbanized and business center areas.
Farmers’ characteristics
The results of the survey conducted over a sample of 308 households indicated
that only 4% of the households in the study area included Brachiaria into their
farming systems. T able 9.3 reports the socio-economic characteristics of the
sample. Most smallholder farmers were male, middle-aged, and attended at least
primary school. Considering the economic assets, the average monthly income
amounted to US$43.9. Almost 40% of sampled farms had access to credit, while
only a few farmers benefited from seed and fertilizer subsidies (2% and 3%, respec-
tively). Considering physical assets, the average land parcel size was less than 1
ha; dairy cattle production relied mostly on crossbreeds (79%); fertilizers used was
limited (only 13% of sampled farmers). With reference to climate change, most
farmers perceived climate alterations, mainly droughts (85%). Approximately
30% of farmers were part of agricultural groups/associations.
Policies and institutions

Policy context: The main policy instruments implemented were as follows:
• A gradual increase in the number of improved dairy cows bred was promoted
by the government through the “One cow per poor family” program, whose
objectives included fighting malnutrition and poverty through productivity
increase and a reduction of pressure caused by grazing on the limited pasture
resources.
Table 9.3 H
ousehold socio-economic and physical characteristics in Nyamagabe
(308 HHs)
Variables Description Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Brachiaria Household uses Brachiaria (1/0) 0.020 0.057 0 1
Household head characteristics

HH head gender Household head male (1/0) 0.714 0.452 0 1
HH head age Age of household head (years) 52.237 12.418 21 89
HH head education Household head attended at least 1.049 5.617 0 99
primary school (1/0)
Economic assets
HH total income Total farm income (USD) 43.975 48.833 0 300
Credit Access to credit (1/0) 0.377 0.485 0 1
Subsidy seed Subsidy’s access to buy seeds (1/0) 0.019 0.138 0 1
Subsidy fertilizers Subsidy’s access to buy fertilizers 0.029 0.169 0 1
(1/0)
Physical assets
HH total area Total farm size (ha) 0.693 0.879 0 5.7
Local breed Household own local breed (1/0) 0.188 0.392 0 1
Exotic breed Household own exotic breed (1/0) 0.078 0.268 0 1
Crossbreed Household own crossbreed (1/0) 0.792 0.406 0 1
Fertilizers use Household uses fertilizers (1/0) 0.133 0.340 0 1
Brachiaria Household uses Brachiaria (1/0) 0.003 0.057 0 1
Environment
Drought experience Household experienced drought 0.854 0.354 0 1
(1/0)
Floods experience Household experienced floods (1/0) 0.172 0.378 0 1
Irregular rain Household experienced irregular 0.169 0.375 0 1
experience rains (1/0)
Social assets
Extension provided by Access to extension services 0.058 0.235 0 1
government provided by government
private company provided by private company
NGO provided by NGO
cooperatives/farmers provided by cooperatives/farmers
bank/insurance provided by bank/insurance
Group participation Participation to groups (1/0) 0.315 0.465 0 1
Household food security

Food security Food Consumption Score 46.979 19.357 0 100
Based on own survey data collected.

• Subsidies on livestock inputs ( AI, forage, seeds) were included in the
“Strategic and investment plan to strengthen the animal genetic improve-
ment in Rwanda” whose objectives were to increase the number of AI users
and improve livestock nutrition and feeding. However, inadequate funds al-
located to this policy and high taxation level for vet pharmacies and feed
industry limited its effectiveness.
• Subsidies on agricultural inputs were included in the “National agriculture
policy” to enhance farm inputs’ use and its efficiency. The limiting factors
were inadequate financial resources allocated to the policy.
• Import and distribution of dairy cattle (with higher genetic potential) was
included in the “Strategic and investment plan to strengthen the animal
genetic improvement in Rwanda”. The program aimed to increase the pro-
ductivity of animal resources in a sustainable way and ensure that agricul-
ture and livestock contribute to enhanced dietary diversity and quality at
national and household levels. The following factors reduced policy effec-
tiveness: taxes and licenses limiting semen imports for AI, low capacity of
smallholders, lack of coordination, low involvement of the private sector.
• Tax exemption on importation of agricultural equipment and machinery in
the “Agricultural Mechanization Strategy for Rwanda” policy, whose objec-
tives were to increase the use of modern agricultural technologies and facili-
tate farmers in shifting from subsistence to commercial agriculture. However,
available funds constrained effective policy implementation.
Extension services: They serve as focal points for facilitation and information re-
lated to the market, inputs, credits, and producer coordination. Options for ex-
tension delivery methods are becoming more pluralistic with the widespread use
of mobile phones and information and communication technology (ICT). An ex-
tension communication system was built to allow direct feedback from extension
workers to farmers for questions and queries. In addition, farmers can obtain in-
formation from different government institutions, also at decentralized level. This
enabled farmers to access information on inputs markets available in the area.
At the sector level, the government organizes savings and credit cooperatives
(SACCO) which assisted farmers in obtaining loans for their business though
micro-finance options. However, smallholders’ access to extension advisory ser-
vices was constrained by the exclusive availability of public extension agents and
resources which were limited in size and scope.
Markets and other Institutions: Cooperatives, traders, and individuals were the
most important marketing channels. However, half of sampled households had
inadequate market access and were constrained by low and unstable farm-gate
prices. The National Agricultural Export Development Board supports stake-
holders’ activities to process and export agricultural and livestock products. An
exemption from taxation for selected agricultural inputs and equipment is an
instrument established to enable and encourage the private sector to invest in
agriculture.
Value chain development strategies
MAP members identified the following barriers to the adoption of Brachiaria
forage in Rwanda despite its positive traits and benefits in terms of enhanced
forage supply: lack of information on forage grasses, shortage of land for forage
production, and lack of available seed material. The strategies suggested to over-
come challenges included practical trainings, and on-farm demonstrations and
trials that could mitigate the lack of technical and technological know-how, es-
tablishing a hub model for selling forage and exploiting cropping niches (e.g.,
under banana plantation) to overcome the issue of land shortage. Policies are
required to support productivity enhancement through the increase in the avail-
able improved dairy cattle breeds. This can be reached by expanding the num-
ber of importers and streamlining the procedures for obtaining import licenses.
Cooperatives might effectively provide both upstream and downstream services,
facilitating access to input markets (fertilizers, credit) and training and serving as
aggregators and quality promoters. The results from the Theory of Change exer-
cise applied to the case study area are reported in Figure 9.3.
Discussion
The introduction of Brachiaria forage into the current farming systems of Kenya
and Rwanda may generate ecological, nutritional, and socio-economic benefits
Strategic objective:
Improve the selected VCs, and overcome the main weaknesses and adoption barriers to innovation
1. Improved dairy cattle farm 2. Enhanced farmers’

management and milk productivity marketing power 3. Increased farmers’ incomes
Strategic Outcomes
Expected Strategic
Outcomes
5. Higher quantity/better 6. Enhanced links between
4. Enhanced market access
quality of milk product farms and extension services
2. Promote farmers’ 3. Enhance post-harvest

1. Improve dairy cattle farm
organizations to increase operations (storage &
management
farmers’ marketing power processing) infrastructures
Components of a
possible investment
plan
4. Coordinate public policies in 5. Support innovations in 6. Expand network of extension
support of dairy production technology and management and advisory services
Barriersand Weaknesses
1. Enhance farm access to 2. Improve farm access to

