ArticlePDF Available

Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India

January 2020
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 18(16065):1-20

DOI:10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

License
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authors:

University of Essex

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a form of agricultural system redesign being practiced at scale in India, particularly in the state of Andhra Pradesh. ZBNF is an emerging set of agricultural practices designed dramatically to reduce farmers direct costs (hence ‘zero budget’) while boosting yields and farm health through the use of non-synthetic inputs sourced locally (‘natural farming’). Andhra Pradesh has set out the aim of ‘rolling out’ ZBNF to all 6 million of the state’s farmers through a state-led programme of training and extension. We present data showing statistically significant differences between ZBNF and non-ZBNF yields and farmer incomes at multiple locations and with a variety of crops, as well as preliminary results on farmers’ experiences with crop health and household transitions following the adoption of ZBNF. We conclude with reflections on the lessons derived from Andhra Pradesh’s state support for ZBNF.

Three-stage transition towards sustainable production in Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh (adapted from Thallam et al., 2009).

…

Institutional-levels supporting ZBNF roll-out in each zone, gram panchayat and cluster (adapted from RySS, 2018a).

…

Net incomes under ZBNF and non-ZBNF crops (000 Rs/ha), kharif season 2017 (* significant at p < 0.05 and ** significant at p < 0.001).

…

Earthworms on ZBNF plot (Source: RySS Natural Farming Fellows 2018).

…

(a and b) Resource (field) map representations on the evolution of cropping systems on a rainfed farm in Kurnool district, between 2015 and July 2018.

…

Figures - uploaded by Jules N Pretty

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Jules N Pretty

Content may be subject to copyright.

Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Content may be subject to copyright.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tags20

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

ISSN: 1473-5903 (Print) 1747-762X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tags20

Towards redesign at scale through zero budget

natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India

Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Sol Bermejo Mitjans & Jules Pretty

To cite this article: Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Sol Bermejo Mitjans & Jules Pretty (2020): Towards

redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India, International

Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis

Group

Published online: 12 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 182

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra

Pradesh, India*

Zareen Pervez Bharucha

, Sol Bermejo Mitjans

and Jules Pretty

Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK;

School of Life Sciences, University of Essex,

Colchester, UK

ABSTRACT

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a form of agricultural system redesign being

practiced at scale in India, particularly in the state of Andhra Pradesh. ZBNF is an

emerging set of agricultural practices designed dramatically to reduce farmers

direct costs (hence ‘zero budget’) while boosting yields and farm health through

the use of non-synthetic inputs sourced locally (‘natural farming’). Andhra Pradesh

has set out the aim of ‘rolling out’ZBNF to all 6 million of the state’s farmers

through a state-led programme of training and extension. We present data showing

statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences between ZBNF and non-ZBNF yields and farmer

incomes at multiple locations and with a variety of crops, as well as preliminary

results on farmers’experiences with crop health and household transitions

following the adoption of ZBNF. We conclude with reﬂections on the lessons

derived from Andhra Pradesh’s state support for ZBNF.

KEYWORDS

Agroecology; India; redesign;

sustainable intensiﬁcation;

zero budget natural farming

1. Introduction

There is growing evidence that sustainable intensiﬁca-

tion can increase crop yields by redesigning ecosys-

tems on and around farms (Garibaldi et al., 2019;

Godfray et al., 2010; Pretty & Bharucha, 2018; Reganold

& Wachter, 2016; Royal Society, 2009). In some con-

texts, sustainable intensiﬁcation is achieving scale,

reaching large numbers of farmers and hectares

(Gunton, Firbank, Inman, & Winter, 2016; Pretty et al.,

2018). This paper addresses the system of Zero

Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), an emerging agroeco-

logical practice that has spread in India, as a form of

agricultural system redesign. The focus is on the

southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh, where the

state government has announced the intention to

roll out ZBNF to all the state’s 6 million farmers by

2024 (UNEP, 2018). This represents an infrequent con-

temporary example of a policy-led sustainability

transition at signiﬁcant scale in India, and provides a

number of lessons for other state-led initiatives for

sustainable agriculture.

We ﬁrst introduce the concepts of sustainable

intensiﬁcation and agricultural system redesign. We

then brieﬂy describe some of the social-ecological

challenges faced by smallholders in India’s peninsular

drylands and outline how alternatives are emerging to

mitigate these. We go on to describe the evolution of

ZBNF, beginning as a grassroots social movement

(Khadse, Rosset, Morales, & Ferguson, 2017) and evol-

ving into a major policy initiative in Andhra Pradesh.

We then present some of the ﬁrst available ﬁndings

on the impacts of ZBNF amongst early-adopters in

Andhra Pradesh, focusing on crop yields, costs of cul-

tivation, farmer income and observed impacts on farm

ecosystems and within households. We conclude the

paper by discussing ZBNF as a form of agricultural

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativeco mmons.org/

licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not

altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

CONTACT Zareen Pervez Bharucha zareen.bharucha@anglia.ac.uk Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge

CB1 1PT, UK

*IJAS Editorial and Review: The Handling Editor for this manuscript was Dr Howard Lee. Dr Lee solicited peer-reviews, assessed revisions made by

the authors and made all editorial decisions on the paper.

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

system redesign, and reﬂecting on the lessons and

questions it presents for wider transitions to sustain-

able agriculture at scale in India and in comparable

contexts.

1.1. Sustainable intensiﬁcation and redesign

Agricultural intensiﬁcation from the mid-twentieth

century centred on two linked goals: avoiding land

conversion and raising yields. It was assumed this

would help to meet growing demand but also spare

biodiverse, non-agricultural land from being con-

verted to low-productivity, extensive systems. Implicit

in this view was the belief that agriculture would inevi-

tably cause harm to non-cultivated landscapes (e.g.

Collier, Wiradi, & Soentoro, 1973; Conway & Barbier,

1990). The resulting high throughput models of agri-

cultural intensiﬁcation have been successful at

raising yields, particularly of a small number of

cereal staples, and in the short term. Pellegrini and

Fernández (2018) estimate that during the Green

Revolution, yields grew threefold on average,

helping growth in agricultural yield to outpace popu-

lation increases. For each person worldwide, there is

now 25% more food than was produced per capita

in 1960 (Pretty & Bharucha, 2014).

Yet productivity growth has come at a signiﬁcant

social-ecological cost. Intensiﬁcation has been

enabled by a 2-fold increase in irrigated area globally,

a 2-fold increase in the use of agricultural machinery,

a more than 6-fold increase in the application of

nitrogenous fertilizers, a four fold increase in phos-

phorus application, and a ﬁve fold increase in potass-

ium (Pellegrini & Fernández, 2018; Pretty & Bharucha,

2014; Tilman, 1999). As a result, agriculture is now a

key driver of breached planetary boundaries (Campbell

et al., 2017; Rockström et al., 2017; Springmann et al.,

2018; Tilman, Balzer, Hill, & Befort, 2011; Willett et al.,

2019). Globally, it accounts for around 70% of global

freshwater use, around a third of all GHG emissions

and is the leading driver of land conversion (despite

early conﬁdence that intensiﬁcation would protect

non-cultivated ecosystems). Soil erosion in agricultural

landscapes is between 10–100 times the natural back-

ground rate (IPCC, 2019). Mitigating these impacts will

require radical shifts to the ways in which we produce

and consume agricultural goods and services.

The potential for synergies between agriculture and

ecosystem health was ﬁrst hinted at in the context of

smallholders in less-developed countries in the use of

the term sustainable intensiﬁcation (Pretty, 1997). The

approach is not meant to be prescriptive, recognizing

that there is no single form or initiative that can accom-

plish sustainable outcomes over all types of agricultural

system. Instead, interventions as varied as crop varietal

improvements, multi-cropping, integrated pest man-

agement, conservation agriculture, the system of

crop intensiﬁcation (starting as the system of rice inten-

siﬁcation and expanding to other crops), and the inten-

siﬁcation of small patches of land have shown the

potential to achieve positive social-ecological co-

beneﬁts alongside healthy yields (Pretty & Bharucha,

2014,2018; Pretty, Toulmin, & Williams, 2011). These

outcomes have extended ambition about what is poss-

ible beyond the avoidance of harm, and towards an

agenda of radical ecosystem restoration, community

regeneration and social-ecological resilience.

Redesign is key to these outcomes. The term comes

from a three-stage framework ﬁrst developed in the

mid-1980s, which proposed that transitions to sustain-

able agriculture occur along three distinct, non-linear

phases: eﬃciency, substitution and redesign (Gliess-

man, 2016; Hill, 1985).

Eﬃciency is additive and incremental, though

can involve step changes within existing agricul-

tural regimes. It involves reducing waste and

making the best use of resources. Examples

include targeting the use of inputs, precision agri-

culture, mulching to reduce loss of soil moisture,

drip irrigation, deﬁcit irrigation, irrigation schedul-

ing, monitoring soil moisture, the use of selective

compounds or selective spraying, using fuel-

eﬃcient farm machinery, reducing post-harvest

losses, or choosing varieties that make more

eﬃcient use of water or nutrients.

Substitution involves replacing harmful com-

pounds, practices or techniques with alternatives

that have less negative environmental or health

impacts. Examples include replacing ineﬃcient crop

varieties with those that are better at converting nutri-

ents to biomass, or ones which tolerate climate

extremes; the use of biological control agents to sub-

stitute for synthetic inputs, the use of RNA-based gene

slicing technologies, replacing the use of soil

altogether in hydroponic systems, and no-till to

replace inversion ploughing. As these examples

show, eﬃciency and substitution are not mutually

exclusive. Substitution may drive eﬃciency improve-

ments, such as when wasteful or ineﬀective inputs

or practices are replaced by better performing ones.

