TWN
Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture
25 August 2023
Third World Network
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Benefits
of Community-Based Natural Farming Surpass that of Conventional Systems
Andhra
Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) is a state-wide
agroecological transformation of the farming practices of its 6 million
farmers over 6 million hectares and 50 million consumers. More than
630,000 farmers are addressing multiple development challenges: rural
livelihoods, access to nutritious food, biodiversity loss, climate
change, water scarcity, and pollution.
This study is the first of its kind to assess the true costs and benefits
of natural farming against other counterfactual farming methods,
by
measuring all major economic, social, and health impacts. It compared
APCNF with three other farming systems in Andhra Pradesh: chemical
farming in the Godavari delta region, rainfed farming in the semi-arid
region, and low input tribal farming in the mountain region.
Adopting
APCNF led to greater crop diversity, similar or higher yields, higher
incomes for farmers, lower input costs, improved local economies,
improved social networks, improved health, and reduced health costs.
Overall, APCNF gave highly positive returns on public investment,
suggesting that it is the food production system with better economic,
environmental, and social outcomes. The study shows that natural farming
and agroecological transitions can comfortably feed communities with
better yields and crop diversity than conventional farming methods.
With
best wishes,
Third World Network
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧・/font>
NATURAL
FARMING THROUGH A WIDE-ANGLE LENS
True Cost Accounting Study of Community Managed Natural Farming in
Andhra Pradesh, India
GIST
Impact, Switzerland and India
https://futureoffood.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/apcnf-tca-study_2023.pdf
July 2023
Executive
Summary
Andhra
Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) is a state-wide
agroecological transformation of the farming practices of its 6 million
farmers over 6 million hectares and 50 million consumers. It is the
largest transition to agroecology in the world, with 630,000 farmers
already addressing multiple development challenges: rural livelihoods,
access to nutritious food, biodiversity loss, climate change, water
scarcity, and pollution.
This
research into the APCNF program, led by GIST Impact and supported
by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, started in 2020. The
study is the first of its kind to assess the true costs and benefits
of natural farming against other counterfactual farming methods by
measuring all major economic, social, and health impacts.
The
research used The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture
and Food Systems (TEEBAgriFood) framework: a holistic approach to
comprehensively examine food systems and systematically identify links
between agricultural practices and human well-being so that appropriate
policy responses can be developed and adapted globally.
This
study compared the impacts of APCNF with three other farming systems
in Andhra Pradesh: chemical farming in the Godavari delta region,
rainfed farming in the semi-arid region, and low input tribal farming
in the mountain region.
The
results show strong evidence that APCNF offers a better alternative
to the existing farming systems. Adopting APCNF led to greater crop
diversity, similar or higher yields, higher incomes for farmers, lower
input costs, improved local economies, improved social networks, improved
health, and reduced health costs. Overall, APCNF gave highly positive
returns on public investment, suggesting APCNF to be the food production
system with better economic, environmental, and social outcomes.
So
what?
- Importantly,
this study shows that natural farming and agroecological transitions
can comfortably feed communities with better yields and crop diversity
than conventional farming methods, with important insights for policy
makers in India and globally.
- The
scale of APCNF demonstrates that agroecological practices can be
scaled to meet the demand for food while addressing multiple environmental
and social goals.
- While
public investment costs for APCNF were higher than on counterfactual
farms, the higher costs for farmers, communities, and the environment
associated with counterfactual farming (loss of work hours, poorer
health, and poorer soils) meant that APCNF actually resulted in
a better holistic return on investment.
- Using
True Cost Accounting (TCA) and the TEEBAgriFood framework highlighted
the economic, social and human health benefits associated with APCNF
and the increased costs associated with counterfactual farming.
These would not be accounted for under traditional 土ield-and-profit-only・
metrics, but clearly show better returns on public investment after
accounting for public benefits and costs.
- Using
TCA can provide a holistic analysis to inform policy decision-making
that aims to enhance economic development, reduce poverty, and improve
health and environmental outcomes.
- Given
ongoing climate impacts, there is an urgent need to scale inclusive
climate-resilient models of agriculture. This research offers a
clear assessment of environmentally friendly agricultural development
that also supports social and economic goals.
|
Economic
Impacts
・
Crop diversity was higher on APCNF farms: an average 4 crops
compared to 2.1 on counterfactual farms.
・
Yields of prime crops用addy rice, maize, millet, finger millet,
and red gram擁ncreased by an average 11% in APCNF villages.
・
APCNF farmers saw an average 49% net increase in income. This
was largely the result of a 44% (average) reduction in input
costs, primarily fertilizers and pesticides.
・
Labour intensity on APCNF farms was 21% higher than comparison
farms.
|
|
Health
Impacts
・
The research showed strong correlation between lower on-farm
health risks and transitions to APCNF farming. For example,
farmers on APCNF farms lost one-third fewer working days to
illness, compared with farms using counterfactual farming methods.
・
The use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers correlated with
higher incidence of short-term exposure and symptoms. This in
turn correlated with higher health costs and productivity losses
for farmers. Such health impacts are not accounted for in conventional
market-based crop-pricing models.
・
The health-cost analysis, based on health expenses incurred
and wages lost due to illness, showed that villages with chemically
intensive farming had the highest health costs: 26% higher than
those for APCNF farmers in this region.
・
Household Dietary Diversity was greater in APCNF households
than in other conventional farming households, indicating access
to a greater variety of crops.
|
|
Social
Impacts
・
APCNF led to increased social capital in villages. Social capital
includes: information sharing, mutuality, collective action,
trust and support, community cohesion, and risk reduction.
・
Increasing the social capital created a 砺irtuous cycle・of
increased economic gains, which in turn led to greater trust,
cohesion, and reciprocity.
・
Women significantly influenced social capital; particularly
knowledge sharing, community cohesion, and trust and support.
・
The results show that smaller farms had higher social capital
scores than larger farms, suggesting that smallholder farmers
are important to developing social capital within communities.
・
APCNF farms had greater social capital than non-APCNF farms,
likely due to the greater networking and mutual support.
|