Development 3. Increase dairy cattle
knowledge and technology markets and develop hub
objectives productivity and efficiency
innovations model to generate income
Barriers-
Weaknesses to be 1. Limited farmers’ access 2. Limited farmers’ access to 3. Low and unstable
addressed to knowledge and inputs markets households’ income
Figure 9.3 T
heory of Change: introducing Brachiaria into the dairy VC in Nyamagabe
(Rwanda) (authors’ own elaboration).
along the VC. For example, Brachiaria cultivation fostered higher milk yields,
expanded product flow along the chain, and improved dairy farmers’ incomes.
Thanks to the promising market opportunities and consumers’ demand for a wide
range of dairy products. Also, Brachiaria grass can be introduced as an intercrop
or border crop, and on marginal lands, being able to survive in poor soils with low
nitrogen and phosphorus contents with evident positive externalities in the form
of enhanced soil fertility and climate resilience.
However, smallholders’ adoption of Brachiaria was constrained by limited ac-
cess to VCs’ opportunities, seed material, including value addition and transfor-
mation. Small farmers often operated with limited knowledge and capacity, and
in a context of poor infrastructures and weak access to technology and knowledge
services. Also, they cultivated small land parcels and could not introduce forage
production due to the need to prioritize land use for crop production and food
security purposes. Milk was undersupplied and economies of scale could be intro-
duced along the chain, with efficiency losses for all operators.
In both case studies, strategies to overcome adoption barriers included infor-
mation dissemination, demonstration, and on-farm trials to motivate new farmers
to uptake forage cultivation, coupled with investments to enhance availability
of forage seeds as well as suitable land areas for forage production (e.g., through
irrigation). Actions to improve coordination along the chain may lead to more
efficient dairy VCs.
In this context, multi-actor initiatives as MAPS have the potential to be a
forum to enhance the diffusion of information and knowledge as well as coordi-
nation along VC actors, with benefits for all the participants. Such platforms face
the problem from a multi-stakeholder point of view, and can identify suitable de-
velopment strategies including options to harmonize institutions and agricultural
policies to facilitate diffusion of agricultural innovation.
Our findings confirmed results from other studies available in the literature accord-
ing to which the low innovations adoption by smallholders was influenced by farm
size, farmer’s education status, institutional assets, marketing possibilities, and profits
(e.g., Kangogi et al., 2021). The effect of households’ physical assets on technology
innovation adoption was positive, due to households’ improved management capacity
(Mwangi and Kariuki, 2015). Access to knowledge is also a critical factor for adoption.
For example, Obi and Maya (2021) showed that awareness creation targeting remote
rural areas as well as institutions to ease farmers’ access to information can contribute
to higher adoption rates. Information access and association membership positively
influenced technology adoption and innovation (Chowdhury et al., 2014).
Some limitations to our findings exist. Farmer entrepreneurship plays an impor-
tant role in influencing adoption decisions of smallholders. Mizik (2021) showed
that small-scale farmers consider the length of the payback period when they de-
cide on any adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. One way is to com-
pensate them for providing environmental benefits, which is still not an option in
the case study areas. Also, aspects related to drivers of coordination, cooperation,
and institutional transformation processes, as well as to economic incentives to at-
tract spontaneous participation of VC stakeholders deserve further investigation.
Conclusions
The case studies of Kenya and Rwanda presented in this chapter demonstrated
that the diffusion of climate-friendly and resilient forage grasses such as Brachi-
aria offered promising results and demonstrated how technology innovations can
transform current systems into CNRFS. However, investments are to be made
to improve availability and on-farm access to forage grass seed material and im-
prove fodder and dairy-cattle management. At the same time, technology and
institutional interventions in off-farm VC segments (marketing, processing, stor-
age, standards regulation) are required to capitalize the expected benefits deriving
from on-farm innovations. Despite challenges, the sub-Saharan Africa is slowly
becoming a competitive marketplace for a gri-products.
Smallholder production systems must enhance their productivity in a more
resilient way to respond to the increasing food demand in the context of climate
change. As in other sustainability transitions, innovations in the technology as
well as in the institutional settings play a critical role. Indeed, adoption of innova-
tive technology to increase production efficiency and transform farming systems
toward CNRFS will not be possible without farmers’ access to properly function-
ing institutions, including effective information and knowledge systems, timely
delivery of modern input technologies, and market access.
In this context, existing policies and institutions operating in the African
agri-food system should be harmonized, along with an effective governance for
multi-stakeholder VCs. The development of stakeholders’ platforms – such as
MAPs – represents an institutional innovation which could respond to such de-
mand. Other studies have also shown that MAPs play an increasing role in scaling
up innovations in agricultural systems (Barzola et al., 2020). In the two case stud-
ies, MAPs identified specific strategies to develop the VC in a coordinated manner.
This included structuring the p ublic-private EASs in support of the development
of professional capacities and skills of extension workers; supporting cooperatives
to enhance smallholders’ participation in the VC, including their access to knowl-
edge and inputs; improving regulations for license import of technical inputs for
animal production; setting adequate hygienic standards related to milk commer-
cialization; promoting public-private-producer partnerships on information and
knowledge management; introducing labor market policies to lift the labor scarcity
constraint and ease the adoption of labor-consuming innovation technologies.
MAPs can provide a conducive entry point for smallholders’ linkage with markets,
especially those requiring assurances that adequate volumes of commodities can
be traded. They will also play a key role in improving smallholder farmers’ inno-
vation skills and designing entrepreneurial agribusiness models, which could be
replicated to different VCs and upscaled to national and regional markets.
Notes
1 The case studies refer to the activities conducted within the H2020 InnovAfrica pro-
ject (www.innovafrica.eu) funded by the EU (Grant agreement no 727201 and call
SFS-42-2016).
2 US$1 is equal to 1,183 RWF.
References
Agriculture for Impact (AFI) (2017) ‘Agriculture for Impact: Agriculture Value chains’.
Available at: http://ag4impact.org/sid/socio-economic-intensification/building-social-
capital/agricultural-value-chains/
Barrett, C.B. (2008) ‘Smallholder Market Participation: Concepts and Evidence from
Eastern and Southern Africa’, Food Policy, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 299–317.https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.005
Barzola Iza, C.L., Dentoni, D. and Omta, O.S.W.F. (2020) ‘The Influence of Multi-
stakeholder Platforms on Farmers’ Innovation and Rural Development in Emerging
Economies: A Systematic Literature Review’, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and
Emerging Economies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-12-2018-0182
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J. and Cohen,
M. (2009) ‘From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analysing
Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide’. Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595
Branca, G., Cacchiarelli, L., Haug, R. and Sorrentino, A. (2022) ‘Promoting Sustainable
Change of Smallholders’ Agriculture in Africa: Policy and Institutional Implications
from a S ocio-economic Cross-country Comparative Analysis’. Available at: https://
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.738267/full
Branca, G. and Perelli, C. (2020) ‘‘Clearing the Air’: Common Drivers of C limate-smart
Smallholder Food Production in Eastern and Southern Africa’. Available at: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620319478?via%3Dihub
Branca, G., Cacchiarelli, L., Maltsoglou, I., Rincon, L., Sorrentino, A. and Valle, S.,
(2016) ‘Profits Versus Jobs: Evaluating Alternative Biofuel Value-chains in Tanzania’,
Land Use Policy, vol. 57, pp. 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.014.
Branca, G., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L. and Jolejole, M. C. (2013) ‘Food Security, Climate
Change and Sustainable Land Management. A Review’, Agronomy for sustainable devel-
opment, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 635–650.
Cafer, A. M. and Rikoon, J. S. (2018) ‘Adoption of New Technologies by Smallholder
Farmers: the Contributions of Extension, Research Institutes, Cooperatives, and Access
to Cash for Improving Tef Production in Ethiopia’. Agriculture and Human Values, vol.
35, no. 3, pp. 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9865-5
Chowdhury, A. H., Hambly Odame, H. and Leeuwis, C. (2014) ‘Transforming the Roles
of a Public Extension Agency to Strengthen Innovation: Lessons From the National
Agricultural Extension Project in Bangladesh’, The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.803990
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) (2016) ‘Engaging Smallholder Farmers in Value Chains:
Emerging Lessons’. Available at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/
cgi_smallholder_report_final.pdf
Cronin, E., Fosselle, S., Rogge, E. and Home, R. (2021) ‘An Analytical Framework to Study
Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agricul-
ture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector’, Sustainability, vol. 13(11), pp. 6428.
de Oca Munguia, O.M. and Llewellyn, R. (2020) ‘The Adopters Versus the Technology:
Which Matters More When Predicting or Explaining Adoption?’ Applied Economic Per-
spectives and Policy, vol. 42, pp. 80–91. doi:10.1002/aepp.13007.
Djikeng A., Rao, I.M., Njarui D., Mutimura, M., Caradus, J., Ghimire, S.R., Johnson, L.,
Cardoso, J.A., Ahonsi, M. and Kelemu, S. (2014) ‘Climate-smart Brachiaria Grasses for
Improving Livestock Production in East Africa’. Trop Grassl-Forrajes Trop, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 38–39.
Ghimire, S., Njarui, D., Mutimura, M., Cardoso, J., Jonhson, L., Gichangi, E., Teasdale, S.,
Odokanyero, K., Caradus, J., Rao, I. and Djikeng, A, (2015) ‘Climate Smart Brachiaria
for Improving Livestock Production in East Africa: Emerging Opportunities’, In: Vijay
D. Srivastava, M.K., Gupta, C.K., Malaviya, D.R., Roy, M.M., Mahanta, S.K., Singh,
J.B., Maity, A. and Ghosh, P.K. (eds.) Sustainable Use of Grasslands Resources for Forage
Production, Biodiversity and Environmental Protection. Proceedings of 23rd International
Grassland Congress, Range Management Society of India, pp. 361–370.
Hall, A.J. (2012) ‘Partnerships in Agricultural Innovation: Who Puts Them Together and
Are They Enough?’ Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316736798_
Partnerships_in_agricultural_innovation_Who_puts_them_together_and_are_they_
enough
Haug, R., Nchimbi-Msolla, S., Murage, A., Moeletsi, M., Magalasi, M., Mutimura, M. and
Westengen, O. T. (2021) ‘From Policy Promises to Result through Innovation in African
Agriculture?’, World, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 253–266.
Hermans, L. M., Haasnoot, M., ter Maat, J. and Kwakkel, J. H. (2017) ‘Designing Moni-
toring Arrangements for Collaborative Learning about Adaptation Pathways,’ Environ-
mental Science & Policy, vol. 69, pp. 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.005
Huffman, W.E., (2020) ‘Human Capital and Adoption of Innovations: Policy Implica-
tions’, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 92–99. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aepp.13010.
Husen, N. A., Loos, T. K. and Siddig, K. H. (2017) ‘Social Capital and Agricultural Tech-
nology Adoption Among Ethiopian Farmers’, American Journal of Rural Development,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 65–72. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajrd-5-3-2
IPCC, 2014. AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability-Working
Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Kangogi, D., Dentoni, D. and Bijman, J. (2021) ‘Adoption of Climate-smart Agriculture
among Smallholder Farmers: Does Farmer Entrepreneurship Matter?’ Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721003896
Kassie, M., Teklewold, H., Jaleta, M., Marenya, P. and Erenstein, O. (2015) ‘Understanding
the Adoption of a Portfolio of Sustainable Intensification Practices in Eastern and
Southern Africa’, Land Use Policy, vol. 42, pp. 400–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2014.08.016
Kolk, A., van Tulder, R. and Kostwinder, E. (2008) ‘Business and Partnerships for Devel-
opment’, European Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 262–273.
Kosec, K. and Resnick, D. (2019) Governance: Making Institutions work for Rural Revitali-
zation. In Global Food Policy Report, pp. 68–77. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
Kürschner, E., Baumert, D., Plastrotmann, C., Poppe A.K., Riesinger, K. and Ziesemer S.
(2016) ‘Market Access for Smallholder Rice Producers in the Philippines’. Available at:
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/series/sle/264/PDF/264.pdf
Li, L., Cao, R., Wei, K., Wang, W. and Chen, L. (2019) ‘Adapting Climate Change Chal-
lenge: A New Vulnerability Assessment Framework from The Global Perspective’, Jour-
nal of Cleaning Product, vol. 217, p. 216e224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.162
Lybbert, T.J. and Sumner, D.A. (2012) ‘Agricultural Technologies for Climate Change in
Developing Countries: Policy Options for Innovation and Technology Diffusion’, Food
Policy, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.11.001
Markelova, H., M einzen-Dick, R.S., Hellin, J. and Dohrn, S. (2009) ‘Collective Action for
Smallholder Market Access’, Food Policy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–7.
Mizik, T. ( 2021) ‘ Climate- Smart Agriculture on Small-
Scale Farms: A Systematic
Literature Review’, Agronomy, vol. 11, pp. 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy
1106109
Montefrio, M. J. F. and Dressler, W. H. (2019) ‘Declining Food Security in a Philippine Oil
Palm Frontier: The Changing Role of Cooperatives’, Development and Change, vol. 50,
no. 5, pp. 1342–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12443
Mutimura, M. and Ghimire, S. (2020) ‘Brachiaria Grass for Sustainable Livestock Pro-
duction in Rwanda Under Climate Change’, Handbook of Climate Change Management:
Research, Leadership, Transformation, pp. 1–17.
Mutenje, M., Kankwamba, H., Mangisonib, J. and Kassie, M. (2016) ‘Agricultural Innova-
tions and Food Security in Malawi: Gender Dynamics, Institutions and Market Impli-
cations’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 103, pp. 240–248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.004
Mwangi, M. and Kariuki, S. (2015) ‘Factors Determining Adoption of New Agricultural
Technology by Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries’, Journal of Economics and
Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 208–216. ISSN 2222–2855
Nagothu, U.S. (2015) ‘The Future of Food Security: Summary and Recommendations’,
In: Nagothu, U.S. (ed.) Food Security and Development: Country Case Studies. London:
Routledge, p. 274.
Nagothu, U.S. (2018) Agricultural Development and Sustainable intensification: Technology and
Policy Challenges in the Face of Climate Change. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781138300590.
Njarui, D.M.G., Gatheru, M. and Ghimire, S. R. (2020) ‘Brachiaria Grass for Climate
Resilient and Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya’, In: Leal Filho, W. et al. (eds.)
African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation. Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 1–22.
Njarui, D.M.G., Gichangi, E.M., Ghimire, S.R. and Muinga, R.W. (2016) Climate Smart
Brachiaria Grass for Improving Livestock Production in East Africa – Kenya Experiences.
Nairobi: Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, p. 271. https://
cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/79797
Norton, G.W. and Alwang, J. (2020) ‘Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications
for Farmer Adoption of New Practices’, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 8 –20. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13008
Obi, A. and Maya, O. (2021) ‘Innovative Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices
in the Smallholder Farming System of South Africa’. Available at: https://www.mdpi.
com/2071-1050/13/12/6848
Poulton, C., Kydd, J. and Dorward, A. (2006). Overcoming Market Constraints on Pro-
Poor Agricultural Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review, vol. 24,
no. 3, pp. 243–277.
Raj R. and Nagothu, U.S. (2016) ‘Gendered Adaptation to Climate Change in Canal-
irrigated Agroecosystems’. In: Nagothu, U.S. (ed.) Climate Change and Agricultural
Development Improving Resilience through Climate Smart Agriculture, Agroecology and
Conservation. New York: Routledge, pp. 259–278, ISBN: 978-1-138–92227-3.
Rockstrom, J. and Barron J. (2007) ‘Water Productivity in Rainfed Systems: Overview of
Challenges and Analysis of Opportunities in Water Scarcity Prone Savannahs’, Irriga-
tion Science, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 299–311.
Scialabba, N. E. H. and Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010) ‘Organic Agriculture and Climate
Change’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 158–169.
Scopel, E., Da Silva, F. A., Corbeels, M., Affholder, F. and Maraux, F. (2004) ‘Modelling
Crop Residue Mulching Effects on Water Use and Production of Maize Under Semi-arid
and Humid Tropical Conditions’, Agronomie, vol. 24, no. 6 –7, pp. 383–395.
Verderosa, D. ( 2021) ‘New Hub Promotes Farmer Producer Organizations in India’.
Available at: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/09/new-hub-promotes-farmer-producer-
organizations-india
Vohland, K. and Barry, B. (2009) ‘A Review of In Situ Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Prac-
tices Modifying Landscape Functions in African Drylands’, Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, vol. 131, no. 3–4, pp. 119–127.
Wiggins, S. and Keats, S. (2013) ‘Leaping and Learning: Linking Smallholders to Mar-
kets’. Available at: https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/africanagriculturaldevelopment/Pu
blic/LeapingandLearning_FINAL.pdf
Wijk, J., Vellema S. and van Wijk, J. (2010) Institutions, Partnerships and Institutional
Change: Towards a Theoretical Framework. No. 009. Partnerships Resource Centre.
Wiyo, K. A., Kasomekera, Z. M. and Feyen, J. (2000) ‘Effect of Tied Ridging on Soil Water
Status of a Maize Crop Under Malawi Conditions’, Agricultural Water Management,
vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(99)00103-1
World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5990
Woodhill, A.J. and van Vugt, S.M. (2011) ‘Facilitating MSPs: a sustainable way of changing
power relations?’ In: Guidebook for MSP Facilitation (pp. 36–56). Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
10 Enhancing and scaling climate-
neutral and resilient farming
systems
A summary and recommendations
Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
Introduction
Since the early 2000s, the debate about the carbon neutrality concept and its
role in managing the risks and reducing the vulnerabilities in the land and the
food system has drawn the attention of scientific community and policy makers
(Becker et al., 2020). At the same time, the awareness and demand for sustainable
and green products is gradually increasing among urban consumers and society at
large. Climate-neutral and resilient farming systems (CNRFS) must gradually re-
place the current systems that are intensive, polluting and unsustainable (IPCC,
2022). In fact, CNRFS are not only beneficial to the climate but could also be
motivating to the farmers if incentivized for the carbon credits they generate in
the process of adopting them. Studies show that farms can offer a huge potential
for reducing methane emissions and increasing carbon sequestration, and thereby
support global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) (OECD, 2019;
Lehner and Rosenborg, 2021).
However, science and technology alone cannot stop global warming. It must be
supported by appropriate policies and regulatory systems, political will, collective
stakeholder responsibility, wider support from the public at large, adequate invest-
ments to promote systematic implementation and scaling of c limate-neutral (or
carbon-neutral) and sustainable production systems (UNFCCC, 2019a). There is
no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to address climate crisis. We need a mosaic of climate
adaptation and mitigation options that will suit different situations, where the
environmental, social and economic contexts and vulnerabilities are duly con-
sidered (OECD, 2021a). The measures, preferably, should include the old, current
and new ones, the ecosystem-based practices that farmers practiced, rethinking
the use of agrochemicals and replacing these with b io-based solutions, including
precision-based applications of inputs (IPCC, 2022). In a recent ‘Farming for the
Future’ report, the authors emphasized that achieving climate neutrality in agri-
culture is not only about climate but aiming toward a sustainable food production
regime based on principles of resource efficiency, productivity and farm profitabil-
ity (SIANI, 2020a). The sustainable food systems approach aims at strengthening
the entire value chain, changing not only the way we produce but also how we
consume and avoid food wastage.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003273172-10
192 Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
The Glasgow COP26 summit agreement to reduce GHG emissions is encour-
aging (UNEP, 2021). However, the deal in its current form may not be enough
to limit global warming to 1.5°C over p re-industrial levels. At the same time,
the roadmap for the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of several
countries falls short of the expectations, according to the analysis of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2021). Though climate-related agree-
ments were made in the past, countries have not managed to put them into action
due to various constraints. Only if countries or regions can see climate crises as
an opportunity to innovate, create jobs, and cooperate with each other to reduce
climate instability and human insecurity, can we be hopeful about the future cli-
mate action (OECD, 2009)? Initiatives like the Horizon Europe program and the
EU Farm to Fork Strategy are good examples of how innovation and cooperation
can help to drive climate action forward (EU, 2021). Using market and economic
instruments and putting a price on the carbon and emission reductions in the
agriculture sector would encourage farmers to adopt CNRFS.
The impact of COVID-19 on economy and food security and the prevailing
geopolitical conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe and parts of Africa will
make it even more challenging for governments to prioritize, cooperate and sup-
port the global climate agenda (OECD, 2021b). The concern is not only about de-
veloping nations but also about developed countries, which are the major sources
of GHG emissions, not fulfilling their commitments and making adequate invest-
ments. It is crucial that the major GHG emitters, in terms of the total emissions as
well as the per capita emissions, must come on board and cooperate for the global
climate good (UNCTAD, 2021). Advocacy and diplomacy using the existing in-
ternational bodies and forums such as the UNEP, the EU, the IPCC, the COP
summits and other platforms must be continuously pursued to engage countries
that are not willing to take climate action seriously (IPCC, 2021).
The IPCC report provided a more detailed regional assessment of impact
of climate change, concluding that it is already affecting every region on the
Earth (IPCC, 2021). The growing scientific evidence about climate change must
be taken seriously by politicians and bureaucrats. Their support now to promote
CNRFS to improve adaptation and reduce GHG emissions will define the future
of our climate action. Though the limited funding opportunities in developing
countries will force governments to follow the economic agenda rather than in-
vest in climate action, there is still hope. One way to address this challenge is
by ensuring that development work is ‘climate proofed’ and that climate action
is to be development oriented (SIPRI, 2019). In this way, the environmental and
climate priorities no longer need to be put secondary on the development agenda
of the countries.
Optimism about climate change mitigation

