Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment

Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment describes the relationship of agriculture, society, nature and the environment, sustainable agriculture and sustainable development goals, management of biophysical resources for sustainable food and environment, traditional knowledge and innovative options, and social and policy aspects of sustainable agriculture. The book presents both environmental and economic principles, helping readers in the development and application of robust policy and good institutional systems that execute on sustainable agriculture practices for a healthy environment and to combat climate resilience.

• Includes case studies that provide real-world insights
• Relates traditional knowledge and innovation, maximizing the potential from both
• Reinforces our understanding of the role of sustainable agriculture in developing environmentally sustainable and profitable food systems

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Apr 14, 2023
• ISBN: 9780323905015

Book preview

Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment

Edited by

Muhammad Farooq

Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

Nirmali Gogoi

Department of Environmental Sciences, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Michele Pisante

Department of Bioscience and Technology for Food, Agriculture and Environment, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Contributors

Foreword

Preface

Part I. Introduction

Chapter 1. Sustainability, sustainable agriculture, and the environment

1. Introduction

2. Sustainability

3. Agriculture and environment

4. Possible actions toward a more sustainable agriculture

5. Conclusion

Chapter 2. Sustainable agriculture for food and nutritional security

1. Introduction

2. Sustainability and land challenges

3. Food and nutrition security: changing concept and development

4. Sustainable agriculture and food systems: historical development and shift in paradigms

5. Rebuilding traditional farming systems: bridging yield gaps

6. Rangelands, grasslands, and livestock-based farming

7. Tree-based farming systems or agroforestry: conciliation among productive and environmental functions

8. Creating and developing streams within sustainable agriculture

9. Emerging farming systems

10. Innovation and technological development for accelerating agricultural sustainability

11. Demand-side measures for sustaining agriculture

12. Development policies: spotlights on stimulating food system transformation and governance

13. Rural community and gender strengthening: unlocking transformation and driving action

14. Strengthened approaches to information, communication and implementation

15. Conclusion: promoting global transition and stepping up actions

Chapter 3. Sustainable agriculture and sustainable developmental goals: a case study of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa

1. Introduction

2. Sustainable agriculture

3. Background to the role of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa

4. Difficulties faced by smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa

5. The state of hunger and food security in sub-Saharan Africa

6. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in small-scale farming

7. Realizing SDG 2 targets through CSA among smallholder farmers

8. Conclusion

Part II. Management of biophysical resources for sustainable food and environment

Chapter 4. Soil microbial diversity, soil health and agricultural sustainability

1. Introduction

2. Soil health for agricultural sustainability

3. Soil microbial diversity and agricultural sustainability

4. Soil organic matter and soil biological quality

5. Microbial biodiversity and soil functions

6. Microbial biodiversity and climate resilience

7. Conclusion and future perspectives

Chapter 5. Water harvesting and management for sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. Freshwater: a major concern for global community

3. Water management in tea agriculture: a case study

4. Water management in seasonal vegetable cultivation: a case study

5. Conclusion

Chapter 6. Carbon management and sequestration for sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. Climate change effect

3. Agricultural management strategies and C storage

4. Conclusions and future research needs

Chapter 7. Management of agricultural insect pests for sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. IPM approaches

3. New concepts of pest management for sustainable agriculture and environment

4. Revisit of IPM model

5. Policy action

6. Conclusion

7. Way forward

Chapter 8. Revisiting sustainable systems and methods in agriculture

1. Introduction

2. Agriculture

3. Concluding remarks

Chapter 9. Abundance, variety, and scope of value-added utilization of agricultural crop residue: emphasizing potential of anaerobic digestion and digestate recycling

1. Introduction

2. Variation in digestate characteristics with respect to different crop residues

3. Effect of digestate application on soil fertility

4. Effect of digestate application on crop growth and nutrient uptake

5. Use of digestate for vermicompost production

6. Use of digestate in algal cultivation

7. Conclusion

Part III. Traditional knowledge and innovative options

Chapter 10. Traditional ecological knowledge towards natural resource management: perspective and challenges in North East India

1. Introduction

2. Faces of TEK

3. TEK and its importance in natural resource management

4. North East India: storehouse of natural resources and TEK

5. Drawbacks of TEK and practices

6. Future recommendations

7. Conclusion

Chapter 11. Designing farming systems for a sustainable agriculture

1. Introduction

2. Sustainable farming systems, the ecologization of agriculture

3. Conceptual framework for the design process of sustainable farming systems

4. Designing sustainable farming systems: methods and practices

5. Conditions for designing sustainable farming systems

6. Conclusion

Chapter 12. Urban agriculture and the perspective of fulfilling land's socio-environmental function—a case study of Brazilian Cerrado cities

1. Introduction

2. Adaptation to global climatic changes and urban agriculture

3. Goiânia and the city's adaptation strategies within the global climatic changes context

4. Urban agriculture as possibility to fulfill urban property's socio-environmental function to right to the city

5. Conclusion

Chapter 13. Livestock—crop interaction for sustainability of agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. Crop production systems

3. Livestock production systems

4. Livestock–crop integration systems

5. Agricultural production (drivers and recipients of environmental changes)

6. Concept of sustainability and system intensification in agroecological system

7. Livestock–crop interaction for a sustainable environment

8. Sustainable Livestock–Crop production systems in developing countries for enhanced ecological balance and safety

9. Ethical framework for sustainable livestock–crop production system

10. Prospects of sustainability practices for livestock–crop interaction

Chapter 14. Spatial applications of crop models in the Indian context and sustainability

1. Introduction

2. Crop modeling

3. Spatialization of crop models

4. Applications of crop models in Indian context

5. Sustainability in Indian agriculture

6. Tools for sustainable transition in spatial crop modeling

7. Concluding remarks

Chapter 15. Spatializing crop models for sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Crop simulation model (numerical crop model)

2. Spatializing crop models

3. MDS for NCMs

4. Calibration and validation of model

5. Challenges

6. Conclusion

Part IV. Social and policy aspects of sustainable agriculture and environment

Chapter 16. The social, political, and institutional context of sustainability: a study of Indian agriculture

1. Introduction

2. The social context of sustainability

3. Politics of transformations to sustainability

4. Governing transformations to sustainability and development

5. The social pillars of sustainability: community participation and sustenance

6. Constructing social sustainability: social, political, and institutional challenges in sustainability

7. Conclusions and future thrusts

Chapter 17. Agricultural policies and sustainable agriculture in EU countries

1. Introduction

2. The historical evolution of the CAP

3. Methods

4. Data

5. Results

6. Discussions

7. Conclusions

Chapter 18. Challenges, constraints, and opportunities in sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. Challenges of sustainable agriculture

