TEEB Analytics regarding SRI within the Indian Rice Production System (week 5)

TEEB Analytics regarding SRI within the Indian Rice Production System

Introduction

When designing an analysis (typology) to evaluate the hidden or overlooked aspects of a farming system one must look at the various impacts on the Health & Skills, Society, Economy, and Environmental spheres. These four realms are interconnected and many of the items to be discussed will need to be viewed under each subset to see the true benefit or cost of the externalities mentioned. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) methodology to be discussed in this paper will be viewed from the lens of two distinct stakeholders: that of the Government/Research Institutes and that of the Community/Farmers in Indian rice production. SRI has promising results in terms of environmental benefits and is actively being introduced in India, which is why this papers aim is to investigate the hidden costs and benefits further within the Indian context.

“The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) methodology includes intermittent flooding [and drying which is known as ‘dry cracked planting’ and] advises transplanti[on] of young (eight to ten days old) single rice seedlings… [and then the application of] intermittent irrigation and drainage to maintain soil aeration” (TEEB, 2015).  Each stakeholder will, of course, have their own interests and therefore the topology will see those interests reflected in how any analysis is viewed. In the Governmental view, a strong link between economic valuations and societal relationships (both internally as well as globally) is reflected within the four spheres, while within the Community view the focus is on how the methodology impacts the community. That is the people’s health, their ability to profit from the enterprise, and their ability to maintain their way of life.

Question 1 & 2: Analytics regarding the impact to the Environment and Society/Health

“Worldwide, around 80 million hectares of irrigated lowland rice provides 75% of the world’s rice production. [Conventional] rice system[s] receive about 40% of the world’s total irrigation water and 30% of the world’s freshwater resources” (TEEB, 2015) from the environment. SRI reduces this groundwater demand by 2.5 times per hectare (Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2013).

Pesticide and water usage can also be viewed through the lens of the individual farmer or community. Pesticide intoxication has a direct negative health effect on the workers that apply them (-), and thus a decrease in pesticide use in SRI is a benefit for the workers themselves. Lower pesticide use in the fields also means less pollution of groundwater and air (+), which can be seen as a benefit both from an environmental and community point of view as pollution puts both the society’s and the environment's health at risk, and a governmental point of view as there are fewer issues with water purification, hospitalization, and in general the inability of its population to be economically productive due to intoxication (+). However, while pesticides have definite health concerns they may be a time-saver (+) or economic means (+) if the community owns or has a plant in their town. 

If organic manure is used instead of chemical fertilizers the TCA shifts to a benefit. By increasing the OM levels within the soil the fertility ratios (+) and water holding capacity of the soil (+) increase. Concerns or costs within these two items are soil porosity and input sourcing. That is, continually drying and flooding the soil may cause erosion (-), transpiration issues (-), acidification (-), and nutrient depletion (-) ( Favreab, 1997) and if a local source of organic manure is not available on-farm, then the farmer will have to purchase the compost (-) utilized.

Other items to note are the OM capabilities of the soil and sequestration of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). “Because SRI stops the continuous flooding of rice paddies, it will significantly reduce the emission of methane (CH4) from rice fields, which constitutes 5-19% of the global total” (+) (Uphoff, 2015), items important to the government as India’s signing of the Paris Climate Accord showcases their commitment to reduce GHGs. On the other hand, emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to increase due to synthetic fertilizers use (-). N2O, or nitrous oxide, is also considered an ‘ozone destroyer,’ which doesn’t have a specific local impact, but does have a very distinct global impact. Fertilizing with OM, rather than with nitrogen fertilizers means there will be less “excess N available for microbes to convert to N2O” (Uphoff, 2015) (+). SRI systems “also sequester carbon” (TEEB, 2015)(+) and “ponded water will lead to degeneration of …rice plants’ root systems in soil lacking oxygen” (Uphoff, 2015) so the dry-cracked method forces the rice plants to grow deep-roots which are stronger and less likely to be damaged by bad weather (+). All of these benefits are in line with the government’s desire and the Paris Accord.