Keywords for driving climate action are appropriate technology innovations
and sharing the knowledge, multi-stakeholder cooperation, training and capac-
ity building, financing and transparency in reporting and supportive policies
Summary and recommendations 193
(UNFCCC, 2019b). There are positive initiatives already in place, from inter-
national to national actions being undertaken, accompanied by increased com-
mitment to investments. Though it is still not adequate, we need more rapid
transformation. The EU has been in the forefront when it comes to climate ac-
tion supportive policy and implementation (Delbeke and Vis, 2016). For example,
the EU Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) strategic plans
have set t ime-bound targets to achieve climate neutrality in agricultural produc-
tion by 2050 (European Commission, 2021; EEA, 2021). Such political and eco-
nomic commitments to innovative action, research and development is the key
to drive the climate action forward. The initiatives also put emphasis on sharing
knowledge and networking among stakeholders for promoting upscaling of the
innovations. Similar initiatives in the energy sector in India, China and South
Africa are driving action toward renewable energy transformation by large-scale
investments in solar and wind power (UNFCCC, 2017).
Despite the disagreements, some of the commitments made at the 2021 Glas-
gow COP26 summit are promising (United Nations, 2021), including (i) the US-
and EU-led commitment by over 100 countries to slash 30% methane emissions
by 2030; (ii) promoting nature-based solutions to reduce GHG emissions and re-
duce global warming; and (iii) ending deforestation by 2030 as pledged by 120
countries. To achieve the set targets for the three agreements, it is vitally impor-
tant to ensure technology sharing, ensure genuine cooperation among the coun-
tries and provide the climate finance pledged by developed countries to support
carbon economy for the benefit of millions of smallholders involved in agriculture
and forestry sectors in developing countries. Integrating gender and youth in the
process, especially, their role in the intended NDCs, cannot be ignored in the
process (The Commonwealth, 2021). Any gender mainstreaming attempt must be
accompanied by planning and instigating gender response budgeting and follow-
u p. There is growing recognition of the role of gender in climate action (IISD,
2019a). The year 2030 is also the year when the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) will have to be achieved, especially, to curb poverty, achieve Zero Hunger
and secure the planet’s future (UN, 2020). In this regard, climate action invest-
ments could be seen as an opportunity to address the entire SDG agenda.
Transition to carbon neutrality in agriculture

Transition to carbon neutrality in small-scale agriculture is not an easy goal with
governments facing various challenges already due to economic and climate crisis
as discussed in Chapter 1. We need to make a start somewhere, by supporting
changes in farming practices at different levels. Practices that can effectively im-
prove efficiency of soil, water, pest and overall crop management, and at the same
time improve adaptation and mitigation to climate change by reducing GHG
emissions and increasing carbon in the soils (IGI, 2021). Simple and low-cost
carbon-neutral farming solutions can make a large impact in the agriculture sec-
tor. Disparate chapters in this book demonstrated the climate adaptation and
mitigation benefits of precision soil, nutrient and water resources management,
integrated pest management, climate-resilient systems of sustainable rice inten-
sification, direct sowing of rice and agroecology-based practices that provide
multiple benefits that are suitable for implementation on small farms with low in-
vestments. The focus of the book has been mostly on rice, drawing evidence from
authors’ own experiences, multi-country and -stakeholder action research and de-
velopment initiatives, observed field data and results from other relevant studies.
As majority of the farms globally are small scale in nature, smallholders prac-
ticing CNRFS must be incentivized properly for their efforts to reduce emissions
from the agriculture sector. My own work and experiences during the last 25 years
in Asia and Africa and other similar studies have shown that investments and
support for c limate-neutral agricultural production for smallholders are limited
(Nagothu et al., 2018; IFAD, 2021). For that matter, support for smallholders to
reduce emissions is still absent in many countries and promoting the adoption
of CNRFS on the ground and at scale is far from ideal in the current reality.
For example, in African countries such as Malawi and Zambia, incentives in the
agriculture sector are mostly restricted to fertilizer subsidies for maize production
alone as discussed in Chapter 8. In these countries, the government priority is
to ensure food security primarily by increasing maize production. This is similar
in many other countries in Africa, where governments are constrained with re-
sources, and agriculture is based on subsistence production to meet farm house-
holds’ own consumption. In South and Southeast Asia, the situation is different,
with governments subsidizing the farmers for the use of seeds, water, fertilizers
and electricity (ADB, 2021). Gradually, we are seeing regulations and incentives
being introduced in countries such as India, Vietnam, Thailand and Japan for ef-
ficient use of water and reduced use of chemicals in agriculture, to improve overall
efficiency and productivity, in addition to the promotion of more environment
friendly production systems, including organic farming.
For successful climate mitigation, smallholders need timely access to technol-
ogy, capacity building, affordable and quality seeds, market access, fair prices for
their products and economic incentives for implementing the CNRFS. Interven-
tions in agriculture to increase climate adaptation and mitigation do not need to
be linked to high technology in all cases as demonstrated in the book.
The final chapter begins with an introduction and briefing on the current op-
portunities and constraints for climate action, followed by a section with main
messages from each of the book chapters. The chapter summarizes factors that
are necessary for promoting CNRFS based on results and discussion from the
book chapters. The focus is on technology, investments, stakeholder cooperation
and policy options necessary for enhancing and scaling the adoption of CNRFS.
Brief summaries of chapters

hapter 1 presented an overview of the current climate crisis, major sources of
C
GHG emissions, and impacts from the agriculture sector contributing to global
warming. Further, the chapter discussed the challenges in reducing GHG emis-
sions from the agriculture sector and the major changes required in the agriculture
sector if the impact due to climate change is to be limited to 1.5°C target. The
solutions to overcome the challenges must be designed for different agroecological
settings, and implemented at different scales, both for developed and developing
countries, for large-and small-scale farms, and should be sustainable, environ-
mentally, socially and economically. The chapter discussed the possible pathways
for a transition toward sustainable CNRFS, and toward the end provided a brief
outline of the book.
In Chapter 2, the authors focused on the importance of precision-based soil and
nutrient management practices tested on rice farms in the eastern part of India
and the potential for reducing GHG emissions and increasing soil organic carbon.
This is highly relevant for countries such as India, Vietnam, Myanmar, Bang-
ladesh and Thailand with large areas under rice production where the use of
excess amounts of fertilizer and other chemicals, especially the nitrogen fertilizer,
is a serious problem for the environment and health of people. The chapter has
shown the importance and benefits of using tools ranging from the simple leaf
color chart to innovative digital tools and their relevance to improve nutrient use
efficiency. The chapter toward the end provided guidelines and policy recommen-
dations for upscaling precision soil and nutrient management in rice systems and
other related food crops.
The importance of water management and its role in mitigation of GHG emis-
sions in the Asian region was the focus in C hapter 3. Efficient water manage-
ment is required to suppress the emission of methane from paddy fields, which is
the major source of methane in agriculture. In addition, water saving is possible
through improved water management as water resources are becoming scarce due
to climate change and extreme weather. According to the authors, alternate wet-
ting and drying (AWD) is a promising water management method for reducing
methane emissions from paddy rice and at the same time improving water use
efficiency. This is possible with the alteration in redox state of soil through AWD.
Although its methane-reducing and w ater-saving effects were demonstrated by
previous studies, AWD is not widely practiced in rice growing regions in Asia due
to associated constraints. To implement and realize the benefits of AWD at a sys-
temic level, it is necessary to manage the irrigation system collectively by farmers
(e.g., water users’ group). AWD is not possible without cooperation between farmer
organizations and government agencies, which is necessary for joint monitoring
of water release and supply. The chapter discussed in detail the practical AWD
implementation through ‘block-wise distribution’ system of water supply managed
by water users’ group themselves in the paddy district of the Red River Delta area
in Vietnam. Specifically, the effects on methane emission and rice yield, as well as
the limitations for AWD were analyzed. In addition, the institutional and tech-
nical measures supporting organizational and environmental friendly agricultural
water management necessary for upscaling AWD were discussed.
Pests and diseases are a serious challenge to crop production, which will be
impacted by climate change and temperature fluctuations that can result in new
outbreaks. Currently, chemical control dominates the pest management pro-
grams worldwide in agriculture. Chapter 4 provided a comprehensive review of
various integrated pest management (IPM) measures in rice in combination with
nature-based or agroecosystem-based interventions, physical, cultural and bio-
logical practices that provide additional benefits toward conserving biodiversity,
ecosystem services and climate change mitigation. The chapter illustrated the
importance of climate-smart and sustainable IPM and the potential ecological,
economic and social sustainability impacts it can generate. The chapter discussed
the relevance of threshold-based and spatially targeted application of pesticides
supported by digital tools and models. A key factor to bridge gaps between scien-
tific knowledge and practical implementation of IPM measures is the continuous
involvement, training and co-designing of solutions with farmer communities
and other stakeholders, using approaches such as the FAO farmer field schools.
The chapter presented some examples of IPM from an ongoing field project in
India and the multiple benefits they can generate in rice.
In Chapter 5, the authors analyzed the role of agroecological based climate-
s mart rice farming systems with focus on system of rice intensification (SRI) in cli-
mate adaptation and mitigation. Modern agriculture contributes significantly to
climate change through methane production, with paddy rice production being a
major source. However, there is a potential to reduce the negative impact through
SRI. Methane emission from flooded rice fields can be reduced up to 5 0–70% by
applying certain practices such as reduced density in planting combined with
AWD irrigation cycles. At the same time, the SRI intervention can increase yield
by encouraging aerobic soil conditions, improving soil health and stimulating
root systems. The latter creates opportunity for additional carbon sequestration.
However, there are disagreements within the scientific community regarding the
extent of benefits of SRI.
Rice fields host, both above and below ground, a rich diversity of species, and
are a source of multiple ecosystem goods and services that are vital for producing
healthy plants and enhancing yield. Smallholder rice farmers, responsible for the
bulk of global rice production, can play a major role as custodians and manag-
ers of the largest human-made wetlands and the biodiversity conserved within
these agroecosystems. But to realize these benefits, a major transition must take
place in rice paddy cultivation – moving away from the current predominantly
extractive and exploitative models and shifting toward regenerative methods of
agriculture production. Chapter 5 provided a conceptual framework for optimiz-
ing the management of ecosystem goods and services reflected in the biodiversity
contained in healthy rice paddy fields. It described existing successful examples of
rural communities empowered to appreciate and responsibly manage rice produc-
tion landscapes and their in situ biodiversity. The chapter outlined the enabling
environment toward a more sustainable intensification of rice production at land-
scape, national and global levels. Such a transformation aligns with the actions
called for in the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and will assist
in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.
In Asian countries, rice is commonly grown by transplanting seedlings in pud-
dled soils which is labor-, water-and energy-intensive practice. Moreover, the pud-
dling operation deteriorates the soil physical structure, which adversely affects the
performance of succeeding crops. The increasing water demand and labor scarcity
needs a major shift from conventional puddled transplanted rice to direct seeding
of rice (DSR), especially in the irrigated ecosystems. C hapter 6 provided a sum-
mary of research findings from the case studies in India that showed significant
benefits of another c limate-smart rice system, namely the direct seeded rice (DSR),
which gives positive outcomes compared to puddled transplanted rice in terms
of (i) increased water productivity if managed properly; (ii) reduction in labor
and production costs; and (iii) lower methane emissions. Nevertheless, there are
challenges for adopting DSR, including poor weed control, availability of suita-
ble climate-tolerant varieties for DSR, increased damage by soil pathogens, and
nutrient disorders, especially nitrogen and micronutrients. Possible solutions to
overcome these challenges that will make it easier for adoption by farmers were
analyzed in Chapter 6. Observed field data and evidence from other studies under
both dry and wet conditions from India and other previous studies were presented
to support the solutions. The options for scaling up DSR supported by farmer
trainings, accessibility to good quality seeds, availability and use of drum seeders
and policy were discussed toward the end.
In Chapter 7, the authors discussed the impacts of current farming systems
in Europe, which are in general intensive, highly specialized and mechanized,
heavily dependent on external input and with no or very low crop rotation op-
tions. This type of farming system model has a negative environmental impact
on water, soil and biodiversity as well as on GHG emissions. Fallow season and
inappropriate crop residues management, with no rotation, low utilization of ma-
nure and organic fertilizers (due to absence of livestock farming in the area), and
intensive soil laboring has led to high soil carbon losses. According to the au-
thors, this could be reversed by adopting proper land management and shifting to
organic production that can contribute to biodiversity and agroecosystem services
improvement. The chapter shared experiences from rice cultivation in northern
Italy, under improved soil and water management, and the mitigation potential
through soil carbon storage enabling rice fields to act as carbon sink. The chapter
presented main findings from their work on carbon-neutral farming solutions to
reduce GHG emissions (including nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers) and
increase carbon sequestration in the soils. The chapter toward the end presented
the EU agricultural policies and climate actions in support of the adoption of
GHG mitigation solutions, which could be a good example for other countries.
Today’s African farming systems are unsustainable, as they rely on high exter-
nal inputs such as water, mineral fertilizers and pesticides to increase agricultural
production. This has resulted in serious degradation of soils, water, biodiversity,
ecosystem services, vulnerable to pests/diseases outbreaks and climate change.
Chapter 8 provided a comprehensive review of literature pertaining to agroeco-
logical (AE) farming approaches/practices and knowledge driven from stakehold-
ers’ and scientific studies. The review identified the major drivers, barriers, gaps
and opportunities of AE practices in the context of African farming systems.
Experiences from Zambia with agroforestry practices in maize were shared in the
chapter. Further, key ecological, social and economic indicators developed in the
countries were also discussed. The chapter analyzed how the AE practices con-
tribute to the reduction of GHG emissions and at the same time address the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), e.g., SDG 2 (food and nutrition security),
SDG 12 (sustainable food production and consumption), SDG 13 (climate action)
and SDG 15 (life on land).
Chapter 9 begins with a brief introduction followed by a conceptual framework
showing the linkages and interactions between different institutional, market
and policy factors affecting adoption of CNRFS in the agriculture sector. The
chapter then discussed the barriers for adoption, which operate at various levels
in the value chains (VCs). The role played by stakeholders (VC actors, farmers
group, research, government agencies and donors) in the farmers’ adoption and
the dynamics and partnerships to be developed between different VC actors for
upscaling CNRFS was analyzed. Experiences from case studies in Africa (Kenya
and Rwanda) were shared demonstrating how strategies to overcome weaknesses
and adoption barriers in the selected value chain together with the support of
multi-actor partnerships. Toward the end, some concluding remarks and policy
recommendations for upscaling CNRFS were provided.
The final chapter in the book summarized the key messages and recommen-
dations from the disparate chapters. The chapter provided the challenges and at
the same time an optimistic note about future climate actions citing some of the
ongoing good initiatives. The possible technical, investment and policy options
necessary for upscaling CNRFS were highlighted toward the end.
Good practices for climate-neutral and resilient agriculture