3. Constraints of sustainable agriculture

4. Opportunities

5. Conclusion

Chapter 19. Education and information dissemination for sustainable agriculture and environment

1. Introduction

2. Importance of sustainable agriculture

3. Higher education institutions and responsibilities

4. Bridging the gap between science and practice

5. Information dissemination

6. Digital education and its importance

7. Constraints and challenges

8. Recommendations

9. Concluding remarks

Chapter 20. Role and diversity of microbes in agriculture: sustainable practices to promote diversity and crop productivity

1. Microbial communities and ecosystem function

2. Microbial diversity in agricultural ecosystems

3. Microbial functions in agroecosystems

4. Exploring microbial diversity

5. Methods of exploring of microbial communities/diversity

6. Other prospective molecular methods

7. Exploring microbial function

8. Practices that influence microbial communities

9. Practices that enhance soil biological activity

10. Conclusion

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-323-90500-8

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Nikki Levy

Acquisitions Editor: Nancy Maragioglio

Editorial Project Manager: Lena Sparks

Production Project Manager: Sruthi Satheesh

Cover Designer: Miles Hitchen

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Contributors

Massimiliano Agovino,     Department of Economic and Legal Studies, University of Naples Parthenope, Naples, Italy

Paul Kayode Baiyeri,     Department of Crop Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Debendra C. Baruah,     Department of Energy, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Raviel Basso,     Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil

Badal Bhattacharyya,     Department of Entomology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Palakshi Borah,     Department of Environmental Science, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Manoshi Chakrovorty,     World Vegetable Center, Guwahati, Assam, India

Soumya Chatterjee,     Biodegradation Technology Division, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, Assam, India

Luiza A. Daher,     Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil

Anna Dalla Marta,     University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), Firenze, Italy

Ashmita Das,     Agro-Ecotechnology Laboratory, School of Agro and Rural Technology, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

Sarmistha Das,     Department of Sociology, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Partha Pratim Gyanudoy Das,     Department of Entomology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Rajkumari Jobina Devi,     Applied Biodiversity Laboratory, Biosciences and Bioengineering Department, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

Sanjai K. Dwivedi,     Biodegradation Technology Division, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, Assam, India

Muhammad Farooq,     Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khoud, Muscat, Oman

Aniello Ferraro,     Department of Economic and Legal Studies, University of Naples Parthenope, Naples, Italy

Ravikanth G.,     Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

M. Gafsi

UMR LISST, University of Toulouse, National Higher Training School for Agricultural Education, Toulouse, France

ENSFEA BP 22687, Castanet-Tolosan, France

Anjuma Gayan,     Department of Agricultural Sciences, College of Sericulture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Inee Gogoi,     Department of Entomology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Nirmali Gogoi,     Department of Environmental Sciences, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Nihal Gujre,     Agro-Ecotechnology Laboratory, School of Agro and Rural Technology, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

Obja Borah Hazarika,     Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India

Karla E.R. Hora,     Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil

Nnanna Ephraim Ikeh,     Department of Animal Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Ayse Gul Ince,     Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Biraj Kalita,     Department of Entomology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Luana M.E. Kallas,     Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil

Dev Vrat Kamboj,     Biodegradation Technology Division, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, Assam, India

Mehmet Karaca,     Department of Field Crops, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Amir Kassam,     School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Sampriti Kataki,     Biodegradation Technology Division, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, Assam, India

Rupam Kataki,     Department of Energy, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India

Mohammed Latif Khan

Department of Botany, Dr. Harisingh Gour Central University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

Forest Ecology and Eco-genomics Laboratory, Department of Botany, Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

Yogesh Kumar,     ICAR-National Dairy Research Institutes, Karnal, Haryana, India

Saket Kushwaha,     Department of Botany, Rajiv Gandhi University, Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, India

Ndubuisi Samuel Machebe,     Department of Animal Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Marco Mancini,     University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), Firenze, Italy

Sudip Mitra,     Agro-Ecotechnology Laboratory, School of Agro and Rural Technology, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

Rachid Mrabet,     National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA Morocco), Rabat, Morocco

Shingirai Stanley Mugambiwa,     Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, Limpopo, South Africa

Milind Mujumdar,     Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Gaetano Musella,     Department of Management and Quantitative Studies, University of Naples Parthenope, Naples, Italy

Dhrubajyoti Nath,     Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India

Afsaneh Nematpour,     Department of Bioscience and Technology for Food, Agriculture and Environment, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy

Nobin Raja,     Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Simone Orlandini,     University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), Firenze, Italy

Michele Pisante,     Department of Bioscience and Technology for Food, Agriculture and Environment, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy

Asif Qureshi,     Environmental Systems Group, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana, India

Latha Rangan,     Applied Biodiversity Laboratory, Biosciences and Bioengineering Department, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

Abdul Rehman,     Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan

Arup Kumar Sarma,     Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam, India

P.K. Sarma,     Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam, India

Y. Shiva Shankar,     Environmental Systems Group, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana, India

G. Subramanyam,     ANGRAU, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India

Sajitha T. P.,     Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Sumpam Tangjang,     Department of Botany, Rajiv Gandhi University, Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, India

A. Terrieux,     UMR LISST, University of Toulouse, National Higher Training School for Agricultural Education, Toulouse, France

Ifeanyi Emmanuel Uzochukwu,     Department of Animal Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Leonardo Verdi,     University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), Firenze, Italy

Tonlong Wangpan,     Department of Botany, Rajiv Gandhi University, Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, India

Foreword

The term sustainable agriculture, according to FAO, means farming of crops and livestock in such a way that it meets society's current and future needs for food, feed, and fiber. It must be based on an understanding of ecosystem services without over exploitation of natural resources. Unfortunately, to meet our ever-increasing demand globally, we have over used and rather abused natural resources resulting in poor soil health, depletion of water levels, decline in genetic resources, and deterioration of environment around us. On the demographic front, globally we are likely to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 demanding an increase of food production by 70%, which would mean increased pressure on cultivable land and natural resources demanding scaling of new innovations around sustainable farming systems and practices.

Agriculture, like other human activities, must take into account every element of evaluation to make balanced choices between the urgent needs and the rational use of natural resources. Hence, if the term sustainable is used with this understanding then we shall surely ensure our future food, nutrition, and environmental security. These are the questions that farmers are asking themselves, in the background of global reduction of cultivated area, the negative effects of demographic pressure, and the growing impact of climate change associated with extreme and more harmful events.