In India, Davis et al. (2018) estimate that replacing

rice with millets, maize or sorghum would reduce

2Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

irrigation water demand by 33% while improving the

production of protein, iron and zinc.

Both eﬃciency and substitution are progressive

steps towards sustainability, and usually require

more than new technologies. For example, the per-

formance of infrastructure declines over time,

wasting both water and energy, so regular monitoring

and maintenance (and accompanying institutional

architectures to enable this) is important. At the begin-

ning of the century, the World Bank (Briscoe & Malik,

2006) estimated that Rs 17000 crore (US$250 million)

would be required annually for the upkeep of Indian

irrigation infrastructure, but less than 10% of this

amount was actually available and even less was

likely to be spent eﬀectively (Thakkar, 2010). Where

investment in eﬃciency-enhancing technologies is

made, farmers and water managers need to be

trained to manage them properly (Levidow et al.,

2014; Perry, Steduto, Allen, & Burt, 2009). Finally, pre-

vailing practices are also a function of farmers’per-

spectives and priorities. For example, there may be a

fundamental mismatch between farmers’goals

(aimed at maximizing economic returns) and water

managers (aimed at minimizing water use); these mis-

matches need to be reconciled through knowledge

exchange and communication between diﬀerent sta-

keholders (Levidow et al., 2014). Thus, eﬃciency

depends as much on social and human capital, collec-

tive action and well-functioning institutions as it does

on new technologies or practices.

Both eﬃciency and substitution are necessary for

responsible stewardship, but neither is suﬃcient for

fully sustainable agroecosystems. Water saved

through eﬃciency improvements on individual

farms, for example, may not reduce overall water con-

sumption across the landscape –and may even

increase it (Grafton et al., 2018). The substitution of

some harmful inputs with more benign ones may

not be enough to tackle resource degradation or miti-

gate key negative social and ecological externalities

(Altieri & Rosset, 1996).

What is needed once basics are mastered is rede-

sign. Hill described redesign as an approach that

‘recognises the existence of natural, ecological and

psychosocial laws …and takes them into account in

all of its designs and management procedures’(Hill,

1985, p. 86). In practice, this has come to mean the

harnessing of agroecological processes such as preda-

tion, parasitism, nutrient cycling, biological nitrogen

ﬁxation and allelopathy to achieve healthy yields

(Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2009; Gurr et al., 2016).

Farmers practicing redesign proactively manage the

functional relationships that support these ecosystem

services. They understand the agroecological basis of

farm functioning, and focus on preventing problems

before they occur (Gliessman, 2015).

Redesign requires three important shifts: in knowl-

edge systems, farming communities and supporting

institutional architectures. First, knowledge systems

need to broaden away from the simpliﬁed ‘technics’

of high-throughput agriculture and include context-

speciﬁc knowledge of whole agroecosystems, includ-

ing knowledge of how eﬀectively to steward the bio-

diversity and ecosystem services that inﬂuence

them. Second, redesign requires farmers to work

together, with collective action important across land-

scapes. Third, redesign requires institutional links

between multiple stakeholders across scales. In

essence, redesign is less about particular technologies

or practices and more about the social, institutional

and human dimensions of learning, communicating

and monitoring dynamic agroecosystems.

Four broad principles characterize redesign

initiatives.

(i). The ﬁrst is a focus on transformation rather than

management of an existing system. Redesigned

farms are fundamentally altered by the addition

of new elements, new conﬁgurations and lin-

kages between elements. A corollary to this is

an explicit emphasis on a new, essentially norma-

tive vision, and a commitment to tackle what Hill

referred to as ‘root causes.’For Hill and MacRae

(1996), redesign is achieved ‘when the causes

of problems are recognized, and thereby pre-

vented, being solved internally by site- and

time-speciﬁc design and management

approaches instead of by the application of

external inputs’(p. 82). Hill argues for a deeper

understanding of the psychosocial ‘roots’of

unsustainable practice (within agriculture and

in society more broadly) and distinguishes

between ‘shallow’and ‘deep’orientations to

change (Hill, 2014).

(ii). Second, redesign initiatives are agroecologically-

based. Farmers actively steward biodiversity to

manage processes of predation, parasitism, allelo-

pathy, herbivory, nitrogen ﬁxation, pollination and

trophic dependencies (Gliessman & Rosemeyer,

2009; Gurr et al., 2016). While eﬃciency and sub-

stitution are based on particular inputs, practices

and technologies, redesign focuses on

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 3

maintaining and managing biodiversity and

whole ecosystems on and around farms. In

doing so, the aim is to create ‘systems capable

of sponsoring their own soil fertility, crop protec-

tion and yield constancy’(Altieri & Rosset, 1996,

p. 165).

(iii). Third, redesign involves new relationships and

forms of organization and is essentially a social,

political and cultural challenge. It depends on

social capital, which comprises relations of

trust; reciprocity and exchange; common rules;

norms and sanctions and connectedness.

Where these new relationships and forms of

organization are nurtured, farmers are able to

beneﬁt from social learning, can spread new

ideas, share resources and collaborate to advo-

cate for their rights and entitlements.

(iv). Finally, redesign is knowledge-intensive and draws

on a wider variety of knowledge-bases than is

typical within conventional, high-throughput

systems. Redesign emerges from, and is supported

by double- and triple-loop learning. Double-loop

learning helps us to question the assumptions

behind the questions we ask, and can thus lead

to reframing. Triple-loop learning reconsiders

underlying values and beliefs. Double- and triple-

loop learning involves reconsidered norms and

transformed institutions (Armitage, Marschke, &

Plummer, 2008; Hill, 2015). Both are supported

by participatory and decentralized pedagogies.

Farmer ﬁeld schools, the use of new media, and

multi-stakeholder platforms, are all examples of

tools that are being used extensively alongside

scaled-up redesign initiatives. Nicholls and Altieri

(2018, p. 2) highlight how peer to peer knowledge

exchange has led to an ‘unprecedented return on

agricultural technology investment’.

Agricultural systems exemplifying these principles are

achieving scale worldwide. A recent global assessment

of 400 projects, initiatives and programmes worldwide

showed that of these, 47 exceeded the 10

scale (of

either hectares or numbers of practicing farmers).

Within this set, 17 exceeded the 10

scale and 14 were

above 10

. Overall, an estimated 163 M farms worldwide

(covering 453 M hectares, or 9% of the global total) have

redesigned their operations by implementing integrated

pest management, conservation agriculture, by steward-

ing biodiversity on and around farms, incorporating new

mixed farming elements, redesigning irrigation and crop

water management and intensifying production on

small patches of land or water (Pretty et al., 2018).

These initiatives show promise for transformation at

scale, and open up a new frontier in thinking about agri-

cultural intensiﬁcation.

2. The emergence of alternative

agricultures in post-Green Revolution India

Productivity gains achieved during the Indian Green

Revolution (mainly focused on high-yielding wheat

and rice) have not averted a pervasive agrarian crisis

India. Farmers received free electricity to pump

groundwater, high yielding varieties of wheat and

rice, subsidized inputs and minimum support prices.

Output soared, but at a price: the northern Indian

heartlands of the Green Revolution are now perhaps

‘the most heavily irrigated region in the world,’with

‘probably the largest rate of groundwater loss in any

comparable-sized region on Earth’(Tiwari, Wahr, &

Swenson, 2009, p. 1). Some 1 M ha in NW India are

aﬀected by irrigation-induced salinization and in the

state of Haryana, waterlogging and salinity cause

losses estimated at US$37 million annually (Datta &

de Jong, 2002).

At the same time, smallholders, those without

access to private tubewell irrigation, and those culti-

vating so-called ‘resource poor’farms were largely

eclipsed from the ‘state subsidized windfall’experi-

enced by more prosperous farmers (Stone, 2019;

Subramanian, 2015). Up to the late 1980s, invest-

ment in irrigation and ﬂood control was twenty-

two times that dedicated to soil and water conserva-

tion in rainfed landscapes (Vaidyanath, 1994), which

remained ‘unrecognized in mainstream planning’.

The ﬁrst mention of rainfed dryland farms in the

national planning process in the 1980s was

accompanied by the admission that ‘decades of

neglect had led to dryland areas being caught in a

vicious circle of high risk, low investment, poor tech-

nology and low production’(Chhotray, 2011, p. 56).

Farmers in these landscapes continue to experience

hunger, poverty and malnutrition and are increas-

ingly vulnerable to a combination of climatic varia-

bility and economic development (Kumar,

Shivamurthy, & Biradar, 2016;O’Brien et al., 2004;

Yadav & Lal, 2018).

A number of alternatives have emerged in

response to these crises, seeking to reverse rural

decline through revitalized, sustainable farming

systems. Encompassing a diverse array of state,

private and third-sector initiatives, grassroots

4Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

movements and hybrid forms, the nascent post-Green

Revolution transition to agricultural sustainability in

India does not constitute a homogenous nor internally

consistent whole. Forms, approaches and even under-

lying ontologies vary markedly, but in common is a

commitment to revitalizing smallholder agriculture

and the ecosystems on which it depends. Many

these initiatives may broadly be said to be forms of

sustainable intensiﬁcation, some may qualify as

forms of redesign.

Emerging either in opposition to dominant agrar-

ian political economy, as a response to longstanding

marginalization, or to mitigate the social-ecological

externalities of conventional cultivation, these alterna-

tives take various organizational forms. These range

from organized development initiatives, farmer collec-

tives (e.g. for seed saving and sharing), formal certiﬁ-

cation schemes (most notably for organic

production) and a new wave of what Münster (2016)

terms ‘neoliberal agro-entrepreneurship’. There is

also a broad tradition of ‘natural farming’, propounded

by advocates such as Narayana Reddy (in Karnataka),

Shripad Dabholkar (Maharashtra), G Nammalvar

(Tamil Nadu), Partap C Aggarwal (Madhya Pradesh)

and Bashar Save (popularly referred to as the

‘Gandhi of Natural Farming’, working in Gujarat).