production
To achieve c limate-neutral and resilient agriculture production, the governments,
together with relevant stakeholders, must facilitate and improve technical, organ-
izational and investment solutions suitable for different agroecological settings
(INRAE, 2021). A first step in the transition toward sustainable CNRFS will be to
make a good baseline assessment of the current systems, including the strengths
and weaknesses at field/landscape scale, interdependencies, drivers and barriers,
and the opportunities as discussed in Chapter 1. A good baseline data and cor-
responding indicators would be useful for measuring, monitoring and verification
of impacts observed with the introduction of CNRFS. The baseline scenarios
will be useful for the next stage of co-designing combinations of the most effective
solutions, both old and new, that are of low cost and of low risk to smallholders,
targeting soil, water and crop management that are sustainable and agroecosys-
tem based (Dainese et al., 2019). In the process, it is important to have a close
cooperation and active engagement with farmers and relevant value chain actors.
Wherever possible business models for the specific agri-products must be devel-
oped that will give smallholders better access to more rewarding markets.
Table 10.1 provides a list of potential options that are climate resilient and at
the same time have the potential to reduce GHGs. It is the net GHG reduction
and carbon sequestration that should be considered in the overall food system
Table 10.1 A list of farming systems to reduce GHGs, and improve resilience to climate
change
Interventions Practices leading to CNRFS Chapter Implications for climate action
Soil and recision-based soil and

P 2 Improving soil health,
nutrient nutrient management; reducing chemical inputs,
management agroecosystem-based increasing soil organic
measures; apps and digital carbon and reducing
tools supporting precision, GHG emissions
farmer training, farmer
incentives
Water Alternate wetting and drying 3, 5 Increasing water
management in rice use efficiency and
system of rice intensification productivity, and reducing
Institutional support to methane emissions
AWD and SRI upscaling,
participatory extension,
farmer field schools
Integrated pest Habitat management, 4 Reducing pest damage,
management integrating agroecosystem/ reducing the use of
nature-based measures; chemicals, increasing
biological, cultural and yields, protecting
physical control measures; biodiversity and ecosystem
training and capacity services
building of smallholders
in IPM, including through
farmer field schools
Cropping Crop rotations, intercropping, 5, 6, 7, 8 Increasing yields, reducing
systems and agroforestry, system of methane emissions,
climate- rice intensification, direct overall efficiency and
resilient seeding of rice; agro- adaptation
varieties forestry, climate-tolerant
varieties (drought and flood
resistant, nitrogen fixing)
Institutional Multi-actor engagement, 9 Developing business models,
and policy value chains and VC strengthening value
support actors’ integration chains, improving access
to markets and farmer
income
development. A particular farming practice, take for example AWD, may reduce
methane but could lead to higher emissions of other GHGs, such and nitrous ox-
ide, and other negative trade-offs. Hence, care must be taken to look at the overall
environmental, economic and social impacts in totality of the new farming sys-
tems introduced. In theory, it is technically feasible for the agriculture sector to
become close to carbon neutral relying on supply-side mitigation measures alone,
although it depends on optimistic assumptions about the potential of soil carbon
sequestration (OECD, 2019). Within the EU, a target to achieve climate neutrality
in the agriculture sector has been set for the year 2050 (European Commission,
2021). How this can be translated into practice will depend on the changes at
different scales and at individual farm level. The implications to set such objec-
tives in developing countries would be different, as it would involve millions of
small-scale farms that are scattered and difficult to reach and monitor. It will be
a daunting task for the resource-constrained governments to bring a significant
percentage of these farms to change their current farming practices and shift to
CNRFS. Systematic and step-wise building of climate action initiatives starting
with ecosystem or n ature-based solutions will be possible with careful planning,
investments and capacity building. When farmers see the economic incentives,
upscaling becomes easier.
Integration and cooperation

Actions to address climate crisis, with specific efforts to reduce GHG emissions
and global warming, need a well-integrated multidisciplinary approach. Though
multidisciplinary research has been receiving recognition in climate action re-
search in recent years, in practice, it is still a challenge to make scientists work
across their disciplinary silos (Nagothu, 2015). International initiatives such as
the EU Horizon Europe programs are putting emphasis on multidisciplinary or
cross-disciplinary approaches as a necessity for acquiring funding, which makes it
obligatory for scientists to cooperate and work beyond their disciplines (European
Commission, 2021).
At the next level, integration is necessary between scientists and stake-
holders, representing different sectors including relevant government agencies
(agriculture, extension services, environmental agencies), farmer and business or-
ganizations. The science-policy linkage through multi-actor engagement is another
important tool for addressing the climate crisis (Nagothu et al., 2018). It will help
to overcome challenges in science-policy gaps that are mainly related to transla-
tion, communication, time lag, uncertainty and credibility (JPI Climate, 2021).
Chapter 9 demonstrated the importance of multi-actor platforms that help in
encouraging cooperation and thereby better implementation of CNRFS. One way
is through integration of stakeholders into scientific research that will make the
research outputs more relevant to address their needs. At the same time, scientists
must develop solutions that are socially and politically acceptable and consider
the trade-offs resulting from new technologies introduced to reduce GHGs and/or
improve carbon sequestration (Nkiaka and Lovett, 2019). Thus, knowledge co-
c reation with active involvement of stakeholders can make science-policy dia-
logues more purposeful (IISD, 2019b). As discussed in Chapter 1, uncertainty in
science increases skepticism among politicians that could lead to wrong and/or bi-
ased decision-making. Hence, scientists need to make efforts to provide the right
scientific evidence at the right time with accuracy.
Adequate space or platforms for dialogue must be further strengthened and
promoted where stakeholders can meet, exchange and discuss needs, challenges
and options to address climate action. The science-policy interaction platforms
will improve the chances to influence that scientific robustness is not compro-
mised while formulating policies (Howarth and Painter, 2016). Such a dialogue
and cooperation between scientists and policy makers becomes even more rele-
vant, as countries are revising their new climate action plans to be included in
their ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ (NDCs). In the process, transpar-
ency and open dialogue among relevant actors will be in the interest of all parties
(UNFCCC, 2019a,b). Cooperation and sharing knowledge among agencies, at
national and global levels, must further improve for the benefit of the society at
large (International Science Council, 2021; IPCC, 2022). This will be one of the
key factors for promoting climate action globally and motivating the developing
countries that do not have the access to mitigation technologies.
Technology options
There is a lot of focus on technological solutions to reduce GHGs and increase
soil carbon sequestration. We also see a change even in developing countries
where transformation of food systems is happening both on the production and
consumption side (Reardon et al., 2019). Market and consumer preferences for or-
ganic and reduced carbon footprint are encouraging farmers to adopt innovative
CNRFS.
Within agriculture, maintaining soil health is one of the most critical factors
necessary for overall sustainable and carbon-neutral agricultural production. A
first step toward improving soil health is to introduce regular and site-specific soil
testing to assess the status and plan soil improvement measures accordingly. The
‘Soil Health Card’ scheme initiated in India is a good example of how to organize
a nationwide soil testing campaign toward improving soil fertility (Government
of India, 2015). In the process, such measures also aim at improving organic car-
bon content of soil and ecosystem services. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, there
are measures such as minimum or zero tillage, crop rotations with legumes, cover crops
and use of organic mulching that give multiple benefits. Zero tillage is now being
promoted in India by CIP and has shown good results (CGIAR, 2020). C hapter 2
also demonstrated the impacts due to precision application of nitrogen fertilizer
application that can significantly reduce the amount of chemical fertilizer used
and lower GHG emissions. In this context, the use of sensors and digital tools
is becoming popular for guiding farmers on proper timing and precision use and
management of nitrogen application. A need-based application of fertilizers also
reduces excess of fertilizers and input costs to farmers.
An international initiative ‘4 per 1000’, launched at the 2015 Paris climate
conference, showed that increasing soil carbon globally by a mere 0.4% annually
could offset that year’s new growth in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
(Van der Pol, et al., 2021). Most carbon-farming techniques mirror age-old organic
growing methods that have the capacity to contribute to a healthy soil system, for
example, the use of cover crops and organic mulch (Barth, 2016). Cover crops are
common in some countries, which help to capture carbon from the atmosphere
and store it in soils, in addition to adding nutrients (WUR, 2019). These practices
are termed as ‘regenerative agriculture’, which are low-cost solutions to increase
soil organic carbon and are suitable for both small and large farms. Chapter 8
discusses the impacts of systems such as c ereal-legume rotations and integrated
cropping systems on GHG emissions and soil carbon sequestration. According to
some studies, diverse cropping systems alone will be able to sequester soil organic
carbon and increase biodiversity simultaneously (SIANI, 2020a).
Some of the common problems in agriculture including soil erosion, poor soil
health, nutrient removal, and runoff can be controlled by practices that can also
increase soil carbon simultaneously. Soil carbon should be seen as another farm
output, and accordingly incentivizing farmers that help in increasing soil carbon
will be necessary for reducing GHGs and improving soil health and productivity
(van der Pol et al., 2021). Within the EU, financial support mechanisms already
exist to support farmers to practice soil mitigation measures. Studies have shown
that integrating improved farming practices including precision-based fertilizer
application, supported by soil tests, reducing summer fallow frequencies and crop
rotation of cereals with grain legumes, lowers carbon footprint in crops such as
wheat at an average of −256 kg CO2 eq ha−1 per year (Gan et al., 2014). Therefore,
it makes sense to include net-zero farming and carbon capture initiatives to pro-
mote climate mitigation into NDCs (IGI, 2021). Though in practice it may not be
easy to reach net-zero farming levels, we should start somewhere.
One of the basic premises for an integrated approach is a good understanding
of the agroecosystem, which will help in planning and developing most suitable
measures to address the climate crisis. Be it integrated soil and nutrient manage-
ment or pest management, the new measurers must be ecosystem based as well as
climate smart. Developing c limate-smart and sustainable IPM will be a necessary
part of carbon-neutral agriculture as shown in Chapter 4. By reducing damage to
crops from pests and diseases, farmers can sustain yields and thereby reduce pres-
sure on more land for production. C hapter 4 also demonstrated the importance of
IPM as the way forward to combat multiple and new invasive pest outbreaks in the
future due to extreme weather events that are increasing. Some of the IPM meas-
ures are low cost but require additional efforts in terms of collective action where
several agencies and farmers in the locality should cooperate for better results.
Within agriculture, improving water use efficiency and reducing methane
emissions are the two main objectives that are possible through alternative
climate-smart management practices such as the Alternate Wetting and Drying
(AWD) irrigation which was the focus of Chapters 3. Improving the efficiency of
water management in paddy rice will be one of the most important measures in
agriculture to address, as paddy rice is a major contributor of methane. Any cli-
mate action would not be able to reach its targets without significant reduction of
methane from rice and livestock sectors. The SRI and DSR systems (Chapters 5
and 6) have been investigated as potential climate mitigation measures in rice by
several agencies in the past. But the results so far are mixed and still debated by
scientists. These systems have their potential, benefits and challenges at the same
time, depending on agroecosystem in which they are introduced, availability of
suitable rice varieties, weed infestation problems, capacity of farmers, scalability
and so on. Hence, more research and especially development initiatives need to
be pursued to establish the credibility of these systems. The results presented in
Chapters 3, 5 and 6 are thus another attempt in this direction, adding new knowl-
edge and reasons to practice these systems in the major rice growing regions of
Asia. The chapters demonstrated practical measures to overcome some of the
barriers in upscaling.
New hybrids of food crops that can adapt to extreme weather, including floods
and droughts, and simultaneously lower carbon footprint will be in demand in
the future. In Chapter 6, the benefits of such varieties in rice are demonstrated for
DSR. One of the constraints is to m ass-produce the new seed varieties and make
it accessible to smallholders in developing countries. Further, increasing overall
farm productivity would imply a reduction in GHG emissions (Rural Hub, 2021).
Also, DSR in dry fields, rather than transplanting as often done in flooded rice
paddies, will help to significantly improve soil organic carbon if crop rotation
is practiced with legumes. Thus, DSR could be another promising practice in
rice that could play a significant role in climate mitigation as well as soil health
promotion.
There is much emphasis these days on nature-based solutions to address the
climate crisis, i.e., by taking advantage of nature to provide sustainable and c ost-
e ffective solutions to climate problems (SIANI 2020b). For example, organic agri-
culture, agroforestry and other interventions that can improve soil fertility, increase
soil organic carbon and at the same reduce GHGs as discussed in C hapters 7 and
8. Agroforestry is common in many developing countries, practiced by small-
holders, and a potential climate mitigation measure that can provide multiple ad-
vantages and additional income to farmers. Similarly, the importance of organic
agriculture, and the consumer awareness for organic and locally grown products
with reduced water and carbon footprint, is increasing gradually among segments
of society, including the youngsters and urban based consumers.
Nationally Determined Contributions and climate action

