System of Rice Intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability - A multidisciplinary analysis in India

System of Rice Intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability - A multidisciplinary analysis in India

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is claimed to make rice more sustainable by increasing yields while reducing water demand. However, there remains a shortage of high quality data to test these assertions, and a major research gap exists concerning the wider social and economic implications of SRI techniques.Using primary data we developed a model to simultaneously analyse social, economic and environmental sustain ability (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ground water abstracted, energy use, costs, profit, gender, employment quality and employment quantity) to compare SRI to conventional flooded-rice production systems (control). Data was based on farmer-recall questionnaires in Andhra Pradesh, India. Analysis was per hectare and per kg of paddy. SRI offered substantial environmental and economic benefits: >60% yield gain; GHG emissions, ground-water, fossil energy down by 40%, 60%, and 74% kg(-1) respectively. SRI costs reduced significantly ha(-1), and returns after costs increased by over 400% ha(-1).However, the socio-economic benefits accrued to the farmer at the expense of landless labourers. Employed labour demand (h ha(-1)) reduced to 45% of control, with the greatest decline in female employment- rural India's most vulnerable sector. SRI reduced casual labour remuneration per hectare by 50%. Doubling rates of pay maintain total casual-labour remuneration, and only reduces SRI farm returns by 10%. Yet with no policy support it is unlikely that the private economic benefits of SRI will be shared to landless labourers.Internalising environmental externalities (electricity and GHG) impacted control farms more than SRI farms, including producing negative economic returns when electricity was charged at INR4.7 unit(-1) for control farms. Increasing the farm gate price for paddy by 10% increased control farm returns by 38%, yet even with this substantial increase control farm returns were only a third of SRI returns without a price increase.Identifying and understanding the trade-offs associated with SRI is essential for policy management- while it is not possible to eliminate all trade-offs, identifying them allows for the mitigation of losers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

水稻强化栽培体系（SRI）据称能通过提高产量同时减少需水量，使水稻种植更具可持续性。然而，仍然缺乏高质量的数据来验证这些论断，而且在SRI技术更广泛的社会和经济影响方面存在重大研究空白。 我们利用原始数据开发了一个模型，同时分析社会、经济和环境的可持续性（温室气体排放、地下水抽取量、能源使用、成本、利润、性别、就业质量和就业数量），以将SRI与传统的淹水稻田生产系统（对照）进行比较。数据基于印度安得拉邦农民回忆式调查问卷。分析是按每公顷和每千克稻谷进行的。 SRI带来了显著的环境和经济效益：产量提高>60%；温室气体排放、地下水使用量、化石能源使用量分别降低40%、60%和74%每千克（-1）。SRI每公顷成本显著降低，扣除成本后的收益每公顷增加超过400%。 然而，农民获得的社会经济效益是以无地劳工为代价的。雇工需求（每公顷工时）降至对照的45%，其中女性就业人数下降幅度最大——女性是印度农村最脆弱的群体。SRI使每公顷临时工报酬降低了50%。将工资率提高一倍可维持临时工总报酬，且只会使SRI农场收益降低10%。然而，如果没有政策支持，SRI的私人经济效益不太可能惠及无地劳工。 将环境外部性（电力和温室气体）内部化对对照农场的影响比对SRI农场更大，包括当对照农场的电费按每单位4.7印度卢比收取时，会产生负经济收益。将稻谷的农场出场价格提高10%，对照农场的收益会增加38%，然而，即使有如此大幅的价格上涨，对照农场的收益也仅为价格未上涨的SRI收益的三分之一。 识别和理解与SRI相关的权衡取舍对政策管理至关重要——虽然不可能消除所有权衡取舍，但识别它们有助于减轻受损方的损失。 版权所有©2016爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。