Finally, in recent years there has also been a wave of

state-led initiatives to ‘convert’entire provinces to par-

ticular forms of (more) sustainable agriculture –most

notably organic. The states of Sikkim, Karnataka,

Mizoram, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh,

Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and

Gujarat all have organic farming policies or regu-

lations. A total of 835,000 Indian farmers are certiﬁed

organic cultivators (amounting to 30% of the total

number of organic farmers globally, on 1.78 M ha of

land, representing an increase of some 290,000 ha

since 2017) (FiBL and IFOAM, 2019). In practice,

alternatives overlap and co-exist, with farmers devel-

oping and adopting components of diﬀerent

packages in combinations best suited to their farms.

Driving these transitions have been a combination

of grassroots social movements (e.g. Khadse et al.,

2017) on the inﬂuence of these dynamics on the

spread of ZBNF in Karnataka, the formation of hetero-

geneous networks transcending conventional net-

works (e.g. Basu & Leeuwis, 2012, on the spread of

the system of rice intensiﬁcation (SRI) in Andhra

Pradesh) and the engagement of conventional

actors such as state agricultural universities and

departments.

Many alternatives actively position themselves in

terms broadly consonant with ‘redesign’, inasmuch

as they aim towards vibrant rural lifeways and seek

to fundamentally re-vision farmers’relationship with

the land and with the market. Münster characterizes

these initiatives as a form of ‘protective double-move-

ment’,‘aiming to regenerate rural society from the

consequences of the commodiﬁcation of land (nonhu-

man nature) and labour (human nature)’,or as ways to

repair or rework the metabolic rift brought about by

capitalist agriculture (Münster, 2016, p. 222). Most

promote ‘low external input’forms, advocating ‘ecolo-

gically integrated techniques and the development of

local food markets to reduce farmers’dependency on

market inputs that are external to the local farm

system …theoretically reducing expenses while low-

ering the ecological burden of agriculture’(Brown,

2018, p. 3).

3. Zero budget natural farming and its

spread in Andhra Pradesh

ZBNF is a system developed in the 1980s by Indian

farmer, agricultural scientist and extension agent

Subhash Palekar who established ZBNF after a

period of self-study of the Vedas (the oldest of the

Hindu scriptures), organic farming and conventional

agricultural science, testing methods on his own

farm. The phrase ‘Zero Budget’refers to the aim of

achieving dramatic cuts in production costs by

ending dependence on external synthetic inputs and

agricultural credit. It is not meant to signify ‘zero

costs’. Instead, as practicing farmers clarify, it is

meant to signify that ‘the need for external ﬁnancing

is zero, and that any costs incurred can be oﬀset by

a diversiﬁed source of income’(ABZNF 2018 quoted

in Khadse & Rosset, 2019, p. 9, emphasis added). The

phrase ‘Natural Farming’invokes the agroecological

basis on which these cuts are to be achieved. The prac-

tice consists of four principles, referred to by ZBNF

practitioners as the four ‘wheels’of ZBNF (Table 1).

In addition to these, ZBNF farmers also reduce or

avoid the application of synthetic pesticides, relying

instead on homemade preparations for controlling

fungus and insect pests, sourced from locally available

trees and plants such as neem, chili, garlic and

tobacco. Finally, farmers are encouraged to plant live

fences, use trenches for water harvesting and design

ﬁelds using a ‘ﬁve layer’multi-cropping model, inte-

grating trees with crop plants in a ‘canopy’formation

wherein each plant is able to access the right amount

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 5

of sunlight (Khadse & Rosset, 2019; La Via Campesina,

2016; Palekar, 2019). While ZBNF remains the most

widely used term to describe these practices, there

has been recent discussion amongst policy-makers

and leading practitioners of a potential change in ter-

minology to ‘Chemical Free’Natural Farming or even

‘Community Managed’Natural Farming to better

reﬂect farmer practices and avoid misunderstanding

regarding input costs. In this paper, we retain use of

the term ‘Zero Budget’in order to reﬂect existing

usage, and in the absence of any formal or widely

accepted change in terminology.

ZBNF has so far been adopted most prominently in

the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Adoption

in Karnataka has been achieved through a grassroots

social movement, initially spearheaded in 2002 by

the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (an organizational

member of La Via Campesina) (Khadse et al., 2017).

Palekar’s teachings initially received a mixed response

from farmers, until early adopters began showcasing

success to peers (Khadse & Rosset, 2019). Training

workshops grew in number and size, with an esti-

mated 200 workshops having been organized over

the last 15 years in the state (Khadse & Rosset,

2019). The state governments of Himachal Pradesh

(Government of Himachal Pradesh, 2018) and Karna-

taka have since allocated funds to support the

spread of ZBNF and the state governments of

Rajasthan, Meghalaya, and Gujarat have all expressed

an interest in setting up programmes for ZBNF.

Precise ﬁgures for numbers of farmers adopting ZBNF

across the country are unavailable, partly because learn-

ing, teaching and practice are not centrally organized by

any single agency, and partly because farmers tend to

adapt the package, adopting one or two elements

(Khadse et al., 2017). What is clear is that farmers are

enthused by the method. In Karnataka for example, an

estimated 60,000–100,000 farmers have attended 60

training camps organized over the last decade (ZBNF

leader cited in Khadse et al., 2017).

In contrast to the ‘bottom up’, grassroots organiz-

ation of ZBNF elsewhere, Andhra Pradesh has made

ZBNF the central pillar through which to execute

state agricultural and rural development policy. The

formal roll out of ZBNF-focused extension in Andhra

Pradesh was foreshadowed by a number of initiatives

designed to help farmers (particularly smallholders)

transition to more sustainable and viable agricultural

livelihoods. Before turning to the speciﬁcs of the

ZBNF programme, we brieﬂy describe these initiatives,

which contained within them a number of institutional

innovations now supporting the spread of ZBNF.

Andhra Pradesh is located in southeastern India,

and has been known as India’s‘Rice Bowl’on

account of its tracts of irrigated paddy cultivation

within the basins of the Godavari, Krishna and Penna

rivers. Further inland, rainfed dryland farming predo-

minates, with farmers relying to varying extents on

protective irrigation from mainly private sources.

Across the state, some 62% of the population is

employed in agriculture and allied activities, cultivat-

ing around 8 M ha of cropped area and generating

just over a quarter of the state’s GDP. In addition to

rice, the state is also a major producer of fruit, eggs,

and aquaculture products. The adoption of Green

Revolution innovations contributed to signiﬁcant

yield growth for important food staples –rice, ground-

nut and lentils. However, from the 1990s, yields began

to decline. Conventional high-throughput systems

began to be recognized as costly and increasingly

ineﬀective. By the early 2000s, small farmers (those

cultivating <2 ha) were spending 35% of their

Table 1. The four wheels of ZBNF and their intended impacts (adapted from La Via Campesina, 2016).

Wheel and practices Intended Impact

Bijamrita (Seed treatment)

The application of a homemade seed treatment consisting of cowdung and urine to

seeds and seedlings.

Protection from seed and soil-borne disease

Increase soil carbon

Activate nutrients

Jivamrita (Liquid and solid inoculants)

The application of an in-situ culture of water, cow manure and urine (from the

indigenous variety, Bos indicus), unreﬁned cane sugar, legume ﬂour and

uncontaminated/ virgin soil (to introduce local soil microbiota).

Improve soil condition

Increase activity of soil biota including microbes and

earthworms

Increase soil organic matter

Prevent harmful fungal and bacterial growth

Acchadana (Mulching)

Soil mulching (avoiding tillage), straw mulching (the application of straw to the soil)

and live mulching (intercropping with, e.g. nitrogen-ﬁxing crops).

Improving soil condition, particularly topsoil

Adding organic matter and fertility

Increased activity of soil biota (including microbes

activated by Jivamrita) and soil insects.

Whapasa (Soil aeration)

Building up of soil humus

Reduced overreliance on irrigation and improved

aeration and soil moisture proﬁle

6Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

cultivation expenditure on synthetic pesticides and

fertilizers (against a national average of 30%) (Govern-

ment of India, 2005).

The signiﬁcance of this is two-fold. First, high

expenditure on synthetic inputs is a key driver of

indebtedness. In the early 2000s, small farmers in

Andhra Pradesh earned just $154 annually from agri-

culture and related sources (with an average annual

income of $440 and average expenditure on cultiva-

tion of $268) (Thallam et al., 2009). As a result, some

82% of farm households in the state were indebted,

with an average outstanding loan amount of $660

per farmer (more than twice the national average of

$280) (Centre for Economic and Social Studies,

2007). Second, this model of farming came with a

high ecological footprint, with the state recording

amongst the highest rates of consumption of syn-

thetic pesticides in India, with application rates of

0.87 kg a.i./ha (against a national average of 0.3 kg/ha).

Responding to these challenges, a number of

grassroots and civil society initiatives emerged in the

early 2000s, attempting (in the ﬁrst instance) to

eﬀect a transition away from synthetic inputs. NGOs

such as the Centre for World Solidarity helped

spread awareness of alternative, ecologically benign

methods of pest control. At the same time, farmers

began experimenting with alternative methods inde-

pendently, helping to create wider acceptance for

more participatory forms of knowledge creation and

innovation (Thallam et al., 2009).