An awareness about the multiple benefits of CNRFS discussed so far should be
created among policy makers and planners preparing the NDCs (UNFCCC,
2019a,b). The achievements of NDCs will depend on how the countries plan, im-
plement, follow up and communicate the progress with transparency. The NDC
support program is helping developing countries to reduce GHGs (UNDP, 2021).
It is not only investments per se that are necessary to drive the NDC goals, but
also the prioritization of investments, technology sharing and open communica-
tion. It is crucial that some of the major emitters of GHGs follow their national
commitments, including the USA, China, India, Brazil and others without which
it will be difficult to persuade smaller nations. It is positive to note that more than
70% of the countries have submitted their NDCs by 2021, though most of them
have not started to put them into action. More than 80% of the countries have
agreed to use the international market mechanisms to achieve mitigation goals
by trading carbon credits or offsets with other countries (WRI, 2021). The Article
6 of the Paris Climate Agreement establishes that Parties may elect to cooperate
with other countries, in the process of implementing the NDCs. The Article
thus legitimizes cooperation and opens opportunities for smaller nations that
have funding constraints. Sectors such as agriculture and forestry in developing
countries could benefit from this Article where carbon credits could be traded for
changing agricultural and forestry practices not only to reduce emissions but also
to conserve the tropical forests and biodiversity. Without adequate investments,
it may be difficult to motivate farmers to adopt CNRFS.
Investment options
It is encouraging to know that most scenarios include the likelihood of agricultural
emissions being reduced in the coming decades (Kingwell, 2021). Innovations
in carbon-neutral agriculture and development that enable reduced agricultural
emissions will be critical to lower the cost of achieving and sustaining carbon neu-
trality. The EU Horizon Europe program is a good example of how investments
to support innovative research and development can integrate public and private
sectors, farmer groups and government agencies to drive c limate-neutral agenda
forward (European Commission, 2021). Innovations that will be developed un-
der this program will be made open for use by relevant stakeholders within and
outside the EU. Similar initiatives outside the EU are necessary to engage with
relevant actors, share knowledge and cooperate on climate action. International
funding facilities such as the Climate Support Facility (CSF) seek to align the
green economic recovery efforts with the national climate goals and climate-
r esilient strategies they adopt in different sectors (World Bank, 2021). Under the
CSF, the new multi-donor trust fund, the NDC Support Facility (NDC-SF), was
created specifically to facilitate the NDCs. Similarly, the NDC Invest and the
Climate Investments Fund support climate action in the low-and middle-income
Latin American and Caribbean countries (Fazekas et al., 2021).
The role of private sector, including philanthropic groups and individuals and
corporate sector, will be important to secure adequate climate financing, as gov-
ernments alone cannot provide the necessary resources for meeting the costs of
mitigation in the agriculture sector. For example, the ‘Climate Change Solutions
Fund’ set up at J.P. Morgan is another attempt to facilitate climate action (J.P.
Morgan, 2022). Innovative business models that are sustainable and provide eco-
nomic benefits to smallholders who adopt CNRFS must be developed for different
business settings. In this process, e co-innovation will become the key to enabling
a sustainable transition and green growth in the future by encompassing both
economic and environmental values (OECD, 2012). Currently, the pace of these
innovations is not adequate to drive the desired changes.
Assessing carbon storage and GHG emission reductions

Soil carbon sequestration and GHG emission reductions from the implementa-
tion of CNRFS will depend on several factors, including soil type, management
capabilities of farmers and incentives that follow. Quantification of GHG emis-
sions and soil carbon will be required to provide the benefits to farmers that are
responsible for mitigation efforts. Since agriculture is a nonpoint source with dis-
persed biological emissions, criteria used in the energy markets to estimate carbon
credits don’t fit with agriculture. Standard and measurable indicators are to be
developed for agriculture and forestry sectors and supported by easy-to-use robust
models that will make it easier for monitoring and measurement. Harmonized
and transparent methodologies, including remote monitoring systems for meas-
urement and reporting of GHGs and sinks in different farming systems, as well
as tools to support decision-making at farm and landscape level will be necessary
(EIP-AGRI, 2021).
There are already some scientific models that provide values for different soil
and climatic conditions, but more research and development must be taken up
to develop new tools that can be used on small farms (WUR, 2019). The values
should also reflect the time scale for storage based on which credits can be esti-
mated. A built-in system to issue carbon credits and payments must be incorpo-
rated so that big and small farmers are part of the carbon economy in the future.
Such an integrated system to measure soil carbon, GHG emission reductions and
estimate the corresponding total or net carbon credits will be challenging but
necessary for the agriculture and forestry sectors due to the multiple factors that
influence the emissions in these sectors and the trade-offs that must be taken into
consideration.
What can motivate farmers?