In this context, this publication highlights the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and provides very authentic information to all those who aim to increase production with an eye on environmental protection as well as to address the concerns of climate change, especially through increased carbon sequestration and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions using sustainable agricultural practices or climate smart agriculture.

The pleasant graphic layout of the volume published by Elsevier, together with a thematic index wisely divided into four sections, deals with the multidisciplinary topics so fundamental for Sustainable Agriculture. Fortunately, the articles included in the book cover well the intensification of production systems around innovations and the benefits of integration of good agronomist practices which offer future optimism. The principles and technologies, so well illustrated, are accompanied by interesting case studies and updated bibliographic contents.

I congratulate the editors for their sincere efforts in bringing out this publication for the benefit of students, academicians, researchers, and policymakers interested in both practicing and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Raj Paroda

Chairman, Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, India

Preface

Balanced food security without compromising the ecosystem services is a dire need under the scenario of the increasing global human population, declining reserves of natural resources, and in the face of severe climate change–induced uncertainty to the environment and human health. In practice, both environmental and public health cannot be solved separately. Implementing sustainable agricultural practices can help to attain this through working in harmony with the natural processes to promote resilience of the agroecosystem for sustained production and the nourishment of the growing population. Thus, by delivering sustainable nutrition, sustainable agriculture makes the bridge between environmental and public health and aids in developing a greener economy. Hence, the process of sustainable agriculture is discussed under both environmental and economic principles.

Environmental criteria are concerned with technology protection or enhancing the farm resource base and thus improving soil productivity in terms of not only the quantity, but also the quality while economic criterion is the technology meeting the farmer's production goals and is profitable. Satisfaction of these two criteria demands specific knowledge of the linkages between environmental degradation and its potential pathways to marginalization. The use of nonlabor variable inputs needs to be intensified that enhance soil fertility and pest management (such as inorganic and organic fertilizers, and the use of integrated pest management strategies) to safeguard the quality of the produce. To achieve this, cooperation from farmers and other rural community members is required in all processes of problem analysis, and technology development, adaptation, and extension. Local knowledge and practices play a remarkable role in generating sustainable land use information and sharing the knowledge and innovations for adoption by farmers and service providers, including innovative approaches in agriculture, which is an urgent need towards using sustainable agriculture for climate change, and human and environmental health. Above all, the existence of a robust policy and good institutional system to execute plays a vital role in the successful use of sustainable agriculture for a healthy environment and climate resilience.

Sustainable agriculture integrates the concept of continuous improvement in agricultural productivity, profitability, and competitiveness by sustainable management of natural resources. On the eve of declining natural resources, changing climate, and increasing food demands, the shift from the existing intensive production system to a more sustainable system needs to be an evolving and continuous process.

This book brings together leading researchers specializing in different components of sustainable agriculture and the environment continuum from different regions of the world. It is divided into 4 sections and 20 chapters, describing the relationship between agriculture, society, nature, and the environment; sustainable agriculture and sustainable development goals, management of biophysical resources for sustainable food, and environment; traditional knowledge and innovative options; social and policy aspects of sustainable agriculture and environment.

Our heartfelt thanks to all authors who contributed to this book. A special thanks to the reviewers for reading and rereading various manuscript drafts. We are grateful to Dr. Raj Paroda for his Foreword. We also thank Ms. Lena Sparks, Senior Editorial Project Manager, Elsevier, and Ms. Nancy Maragioglio, Sr. Acquisitions Editor, Elsevier, for their patience and trust in us during this project.

We thank Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman; Tezpur University, Assam, India; and the University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy, for their continued support.

Muhammad Farooq, Muscat, Oman.

Nirmali Gogoi, Tezpur, India.

Michele Pisante, Teramo, Italy.

Part I

Introduction

Outline

Chapter 1. Sustainability, sustainable agriculture, and the environment

Chapter 2. Sustainable agriculture for food and nutritional security

Chapter 3. Sustainable agriculture and sustainable developmental goals: a case study of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa

Chapter 1: Sustainability, sustainable agriculture, and the environment

Michele Pisante ¹ , Nirmali Gogoi ² , and Muhammad Farooq ³       ¹ Department of Bioscience and Technology for Food, Agriculture and Environment, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy      ² Department of Environmental Sciences, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India      ³ Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khoud, Muscat, Oman

Abstract

Sustainability has always been the paradigm of sustainable agriculture that has played and still plays a decisive role in the conversion of unsustainable management models and practices, while at the same time responding to the needs of a living planet despite the constant growth of the population. For these ambitious goals, the challenges of equity and efficiency as fundamental components must also aim to reduce the gap for healthy eating in order to live in a healthier environment. Therefore, Sustainability, Sustainable Agriculture, and the Environment represent the vertices of a strictly interconnected system on which the progress acquired has shown widespread criticalities at a global level, in particular in the translation from theoretical principles to the practices of application, monitoring, and evaluation of results. The impact of climate change for which the sustainability of agriculture represents an important part of the solutions available in the short and medium term must be taken into high consideration on these aspects. In this perspective, the advanced study and educational program in the continuous search for innovations to be transferred to direct operators of agriculture appear as the most important need on which to turn the attention of technical and political decision-makers, identifying coordinated multidisciplinary actions and multistakeholder approaches to support of environmental compliance programs and measures.

Keywords

Agriculture and environment; Agroecology; Organic farming; Precision agriculture; Resiliency models; Sustainability

1. Introduction

The first global environmental concern started to emerge after World War II, with the United Nations (UN) calling for the first Scientific Conference on Conservation and Utilisation of Natural resources. These concerns were brought about by the report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, after a meeting in Stockholm in June 1972. Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly created, in 1983, the World Commission on Environment and Development to address issues like the depletion of natural resources and food insecurity. The Commission aimed at creating both the definition of what we call today sustainable development and a path toward sustainability that all nations could pursue together.

The result was the Brundtland Report, published in 1987, which became a significant trigger point for spreading the concept of sustainable development, defined as the ability to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs . Since then, a multitude of conferences and international protocols have tried to work toward the idea of global sustainability. Yet, if the definition of sustainability is essential, so is finding a way to empirically and effectively measure it.

Conventional agriculture basically focuses on yield maximization with the aid of fertilizers and pesticides. However, this leads to the degradation of both soil and water and causes contamination of the food chain. Water is used at a higher rate in conventional agriculture and thus it demands higher energy input. In contrast, sustainable agriculture emphasizes long-term economic profit by ensuring environmental health. Here, resources are used in a sustainable manner.