A step-change was brought about when the

Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) (a

non-proﬁt set up by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh) integrated ‘Community Managed Sustain-

able Agriculture’(CMSA) into its poverty reduction

programme. This was managed by community

institutions –in the main, a pioneer initiative was

the creation of federated structures of women’s self-

help groups (WSHGs) encompassing some 10 M

women, organized into just over 850,000 groups and

representing around 90% of all poor households in

the state. This institutional architecture helped drive

a‘complete paradigm shift [away] from conventional

agriculture’(Thallam et al., 2009, p. 11, parentheses

added), as well as signiﬁcant cost-savings for farmers

(Rao, 2012) in three (non-linear, loosely overlapping)

stages (Figure 1).

As part of these eﬀorts towards sustainable agricul-

ture, Subhash Palekar was invited to conduct a

number of ZBNF training workshops in the state. At

around the same time, the Andhra Pradesh depart-

ment of agriculture set up a dedicated non-proﬁt

organization, the Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS,

‘Farmers Empowerment Organisation’) in 2014. The

RySS now acts as the single institutional mechanism

coordinating ‘all programmes, schemes and activities

intended for farmer’s empowerment, encompassing

welfare, development, capacity enhancement, credit

ﬂow, ﬁnancial support and allied empowerment activi-

ties’(Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2019). The

spread of ZBNF is tightly woven into this mandate,

with the RySS designated by a formal Government

Order in 2016 as the Implementing Organisation

responsible for the roll out of ZBNF. The overall goal

is to reach 6 million farmers and convert 8 million hec-

tares (90% of the cultivated area) into ZBNF ﬁelds by

the end of the next decade, paying special attention

to conserving both farmer livelihoods and ecosystems.

The RySS estimates that around 580,000 farmers have

begun practicing ZBNF in the state by 2019, up from

163,000 in 2017–2018 (V Thallam 2019, pers. Comm.,

email dated 28th September, 2019).

4. Building social and human capital

Key to the scaling of ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh has been

the work done from the early 2000s to build a dense,

multi-layered community-based extension ecosystem.

This ecosystem is organized across 3 scales: a ‘zone’,

(consisting of approximately 80 households); a Gram

Panchayat (roughly analogous to a village-level

administration) and ﬁnally, a ‘cluster’of ﬁve Gram Pan-

chayats (Figure 2).

Peer to peer learning is key: ‘Community resource

persons’(CRPs) are farmers who have been desig-

nated as community-level extension agents. The

CRPs’main role is to communicate ZBNF principles

Figure 1. Three-stage transition towards sustainable production in

Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh

(adapted from Thallam et al., 2009).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7

among potential adopters, fulﬁlling a detailed brief

requiring extensive engagement with farmers.

Khadse and Rosset (2019) highlight how

they [CRPs] have a full schedule of mandatory daily activi-

ties to ensure that they cover all of the SHGs [self-help

groups] assigned to them. In the mornings, they organise

a study circle in a speciﬁc village. In the afternoon they

visit farmers’ﬁelds for troubleshooting. In the evenings,

they project videos related to the days learnings so that

farmers can engage in discussions. (p. 15, parenthesis

added)

Farmer ﬁeld schools are held weekly, facilitated by

trained conveners, and include male and female

farmers engaged in ZBNF ‘best practice’.

Farmers transitioning to ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh

are thus embedded within a supportive network of

peers, practitioners and formally trained agronomists,

together forming a dense learning ecosystem

designed to support a knowledge-intensive transition

towards more integrated, complex agricultural

systems. Farmers are encouraged to experiment with

ZBNF, progressively deepening their practice. This

means that for some farmers, early adoption may be

restricted to simple input substitution –using ZBNF

formulations in place of synthetic externally derived

inputs. Success with these then encourages further

experimentation, and farmers may move closer to

adopting the whole ZBNF package. RySS interim

targets and scaling plans estimate that a typical

farmer begins by experimenting with ZBNF on

approximately one quarter of land available, sup-

ported by a ‘farm action plan’designed with the

local self-help group or village organization, transition-

ing to full-scale adoption across the entire farm in

approximately 3 years (RySS, undated).

Five Gram Panchayats together make a ‘cluster’,

each of which is additionally supported by a desig-

nated multipurpose extension oﬃcer, a Natural

Farming Fellow, and Community Resource Persons

(CRPs), including one dedicated to ‘social mobiliz-

ation’. Natural Farming Fellows are graduates who

undertake a 2-year Fellowship during which they are

resident in a village, practicing ZBNF as a ‘role model

farmer’(Figure 2), assisting in the spread of ZBNF

within the villages that form a cluster (Figure 2), and

working on a selected thematic area (RySS, 2019a,

2019b). CRPs are local residents who may be regarded

as ‘exemplar’ZBNF farmers, implementing all aspects

of ZBNF, who play a leading role in promoting

farmer-to-farmer learning and acting as advocates

Figure 2. Institutional-levels supporting ZBNF roll-out in each zone, gram panchayat and cluster (adapted from RySS, 2018a).

8Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

for ZBNF (a function termed ‘social mobilization’

within the RySS) (RySS, 2019b).

The planned roll out aims to replicate this architec-

ture across each of Andhra Pradesh’s 12,924 Gram

Panchayats, at an estimated cost of Rs. 10,000,000

(US$ 140,100) per Panchayat (translating to around

Rs. 25,000 (US$ 350) per household). ZBNF ‘sub-com-

mittees’are formed at every level of village and local

government administration up to district level,

holding monthly meetings. Community-based moni-

toring is carried out by women’s self-group

members, who inspect ﬁelds (with budgets provided

for these inspections). Finally, village shops and

hiring centres are set up to act as knowledge centres

and supply points for ZBNF inputs, and equipment.

Local hiring centres contain low-HP machines such

as pulverisers, power weeders and sprayers.

Since the inception of the programme in 2016,

there have also been four further ‘mega-training’pro-

grammes in Andhra Pradesh organized with Subhash

Palekar, each hosting thousands of farmers, local

extension oﬃcers and RySS staﬀ. Community

Resource Persons continually acquire new skills

through human-mediated digital extension videos

on ZBNF practices followed by farmer group discus-

sions after video sessions. In order to facilitate this,

they are trained in using smart phones (as well as

ICT to monitor farmers’progress).

5. ZBNF outcomes for crops, incomes and

farm ecosystems

The literature on the impacts of ZBNF impacts, and

draws mainly on data collected outside Andhra

Pradesh. Khadse et al. (2017) surveyed 97 farmers in

Karnataka in 2012, asking farmers to rank changes to

general crop yields, income and production costs on

a three-point scale (increase, decrease or no change).

78.7% of their respondents stated that yields had

increased, 85.7% reported improvements to income,

and 90.9% reported that production costs had

decreased. In Andhra Pradesh, internal surveys

carried out by RySS of crop yields show higher yields

under ZBNF conditions and notable increases in

farmer income (mainly through reduced production

costs). Crop-cutting experiments conducted in 2017

showed that 88% of farmers surveyed (n= 1614) had

beneﬁted from an increase in yields and decrease in

costs, with yields increasing across crop types and in

some cases, outpacing average state yields for

Andhra Pradesh (RySS, 2018b).

We analyzed data from crop-cutting experiments

conducted by RySS amongst farmers who took up

ZBNF in 2016. Crop-cutting was conducted during

the 2017 kharif (monsoon) season, on 1531 ZBNF

and 1531 non-ZBNF plots. Data were sent to the UK-

based team as an Excel dataset. This was cleaned,

checking for errors or data gaps, and then saved to

a database on IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,

version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) in advance

of analysis. These data cover food crops (rainfed and

irrigated cereals, legumes and horticultural crops)

and cash crops (irrigated and rainfed cotton) across

all 13 districts in Andhra Pradesh. To facilitate paired

comparisons between ZBNF and non-ZBNF con-

ditions, crop cuttings were taken from two 5 × 5 m

samples (10 × 10 m for cotton), one from crops

grown using ZBNF practices, and the other using con-

ventional practices. This control sample was taken

either from a section of a ZBNF farmers’ﬁeld where

conventional practices were being used (most

farmers stagger the adoption of ZBNF), or from an

adjacent ﬁeld where the same crop was being culti-

vated using conventional practices (subject to match-

ing for soil type, seed variety and irrigation regime).

The majority of the sample were smallholders cultivat-

ing <1 ha each of land.

Across the sample, a Mann–Whitney U Test (as the

data were non-parametric) showed a statistically sig-

niﬁcant diﬀerence between ZBNF and non-ZBNF crop

yield: (ZBNF (Md = 13.21), non-ZBNF (Md = 12), U =

956250.5, z = −8.82, p< 0.001). ZBNF yields were

higher than non-ZBNF yields across all districts

except one (the district of West Godavari, where

yields were 7% lower, likely due to anaerobic soil due

to water logging, which is a normal phenomenon in

the delta region). All crops except irrigated maize

and irrigated cotton show higher yields under ZBNF

relative to a non-ZBNF control (see Figure 3 for yield

diﬀerences that attained statistical signiﬁcance with

the Mann–Whitney test). Costs of cultivation under

ZBNF conditions were lower, and net incomes higher,

than non-ZBNF for all crops (Figures 4 and 5). Irrigated

crops achieved slightly larger reductions in costs of cul-

tivation relative to rainfed crops (−28% against −24%,

determined by calculating total reductions across all

irrigated crops versus all rainfed crops).

Previous models of agricultural intensiﬁcation in

India have relied either on the heavy abstraction of

groundwater or intensive water use of surface water.

India is the world’s largest consumer of groundwater,

with some 10 million wells supporting up to 70% of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9

Figure 3. Yields (t/ha) under ZBNF and non-ZBNF for key kharif season crops, 2017 (* signiﬁcant at p< 0.05 and ** signiﬁcant at p< 0.001).