Without economic gains farmers will not be motivated to implement CNRFS.
Better price for their products, incentives for implementing CNRFS that may
lead to additional costs in production, insurance and risk coverage where needed,
ready access to seeds and other inputs, access to technology and capacity build-
ing would be necessary. It is important to communicate potential co-benefits
(rather than opportunities to earn compensation or carbon credits) and long-
t erm benefits to increase farmers’ engagement in carbon sequestration activities
(Dumbrella et al., 2015). Farmers will face multiple challenges while changing
the farming practices, for example, to change tillage, adopt new crop rotations,
manure-and residue-management practices; and at the same time deal with risks
from climate and extreme weather and unstable markets for their products (WRI,
2019). The dispersed nature and size of smallholders’ farms will make it even
more challenging for practical implementation of CNRFS and measurements of
emission reductions unless there are easy-to-use monitoring and reporting mech-
anisms and adequate incentives that might accelerate the transition to carbon-
n
eutral production (Lowder et al., 2016). In his study, Gullickson (2021) reported
that diverse views prevail among farmers regarding climate change and chang-
ing farming practices to reduce GHG emissions. However, carbon credits and
integrating farmers into carbon markets may help to bridge diverse views and
motivate farmers.
Conclusions and way forward
The next leap we take to improve agricultural productivity must be carefully
planned keeping sustainability as the central focus, combining nature-based and
technology-based solutions, addressing both climate adaptation and mitigation
simultaneously. Reviving some of the simple, low-cost and old agricultural prac-
tices based on indigenous knowledge systems together with the newly introduced
technologies must pave the way forward to build a CNRFS structure suitable for
different farm sizes, big and small, and different agroecological settings. It must
be accompanied by a systemic upscaling approach, farmer organization, gender
integration and collective action at different levels.
Investments to support the climate action must be effectively used, pooling re-
sources, bringing different agencies (agriculture, forestry, energy) and sectors (public
and private) together to cooperate, creating common infrastructure and work un-
der one umbrella wherever possible. As discussed earlier, countries must see climate
crisis as an opportunity for innovation action and address the challenges through
development programs that could be ‘climate proofed’ rather than waiting for new
programs and investments. In this way, the environmental and climate priorities
no longer need to be put secondary on the development agenda. Every country
should prepare a clear climate strategy and w ell-developed evidence-based NDCs
highlighting climate actions, and detailed plans for implementing them.
Furthermore, innovative research and development initiatives must be pro-
moted by governments and international agencies to explore new solutions and
at the same time provide common platforms for sharing the knowledge developed
and collectively addressing the climate crisis. In this way, duplication of efforts
to develop research and knowledge can be avoided so that the limited funding is
efficiently used by countries and all actors in the climate action.
Farmers, especially smallholders in developing countries, must be given access
to necessary inputs, training and knowledge, and included in the carbon econ-
omy, thereby incentivizing their efforts to reduce GHGs. Countries need to in-
crease their transparency in the implementation of CNRFS, measuring reporting
and verification systems for emissions from agriculture and forestry sectors that
are difficult to monitor. As most of us agree, our actions today both at individual
and collective levels in addressing the climate crisis will determine the future of
the humanity and the planet.
References
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2021) ‘Transforming agriculture in Asia’. Available
at: https://w ww.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/726556/ado2021-update-t heme-
chapter.pdf
Barth, B. ( 2016) ‘ Carbon farming: Hope for a Hot Planet’. Available at: https://
modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/
Becker, S., Chameeva, T.B. and Jaegler, A. (2020) ‘The carbon neutrality principle:
A case study in the French spirits sector’. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0959652620327864
CGIAR (2020) ‘Zero tillage to reduce air pollution in India’. Available at: https://www.
cgiar.org/innovations/zero-tillage-to-reduce-air-pollution-in-india/
Dainese, M., Martin, E.A., Aizen, M.A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R. and
Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2019) ‘A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for
crop production’, Science Advances, vol. 5(10), pp. 121.
Delbeke, J. and Vis, P. (2016) ‘EU Climate Policy Explained’. Available at: https://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/clima/system/files/2017-02/eu_climate_policy_explained_en.pdf
Dumbrella, N.P., Kragtabc, M.E. and Gibsonab, F.L. ( 2015) ‘What carbon farm-
ing activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey’. Available at:
https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/35085559/AAM_What_
carbon_farming_activities.pdf
EIP-AGRI (2021) ‘EIP-AGRI Workshop Towards carbon neutral agriculture’. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eip-agri_ws_carbon_neutral_agri-
culture_final_report_2021_en_lr.pdf
European Commission (2021) ‘Horizon Europe’. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/
research-a nd-i nnovation/f unding/f unding-opportunities/f unding-programmes-a nd-
open-calls/horizon-europe_en
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2021) ‘Nature-based solutions in Europe: Policy,
knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction’.
Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications
Fazekas, A., Puig, J. and Salinas, A.G. (2021) ‘How are NDC INVEST and the CIF
supporting countries to reach their climate goals?’. Available at: https://blogs.iadb.
org/sostenibilidad/en/ how-a re-ndc-i nvest-a nd-t he-cif-supporting-countries-to-reach-
their-climate-goals/
Gan, Y., Liang, C., Chai, Q., Lemke, R.L., Campbell, C.A. and Zenter, R.P. (2014)
‘Improving farming practices reduces the carbon footprint of spring wheat production’.
Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6012
Government of India (2015) ‘Soil Health Card’. Available at: https://www.soilhealth.dac.
gov.in/
Gullickson, G. (2021) ‘How carbon may become another crop for farmers’. Available at:
https://w ww.agriculture.com/farm-management/programs-a nd-policies/how-carbon-
may-become-another-crop-for-farmers
Howarth, C. and Painter, J. (2016) ‘Exploring the science–policy interface on climate
change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK’, Palgrave
Communications, vol. 2, pp. 16058.
IFAD (2021) ‘Examining the climate finance gap for small-scale agriculture’. Available
at: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/42157470/climate-finance-gap_smallscale_
agr.pdf/34b2e25b-7572-b31d-6d0c-d5ea5ea8f96f
IGI (2021) ‘IGI Launches New Research in Net-Zero Farming and Carbon Capture’. Avail-
able at: https://innovativegenomics.org/news/net-zero-farming-carbon-capture/
IISD (2019a) ‘Why gender matters in climate change adaptation’. Available at: https://
www.iisd.org/articles/gender-climate-change
IISD (2019b) ‘Strengthening science-policy interface can help meet climate, sustainable
development goals’. Available at: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/strengthening-science-policy-
interface-can-help-meet-climate-sustainable-development-goals/
International Science Council ( 2021) ‘ Four considerations for accelerating progress
on climate change at the science- policy interface’. Available at: https:// council.
science/current/ blog/accelerating-progress-on-climate-change-at-t he-science-policy-
interface/
INRAE (2021) ‘For more climate neutral and c limate-resilient farms across Europe’. Avail-
able at: https://www.inrae.fr/en/news/more-climate-neutral-and-climate-resilient-farms-
across-europe
IPCC (2021) ‘Climate change widespread, rapid and intensifying’. Available at: https://
www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
IPCC (2022) ‘Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Available at:
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
JPI Climate (2021) ‘Integrating science into climate change policy making: An overview
of inspiring real-world practices’. Available at: http://www.jpi-climate.eu/media/default.
aspx/emma/org/10903832/SINCERE+WP3+-+Best+Practice+Science+Policy+def.pdf
Kingwell, R. (2021) ‘Making agriculture carbon neutral amid a changing climate: the case
of South-Western Australia’. Land, vol. 10, pp. 1259.
Lehner, P.H. and Rosenberg, N.A. (2021) ‘Farming for our future: The science, law,
and policy of climate-neutral agriculture’. Available at: https://www.eli.org/eli-press-
books/farming-our-future-science-law-and-policy-climate-neutral-agriculture
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. and Raney, T. (2016) ‘The number, size, and distribution of farms,
smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide’, World Development, vol. 87, pp.16–29.
Morgan, J.P. ( 2022) ‘ Climate change solutions fund’. Available at: https:// am.jp-
morgan.com/n o/e n/a sset- m anagement/a dv/i nvestment- t hemes/s ustainable-
investing/capabilities/climate-change-solutions-fund
Nagothu, U.S. (2015) The future of food Security: summary and recommendations. In:
Nagothu, U.S. (ed.) Food Security and Development: country case studies. London: Rou-
tledge, pp. 274.
Nagothu, U.S., Bloem, E. and Andrew B. (2018) ‘Agricultural development and sustaina-
ble intensification: technology and policy innovations’, In: Nagothu, U.S (ed.) Agricul-
tural Development and Sustainable Intensification, Technology and Policy Challenges in the
Face of Climate Change, London: Routledge, pp. 1–22.
Nkiaka, E. and Lovett, J.C. (2019) ‘Strengthening the science-policy interface for climate
adaptation: stakeholder perceptions in Cameroon’, Regional Environmental Change, vol.
19: pp. 1047–1057.
OECD (2009) ‘Integrating climate change adaptation into development cooperation’.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/44887764.pdf
OECD (2012) ‘The future of e co-innovation: the role of business models in green transfor-
mation’. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/49537036.pdf
OECD (2019) ‘Enhancing climate change mitigation through agriculture’. Available at:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/16af156c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/
16af156c-en
OECD (2021a) ‘International programme for action on climate change’. Available at: https://
www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/the-annual-climate-action-monitor-5bcb405c/
OECD, (2021b) ‘Enhancing climate change mitigation through agriculture’. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/publications/enhancing-the-mitigation-of-climate-change-though-
agriculture-e9a79226-en.htm
Reardon, T., Echeverria, R., Berdegué, J., Minten, B., Liverpool-Tasie, S., Tschirley, D.
and Zilberman, D. (2019) ‘Rapid transformation of food systems in developing regions:
Highlighting the role of agricultural research & innovations’, Agricultural Systems, vol.
172, pp. 47–59.
Rural Hub (2021) ‘Practical ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions from farms’. Available
at: https://r ural.struttandparker.com/a rticle/practical-ways-to-cut-g reenhouse-gas-
emissions-from-farms/
SIANI (2020a) ‘Seven way to make crop production climate neutral’. Available at: https://
www.siani.se/news-story/seven-ways-to-make-crop-production-climate-neutral/
SIANI (2020b) ‘Nature based solutions – tools to manage the climate crisis’. Available
at: https://www.siani.se/news-story/nature-based-solutions-parts-of-the-solution-to-the-
climate-crisis/
SIPRI (2019) ‘Climate crisis in times of geopolitical crises: what ways forward?’. Availa-
ble at: https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2019/climate-security-times-geopolitical-
crises-what-ways-forward
The Commonwealth (2021) ‘Gender integration for climate action: a review of common-
wealth member country nationally determined contributions’. Available at: https://
thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/Gender.pdf
UNCTAD (2021) ‘Carbon emissions anywhere threaten development everywhere’. Avail-
able at: https://unctad.org/news/carbon-emissions-anywhere-threaten-development-
everywhere
UNEP (2021) ‘Climate Action’. Available at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/
story/cop26-ends-agreement-falls-short-climate-action
UNFCCC (2017) ‘China and India lead global energy transition’. Available at: https://
unfccc.int/news/china-and-india-lead-global-renewable-energy-transition
UNFCCC (2019a) ‘Climate action and support trends’. Available at: https://unfccc.int/
sites/default/files/resource/Climate_Action_Support_Trends_2019.pdf
UNFCCC (2019b) ‘NDC Spotlight’. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-
agreement/nationally-determined-contributions/ndc-spotlight
United Nations ( 2020) ‘ Sustainable Development Goals’. Available at: https:// www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/
UNDP (2021) ‘NDC Support Program’. Available at: https://www.ndcs.undp.org/content/
ndc-support-programme/en/home.html
United Nations (2021) ‘COP 26 A snapshot of the agreement’. Available at: https://unric.
org/en/cop26-a-snapshot-of-the-agreement/
Van der Pol, L., Manning, D., Cotrufo, F. and Machmuller, M. (2021) ‘To make ag-
riculture more climate friendly, carbon farming needs clear rules’. Available at:
https://t heconversation.com/t o- m ake- a griculture- m ore- climate- f riendly- c arbon-
farming-needs-clear-rules-160243
World Bank, ( 2021) ‘ NDC Support Facility’. Available at: https:// www.worldbank.
org/en/programs/ndc-support-facility
WRI (2019) ‘Reduce Greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture’. Available at: https://
research.wri.org/w rr- food/c ourse/r educe- g reenhouse- g as- e missions- a gricultural-
production-synthesis
WRI (2021) ‘National climate action under the Paris agreement’. Available at: https://
www.wri.org/ndcs
WUR (2019) ‘Farmers working on climate neutral agriculture’. Available at: https://www.
wur.nl/en/show/farmers-working-on-climateneutral-agriculture.htm
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the contributors of the various book chapters, particu-
larly the lead authors who have spent their time in coordinating and drafting the
chapters. This book would not have been possible without the support from the
Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway.
The support from my wife Shanthi, daughter Shreya and my son Sankalp dur-
ing the drafting and compilation process helped me to complete the book on
time, despite the challenges we faced at home during this period. Finally, I want
to acknowledge the inspiration I have got from my late father who passed away in
November 2020 when I just started to prepare the book manuscript.
Index
Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to figures and page
numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes.
absolute emissions 7 and analysis 154–155; definition and