On the term sustainability there is no consensus on the meaning and not even a common concept for the terminology. Moreover, today frequently abused and transformed for useless ideological battles, where scientific data are not taken into consideration for a lasting and widespread strategy of global management. The Global Sustainability Institute in Australia reports no less than 80 definitions of sustainability indicated by government agencies, multilateral agencies, corporations, and civil society (Borch, 2007). The major concern is that the terminology is used in a different context by varied people and groups of people involved in agriculture, depending on their point of view and the relative perception—often partial—of sustainability.

According to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) elaborated by the UN in 2015, the agricultural sector offers vital solutions for sustainable development. However, agriculture is currently responsible for 30% of global emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 (IPCC, 2019). Additionally, a growing world population, more and more evident changes in climate, natural resource degradation caused by agriculture, and significant problems of global food insecurity call for an increase in both productivity and sustainability in the agricultural sector. Thus, on the one hand, sustainable agriculture should propel technological advancements and promote practices that boost food production without negatively impacting environmental goods and services (Pretty, 2008). On the other hand, agriculture should be able to maintain its productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely (Ikerd, 1990) thus improving the well-being of not only farmers but of the whole society (Ikerd, 1993). Agriculture is viewed to offer multifunctional services beyond productivity and farming cannot be considered to be sustainable unless it delivers both production and ecosystem services to society and nature, efficiently and with resilience. Thus, sustainable agriculture carries multilevel productivity and ecological responsibility in economic, environmental, and social terms, from the field to farm to landscape to watershed and beyond (Pisante, 2015; Kassam et al., 2020). If all these aspects are not correctly measured and monitored, this might lead to major global problems: from environmental degradation, which might result in stagnation or reduction of yields, decreased biodiversity, and loss in soil fertility, to name a few, to economic dilemmas such as an increase in production costs that would harm farmers' business and their survival, to social hazards such as land abandonment (Farooq and Pisante, 2019). These definitions and current views about sustainable production confirm that the approaches for evaluating sustainability are different from traditional ones, due to their inclusion of all the above mentioned aspects (Hart, 2006). Since the first discussions on sustainability took place in the 1980s, its monitoring has represented a challenge for many researchers and decision-makers: both at the farm, regional, and national levels. Yet, different sources still use different indicators (Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019).

The sustainability indicators represent major challenges compared to traditional indicators (e.g., water quality, stakeholder engagement, or agricultural production growth), due to their inherent multidimensional nature (Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019). Any individual changes in traditional indicators refers influnce of indipendent factors for the same. On the contrary, as the social and economic well-being of communities can be considered as a result of several multilayered components, identifying sustainability indicators results in particular challenges (Hart, 2006). Thus, identifying indicators that encompass all these dimensions is challenging, as the lack of unanimity among stakeholders on the criteria that have to be considered points out. Besides, in the last 2 decades, the approaches to measure agricultural sustainability have been unable to tackle the environmental, economic, and social dimensions simultaneously (Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019).

In this chapter, agricultural sustainability in the light of the sustainability indicators has been discussed. Moreover, suggestions to achieve agricultural sustainability have also been highlighted.

2. Sustainability

The concept of sustainability is widely accepted from an economic–social–ethical point of view and can be divided into two categories: regulatory and impact. The first consists of the agreements and proposals that were the result of the conceptual framework for sustainable development developed by the UN, and the second refers to the scientific analysis of sustainability and sustainable development with an economic and ecological bias (Ríos-Osorio et al., 2013). Sustainability is all about caring for the future generation by taking care of the resources for their use. It has both long- and short-term benefits. Social, environmental, and economic performances are the prime concern to measure sustainability.

2.1. Ecological

Ecological sustainability is one of the pillars to attain environmental sustainability. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) speculation was utilized to inspect the connection between pay development and natural degradation (Mishra, 2020). The EKC speculation sets which pay has an equilateral association for environmental corruption. Thus, at the beginning phase, as regards the monetary turn of events, an increment in financial development corrupts the climate to a point in the past where natural debasement decreases. The natural debasing impact of monetary development in the beginning phase of advancement is credited to the scale impact, where unadulterated development in the size of the economy contaminates and debases the climate (Kwakwa et al., 2018). In any case, after a specific level, the significant improvement of monetary development will thusly increment ecological m indfulness. This will lead to an interest in a cleaner climate and tough natural guidelines that support the reception of natural amicable innovation which works on the climate (for example, procedure impact) (Kwakwa et al., 2018). Along these lines, the interface between pay and ecological debasement manifests an upset U-shaped capacity of monetary development. The environmental effect of agricultural total factor productivity (ATFP) was inspected utilizing the Borlaug theory (Alhassan, 2021). The speculation places that, at first ATFP degrades the climate during monetary development, yet at a specific edge, a higher farming efficiency advances financial development, which, thus, expands interest in ecological administrations, what's more, merchandise produced under the stricter natural norms. Rigid natural guidelines and higher contamination charges induce makers to expand their production costs to keep away from charges. Findings from the continual evaluation tell that the total factor productivity (TFP) of agriculture maintains a U-shaped association with carbon dioxide emissions, denying the hypothesis given by Borlaug. It indicates a refinement of environmental standards during the early stages of agricultural production and after attaining a certain stage of production; the environmental standard degrades by causing agriculture as a source of carbon emission. Moreover, the income of the citizen has a dual influence on the emission of carbon dioxide. Therefore, these results do not upkeep the EKC hypothesis with regard to the environment–income relationship. Moreover, openness in trade along with urbanization escalates the emission of carbon dioxide. The observed evidence shows that it is essential to take the necessary steps to devise the sub-Saharan Africa region with additional effective policies and mechanisms to draw attention to cleaner technologies (Abid, 2016). Mere strengthening in production machinery without offsetting actions has an adverse environmental impact. Thus, policies that improve environmental outcomes in the sector are needed.

2.2. Social

Social sustainability and, more broadly, social development implicate both the well-being of individuals and the overall social welfare. McKenzie (2004) described social sustainability as a life-enhancing condition within communities, and a process within communities that can achieve that condition. More specifically, the social sustainability of agriculture refers to improvement in the life of the farmer (Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019) and blends together his/her working conditions, food security, landscape quality, and, eventually, animal welfare (van Calker et al., 2007). Phelan et al. (2017) identified five components of social well-being:

• Access to a healthy natural environment, which refers to the quality of ecosystem services;

• Access to infrastructure and economic opportunities, which includes factors such as access to health, education, transport, and so on;

• Equity and governance, which means a fair distribution of resources and the government's capability to respond to community needs;

• Social cohesion, which encompasses the social ties and networks of the community;

• Community actualization, which relates to life satisfaction and a sense of belonging.