Figure 4. Cost of cultivation under ZBNF and non-ZBNF crops (000 Rs/ha), kharif season 2017 (* signiﬁcant p< 0.05, ** signiﬁcant at p< 0.001).

Table 2. Mann-Whitney U Tests for diﬀerence in yields, cost of cultivation and income between ZBNF and non-ZBNF across a sample of rainfed

crops (n= 678 pairs).

ZBNF compared with non-ZBNF ZBNF Actual Non-ZBNF Signiﬁcance

Yields (t/ha) +16.5% 4.80 4.12 P< 0.001

Cost of cultivation (000 Rs) −23.7% 22.9 30.0 P< 0.0005

Gross income (000 Rs) +14.2% 80.6 70.6 P< 0.001

Net income (000 Rs) +50.0% 54.0 36.0 P< 001

10 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

the country’s agricultural production (Fishman, 2018;

Shah, 2008). New models of intensiﬁcation are thus

required; methods that do not work for rainfed crops

without requiring irrigation intensiﬁcation are unlikely

to be sustainable over time. In light of this it is

encouraging to note that rainfed crops within the

sample (n= 678 pairs; representing farmers of

rainfed paddy, maize, groundnut, ﬁnger millet and

cotton) fare better under ZBNF methods than non-

ZBNF controls (Table 2).

While the RySS continues to collect data from crop-

cutting experiments annually (thus allowing future

longitudinal assessments), independent evaluations

of changes to crop yields are also forthcoming (most

notably from multi-site trials being conducted by the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research).

6. Farmer testimonies on outcomes for farm

ecosystems and household transitions

Field observation, farmer testimonies and reports from

extension workers, are so far the primary source of

information on broad changes on and oﬀfarm in

Andhra Pradesh. Natural Farming Fellows, Community

Resource Persons and other RySS staﬀhave been col-

lecting farmer testimonies since the ﬁrst adoption of

ZBNF. In 2018, some of these were transferred to the

UK-based co-authors, anonymised, and saved as a col-

lection of short, qualitative testimonies on the themes

of biodiversity, resilience to climate shocks, and crop

health. It should be noted that these do not necess-

arily represent a systematically collected body of

generalizable evidence, but have been purposively

collected and presented to show that under favour-

able circumstances, farmers have experienced positive

outcomes across a range of farm health indicators

beyond increases to crop yields and incomes.

(i). Crop health and resilience to climate shocks: both

farmers and extension workers report better plant

health and vigour in ZBNF ﬁelds (Boxes 1 and 2)

amongst a range of horticultural and arable

crops, including after ﬂooding (Figure 6) and dry

spells. RySS workers attribute this to deeper and

larger root systems and more robust plant struc-

tures in plants raised under ZBNF conditions.

RySS workers and ZBNF farmers in the districts

of Ananthapur, Kurnool and Vishakapatnam, for

example, reported greater resilience to cyclone

damage (Figure 6) as well as dry spells (with

yields maintained under ZBNF conditions during

the 2016 drought as well as dry-spells in 2017).

The generalizability of these outcomes should

be established through further studies that use

stratiﬁed random sampling across the landscape

and assess the performance of ZBNF ﬁelds follow-

ing a range of diﬀerent types and severities of

climate shock.

(ii). Biodiversity: no systematic biodiversity assess-

ments have been conducted following the adop-

tion of ZBNF, but farmers and extension workers

have been using text messaging and WhatsApp

to share photos of insects and other fauna noted

on ZBNF ﬁelds. One systematic comparison

Figure 5. Net incomes under ZBNF and non-ZBNF crops (000 Rs/ha), kharif season 2017 (* signiﬁcant at p< 0.05 and ** signiﬁcant at p< 0.001).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 11

between ZBNF and non-ZBNF ﬁelds occurred in

2018, ﬁnding a diﬀerence in earthworm numbers

and castings between ZBNF and non-ZBNF ﬁelds

across 480 samples taken from all 13 districts in

Andhra Pradesh. ZBNF ﬁelds hosted an average

of 232 earthworms per square metre, compared

with just 32 on non-ZBNF ﬁelds (RySS, 2018c

unpublished data). ZBNF farmers also report a

number of earthworms on ZBNF plots (Figure 7),

as well as beneﬁcial insects (pollinators and pest

antagonists), including honeybees, lacewing

bugs (an antagonist to aphids, leafhoppers,

whiteﬂies and mealybugs) and ladybugs in

various crop types and agro-climatic zones.

Box 1. Farmer testimony on the impact of ZBNF practices

on crop quality (*name changed).

Kamal*, a farmer from Anantpur district has been practicing

agriculture for 15 years. He has just over 2 hectares of land, on

which he has mainly been cultivating Papaya for the last 5

years. He was inspired by his interaction with a Community

Resource Person in 2017, and began practicing ZBNF. He has

been learning about the method through regular attendance of

his local farmer self-help group, which has also given him access

to credit with three loans.

At ﬁrst, he began by preparing Ghanajeevamrutham and

Dravajeevamrutham on his own. He avoided the use of any

synthetic fertilizer and used drip irrigation. Over the ﬁrst 7

months’, the entire papaya plantation has changed dramatically.

He has observed a number of changes to the papaya trees,

including dense leaf-growth, budding within 2 months and a

greater number of fruit per tree. In the ﬁrst cutting, he has been

able to fetch a higher than average price at market due to the

quality of the fruit. Kamal’s papaya ﬁeld attracts farmers from

surrounding villages and his success has inspired a number of

other farmers to take up ZBNF.

Box 2. Farmer testimony on improved farm health after the

adoption of ZBNF, improved yields and higher income

(*name changed).

Mr. Kumar* had initially leased out his land on lease. The tenant

farmer indiscriminately used synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Kumar was dismayed by the condition of the soil and cancelled the

lease agreement. He decided to practice natural farming on his

ﬁeld after he learned about its beneﬁt and underwent a training

programme over one week. After undertaking natural farming

practices he observed the following changes in his ﬁeld:

(i) Soil: Improved porosity and increased numbers of

earthworms

(ii) Income: Intercropping of sugarcane with chilli, eggplant,

tomato and coriander provides

(iii) A year-round income.

(iv) Insects & pest control: He is maintaining 12 hens and 5

turkeys, to help control insects and pests in the ﬁeld.

(v) Mulching: He uses residue of previous crops

(vi) Value addition: Sugarcane to jiggery, paddy to rice

(vii) Marketing: Consumers come directly to his ﬁelds to buy his

produce

(viii) Cattle: He has his own cattle shed through which he uses

cow dung and cow urine in his own ﬁelds along with selling the

surplus to the villages to create awareness about natural farming.

In addition to new crop types and rotations,

farmers have added new elements to ﬁelds to help

control insect pests. The addition of bird perches,

yellow plates, pheromone trap crops and the use of

‘friendly’insects, all introduced during earlier eﬀorts

Figure 6. ZBNF paddy ﬁeld (left) and non-ZBNF paddy (right) after cyclone damage, Vishakapatnam district, (2017) (Source: RySS Natural Farming

Fellows 2017).

12 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

for community managed sustainable agriculture, con-

tinue to be used by ZBNF farmers. Farmers have also

begun experimenting with adding elements indepen-

dently, keeping small free-ranging poultry, like hens

and turkeys, and allowing them to forage through

ﬁelds as a means of pest control. Crop diversity has

also clearly increased, with farmers speciﬁcally encour-

aged to take up polycropping. Further work will need

systematically to assess biodiversity improvements on

and around ZBNF farms, and the pathways through

which change occurs.

(iii). Household transitions: in order to capture farm-

system and household-level change we asked a

small number of ZBNF farmers to describe house-

hold and landscape level change over the last

three years (from adoption of ZBNF in 2016 to

the present) (Figure 8(a and b)). This data was col-

lected remotely by RySS-based Natural Farming

Fellows following a template for participatory

rural appraisal (PRA) provided by the UK-based

co-authors. Ethical approval was obtained from

the Departmental ethics review panel at the

Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin

University prior to data collection. Ethical review

covered the methods used to collect, store and

analyse these participatory data. Before conduct-

ing the PRA, the UK-based research team pre-

pared a simple random sampling list of farmers

covering all crops and districts, after which a

subset of 34 individuals were purposively

selected based on their availability and willing-

ness to participate.

In July 2018, a two-day exercise was conducted

with the selected farmers, who were asked to follow

a single instruction: to graphically illustrate signiﬁcant

changes to their farms, households or wider commu-

nities since the uptake of ZBNF. We did not predeter-

mine what aspects of change farmers should illustrate,

leaving it to them to represent what they felt was most

important. Descriptions were captured through draw-

ings on one A5-sized sheet per farmer, with the

support and facilitation of local Natural Farming

Fellows. The drawings thus obtained consist of

resource maps of local villages and ﬁelds; social

maps illustrating new webs of relationships support-

ing crop cultivation, harvesting, storage and sale;

food plates illustrating new dietary regimes; income

and expenditure cycles and value chains. Figure 8(a

and b) provide a ﬁgurative example. Drawings were

scanned and sent electronically to the UK-based

team, who were debriefed on each drawing during a

conversation conducted over Skype. Key themes are

summarized in Table 3. Further work is necessary to

assess how these various outcomes play out over

time and across a stratiﬁed sample of ZBNF farms.