Organic compost can be considered a benefit (+) if it is produced locally, either on farm (minimizes waste treatment & logistical costs) or within a community (creates economic gains within the community) (+). However, if the compost has to be shipped long distances or treated (-) or if there are large companies making the fertilizers within India the government may view shutting those companies down as a bad economic plan since a loss of employment could lead to higher poverty rates (-).

Figure 1 (listed below) shows other benefits and costs associated with SRI. 

Figure 1 TEEB, 2015

Question 1&2: Analytics regarding the impact to Society/Government in relation to Labor

When taking into account the cost savings for farmers under SRI, the increase in initial labor required, and the benefits of minimized municipal treatment plants needed, as well as increased water availability for communities, it makes sense for the Indian government to push SRI into those water scarce environments of rural communities. A study from the area of Kerala in Southern India found that “the major expenditure in SRI is incurred on labor costs” (Durga & Kumar, 2013).

Since SRI offers a higher yield while not becoming intensive (“average yield under SRI is found to be more than 27% higher” (Durga & Kumar, 2013)), it reduces pressure on the land and helps increase food security (Dumortier et al., 2011). The positive externality of lower input costs for farmers (+) leads to a negative externality for society: as farmers demand less labor, those same laborers have less bargaining power over lower rates for employment (-) and may lead to civil unrest due to higher unemployment (Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2016).

From the Farmer’s perspective, increased productivity and lower labor costs mean improved food security (+) either through utilizing the increased production or earning additional income by selling to the market. Further, since crops grown with SRI methods are not just more productive but have also lower production costs, this further enhances farmers’ incomes (+). Increased incomes lead to better access to health care, education, and standard of living, bringing up society by proxy (+).

Figure 2 (listed below) shows the cost breakdown of a farmer in both the SRI and Traditional Methodologies. 

Figure 2 Durga & Kumar, 2013

The open-source nature of SRI enables the emergence of a new knowledge commons in agriculture, where scientific expertise is integrated into place-specific knowledge (Prasad, 2010), however, while traditional knowledge is integrated into the SRI model, there is the concern that that same traditional knowledge may be lost as well (-). As a new method requiring new skills and training, we argue that this can also be seen as a negative externality for both the community and government on the short term, as it requires an investment of energy, time and money on both sides. For the farmer, a shift to SRI requires a shift in their entire way of farming, which is labor-intensive and costly at the start (-). Mastering SRI skills can take several years - connected to mediocre yields - and represent a loss in income and time to which a monetary value could easily be associated. SRI failure or bad results, whether or not because of lack of skill in the methodology, can discourage potential enthusiasts and thus limit the spread of SRI. In other words, the opportunity cost of adopting SRI may be too little, discouraging the adoption of SRI (-).

On the other hand, once SRI is mastered, there is an invisible benefit of knowledge sharing and promotion which could be calculated based on the cost of training (Prasad, 2010). Eventually, the farmers and workers can spread their knowledge amongst themselves and become self-organized - following the Flow model of Sherwood et al. (2016) (+); a sharing of knowledge within the community - thus decreasing the reliance on external organizations (+). From a governmental point of view, we argue that this empowerment of the farmers is a benefit, as they become more self-sufficient and independent of external expert knowledge and inputs. Furthermore, the farmers and workers enjoy added value to their skill-set due to their training in more efficient and higher-yielding techniques (+). Laborers that are already trained for SRI practices have (or should have) higher market value due to these skills (+).

Research has shown that the educational level and amount of land holdings increases the probability of adopting the SRI method and overall economic benefits (Barah, 2009). In enabling farmers to produce more with fewer inputs, SRI creates a shift from green revolution technology that favors wealthier farmers to knowledge-based techniques that favor any farmer as long as they have received training (Shekhar 2007) (+). This represents a flow of power from the wealthy farmers in the community to the poor, which makes it difficult to say whether it is a benefit or a cost from a ‘community’ point of view as it is either one depending on the point of view you take.

QUESTION 3 & 4: Balancing Act-Improving Policies for Firm Action

When reviewing the benefits and costs and trying to find the balance between them one can refer to the notion that, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” (Meyer, 1982) and while this concept may be attributed to Star Trek’s Spock, it is routed in the Utilitarianism philosophy of John Stuart Mill. If we take the view that the benefits must be for the greatest good, then we must break up our area of review to take in the quantity of people most affected by the items and then look at how much those items cost. Since rice production is by necessity a rural activity, this means looking at areas outside of major population centers and then categorizing the government’s impact in those regions.