Besides, all individuals should have access to services such as healthcare, shelter, education, and so on, and even elements such as social cohesion and society's capability to pursue common goals can be considered (Gilbert, 1996).

It is, therefore, very challenging to quantify the factors playing in social sustainability. There is no single definition of what social sustainability is (Hák et al., 2016), as each community has its unique characteristics. These depend on cultural, social, economic, and environmental factors (Hák et al., 2016; Martin, 2001), and these should be studied and understood before selecting suitable indicators. Thus, an additional challenge for establishing sustainability indicators resides in the fact that these factors might be very subjective (Edum-Fotwe and Price, 2009).

When elaborating on social indicators, it should be decided whether the assessment will concern a more micro dimension, or a more macro dimension. The first means that the study will focus on the farm community and will assess the working conditions and the well-being of the farmer and his/her family. The second will, instead, try to measure the welfare of the society, evaluating the quality of rural areas, agriculture's contribution to employment, and product responsibility. Lebacq et al. (2012) found it essential to establish an internal dimension that takes into account the farmer's quality of life and an external dimension that relates to society's demands. This classification allows the researchers to identify a set of social sustainability indicators (Fig. 1.1).

Internal social sustainability refers to educational possibilities (for instance, does the farmer have access to continuous education?), to farmer's workload and working time, and to his/her implication in the community, which prevents feelings of isolation. Complementary to these ideas, external social sustainability attributes are (Lebacq et al., 2012):

(i) multifunctionality, which refers to the isolation of the rural area in question, the access to ecosystem services, and employment opportunities;

(ii) acceptable agricultural practices, which aim to evaluate what impacts the methods adopted by farmers have on the environment and whether animal welfare is maintained;

(iii) quality of products, which concerns both food safety and the quality of the process.

Craheix et al. (2016) also divided the concept of social sustainability into two fractions. The first set of indicators assesses the expectations of farmers in terms of quality of working conditions and operational difficulties through specific indicators such as physical difficulty, pesticides use risk, system complexity, and technical monitoring. The second investigates whether the farming system responds to society's expectations, in terms of contribution to overall employment and supply of raw materials. A similar procedure is adopted in the INSPIA framework (Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019), which looks at farm labor in terms of working hours per ha and satisfaction index, and interaction with society, in terms of farmers' training levels and risk of abandonment of agricultural activity. The satisfaction index is a fascinating indicator because despite its subjective nature it can be quantitatively measured through four questions about the farmer's perception of his/her working conditions and farm management.

Figure 1.1  Social sustainability indicators. Adapted from Lebacq, T., Baret, P.V., Stilmant, D., 2012. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x after modification.

A different approach has been adopted by FAO (2001) in its SAFA framework, which presents a more human rights–centered perspective, by developing indicators that measure equity, labor rights, cultural diversity, fair trading prices, and human safety and health. The SAEMETH framework (Fig. 1.2) adds yet another angle, by including the cultural dimension to the social one, thus developing sociocultural indicators, which are organized into four categories (Peano et al., 2015).

Figure 1.2  Sociocultural indicators, organized into four categories, according to the SAEMETH framework. Adapted from Peano, C., Tecco, N., Dansero, E., Girgenti, V., Sottile, F., 2015. Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustainability 7 (6), 6721–6741. after modification.

2.3. Economic

Within a context of a sustainable agricultural system, it is fundamental to safeguard family farms, which are now at risk from external pressures such as globalization and the rise of agro-industrial corporations, the establishment of mega-trends, and the increased competitiveness of markets (Wrzaszcz and Zegar, 2016). The social well-being of a community is often closely linked to material welfare, as being economically stable allows individuals to have greater peace of mind and an increased sense of security ( Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). Therefore, safeguarding the economic viability of the agricultural sector should be imperative when formulating policies (Olsson et al., 2009). Despite the importance of this dimension, the conceptual discussions around it have remained limited (O'Donoghue et al., 2016). Thus, it would be essential to find a way to assess it effectively.

Economic sustainability can be divided into two aspects: viability and vulnerability (O'Donoghue et al., 2016). Viability can be defined as a level of annual cash income sufficient to cover farm operating costs, meet the household minimum consumption needs, replace capital items at a rate that ensures constant serviceability of the capital stock, and finance loan retirement as scheduled (Smale et al., 1986). A viable farm should, therefore, be able to (i) reimburse the outstanding labor from the family at the same extent as the average agricultural wage and (ii) give a 5% return on assets other than land (Hennessy et al., 2008). A vulnerable farm is, on the other hand, neither sustainable nor viable: it does not produce profit and has no other income (no off-farm income). It would be essential to incorporate the notion of farm viability and vulnerability in the identification of indicators, making it the first theme of economic sustainability evaluation. Olsson et al. (2009) identified a way forward to achieve this. These researchers considered performance (in terms of productivity, profitability, efficiency, growth, trade, government intervention, and off-farm activities) and financial and productive capital. According to them, the means for achieving economic viability is capital, which encompasses wealth, income, material possession, and financial assets. They highlighted that for economic analysis, it is of primary importance to determine whether it has to look at the micro- or the macrodimension. The first focuses on individuals (i.e., the farmers) allowing the determination of the viability and profitability of the farm, while the latter focuses on the economic viability of a whole region/country (Olsson et al., 2009).

The OECD (2001) elaborated a framework in which indicators take into account both wider dimensions, such as agricultural gross domestic product and agricultural output, and farm-specific financial resources, in terms of farm income and agri-environmental expenditure (which include private and public spending and expenditure on research). Other frameworks provided indicators that integrate other aspects: the impact of farms on the local economy (Hani et al., 2003); economic specialization rate, financial autonomy, and reliance on subsidies (Zahm et al., 2008); enlargement of the business and packaging materials (Peano et al., 2015). After an in-depth analysis of the academic sources, it resulted that almost all frameworks considered aspects of income, productivity and economic efficiency, diversification, investments and reliance on subsidies, and energy efficiency and renewable energy use in their indicator lists (Craheix et al., 2016; FAO, 2013; Giampaolo et al., 2016; Hani et al., 2003; Peano et al., 2015; Solagro, 2000; Trivino-Tarradas et al., 2019; Zahm et al., 2008). However, even in this case, no wide consensus has been reached. In particular, choosing a framework that captures farmers' economic well-being at both macro- and microresults is complex. Where some frameworks, such as the one provided by the OECD, provide a solid methodological approach to evaluate economic sustainability, others might not succeed in encompassing all aspects simultaneously.