7. ZBNF transitions as a form of redesign

Agricultural system redesign constitutes a fundamen-

tally social, cultural and institutional challenge rather

Figure 7. Earthworms on ZBNF plot (Source: RySS Natural Farming Fellows 2018).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 13

than either a set of technologies or practices (Hill,

1985). Within this section, we reﬂect on the ways in

which ZBNF is consonant with the concept of rede-

sign. An important qualiﬁcation is the lack of any uni-

formity in ZBNF ‘practice’either in general or within

the structured uptake of the package designed by

RySS by Andhra Pradesh’s farmers. Farmers adopting

the method following attendance of Palekar’s training

camps have adapted the method to suit the practical-

ities of their individual farms, and may adopt a suite

of methods –agroecological or otherwise –alongside

Palekar’s prescribed inputs and farm designs (Khadse

et al., 2017). Methods may also change year by year,

depending on external drivers (weather and prices)

or imperatives at farm and household level. The

resulting complex of results and impacts across the

state is likely to be extraordinarily complex, and

complicates eﬀorts to discuss ‘general’ZBNF practice

and outcomes. Farmers adopting ZBNF in Andhra

Pradesh through structured support from RySS,

though arguably part of a more formalized pro-

gramme, nevertheless also adopt the method pro-

gressively (Khadse & Rosset, 2019), leading to a

broad range of farm regimes across the landscape.

Nevertheless, our aim at this stage is to discuss under-

lying principles, rather than evaluating ZBNF practice

against a set of ﬁxed criteria.

First, ZBNF –both as advocated by Palekar and as

practiced speciﬁcally in Andhra Pradesh –is radical,

going beyond incremental change within existing

agricultural systems. Proponents aim to fundamentally

transform farm systems, and with them, rural liveli-

hoods. Palekar speciﬁcally discusses changed norms

and subjectivities: ‘the internal and external change

Figure 8. (a and b) Resource (ﬁeld) map representations on the evolution of cropping systems on a rainfed farm in Kurnool district, between 2015

and July 2018.

Table 3. Key themes from farmers’testimonies on ZBNF outcomes for farms and households.

Theme

Crop health and resilience Farmers reported greater crop resilience to dry spells and other climate shocks. Annotations with

income ﬁgures showed that losses of some high value crops due to pest attacks or climate shocks

were adequately oﬀset by stable yields in other crop types, an outcome enabled by the RySS

model of encouraging more complex crop mixes. Incomes were held stable despite crop losses,

due to signiﬁcantly lower production costs.

Greater crop diversity and more complex

cropping patterns

Farmers illustrated transitions from monocropping to polycropping, with the progressive addition,

year on year, of new crops and crop mixes, the design of new rotations and more complex

cropping patterns. One farmer illustrated a transition from 1 crop type in 2016–10 in 2018,

representing a signiﬁcant increase in productivity but also human and natural capital.

Food plates Farmers illustrating food plates drew a greater number of food types as well as greater quantities of

food.

Health Farmers illustrated a transition from periods of ill health to better health, smiling faces illustrated

positive aﬀect.

Incomes Farmers illustrated improvements to housing, with transitions from katcha (rough, thatched)

housing to pukka (permanent, concrete or mortar) housing.

14 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

simultaneously’(Palekar, 2010). ZBNF farmers are seen

to be enacting new moral imperatives (Khadse et al.,

2017) and are encouraged by Palekar to undergo no

less than a ‘change of personality and of the culture

of farming’, with a new ecological rationality: ‘a new

mindset …which involves a curiosity about ecosys-

tems, renewed pride about being a farmer and a

focus on a good life’(Münster, 2014, p. 25). Münster

(2018, p. 755) describes how Palekar’s training

camps act as revival meetings in which farmers are

‘repeatedly invited to stand up, raise their right arm

and solemnly vow to transform themselves from

being a “demon destroyer of nature”to a “saint pro-

tector of nature”’.

Proponents and practitioners (particularly self-

identiﬁed ZBNF ‘purists’) also explicitly position

ZBNF in stark opposition to mainstream agronomy

and the dominant system of knowledge politics

that advances it. Palekar calls on farmers to

‘boycott all the techniques of Agricultural Univer-

sities’(Münster, 2018, p. 757) and he is also

opposed to alternatives that, in his view, make

insigniﬁcant or incremental adjustments. Organic

agriculture, for example, is criticized by Palekar for

not being radical enough, on the basis that

farmers simply replace synthetic inputs with permiss-

ible alternatives (Münster, 2016) without actually re-

visioning their relationship to the land. For Palekar,

ZBNF is meant to drive a more fundamental cultural

challenge to mainstream agronomy and replaces the

common focus on accumulation or productivity with

a focus on ‘autonomy, health and self-suﬃciency’

(Münster, 2016, p. 223). It is beyond the scope of

this paper to disaggregate these vibrant and conti-

nuing debates or to assess the relative merits of

various positions; here we seek to point out that

both ZBNF proponents and practitioners seek to

implement radical change that goes beyond incre-

mental improvements to farm eﬃciency or input

substitution.

Both ‘zero budget’and ‘natural farming’are meant

to signify substantial shifts in relations with markets

and nature. The ﬁrst, ‘zero budget’, signiﬁes no less

than a drive for complete independence from external

inputs (and thus from input suppliers and, ostensibly,

the entire constellation of capital, credit and indebted-

ness so central to farmers’contemporary livelihoods).

In this sense, Palekar and ZBNF proponents seek to

engage with key structural drivers of farmer poverty

and agrarian distress, actively engaging with the

‘root causes’mentioned by Hill (1985). ‘Natural

farming’is about more than permissible inputs.

Instead, ZBNF farmers are encouraged to (re) concep-

tualize their farms as vibrant and intrinsically abun-

dant ecosystems, which simply need to be

stewarded respectfully. For example, Palekar com-

pares the sustainable farm to the ‘self-suﬃcient

forest’, which needs no external inputs in order to

thrive.

For many farmers, Palekar’s trainings are the ﬁrst

time they come to explicitly understand the agroeco-

logical basis of sustainable cultivation (Khadse &

Rosset, 2019). In doing so they report undergoing a

‘paradigm shift’, realizing that soils are not an empty

medium requiring external fertilization, but inherently

fertile and abundant, only needing to be stewarded

appropriately. Farmers also report a new sense of per-

spective as to their capacities and the need for a ‘more

than human’approach: ‘From Palekar he (the farmer)

claims to have learned that there are many things

humans cannot do’(cited in Münster, 2018, p. 756).

Alongside this comes new ‘aﬀective relationships’

between farmers and their cattle, wherein indigenous

variety cows are ‘treated …like a pet; cuddled,

stroked, caressed, and admired for [their] beauty’

(Münster, 2017, p. 25).

Finally, in Andhra Pradesh, RySS (2018d, p. 14) pos-

itions itself as an organization that seeks to drive trans-

formative beneﬁts for the economy, environment and

equity through sustainable agriculture. It explicitly

aims at:

Converting the agriculture sector of Andhra Pradesh to

100% regenerative agriculture, zero budget natural

farming through 6 million smallholders will deliver

transformative beneﬁts for the economy, environment

and equity. It will present a ﬁrst-of-its-kind blueprint

for sustainable commodities production that reverses

biodiversity losses and preserves ecosystem services,

providing an opportunity for reclaiming planetary

boundaries.

In all these ways, ZBNF discourses and material prac-

tices –diverse, variable and evolving as they are –

reﬂect a key feature of Hill’s concept of redesign:

working outward from a core normative vision, a

focus on addressing ‘root causes’and going beyond

technics to transform systems in their entirety and

from within (including, quite explicitly, the active

involvement of the farmers’inner life, a reconsidera-

tion of fundamental relationships between the

farmer, his land, and the rest of nature, and a rework-

ing of the knowledge politics which mediates this

relationship).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 15

A second key pillar of Hill’s concept of redesign is

its explicitly agroecological focus. Palekar’s vision

and ZBNF practice are clearly agroecological in

scope and biodiversity-focused (Khadse et al., 2017).

Palekar exhorts farmers to steward biodiversity on

and around farms and most notably within soil.

Within Andhra Pradesh, more complex cropping pat-

terns, including rotations, multi and polycropping

are building on-farm biodiversity, though more work

is needed in order to systematically assess the

inﬂuence of ZBNF on non-cultivated biodiversity

both on and around farms.

Finally, redesign is a predominantly social and insti-

tutional challenge. It involves new relationships within

and between actors, all working collectively across

scales. ZBNF has clearly involved the building of

both social and human capital. Its spread has been

enabled through collaborative action across land-

scapes, peer-to-peer learning as well as collaborations

between experts and ‘expert practitioners’. Khadse

et al. (2017) describe how ZBNF in Karnataka has suc-

cessfully adopted a social movement dynamic that has

facilitated its spread. Within Andhra Pradesh, the state

roll out of ZBNF has of course proceeded through the

functioning of a formal public sector institution –the

RySS, working in partnership with farmers via a

dense extension and farmer support networks. There

is thus a clear diﬀerence between the narrow techno-

centrism that characterizes the formal extension

systems of which Palekar is so critical, and the more

participatory, farmer-led and farmer-focused forms

which have driven the spread of ZBNF –both within

grassroots social movements and within the more

formal roll out in Andhra Pradesh. This hybrid model

has helped farmers to go beyond simple yield

increases, to additive and multiplicative improve-

ments across the farm (Box 2).

8. Lessons for wider transitions to

sustainable agriculture

The spread of ZBNF presents a relatively infrequent

example of a policy-led transition to sustainable agri-

culture being implemented at scale in India. In this

ﬁnal section, we discuss a few important lessons pre-

sented by the Andhra Pradesh experience and

outline a number of emerging questions requiring

further research.