One point of note here is that electricity for agriculture is subsidized in India, no charges exist for water and there is no market for GHG emissions. We, therefore, need a way to internalize the positive externalities of these ecosystem services at the farm level, for example, an economic incentive for the farmers to benefit from reducing GHG emissions. Payments for non-flooded rice production were suggested by the Environmental Defense Fund (Environmental Defense Fund, 2016) and offer a monetary incentive strategy to motivate farmers to include environmental considerations into their cultivating processes.

The cost-benefit ratio indicated that the small farmers benefit the most from an increase in the yield under SRI. To extend the economic benefits, the government should frame policies and open extension schools where the farmers can be educated through vocational training and demonstrations. To improve the balance between costs and benefits of SRI, the government can provide training in SRI techniques as well as subsidies to cover the income difference occurring in the first years and supplement their income in case of a loss as per a national insurance scheme. Creating special funding or subsidies to increase the quantity of Indian farmers to transition to SRI may in fact assist with the country’s new “National Food Security Act which requires 33.6 million tons of rice per year [to be grown] for its public food distribution system” (Debnatha, Babub, Ghosha, & Helmarc, 2017). However, compensating subsidies might not encourage farmers to be as effective as possible if they know that the government will pay for the difference anyway. This could lead to a negative externality regarding SRI promotion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, resource-poor farmers in marginal environments experience poor yields and are most exposed to food insecurity (TEEB, 2015). SRI offers a context-specific resource management system, which is necessary to maintain and enhance productivity in high-risk regions. As production increases to meet food security needs, rural farming communities are alleviated out of poverty (+). From a governmental standpoint, this means that a significant proportion of the population becomes economically productive (+), meaning that they can not only produce to meet their own needs but also to contribute to the country’s export power. From the community standpoint, income levels are raised, education is fostered, and their health and the environment are secure.

In the context of Indian Rice Production, we argue that the benefits for SRI out-weight the costs - based on our qualitative analysis - and that viewing their methodology from the two primary lenses of Government and Community showcases some of the concerns both agencies will need to keep in mind when implementing SRI in the future. Finally, we argue that a top-down approach is needed for swift adoption of SRI; hence policies to develop strong SRI research networks and ensure active participation of the municipality (aka. line) departments should be framed. The state action will enable quick adaptation of the technique and in turn, will satisfy the government's strategy to mitigate food security issues in the long run while making the local community self-sufficient and economically empowered at the same time.

References

Barah, B. C.. 2009. Economic and Ecological Benefits of System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 22. pp 209-214.

Debnatha, D., Babub, S., Ghosha, P., & Helmarc, M. (2017, October 13). The impact of India’s food security policy on domestic and international rice market. Journal of Policy Modeling. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.08.006

Durga, A. R., & Kumar, D. S. (2013, March). Economic Analysis of the System of Rice Intensification: Evidence from Southern India. XXXVI(1), 79-93. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from http://bids.org.bd/uploads/publication/BDS/36/36-1/03_Economic%20Analysis%20of%20System.pdf

Favreab, F. P. B. (1997, July). Geoderma, 78(1-2), 113-123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00030-X

Gathorne-Hardy, S. C. 2016. Cultivating Indian Rice: the System of Rice Intensification in India. Ecology and Society 2(39):6.

Meyer, N. (Director). (1982). The Wrath of Khan [Motion Picture].

Prasad, S. C. 2016. Innovating at the margins: the System of Rice Intensification in India and transformative social innovation. Ecology and Society 21(4):7.

Sherwood, S., Van Bommel, S., & Paredes, M. (2016). Self-Organization and the Bypass: Re-Imagining Institutions for More Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food. Agriculture, 6 (66), 1-19.

TEEB. (2015). TEEB for Agriculture & Food Interim Report. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme.

Uphoff, N. (2015). The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Responses to Frequently Asked Questions. Cornell University, SRI-Rice. New York: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/aboutsri/SRI_FAQs_Uphoff_2016.pdf