3. Agriculture and environment

Agriculture, implemented properly, is an important solution to the issue of achieving global food security and also improving the environment (Lal, 2008). The negative environmental impacts of current agricultural practices are progressively putting productivity versus sustainability in contrast with consequent environmental costs for the agriculture systems. Soil degradation, water depletion and contamination, inefficient use of energy, loss of plant and animal genetic diversity, and the reduction of agricultural habitats are among the most widespread impacts.

The considerable progress made in agriculture to increase production and respond to the growth in consumption has gone far beyond the advantages deriving from the structural transformation of production and has largely compromised the quantity and quality of natural resources and more generally the environment. The growth-oriented development inevitably focuses on increasing the value of production, rather than on social inclusion and ecological compatibility of production systems (Rees, 2003). Consequently, over time the need for a change aimed at the sustainability of production has been affirmed to rebalance the relationship between primary activity and the environment. Whereas, at the same time it highlights innovation as an indispensable determinant to prepare agriculture for future challenges. These necessities are initiative for evaluating the demand for high impact products. In this dynamic relationship, achieving quality and territorial development objectives in sustainable agriculture and the environment requires new approaches and strategies. For example, the transfer of scientific evidence in the management of natural resources such as water resources and agricultural soil is vital (Nawaz et al., 2022). Likewise, monitoring the complex interrelationships of agroecosystems with the atmosphere enhances biodiversity and protects ecosystem services (such as clean water, sequestration of atmospheric carbon, protection from surface runoff and soil erosion, etc.) (Rendon et al., 2020; Nawaz et al., 2022). Although there are currently some interventions capable of evaluating the potential of these activities. Unfortunately, they are insufficient due to the scarce financial resources for agronomic research, with the foreseeable risk of seeing these disappear too. To overcome this situation, it is necessary to set up a specific research and experimentation network. This must be homogeneously spread throughout the national territory in order to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainable agronomic techniques for climate change adaptation. Moreover, the integration of rational management practices, with the development of policies suited to territorial diversity, aimed more at results rather than the resources provided. This will allow for the development of effective models for sustainable growth of agriculture that is livable, fair, and achievable.

The rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (R–W) cropping system is the lifeblood of the masses in South Asia. In this cropping system, rice seedlings are transplanted in flooded fields which is followed by wheat planting in thoroughly tilled soil (Nawaz et al., 2019). In addition to high water requirements, this cropping system also contributes a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions (Nawaz et al., 2019; Bhat et al., 2021). With rising environmental concerns, there are also growing concerns about the production stagnation and sustainability of the R–W cropping system. Dissemination of resource-conservation- and ecosystem-based technologies is the potential technological interference for reducing the carbon, water, and energy footprints and improving the carbon sequestration and sustainability of the R–W cropping system (Negi et al., 2016; Farooq et al., 2021). The technologies, for the R–W cropping system, include residue management, laser land leveling, the use of the permanent raised bed, rice direct seeding, the inclusion of legumes between wheat and rice, alternate wetting and drying system for rice, Sesbania brown manuring, zero tillage wheat, etc. (Ishfaq et al., 2020; Farooq et al., 2011, 2021, 2022; Bhat et al., 2021; Kanannavar et al., 2020).

3.1. Productivity vs. sustainability

The growing global demand for food, animal feed, and biofuels is well known. The world's population is estimated to grow from >8 billion today to 9.1 billion by 2050 (FAO, 2013). More importantly, the growth in income increases the volume and changes the composition of demand for agricultural products. This necessitates a hike in the use of agricultural raw materials for agricultural production. To attain sustainability under this scenario it is important to choose the raw materials and also recycle the produce and wastes that are generated during the production process. Therefore, sustainable cultivation of all the crops, fisheries, and livestock needs to be prioritized.

Throughout history, agricultural productivity documented higher progress rates. With the increased use of resources, the production of foods exceeds the growth rate of the population. For instance, there was a hike in food production during the Green Revolution (1961–2000) from 800 million tonnes to over 2.2 billion tonnes (FAO, 2011). Estimates of past and present productivity trends are very different, making it difficult to predict productivity in the future in the long run. With the widespread recognition of the need to significantly increase food production, the debate is on if agricultural productivity has to decline or resume globally. Some new assessments indicate that TFP, one of the prime inclusive measures of productivity that reflects the efficacy of conversion of all inputs into outputs, has increased in major global regions since 2000. It has been suggested that the average increase is about 2% (Fuglie, 2012). Witnessing the distinct countries and subregions the situation is more complex. Some major powers such as China, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and Ukraine have realized much greater TFP growth rates than their regional averages. Sub-Saharan Africa lags behind (Yu and NinPratt, 2011). Other studies, especially those uses partial factor productivity signs such as labor and land efficiency, showed a higher negative worldview, particularly when the performance of China is omitted from the world average (Alston et al., 2010).

In developing countries like China and Latin America, the efficiency of labor grows at a faster rate than the productivity of the land as workers were dismissed from the sector (Jankowska et al., 2012; Thirtle et al., 2003; Sharma et al., 1990). This is in contrast to Asia, where land efficiency is dominant, and Africa, where the major driver is land extension. With the increased productivity in a few livestock sectors, particularly in nonruminant sectors, there are concerns about the rising growth of crop productivity. It is important to note that crop yield is the best-known index of soil efficacy. However, the growth rate of the average yield for most major grain crops is decreasing. Yield growth of wheat and rice has dropped from 2.53% to about 1% from 1980 onward (Ray et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2017), whereas maize (Zea mays L.) yields have increased by just under 2% over the last decade (Kovaleski et al., 2019). In developing countries and small-scale family farms, productivity decline and slowing growth are of particular concern. The gap between farmers' yields and technical yield efficiency imitates the nonoptimal use of most of the farm inputs and the inappropriate adoption of most production techniques (Rong et al., 2021; Viatte, 2001). Measures to lessen the efficiency gap between real levels and technological efficacy can bring higher paybacks in terms of nutrition, food security, and local income (World Bank, 2008). Reducing the gap in gender productivity on small family-owned farms can also help decrease the gap between potential yield and farm yield. The gap in productivity of gender is associated with unequal access to inputs and resources in developing countries by 2.54% (FAO, 2011).