The ﬁrst lesson centres on the role of clear policy

directives, accompanied by adequate ﬁnancing and

institutional support. Policy support is vital for

scaling sustainable agriculture (Garibaldi et al., 2019;

Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018; Pretty & Bhar-

ucha, 2014), and a number of notable redesign initiat-

ives that have achieved scale have done so as a result

of explicit policy shifts. The regreening of the Sahel, for

example, has been achieved by changing national tree

ownership regulations that allowed the spread of

agroforestry at scale (Godfray et al., 2010). Public

policy support has also been vital to the development

of social capital supporting sustainable agriculture

(e.g. Australian Landcare, community forest manage-

ment in India, Nepal and Vietnam, Mexican irrigation

user groups, and farmer ﬁeld schools in across Asia

and Africa) (Pretty et al., 2018).

Key to the sustained scaling of ZBNF in Andhra

Pradesh has been the layering of initiatives, allowing

for momentum and experience to build. Previous pro-

grammes on community supported sustainable agri-

culture have put in place an institutional architecture

on which the ZBNF programme is able to capitalize.

The RySS has been nominated as the single agency

responsible for all aspects of the roll-out of ZBNF

and its work is supported by funding from the

central and state government, as well as funding of

around Rs. 100 crore (just over US$14 million) from

private philanthropy (the Aziz Premji Foundation) for

technical support.

The second key lesson has been the emphasis on

farmer-focused, participatory extension, building

human capital (farmer learning) and two types of

social capital –links between farmers (bonding

capital) and between farmers and ‘experts’in the agri-

cultural research and innovation ecosystem (linking

capital). Here too, previous work has been vital. The

community-supported sustainable agriculture pro-

gramme initiated by SERP has been capitalized on,

and the RySS now coordinates a dense network of

farmer-led and farmer-focused groups extending to

the level of individual households. Farmers are able

to gain information, peer-support and ‘troubleshoot-

ing’from a range of facilitators (some of them fellow

farmers). This level of engagement sets ZBNF ‘exten-

sion’apart from conventional state-led extension

models in India and, we suggest, is likely to be a key

driver of sustained spread over time. It also provides

a key lesson for farmer-focused development initiat-

ives elsewhere in India, where the widespread

neglect of dryland smallholders in formal skills pro-

vision, public agricultural extension and state liveli-

hood support (Gajjar, Singh, & Deshpande, 2019) has

been a key driver of continued vulnerability.

16 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

At present, public modes of knowledge delivery

match neither the scale nor the complexity of the

social-ecological challenges facing smallholders, par-

ticularly in dryland systems. Extension services

remain ﬁxed in a ‘transfer of technology’model, are

not well matched to local social-ecological contexts,

and do not necessarily target socially or economically

marginalized farmers. They are also understaﬀed, with

an estimated 100,000 extension agents in post (of the

1.3–1.5 million required) (Glendening, Babu, & Asenso-

Okyere, 2010). Where extension services are available,

farmers lack the opportunity for follow-up, and infor-

mation may be provided to farmers who are either

from privileged groups or those who are easiest to

reach (Cole & Fernando, 2012). Partly as a result, just

5.7% of Indian farmers report receiving information

from a public extension agent (Glendening et al.,

2010).

Yet, there is also a more cautionary lesson. Ambi-

tious policy initiatives at state level need to proactively

engage with gaps in knowledge provision and

exchange. In Sikkim, farmers who transitioned away

from synthetic inputs were not provided with

enough guidance on how to deal with crop pests,

and struggled to cope with decreased yields across a

variety of crops (Pandey & Sengupta, 2018). These

farmers call for more and better formal support and

training, and also restructured regulation and

markets that allow for proﬁtable sales (Taneja, 2017).

Andhra Pradesh’s initial success with ZBNF has

enthused policy makers in other states as well as at

national level. Going forward, it is important that

farmer-focussed ZBNF programmes are informed by

the institutional and organizational innovations

implemented by the RySS, which enables farmers to

work within a rich learning ecosystem, supported by

peers and more conventional experts.

This brings us to the third key lesson: the impor-

tance of farmer-led and farmer-focussed knowledge-

exchange. While RySS staﬀ‘teach’a formalized

version of ZBNF to farmers, it is clear that RySS aims

to give farmers scope to experiment with the

methods, adapt them and adopt ZBNF progressively

(the explicit provision for a three-year transition,

built into interim RySS targets, is one example). One

emerging tension is the need to communicate key

elements of ZBNF technique versus engaging farmers

with the more advanced or abstract principles animat-

ing ZBNF practice (Khadse & Rosset, 2019). On the one

hand, RySS has created a participatory learning eco-

system to facilitate collective learning through face-

to-face interaction with peers and other experts,

through exposure to video and other media, and

through direct engagement with Palekar’s training

camps. On the other hand, interviewees ‘reveal that

it is not possible to start with high complexity con-

cepts at the ﬁrst go’(Khadse & Rosset, 2019, p. 15).

Instead, farmers begin by using ZBNF as a form of

input substitution before moving on to more

advanced practices and engaging with the underlying

principles.

A key set of questions for further research centres

on the need to design evaluations that take into

account diverging levels of engagement and types

of adoption across diﬀerent farms. Evaluations of

agroecological ‘packages’involving multiple com-

ponents is diﬃcult, as these are often adapted to

suit the particular needs of farmers and communities

(Milder, Garbach, DeClerck, Driscoll, & Montenegro,

2012). Outcomes from standardized or simpliﬁed prac-

tices in ﬁeld trials may not therefore correspond with

outcomes from the methods used by farmers. In the

context of sustainable intensiﬁcation, evaluations

must also go beyond impacts on yields. Improvements

to environmental variables are even more challenging

to assess, as outcomes are highly sensitive to initial

conditions, as well as the parameters timescales and

any weightings used (Elliot, Firbank, Drake, Cao, &

Gooday, 2013). These considerations should inform

on-going evaluations of ZBNF, underway across India

via the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),

with a view to informing further policy making at

national level (Tiwari, 2019). Beyond trials on research

stations, assessing outcomes for practicing farmers is

complicated by the fact that ZBNF –like other initiat-

ives –is ‘layered’on top of an existing array of prac-

tices and technologies. In Andhra Pradesh for

example, farmers may have previously experimented

with organic production, or may be using some

elements of the system of crop intensiﬁcation such

as wide spacing and a revised irrigation schedule.

These may have had impacts on soil health or biodi-

versity prior to the implementation of ZBNF, and this

will be diﬃcult to ‘separate out’in evaluations.

Aﬁnal set of questions around centres on the need

for longitudinal assessments. Redesign initiatives are

not static, as contexts continually change. Multidisci-

plinary longitudinal assessments are needed to

explore how practice and outcomes change over

time, either progressing towards greater sustainability

or reverting to older forms of management. Unin-

tended consequences may also unfold, particularly

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 17

over time, and especially if underlying norms and

values remain unchanged (e.g. see Bharucha, Smith,

& Pretty, 2014 on the long-term outcomes of decen-

tralized watershed management). Redesign inno-

vations speciﬁcally seek to re-vision the underlying

status quo, but beyond a certain scale, all innovations

must engage with existing power relations and incum-

bent actors who can thwart, dilute or co-opt them

(Brown, 2018). Alongside longitudinal assessments of

ZBNF outcomes for farmers and landscapes, there

will thus be a need to track how the underlying prin-

ciples of ZBNF are being implemented as the

package is formally adopted by state-led institutions

and is adopted by existing programmes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish gratefully to acknowledge funding from Anglia

Ruskin University, which supported a Research Assistant position

for Sol Bermejo Mitjans at the Global Sustainability Institute. We

would like to thank Pavan Sukhdev for collegial support through-

out the project and colleagues at the RySS, particularly Vijay

Thallam, for providing the authors with data, sending infor-

mation on ZBNF and engaging constructively with the research

for this paper. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for

their advice and feedback on an earlier draft of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Senior Research Fellow, Global Sustain-

ability Institute.

Sol Bermejo Mitjans, Research Assistant (former), Global Sustain-

ability Institute.

Jules Pretty, Professor of Environment and Society, University of

Essex.

References

Altieri, M. A., & Rosset, P. (1996). Agroecology and the conversion

of lárge-scale conventional systems to sustainable manage-

ment. International Journal of Environmental Studies,50(3–4),

165–185.

Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-

management and the paradox of learning. Global

Environmental Change,18(1), 86–98.

Basu, S., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Understanding the rapid spread of

system of rice intensiﬁcation (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh:

Exploring the building of support networks and media rep-

resentation. Agricultural Systems,111,34–44.

Bharucha, Z. P., Smith, D., & Pretty, J. (2014). All paths lead to rain:

Explaining why watershed development in India does not

alleviate the experience of water scarcity. The Journal of

Development Studies,50(9), 1209–1225.

Briscoe, J., & Malik, R. P. S. (2006). India’s water economy: Bracing

for a turbulent future. New Delhi: Oxford University Press and

World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.

worldbank.org/handle/10986/7238 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO

Brown, T. (2018). Farmers, subalterns and activists: Social politics of

sustainable agriculture in India. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M.,

Ingram, J. S., Jaramillo, F., …Shindell, D. (2017). Agriculture

production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding

planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society,22(4), 8.

Centre for Economic and Social Studies. (2007). Human develop-

ment report 2007 Andhra Pradesh. Retrieved from https://

www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/human_revelop_

report_andhra_pradesh_2007_full_report.pdf

Chhotray, V. (2011). The anti-politics machine in India. State,

Descentralization and Participatory Watershed

Development. Anthem Press.

Cole, S. A., & Fernando, A. N. (2012). The value of advice: Evidence

from mobile phone-based agricultural extension (Harvard

Business School Working Paper, No. 13–047).

Collier, W. L., Wiradi, G., & Soentoros. (1973). Recent changes in

rice harvesting methods: Some serious social implications.

Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies,9,36–45.

