Limited trade-offs between agricultural innovations that foster environmentally sustainable production and productivity Challenges to smallholders’ adoption of innovations fostering

Intensive agriculture has generated environmental, social, and health costs. The Green Revolution made important environmental contributions by saving large areas of forest and woodland areas from conversion to agriculture (stevenson et al. 2013).4 However, it also generated environmental problems of its own (for example, nutrient pollution and pesticide residues), undermining the long-term sustainability of some intensive farming systems. Inappropriate management of modern inputs by farmers was the primary cause, and the problem was exacerbated by inadequate extension and training, ineffective regulation of water quality, and input pricing and subsidy policies that made modern inputs too cheap and encouraged excessive use of purchased inputs (Hazell 2009). Modifications in production systems, resource management, and spatial patterns of land use can reduce these trade-offs and generate synergies between environmental, economic, and social benefits (Buck et al. 2007; Milder et al. 2012; scherr and Mcneely 2008).

All developing East Asian countries have pursued sustainable cropping and livestock practices to some degree over the past 20–30 years. Both international agricultural research centers’ and national agricultural research systems’ breeding programs have since attempted to develop MVs that are less dependent on purchased inputs, and considerable effort has been devoted to research on farming systems, agronomic practices, integrated pest management (IPM), and other environment-friendly technologies. Details on a range of practices that are typically incorporated into environmentally sustainable production systems are featured in box D.3 in appendix D.

Most research and development and extension efforts for sustainable practices have targeted cereals. Because of its widespread cultivation and consumption, rice generates the greatest environmental impacts. Perhaps the most famous of the integrated sustainable approaches is IPM farmer field schools (FFs), which have been promoted in all East Asian countries (box 4.2). The other main integrated approaches that have gained ground in the region include the system of rice intensification, alternate wetting and drying, and practices promoting climate-smart agriculture (box 4.2). For other rice management approaches, see table D.1 and box D.5 in appendix D.

In crop farming, various field management practices (use of water, nutrients, pesticides) have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing reliance on inputs and negative environmental effects. In China, integrated soil-crop system management approaches have resulted in promising yield and profit results in maize, rice, and wheat production (box 4.3) (Cassou, Jaffee, and Ru 2017). In addition, countries such as Vietnam have pursued various approaches to improving input use efficiency (mostly pesticide and fertilizer) and use of biofertilizers and biopesticides (box 4.3). Precision application of inputs—according to crop needs— has also been tested and incrementally adopted in the region (box D.4 in appendix D). such precision technologies may make a big difference in protecting the environment and rural communities, even in places with limited access to data and analytic tools, or where farmer sophistication is limited.5

Integrated livestock production practices have the potential to reduce both the environmental footprint and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with livestock. Despite livestock’s importance as a livelihood and nutrition