3.2. Environmental costs of agriculture

Enhancing agricultural production to meet food requirements comes with a cost to the environment upon which human life depends. Increased food production is possible only at the expense of natural resources. However, in the present time, there is little scope to increase the arable lands in most parts of the world (Bren d’Amour et al., 2017; FAO, 2011). However, in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, some land resources are available, but about 70% of such lands are suffering from terrain constraints (FAO, 2011). Land use and management practices can help harvest high yields but also lead to a loss in global land productivity by about 0.2% per year (Nelleman et al., 2009). Such land degradation makes the topsoil vulnerable to erosion and subsequently reduces the input use efficiency and causes air and water pollution.

Agriculture is the largest water user, representing about 70% of total withdrawal (Calzadilla et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2022). However, the world's freshwater resources are expected to decline affected by the exponential growth of population by the year 2050 (OECD, 2012a). The agriculture sector is also one of the major causes of water pollution from the use of nutrients and pesticides in crop production. The intensive cropping system consumes up to 50% of the available inorganic and organic nutrient inputs and causes pollution due to nutrient spills (OECD, 2012b). However, in developing countries, the crop production systems only cause the net withdrawal of soil nutrients resulting in a decline in productivity.

Farming and deforestation alone account for almost one-third of the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The use of nitrogenous fertilizer in arable agricultural soils releases nitrous oxide, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, whereas submerged and flooded agricultural lands are the major source of methane emission. Livestock production is also associated with substantial emissions of greenhouse gases. Tillage operations in conventional agriculture deteriorate soil structure and make them vulnerable to erosion. This also leads to reduced carbon storage ability of soil (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2010).

4. Possible actions toward a more sustainable agriculture

Biodiversity supports farming and food safety by providing the required genetic material for the breeding of plants and livestock. In the last century, biodiversity is significantly reduced, mainly due to habitat destruction caused by logging. Maintaining biodiversity is vital for the sustainability and flexibility of agricultural systems as it builds the ability to withstand shocks and continue to function in changing situations. The challenge is to maximize the constructive contribution of agriculture to biodiversity and diminish its negative impact. Policymakers might keep away from contamination charges by taking on eco-accommodating innovation which has the twin advantages of expanding efficiency and lessening ecological debasement. The connection between agriculture and the environment was examined using models like Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square and Canonical Cointegration Regression for a sub-Saharan Africa panel of 38 countries for the period 1981–2016 (Alhassan, 2021). Policymakers need to emphasize the integration of climate change risks choices into national policies for environmental protection when improving agricultural productivity. The relevant ministries in different countries should encourage the agreement of climate-smart and eco-friendly technologies. Public–private partnership is also needed to inspire innovation that will subsidize the greening of the agriculture sector. Other optional policies include the protection of forests and strict implementation of environmental regulations on forest clearing. In the following lines, various methods for sustainable agricultural intensification have been discussed. The key models of resilience for sustainable and conventional agriculture have also been highlighted.

4.1. Agroecology, organic farming, and sustainable intensification

Intensive farming focuses on short-term goal that contributes to soil degradation and loss of biodiversity, whereas, to manage sustainability, the efforts should focus on the long-term goal of the ecosystem health maintenance. Conventional agricultural practices contribute to environmental pollution (Fig. 1.3). Therefore, it is essential to find out the carbon footprint of various agricultural techniques. However, to feed a growing population, we must increase agricultural production and for this agricultural intensification is a must. However, to keep a balance between environmental health and economics, the inclusion of the agroecology concept in farming can help. Agroecology is the fusion of ecological principles in farming (Moudry Jr. et al., 2018). Gliessmann (2011) extended the demarcation of agroecology to consumers and criticizes the economic framework. Various agroecological practices have been now identified and documented to be helpful for achieving sustainable intensification (Wezel et al., 2014). The major focus of all these agroecological practices includes a higher dependency on biological management rather than chemical or technological options. To achieve resilience, these practices are directed to take care of the diversity of system components and their relationships.

FAO has identified the following 10 elements of agroecology that are independent and interlinked (FAO, 2019; Migliorini et al., 2017):

Figure 1.3  Consequences of conventional agricultural practices.

(i) Diversity: It ensures food and nutritional security along with the conservation and protection of natural resources.

(ii) Co-creation and sharing of knowledge: Confirms better response to the local agricultural challenges through participatory processes.

(iii) Synergies: Enhances cohesion between key food system functions with production and ecosystem services.

(iv) Efficiency: Innovative agroecological practices ensure more production with the use of fewer resources.

(v) Resilience: Confirms sustainable food and agricultural systems by improving the resilience of people, communities, and ecosystems.

(vi) Recycling: It confirms lower economic and environmental costs during agricultural production.

(vii) Human and social values: It confirms the improvement of livelihoods of rural populations by facilitating equity and social well-being.

(viii) Culture and food tradition: It ensures both food and nutritional security through healthy, diversified, and culturally appropriate diets.

(ix) Responsible governance: Confirms efficient governance mechanisms starting from the grassroot level.

(x) Circular and solidarity economy: It facilitates the connection between producers and consumers to provide innovative solutions for living.

Sustainable intensification is the need of the hour to address the issues of climate change and resource conservation while increasing food production to satisfy the demand of the growing population. Though the term sustainable intensification originated during the 1990s, it received worldwide relevance during the last decade due to the prevailing economic crisis. In this approach, yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014). We cannot increase the arable lands at the expense of biodiversity, hence the hike in food production has to be from the sustainable intensification of the existing agricultural lands. This demands corresponding negative environmental impacts of agricultural practices such as soil erosion, contamination, etc. Moreover, the use of synthetic fertilizers especially nitrogenous fertilizers and the intensive use of resources lead to the emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases from the agricultural sector (IPES Food, 2019). Thus, the aim of sustainable intensification is not only to avoid environmental damage, but rather to offer continuous benefits to the environment by managing wastes and judicious utilization of resources. To achieve sustainable intensification, it is important to apply the ecological concepts and principles in farming so that the farmers can directly participate in climate change mitigation.