aerobic rhizosphere 91–93, 99 concepts of 148; dimensions of 148,
agricultural innovations 170; access to 148; ecological dimensions of 161–162;
information and knowledge about 173; elements and implications for practice
diffusion of 170; scaling up of 186 149, 150, 165; inadequate policy
Agricultural Mechanization Strategy for support, gender integration, multi-
Rwanda policy 183 actor partnerships 151; insufficient
agricultural trade 9 investments on research 151; labour
agriculture sector: carbon neutrality costs 151; lack of awareness and
transition in 193–194; climate knowledge about 150–151; lack of
action and sustainable development evidence on interactive effects 151;
goals 10; common problems in 202; optimal combinations of practices/
as contributor to GHG emissions approaches 160, 160; principles of 165;
3–4; in EU, GHG emissions from SDGs of United Nations 148, 149;
128–129; investment solutions 7–8; socio-economic dimension of 163–164;
policy solutions 8–10; soil biodiversity soil health assessment 155–157, 156
conservation in 75; technological agroecology-based sustainable paddy
solutions 5–7 systems 101
agri-silviculture agroforestry systems 155 agroforestry 16, 140, 142, 153, 163, 203
agro-dealers 175, 179 agroforestry-based farming systems 148
agroecological-based approaches: agronomic N use efficiency (AEN) 27
conservation agriculture and/ agro-vet companies 175, 179
or agroecological practices 36–37; Alam, M.M. 30
integrated nutrient management 37–38 Alamu, E.O. 158
agroecological-based SRI methods 88; All India Coordinated Research Project
FPAR for transition toward 93–98 Soil Test Crop Response (AICRP-
agroecological farming systems 147 STCR) 35
agroecological (AE) practices 36–37 alternate wetting and drying (AWD)
agroecological zones (AEZs) 150 46–47, 62–63, 87–89, 136, 195, 202;
agroecology (AE) 147, 164–165, 197; challenges for adopting 47–48; field
barriers for adoption 149–152; case demonstration of organizational
study and methods used 152–154, 153, 52–57; organization of irrigation water
154; climate change adaptation and management and 48–52; potential
mitigation 161; crop nutrient assessment pathways and conditions for upscaling
157–160, 158, 159; crop yield 57–62
assessment 157, 157; data collection Amin, M.G.M. 60
214 Index
ammonium-nitrogen (NH4–N) 60 carbon capture initiatives 202
Andres, P.B. 29 carbon farming 131, 201
android-based mobile app 31–32, 32 carbon footprint 128, 136; evaluation, rice
antinutritional properties (ANP): of farms analysed for 134, 135; and field
groundnut 159, 159; of maize 157, 158; emissions, EU 137, 138–139, 140
of soybean 158, 159 carbon leakage 131
AOAC see Association of Analytical carbon-neutral agriculture 202, 204
Chemist International (AOAC) carbon neutrality 191; transition in
arsenic (As) 60 agriculture 193–194
ASEAN Integrated Food Security carbon storage 204–205
Framework 100 Carson, Rachel: The Silent Spring 69
Asia: anticipated water crisis in 106, 107; CFPAR, structural diagram of 95, 95
rice cultivation risks in 107 CHC see Custom Hiring Centre (CHC)
Association of Analytical Chemist chemical fertilizer: balanced application of
International (AOAC) 155 75; farmyard manure with 37
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 2 chemical pesticides, negative impacts of 70
AWD see alternate wetting and China: agricultural green development in
drying (AWD) 59; Trichogramma 77
Chinese milk vetch fields 75
Bacenetti, J. 142 chlorantraniliprole 80
bacterial formulations 77 chlorophyll meter 32
Balaine, N. 60 CI see cyclic irrigation (CI)
baseline 94, 96; of cross-compliance and circular solidarity economy, agroecology
greening 129 164
Belenguer-Manzanedo, M. 143 CLCC see customized leaf colour chart
benefit-cost ratio, direct seeded rice (CLCC)
117; cost of production vs. 110, 111, climate action 129, 203–204; analysis
118, 118 at farm scale, EU 133–137, 135,
Bertora, C. 141 136; investments to support 206; and
bio-based products, direct pest control sustainable development goals 10;
with 76–77 systematic and step-wise building of 200
biodiversity: functional agri-biodiversity Climate Action (SDG12) 101, 154
11; in rice paddies 89–91, 90; soil climate change (CC) 45, 60, 127, 133;
biodiversity conservation 75 adaptation and mitigation 161; debate
biofertilizers 38 1; effects of 25; outbreak of potential
Blengini, G.A. 129 pests 69; rice paddies 89–91, 90;
block rotational irrigation (BRI) 49–51, stakeholders perceptions about 15–16
50, 54 climate change mitigation: optimism
Brachiaria grass forage, case study about 192–193; transition to carbon
(Kangundo subcounty) 173, 185; neutrality in agriculture 193–194
ecological, nutritional, and socio- Climate Change Solutions Fund 204
economic benefits 174, 174; farmers’ climate crisis 2, 10, 15–16, 69, 191, 194,
characteristics 176–178, 177; policies 200, 203, 206
and institutions 178–179; value chain Climate Investments Fund 204
development strategies 179, 180; value climate mitigation 4, 46, 102, 130, 131,
chain structure 175–176 143, 194, 202, 203
BRI see block rotational irrigation (BRI) climate-neutral and resilient farming
brown planthopper (BPH) 70, 71, 75, 76 systems (CNRFS) 2, 5, 11, 107, 169,
bulk density (BD), of soils 157 191, 194, 198; assessing carbon storage
“business-in-as-usual scenario” 87 and GHG emission reductions 204–205;
Busto, M. 129 Brachiaria grass forage 173–175, 174;
case studies (see individual case studies);
cadmium (Cd) 60 co-designing and promoting 11–14, 13;
CAP see Common Agricultural Policy conceptual framework 170–173, 172;
(CAP) good practices for production 198–200,
Index 215
199; households’ socio-economic Crop Production Programme 81
characteristics 172–173; information, crop residue mulching 37
extension, and advisory services crop yield assessment, agroecology 157, 157
173; infrastructure and markets 173; cross-sectoral approach 72
institutional and policy factors affecting CSF see Climate Support Facility (CSF)
smallholders’ adoption of 172, 172; culture/food traditions, agroecology 164
integration and cooperation 200–201; Custom Hiring Centre (CHC) 120
investment options 204; motivate Customized Colour-Coded
farmers 205; multi-actor partnerships Tensiometer 112
to enhance 14–15; NDCs and climate customized leaf colour chart (CLCC)
action 203–204; need for assessing 29–31, 33
current systems and developing 11; cyclic irrigation (CI) 51–52, 52, 55, 56
technology options 201–203; upscaling
adoption of 170 Dash, P.K. 36
climate-resilient innovative farming deep water rice 113
practices 171 dehydrogenase activity (DHA) 79
climate resilient rice varieties, developed vs. developing countries,
shortage of 119 agriculture sector: policy solutions 10;
climate-smart agriculture (CSA) 88 technological solutions 6–7
climate-smart integrated pest management diffusion 45–46; of climate-friendly and
72–73, 73; crop and pest management resilient forage grasses 186; of climate-
75; direct pest control with bio-based resilient innovative technologies
products 76–77; habitat management 169–170; of climate-smart technologies
73–75; impacts due to 78, 78–79; 169; of CNRFS 14; of information and
monitoring and forecasting of insect knowledge 185
pests 75–76 digital extension tools 173
climate-smart paddy production 99 direct payment subsidy: for
climate-smart practices 88 environmentally friendly agriculture 59;
Climate Support Facility (CSF) 204 for farmers 58–59; for multifunctional
climate warming 4 activities 58
CNRFS see climate-neutral and resilient direct payment systems 58–59
farming systems (CNRFS) direct pest control, with bio-based
co-creation and sharing of knowledge, products 76–77
agroecology 163 direct seeded rice (DSR) 10, 29, 30,
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 129, 107, 121, 197, 202–203; advantages
130, 193 and disadvantages of 107, 108; and
Community Markets for Conservation advantages to women and youth 117;
(COMACO) 164 challenges and measures to upscale
conservation agriculture (CA) 36–37, 75, adoption of 118–120, 119; cost of
81, 162; carbon sequestration potential production vs. benefit-cost ratio under
of 142 110, 111; economics of 117–118, 118;
conventional management 140 farm mechanization 115–117; integrated
conventional pest management (PM) 73, 73 nutrient and fertilizer management
Cool Farm Alliance 136 112–114; methods of 107–109, 108;
Cool Farm Tool© (CFT) 136, 137 performance of 109–115; policy and
cover crops 135, 140, 141, 201 institutional support for upscaling 120;
COVID-19 pandemic 2, 4, 10, 102; impact precision irrigation practices 110–112;
on economy and food security 192 traits of rice cultivars suitable for
crop diversification 37, 160 110, 110; water input and water use
crop establishment methods 115 efficiency 110–112, 111; weed control
croplands, habitat management within measures in 119, 119
74–75 diseases 195–196; integrated pest
crop management 13, 75 management 70–72
crop nutrient assessment, agroecology dissolved organic matter (DOC) 141
157–160, 158, 159 diversity, agroecology 161
216 Index
Doha Amendment in 2012 3 farmers: challenges in India 118;
drone-mounted sensors, SSNM 35–36 motivation to 205; socio-economic and
DSR see direct seeded rice (DSR) physical characteristics of 176, 177
DSR with dry seeding (dry-DSR) 107, farmers’ participatory action research
108; nutrient management for 113 (FPAR): eco-efficiency 96, 97; GHG
DSR with wet seeding (wet-DSR) 108, emission estimation in SRI, SRI-T and
108; optimum seeding 116 FP 97, 98; GHG emissions from SRI
DSSAT crop model 61 fields 96, 97; structural diagram of 95,
DYMEX model 76 95; for transition toward agroecological-
based SRI methods 93–98
ecological dimensions, of agroecology farmer’s practices (FP) 94
161–162 farmer-to-farmer extension
efficiency, agroecology 162 services 154
Enriquez, Y. 47 farming systems: agroecological 147;
environmental degradation 26 agroforestry-based 148; CNRFS (see
environmental services, multifunctionality climate-neutral and resilient farming
and direct payments for 57–59 systems (CNRFS)); in EU 128–129;
Etiosa, O.R. 158 participatory diagnosis and co-analysis
Eucalyptus camaldulensis 160 of 11; rice farming systems (see rice
EU Farm to Fork Strategy 192 farming systems)
EU Green Deal 193 farmyard manure, with chemical
EU Horizon Europe program 200, 204 fertilizers 37
Europe: impacts of current farming systems FAs see Focus Areas (FAs)
in 197; rice cultivation in 127 (see also fertilizer and seed treatment 113–114
European Union (EU)) FFS model see Farmer Field School (FFS)
European Commission (EC) 147, 175 model
European Court of Auditors 130 First Indian Rice Congress 120
European Green Deal initiative 129 fluorescein diacetate activity (FDA) 79
European rice farming systems 140 Focus Areas (FAs) 129–130, 130
European Structural and Investment fod and nutrition security (FNS) 151–152
Funds 129 food loss 7
European Union (EU) 94, 143–144; food production 25–26
carbon sequestration 140; climate food security 6–7, 10
actions analysis at farm scale 133–137, food systems stakeholders 15
135, 136; GHG emissions from ‘4 per 1000’ initiative 201
agriculture and rice farming systems in 4R Nutrient Stewardship: framework of
128–129; mitigation potential targets 27, 27–28, 28; principle of 26
and methodologies 130–131, 132–133; FPOs see Farmer Producer Organizations
policy aspects and economics drivers (FPOs)
129–130, 130; rice growing regions Fusi, A. 141
140–143; rice production in 127; total
carbon footprint and field emissions Gany, A.H.A. 49
137, 138–139, 140 GIS-based N application, SSNM 35–36
extension and advisory services (EAS) 173 Glasgow COP26 summit 3, 120, 143,
extension services 178, 183 192, 193
Gliricidia agroforestry project: case study
Fall Army Worm outbreak 70 and methods used 152–154, 153, 154;
farmer entrepreneurship 185 crop nutrient assessment 157–160, 158,
Farmer Field School (FFS) model 70, 72, 159; crop yield assessment 157, 157;
89, 93, 95, 96 data collection and analysis 154–155;
farmer-led demonstration trials 37 soil health assessment 155–157, 156
Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) Gliricidia sepium 153, 161, 162, 165
117, 171 global risks survey 99
Index 217
global vs. local scales, agriculture sector: campaigns 72; net-zero emission target
policy solutions 9; technological of 39; rice-based monocropping systems
solutions 5–6 in 37; rice in 24
global warming 2–3, 70; agriculture sector Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
as contributor to GHG emissions 3–4; National Rice Research Institute
challenges in reducing GHG emissions (ICAR-NRRI) 29, 31
4–5; GHGs responsible for 45 Indian Rice Research Institute (IRRI)-
global warming potential (GWP) 30, 128, LCC type 30
140, 143 information and communication
Government of Egypt 49 technology (ICT) 70, 183; in water
grain yield 109, 109–110 management 62
gravity-driven canal irrigation 48 innovative agricultural practices 134, 136
green/brown manuring 37–38, 112–113 inorganic fertilizers 72
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 1, 2, 45, insect pests: large-scale outbreaks of 70;
47, 62, 69, 114, 114–115, 191; from monitoring and forecasting of 75–76
agriculture and rice farming systems integrated hydrological simulation
in EU 128–129; agriculture sector model 61
as contributor to 3–4; challenges integrated nutrient management (INM)
in reducing 4–5; on different crop 37–38
establishment techniques 115, 116; integrated pest management (IPM) 69, 89,
estimation in SRI, SRI-T and FP 97, 98; 196; empowerment and re-invigoration
in Europe 127; mitigation of 101, 144, of social capital 101–102; impacts from
195; reduction of 59, 204–205; and soil Resilience and other projects in India
carbon sequestration 137, 138; 79–80; pest and disease scenarios and
sources of 87, 137, 139; from SRI fields dynamics of 70–72; policy measures
96, 97 in support of 80–81; in rice growing
green mulching 135, 137 regions of Asia 70–72
green revolution 25, 26, 69, 70 integrated pest, weed, disease
Green Seeker 33–34 management 13
groundnut: crop yield assessment 157, integrated policy interventions 9
157; nutritional and antinutritional intensive agricultural land-use systems 4
properties of 159, 159 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Gullickson, G. 205 Change (IPCC) 1, 4, 192; Sixth
GWP see global warming potential Assessment Report (AR6) 1
(GWP) intermittent irrigation 47, 93, 99
International Rice Research Institute
habitat management: within croplands (IRRI) 46
74–75; in non-croplands 73–74 investment solutions, agriculture
Hama, T. 51 sector 7–8
Heeb, L. 72 IPCC see Intergovernmental Panel on
herbicides 110, 119, 134–137 Climate Change (IPCC)
H2020 InnovAfrica project 175, 186n1 IPM see integrated pest management
Horizon Europe program 16, 192 (IPM)
Huffman, W.E. 172 iron deficiency, nutrient uptake by 119
human/social values, agroecology 163 IRRI see International Rice Research
HYDRUS-1D 60 Institute (IRRI)
Irrigated Rice Research Consortium
ICT see information and communication (IRRC) 46
technology (ICT) irrigation water management 48–49; block
India: food grain production and fertilizer rotational irrigation 49–51, 50; cyclic
N consumption in 25, 25; IPM impacts irrigation 51–52, 52
from Resilience and other projects Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
79–80; IPM trainings and awareness Forest Policies (MIPAAF) 134
218 Index
Japan: drying of rice fields 46; flood chain development strategies 184, 184;
prevention in 60; irrigation projects in value chain structure 179–181
49; multifunctionalities in 58; PES for MAPs see multi-actor platforms (MAPs)
environmentally friendly agriculture 59 market-based policy 8
Martínez-Eixarch, M. 131, 141
Kakuyuni Cooperative 176 Masseroni, D. 62
Kambusu Cooperative 176 Matsuda, S. 57
Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) 178 Matsuno, Y. 58
Khan, M.A. 77 Maya, O. 185
Kirk, G.J.D. 92 methane (CH4) 3; amount released from
Kitano, S. 59 rice paddies 46; emissions of 128;
Korea: irrigation management 49; production and consumption of 45
multifunctionalities of paddy farming methane (CH4) emission 114, 114, 143,
59; smart agricultural water resources 196; from paddy fields 91–93, 93
management systems 62 microbial formulations 77
Kumar, S. 77 midseason drainage 46–47, 49–50
Kumar, V. 109, 115, 117 MIKE SHE 61
Kyoto Protocol 2–3 mineral fertilizers 96; in conventional
systems 142; production and use of 137;
Ladha, J.K. 109, 115, 117 reduction of 144
lake water irrigation 51, 52 minimum tillage 36
Lal, B. 36 Ministry of Agriculture and Animal
land equivalent ratio (LER) 142 Resources (MINAGRI) 179
land improvement districts (LIDs) 49–51 Mishra A. 95
large scale vs. small scale, agriculture mitigation: climate change adaptation and
sector technological solutions 7 161; of emissions, nitrous oxide 131; of
LCC see leaf colour chart (LCC) greenhouse gas emission 8, 101, 144,
LCC-based N application: performance of 195; see also climate change
29, 30; research on 30 mitigation
leaf colour chart (LCC) 29–31, 30, 31; mixed organic-conventional farming 134
comparative performance of riceNxpert, Mizik, T. 185
SPAD and 32–33, 33 MODFLOW- NWT 61
leaf folder light-trap peaks 76 MODIS NDVI 36
learning-centered approach 96 monitoring, reporting and verification
Lehmann, L.M. 142 (MRV) system 131
Li, D. 115 multi-actor agricultural innovation
life cycle assessment (LCA) 128 platforms 101
light traps 76, 80 multi-actor engagement 200
Limuro Dairy Cooperative 176 multi-actor platforms (MAPs) 14–15, 174,
livestock industries, emissions from 8 184–186
local-based solution 12 multi-disciplinary alley cropping (AC)-
long-term low GHG emission Gliricidia agroforestry project, Zambia
development strategies (LT-LEDS) 4 152–155, 153
LULUCF 128 multifunctionalities, of paddy
farming 58, 59
maize: crop yield assessment 157, 157;
growing districts of eastern Zambia National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs
153; nutritional and antinutritional Access Program (NAAIAP) 175
properties of 157, 158 National Action Plan on Climate Change
maize-based monocropping 153 (NAPCC) 39
maize-cattle-based farming systems National Agricultural Export
(Nyamagabe district case study): Development Board 183
farmers’ characteristics 181, 182; National Agriculture Sector Extension
policies and institutions 181, 183; value Policy (NASEP) 178
Index 219
nationally determined contributions organic matter (OM) 16, 89, 113, 155;
(NDCs) 4, 39, 192, 201, 203–204 decomposition of 142
National Mission for Sustainable Organisation for Economic Co-operation
Agriculture (NMSA) 39 and Development (OECD) 6
National Policy on Agriculture 81 organizational AWD 52–57
National Rice Research Institute (NRRI) Org12 farm 136, 137, 140
76, 77 Overseas Development Programs 70
natural capital 101, 152
nature-based solution 12–14 paddy-based farming systems 70
NDC Invest 204 paddy rice agriculture 45; cultivation of
NDCs see nationally determined 46; in flooded soil 60; methane emission
contributions (NDCs) from 91–93, 93
NDVI see normalized difference vegetation Panda, S. 81
index (NDVI) Paris Agreement 4, 9, 10, 96, 99, 100,
need-based nutrient management 143, 204
practices 39 partial factor productivity of N
nematode infestation 113, 119 (PFPN) 27
net-zero emission target 39 participatory extension-based IPM
net-zero farming 202 approach 81
N fertilizer recovery efficiency (REN) 27 participatory water management
NGOs see non-governmental organizations (PIM) 49
(NGOs) payment for environmental services (PES)
nitrate-nitrogen (NO3–N) 60 58, 59
nitrogen management 25; precision-based Perego, A. 142
tools/techniques for 28, 28; soil health PES see payment for environmental
and 25, 25–27 services (PES)
nitrogen use efficiency (NUE): declining pests 195–196; integrated pest
trend of 27; defined as 24; research management 70–72; management of 75
findings on 28 Peyron, M. 140
nitrous oxide (N2O) 3, 45, 60; emissions phenotypic plasticity 102n1
of 128; mitigation of emissions 131 pheromone traps 80
non-carbon dioxide (non-CO2) gases 3 physically based distributed hydrological
non-croplands, habitat management in models 61
73–74 plastic response, of rice plants 91
non-governmental organizations policy/governance, agroecology 163–164
(NGOs) 15 policy solutions, agriculture sector 8–10
non-productive tillers 47 post-production phase, CNRFS 12
normalized difference vegetation index precision agriculture techniques 136, 142
(NDVI) 34 precision-based approaches 34
NUE see nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) precision-based soil and nutrient
Nutrient Expert 34 management tools see individual entries
nutrient management 113; precision tools precision irrigation practices 110–112
for 29–33, 30, 31–33, 40 precision tools: for nutrient management
nutritional properties (NPs): of groundnut 29–33, 30, 31–33, 40; support SHC
159, 159; of maize 157, 158; of soybean scheme 39
158, 159 pre-production phase, CNRFS 12
Pretty, J. 88, 89, 102
Obi, A. 185 price-based policies 10
“One cow per poor family” program 181 Pseudomonas fluorescens 79–80
on-farm supply chain emissions 7–8 puddled transplanted rice (PTR) 29
optimum farm mechanization 116 Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) 30
organic farming 129, 133–137, 141
organic fertilizer 24, 137, 142, 155, Quantitative Evaluation of Tropical Soil
165, 197 Fertility (QUEFTS) 34
220 Index
Rahtore, R. 81 savings and credit cooperatives
rainfed production systems 100 (SACCO) 183
Rao, G.V.R. 81 SCI see System of Crop
Rao, V.R. 81 Intensification (SCI)
RCM see Rice Crop Manager (RCM) science-policy interaction platforms
RDP see Rural Development 200–201
Programmes (RDP) Scirpophaga incertulas 70
recycling, agroecology 162 SCS see soil carbon
regenerative agriculture 201–202 sequestration (SCS)
Regional Rural Development Plan 16 seed treatment, with bio-based products
remote sensing methods 61; SSNM 35–36 76–77
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture Sen, A. 30
(FiBL) 147 Sesbania spp 112–113
resilience, agroecology 162 Seyfferth, A.L. 60
Resilience project 27, 29, 37, 39, 79–80, Shahid, M. 37
109, 119; D-DSR, W-DSR in 110; pilot Sharma, P.K. 110
demos at 118 SHC scheme see soil health card (SHC)
rice-based monocropping systems 37 scheme
Rice Crop Manager (RCM) 34 SHE see Système Hydrologique Européen
rice farming systems 24, 99, 106, 196; (SHE)
analysed for carbon footprint evaluation Shimada, K. 59
134, 135; availability of labour Shirato, Y. 137
107; cultivation of 24; in EU, GHG The Silent Spring (Carson) 69
emissions from 128–129; in Europe 127; site-specific nutrient management
innovative agricultural practices applied (SSNM) 34, 35; drone-mounted
in 134, 136; production of 3–4 sensors, remote sensing, and GIS-based
rice-legume cropping systems 38 N application 35–36; models and
riceNxpert app 31–32, 32; comparative decision support tools 34–35; soil test-
performance of LCC, SPAD and based crop response 35
32–33, 33 site-specific/precision nutrient
rice plants: ecosystem goods and services management 112
management and biodiversity in 89–91, smallholder farmers 170, 171, 175, 176,
90; plastic response of 91 181, 186; socio-economic characteristics
rice production 3–4, 87, 100; BPH of 172
populations 71; demand for 106; in smallholder production systems 186
European Union 127; nitrogen for social capital 101–102, 172, 178
25; resource-use efficiencies in 99; socio-economic dimension, of agroecology
sustainable intensification of 89, 196 163–164
rice roots, nutrient uptake by 119 Soil and Water Assessment Tool
rice stubble management 75 (SWAT) 61
riceXpertApp 76 Soil and Water Integrated Model
Risobiosystems project 141, 142 (SWIM) 61
root architecture, SRI practices on soil biodiversity conservation 75
91–93, 93 soil carbon 202, 205
root growth 91 soil carbon sequestration (SCS) 5,
rotation system 141–142, 144 136–137, 140, 143, 199, 204–205; GHG
RothC model 136–137 emissions and 137, 138; technology
RothC-26.3 model 140 options 201
Rural Development Programmes (RDP) soil enzymatic activities 79
129, 130 soil health: agroecological-based
approaches 36–38; defined as 25;
safe AWD 47 improving practices 40; and nitrogen
Santos, D.K. 59 management 25, 25–27
Index 221
soil health assessment, agroecology sustainable intensification-based IPM
155–157, 156 approach 74
soil health card (SHC) scheme 38–39, 201 Sustainable Rice Platform Standard 101
soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) 80 SWAT see Soil and Water Assessment
soil/nutrient management, using soil Tool (SWAT)
metagenomics 12–13 SWIM see Soil and Water Integrated
soil organic carbon (SOC) 142–143, 155; Model (SWIM)
stock 36 synergies, agroecology 161–162
soil organic matter 24, 45, 89, 99, 140 synthetic pesticides 72
soil plant analysis development (SPAD) SysCom 147
meter 32; comparative performance of Système Hydrologique Européen (SHE) 61
LCC, riceNxpert and 32–33, 33 System of Crop Intensification (SCI) 102
soils 24; bulk density of 157; methane system of rice intensification (SRI) 88,
production and consumption in 45; 196, 202; agronomic principles of 88;
toxic elements in 60 climate-smart paddy production 99;
soil test-based crop response 35 large-scale adoption of 90–91; on root
Southeast Asian regional policy 100 architecture and impact on methane
soybean: crop yield assessment 157, reduction 91–93, 93
157; nutritional and antinutritional
properties of 158, 159 Tan, X. 60
SPAD meter see soil plant analysis technology-based solution 12, 14;
development (SPAD) meter agriculture sector 5–7
Spain: emissions of CH4 in 141; global Theory of Change methodology 175, 179,
warming potential in 140, 143 180, 184, 184
split fertilizer application 112 tillage cropping systems 171–172
SRI see system of rice intensification (SRI) transplanted puddled rice (TPR) 109;
SRI-demonstration (SRI-D) 95, 97 cost of production vs. benefit-cost ratio
SRI-IPM-FFS empowerment philosophy under 110, 111, 118, 118; vs. DSR
99–100 107, 108
SRI-transition (SRI-T) 95 Trichogramma 77
SSNM see site-specific nutrient Triple Challenge 87
management (SSNM)
stakeholders: food systems 15; perceptions UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 102
about climate change 15–16 United Nations Environment Programme
stem borers 70, 75, 76, 80; yellow 70, 76 (UNEP) 192
Strategic Plan of Action on Food upland rice 113
Security 100
subsidies: on agricultural inputs 183; on value chains (VCs) 169–171, 198
livestock inputs 183; seed and vermicomposting 38
fertilizer 178 Vietnam: multi-media campaign 75; SRI
sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 100–101
87, 101, 193; climate action and 10; of Village Knowledge Centres (VKCs)
United Nations 148, 149 70, 120
sustainable food systems 10, 191
sustainable integrated pest management water and energy transfer processes
72–73, 73; crop and pest management (WEP) 61
75; direct pest control with bio-based water management 13, 47, 172;
products 76–77; habitat management development of necessary information
73–75; impacts due to 78, 78–79; for 61; ICT in 62; practices 114–115; in
monitoring and forecasting of insect rainfed conditions 102n3; with trade-
pests 75–76 offs 60–61
sustainable intensification (SI) approaches water-saving irrigation 46
151; components of 152 water seeding 108, 108
222 Index
water user association (WUA) 48, 49 Xuehai, J. 59
water user group (WUG) 48, 49, 51–53
Way, M.J. and Heong, K.L (2021) 70 Yagi, K. 47
web-based decision support tools 34–35 yellow stem borers 70, 76
weed control measures, in DSR 119, 119
WEP-L distributed hydrological model 61 Zero Hunger (SDG2) 101,
wetland soils 45 154, 193
World Economic Forum 99 zero tillage (ZT) 36, 40, 114, 201

Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“­This book makes a timely contribution towards understanding the relevance

“­This book is very timely and a valuable knowledge contribution on managing

This book presents e­ vidence-​­based research on c­ limate-​­neutral and resilient farm-

Farming with the Environment

Net Zero, Food and Farming

Conservation Agriculture in India

Agricultural Commercialization, Gender Equality and the Right to Food

The Sociology of Farming

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

LONDON AND NEW YORK

ISBN: ­978-­​­­1-­​­­032-­​­­22579-​­1 (­hbk)

1 Climate change impacts on agriculture: Challenges and options

2 ­Precision-​­based soil and nutrient management tools for

3 Organizational alternate wetting and drying (­AWD) irrigation

4 Integrated pest management in rice and the potential to

6 Direct seeded rice: A potential ­climate-​­neutral and resilient

7 ­Carbon-​­neutral farming solutions in rice farming systems in Europe 127

8 Agroecological farming approaches that enhance resilience and

9 Transitioning toward ­climate-​­neutral and resilient smallholder

10 Enhancing and scaling ­climate-​­neutral and resilient farming

1.1 Conceptual diagram showing pathways leading towards CNRFS 13

2.1 Basic principles of ­precision-​­based tools/­techniques for N management 28

2.1 4R Nutrient Stewardship principle 26

Bhubananda Adhikari is Research Scholar at Odisha University of Agricul-

Global warming and contribution from various sources

The agriculture sector as a contributor to GHG emissions

The challenges in reducing GHG emissions

The agriculture sector as a potential solution

Global versus local scales

Developed versus developing countries

Large scale versus small scale

Global versus local scales

Developed versus developing countries

Climate action and sustainable development goals

Innovative and systemic solutions: c­ limate-​­neutral and resilient

Need for assessing current systems and developing appropriate

­Co-​­designing and promoting CNRFS

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N 2O

Enabling institutions & policies to foster transition to

­Figure 1.1 Conceptual diagram showing pathways leading towards CNRFS.

­nature-​­based solution such as biopesticides/­biocontrol, biological solutions, im-

• Soil/­nutrient management using soil metagenomics: An important area, which

• potential improvements to existing food, farming, and cropping systems can

Outline of the book

Soil health and nitrogen management

N consumption (mill. tonnes)

Box 2.1 4R Nutrient Stewardship principle

4R Nutrient Stewardship is a new innovative approach for fertilizer best

­Figure 2.2 F ramework of 4R Nutrient Stewardship for enhancing N use efficiency.

­Precision-​­based tools Principles and applications

Source: Authors’ own compilation from different literatures.

The ­precision-​­based tools/­techniques for N management (­­Table 2.1) were as-

PFPN or AE N = kg grain yield (ha −1 / kg −1N applied ha −1) (­2.1)

where UN is the plant N uptake (­kg ha−1) measured in aboveground biomass at

Results and discussion

i Leaf colour chart

Application method Grain yield NUE References

400 200 0 400 Kilometers

“This book makes a timely contribution towards understanding the relevance

“This book is very timely and a valuable knowledge contribution on managing

This book presents e vidence-based research on c limate-neutral and resilient farm-

ISBN: 978-1-032-22579-1 (hbk)

2 Precision-based soil and nutrient management tools for

3 Organizational alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation

6 Direct seeded rice: A potential climate-neutral and resilient

7 Carbon-neutral farming solutions in rice farming systems in Europe 127

9 Transitioning toward climate-neutral and resilient smallholder

10 Enhancing and scaling climate-neutral and resilient farming

2.1 Basic principles of precision-based tools/techniques for N management 28

Innovative and systemic solutions: c limate-neutral and resilient

Co-designing and promoting CNRFS

Figure 1.1 Conceptual diagram showing pathways leading towards CNRFS.

nature-based solution such as biopesticides/biocontrol, biological solutions, im-

• Soil/nutrient management using soil metagenomics: An important area, which

Figure 2.2 F ramework of 4R Nutrient Stewardship for enhancing N use efficiency.

Precision-based tools Principles and applications

The precision-based tools/techniques for N management (Table 2.1) were as-

PFPN or AE N = kg grain yield (ha −1 / kg −1N applied ha −1) (2.1)

where UN is the plant N uptake (kg ha−1) measured in aboveground biomass at

Figure 2.3 Spread of CLCC across India. Source: Authors’ own compilation.

The CLCC developed by ICAR-NRRI (Cuttack, Odisha) provides cultivar-

Green Seeker measures normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)

Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)

SSNM approaches/tools Key research finding

Agroecological-based approaches for improving soil health

Conservation agriculture and/or agroecological practices

Biofertilizers containing blue-green algae with microbial strains such as Pseudomonas

Pest and disease scenarios and dynamics of IPM in rice-

A conceptual framework for sustainable and climate-smart

Habitat management in non-croplands

Direct pest control with bio-based products

Figure 4.2 Potential impacts due to climate-smart and sustainable IPM.

On-station research findings on the effects of SRI practices on

Figure 5.2 Effects of planting density.

Figure 5.3 Structural diagram of CFPAR and FPAR in one province.

• Lodging resistance Mackill et al. (1996)

Box 6.1 Nutrient management recommendations for dry-DSR under

a Upland rice: Well-decomposed farmyard manure or cow dung @ 2t acre−1