4.2. Traditional agriculture as sustainability and resiliency models

Traditional agriculture can be defined as a primitive style of food production and farming that involves the intensive use of indigenous knowledge, land use, traditional tools, natural resources, organic fertilizer, and the cultural beliefs of the farmers (Patel et al., 2019). Agricultural resilience is about equipping farmers to absorb and recover from shocks and stresses to their agricultural production and livelihoods. Some shocks are short term, others long term. Some come suddenly while others are predictable. And some are more severe while others slowly erode farmers' ability to farm. Traditional farming is mainly based on labor intensive. Adaptability is the fundamental requirement for resilience. It may not be always possible to regain the original health of an agroecosystem under the changing climatic parameters; however, it can able to adjust in its new form. In this situation, diversity helps the agroecosystem to attain the more desired form. Thus, to achieve maximum adaptability in an agroecosystem, diversity is necessary. Modern farming is entirely based on capital intensive. Monocropping and precision agriculture are some of the techniques practiced in modern farming. The modern method of farming is not environment friendly as chemical fertilizers and pesticides are used. Asia is home to a number of traditional agricultural landscapes that have withstood climate variability and varied societal changes for over thousand years. Their sustainability is due to a high degree of resilience that is brought about by integrated resource management, maintenance of material cycles, supporting a variety of societal and ecosystem services, etc. On the other hand, modern agricultural systems are highly productive and efficient but are vulnerable to changes in climate and markets due to their optimized nature (Yadav et al., 2008). The UNU-ISP project CECAR Asia focuses on enhancing the sustainability of rural agriculture production systems by combining the resilience of traditional agricultural systems with the efficiency of modern systems (World bank, 2005). Study was conducted in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Viet Nam, with ancient irrigation systems and Kandyan home gardens selected for study in Sri Lanka. The study on enhancing resilience and productivity of irrigation systems is composed of three components, namely: (1) Groundwater in Northern Province Irrigation: Investigation of groundwater potential for irrigation needs for a diversified crop calendar and the options for ground in water distribution water recharge, (2) Use of short-term rainfall forecasts: Incorporating short-term rainfall forecasts for irrigation supply decision-making in Mahaweli H using bulk water allocation system, and (3) Mosaic of Traditional and Modern Irrigation Systems: Water allocation and water distribution mechanism study in the Deduru Oya system to identify optimal water allocation among traditional and modern systems and type of farmer organizations for managing in water distribution. Satellite images show that existing irrigation tanks have a strong influence on soil moisture and vegetation in the surrounding area. The groundwater recharging may be used to enhance storage and use in diversifying agriculture practices. Currently downscaled numerical weather predictions at a 4 km scale show a clear overestimation of rainfall forecasts compared to ground observations. Bias correction and/or statistical approaches are required to improve the forecasts. Deduru Oya LB canal system has been selected for the study of the Mosaic System. LB canal will feed existing traditional tanks in addition to expanding the irrigated areas. Both water allocation (using HEC-HMS for inflows and WEPA for water allocation) and water distribution (household survey to understand farmer perception in traditional tank areas and newly opening areas) aspects have been studied. Preliminary studies show that the new reservoir can supply average irrigation needs, but the existing tanks would be useful in dry years.

Agroforestry is documented as one of the ecological approaches where trees are grown in the farming system (Kohli et al., 2008). This not only supports the grazing animals with fodder, but the manures from the animals also maintain the soil fertility. Moreover, farmers can get an additional source of income from the trees. Organic farming is another management approach to establishing agroecological features of cultivation. It provides the opportunity to think about farming, food, and the environment on the same platform. In recent times, organic farming is getting importance throughout the world. Organic farming in Europe is adopted in almost all EU countries since the 1990s. To incentivize and help farmers transition to more sustainable practices, the national Strategic Plans (2023–27) are directed to cover 25% of agricultural land area by 2030 and deliver ambitious EU environmental objectives (European Commission, 2021). Lower output, the requirement of adequate awareness among the farmers and lower financial gain to the farmers, causes organic agriculture less popular. In this regard, a certified market for the organically produced products is important to motivate the farmers. In most of the developed countries, certified organic farmers are increasing in number, whereas developing countries are still lagging behind (Rehber et al., 2002).

To keep the soil healthy and control pests, weeds, and diseases on the farm, this is important to grow a series of crops in the same area instead of monocropping. This is another traditional way to manage the farmland from erosion and help to improve physical, chemical, and biological soil properties and water quality (Bacon et al., 2012). Thus, it is very much helpful in sloppy land to reduce soil loss. Nutrients required by crops varied significantly; therefore, if the same crop is grown repeatedly, it depletes the soil nutrients at a very faster rate. Therefore, growing different crops in a sequence will help in building up the nutrient status (Negash et al., 2018). During crop rotation, the emphasis is given to incorporating the leguminous crops so that the requirement for nitrogenous fertilizers can be limited. Moreover, based on the differences in root structure and depth, the growing crops will utilize different soil layers for required nutrients and water. This will help in sustainable consumption of water and nutrients in the field apart from nutrient leaching. The major drawback in crop rotation is that soil type and topography of some areas may not support to the growth of the selected crops. Thus, crop rotation is one of the most powerful tools in organic farming. It provides crop diversification and a constant supply of income to the farmers. However, to achieve all the benefits of crop rotation, it is important to select the crops very carefully.

Opposite to crop rotation, polyculture is the integrated farming technique where the selected crops or animals are grown on the same farm with the idea of creating a natural diversity in the farm. It helps in improving the ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, pollination, and control of pests and diseases. This is popular among small farm holders, and industrial farmers do not opt for this due to the difficulties faced in the selection of crops and animals and the management difficulties at a larger scale (Pradhan et al., 2018). Some of the common polyculture techniques include cover cropping, companion planting, etc.

Another traditional, sustainable model of farming is mixed and intercropping. The major difference between mixed cropping and intercropping is that in mixed cropping, the seeds are mixed before sowing in a particular area. Whereas, in intercropping, the seeds of the selected crops are sown in separate rows in the same area (Waha et al., 2020). Crops like wheat and mustard can be grown in both mixed cropping and intercropping. In mixed cropping, crops normally experience competition for resources, but this is absent in intercropping as the management is done separately for each crop. Mixed cropping is a better option when there is the possibility of crop failure. Intercropping helps in improving crop production. Thus, intercropping can be the more suitable sustainability model.

4.3. Precision agriculture

The adoption of Precision Agriculture can make it possible to relaunch the competitiveness of primary production and contribute to actions to protect the environment and adapt to climate change, at the same time drastically reducing climate-altering gas emissions in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal. Furthermore, it can commit producers to other ambitious objectives, such as the reduction of erosion processes and greenhouse gas emissions, the improvement of soil fertility and biodiversity, as well as the resilience of farms, the reduction of soil compaction by