Conway, G. B., & Barbier, E. B. (1990). After the green revolution:

Sustainable agriculture for development. London: Earthscan.

Datta, K. K., & de Jong, C. (2002). Adverse eﬀect of waterlogging

and soil salinity on crop and land productivity in northwest

region of Haryana, India. Agricultural Water Management,57

(3), 223–238.

Davis, K. F., Chiarelli, D. D., Rulli, M. C., Chhatre, A., Richter, B.,

Singh, D., & DeFries, R. (2018). Alternative cereals can

improve water use and nutrient supply in India. Science

Advances,4(7), eaao1108.

Elliot, J., Firbank, L., Drake, B., Cao, Y., & Gooday, R. (2013).

Exploring the concept of sustainable intensiﬁcation (ADAS/

Firbank,LUPG Commissioned Report, 2013).

FiBL and IFOAM –Organics International. (2019). The world of

organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2019.

Retrieved from https://shop.ﬁbl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/

download/link/id/1202/?ref=1

Fishman, R. (2018). Groundwater depletion limits the scope for

adaptation to increased rainfall variability in India. Climatic

Change,147(1–2), 195–209.

Gajjar, S. P., Singh, C., & Deshpande,T. (2019). Tracing back to move

ahead: A review of development pathways that constrain adap-

tation futures. Climate and Development,11(3), 223–237.

Garibaldi, L. A., Pérez-Méndez, N., Garratt, M. P., Gemmill-Herren,

B., Miguez, F. E., & Dicks, L. V. (2019). Policies for ecological

intensiﬁcation of crop production. Trends in Ecology &

Evolution,34(4), 282–286.

Glendening, C. J., Babu, S., & Asenso-Okyere, K. (2010). Review of

agricultural extension in India. Are farmers’information needs

being met? IFPRI Discussion Paper 01048. Eastern and

Southern Africa Regional Oﬃce.

Gliessman, S. (2015). A global vision for food system transform-

ation. Agroecology and SustainableFood Systems,39(7), 725–726.

Gliessman, S. (2016). Transforming food systems with agroecology.

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,40(3), 187–189.

18 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

Gliessman, S., & Rosemeyer, M. (2009). The conversion to sustain-

able agriculture: Principles, processes and practices. London:

CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L.,

Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., …Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security:

The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science,327

(5967), 812–818.

Government of Andhra Pradesh. (2019). Zero budget natural

farming. Retrieved from http://apzbnf.in/about-ryss/

Government of Himachal Pradesh. (2018, May 23). Guidelines for

implementation of ‘Prakritik Kheti Khushhal Kissan’scheme in

Himachal Pradesh. Notiﬁcation No. Agr-B-F(1)-1/2018.

Retrieved from http://www.hillagric.ac.in/aboutus/registrar/

pdf/2018/GA/30.05.2018/GA-30.05.2018-24882-98-29.05.2018.

pdf

Government of India. (2005). Income, expenditure and pro-

ductive assets of farmer households. NSS 59th Round,

January-December 2003. Retrieved from http://mospi.nic.in/

sites/default/ﬁles/publication_reports/497_ﬁnal.pdf

Grafton, R. Q., Williams, J., Perry, C. J., Molle, F., Ringler,C., Steduto,

P., …Allen, R. G. (2018). The paradox of irrigation eﬃciency.

Science,361(6404), 748–750.

Gunton, R. M., Firbank, L. G., Inman, A., & Winter, D. M. (2016).

How scalable is sustainable intensiﬁcation. Nature Plants,2

(16065), 10–1038.

Gurr, G. M., Lu, Z., Zheng, X., Xu, H., Zhu, P., Chen, G., …Heong, K.

L. (2016). Multi-country evidence that crop diversiﬁcation pro-

motes ecological intensiﬁcation of agriculture. Nature Plants,2

(16014). doi:10.1038/nplants.2016.14.

Hill, S. (1985). Redesigning the food system for sustainability.

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political,12(3), 32–36.

Hill, S. B. (2014). Considerations for enabling the ecological

redesign of organic and conventional agriculture: A social

ecology and psychosocial perspective. In S. Bellon & S.

Penvern (Eds.), Organic farming, prototype for sustainable agri-

cultures (pp. 401–422). Dordrecht: Springer.

Hill, S. B. (2015). Personal priorities for organics to realise its

potential. Journal of Organic Systems,10(1), 1–2.

Hill, S. B., & MacRae, R. J. (1996). Conceptual framework for the

transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture.

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,7(1), 81–87.

IPCC. (2019). Climate change and land: and IPCC special report on

climate change, desertiﬁcation, land degradation, sustainable

land management, food security, and greenhouse gas ﬂuxes

in terrestrial ecosystems. Report, 8th August 2019. Retrieved

from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/

Khadse, A., & Rosset, P. M. (2019). Zero budget natural farming in

India: From inception to institutionalization. Agroecology and

Sustainable Food Systems,43(7–8), 848–871.

Khadse, A., Rosset, P. M., Morales, H., & Ferguson, B. G. (2017).

Taking agroecology to scale: The Zero Budget Natural

Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal

of Peasant Studies,45(1), 192–219.

Kumar, H. M. V., Shivamurthy, M., & Biradar, G. S. (2016). A scale to

measure climate-induced crisis management of farmers in

Coastal Karnataka (India). Advances in Life Sciences,5(16),

6206–6212.

La Via Campesina. (2016). Zero budget natural farming in

India. 52 Proﬁles on Agroecology: Zero Budget Natural

Farming in India. FAO Agroecology Knowledge Hub.

Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/agroecology/detail/en/

c/443712/

Levidow, L., Zaccaria, D., Maia, R., Vivas, E., Todorovic and, M., &

Scardigno, A. (2014). Improving water-eﬃcient irrigation:

Prospects and diﬃculties of innovative practices. Agricultural

Water Management,146,84–94.

Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M.,

Morales, H., Ferguson, B. G., Rosset, P., …Campos, C. (2018).

Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic

cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,42(6), 637–

665.

Milder, J. C., Garbach, K., DeClerck, F. A., Driscoll, L., &

Montenegro, M. (2012). An assessment of the multi-function-

ality of agroecological intensiﬁcation. Gates Open Research,3.

doi:10.21955/gatesopenres.1115387.1.

Münster, D. (2014). A letter to Subhash Palekar, Natural Farmer.

Rachel Carson Centre Perspectives,6,23–25.

Münster, D. (2016). Agro-ecological double movements? Zero

Budget Natural farming and alternative agricultures after

the neoliberal crisis in Kerala. In B. B. Mohanty (Ed.), Critical

perspectives on agrarian transition: India in the global debate

(pp. 222–244). New Delhi: Routledge.

Münster, D. (2017). Zero budget natural farming and bovine

entanglements in South India. Rachel Carson Center

Perspectives,1,25–32.

Münster, D. (2018). Performing alternative agriculture: Critique

and recuperation in Zero Budget Natural farming, South

India. Journal of Political Ecology,25(1), 748–764.

Nicholls, C. I., & Altieri, M. A. (2018). Pathways for the ampliﬁca-

tion of agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food

Systems,42(10), 1170–1193.

O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G.,

Tompkins, H., …West, J. (2004). Mapping vulnerability to mul-

tiple stressors: Climate change and globalization in India.

Global Environmental Change,14(4), 303–313.

Palekar, S. (2010). The philosophy of spiritual farming: Zero budget

natural farming –part 1. 5th revised renewal ed. Amravati:

Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development and

Extension Movement.

Palekar, S. (2019). Zero budget spiritual farming. Retrieved from

http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/home.

aspx

Pandey, K., & Sengupta, R. (2018). India has the highest number

of organic farmers globally, but most of them are struggling.

Down to Earth, 10th December 2018. Retrieved from https://

www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/india-has-the-hig

hest-number-of-organic-farmers-globally-but-most-of-them-a

re-struggling-61289

Pellegrini, P., & Fernández, R. J. (2018). Crop intensiﬁcation, land

use, and on-farm energy-use eﬃciency during the worldwide

spread of the green revolution. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences,115(10), 2335–2340.

Perry, C., Steduto, P., Allen, R. G., & Burt, C. M. (2009). Increasing

productivity in irrigated agriculture: Agronomic constraints

and hydrological realities. Agricultural Water Management,

96(2009), 1517–1524.

Pretty, J. N. (1997). The sustainable intensiﬁcation of agriculture.

Natural Resources Forum,21, 247–256.

Pretty, J., Benton, T. G., Bharucha, Z. P., Dicks, L. V., Flora, C. B.,

Godfray, H. C. J., …Pierzynski, G. (2018). Global assessment

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 19

of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensiﬁcation.

Nature Sustainability,1(8), 441.

Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2014). Sustainable intensiﬁcation in

agricultural systems. Annals of Botany,114(8), 1571–1596.

Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2018). Sustainable intensiﬁcation of

agriculture: Greening the world’s food economy. London:

Routledge.

Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensiﬁ-

cation in African agriculture. International Journal of

Agricultural Sustainability,9(1), 5–24.

Rao, G. B. (2012). Current climate variability adaptation in AP and

available options. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/

5754482/Current_Climate_Variability_Adaptation_in_AP_and_

Available_Options_Acknowledgement

Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the

twenty-ﬁrst century. Nature Plants,2(2), 15221.

Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N.,

Gordon, L., …de Fraiture, C. (2017). Sustainable intensiﬁcation

of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability.

Ambio,46(1), 4–17.

Royal Society. (2009). Reaping the beneﬁts: Science and the sus-

tainable intensiﬁcation of agriculture. London: Royal Society.

RySS. (2018a). Scaling up ZPNF –AP 2018-27. 60 lakh farm-

families across all villages of the State. Unpublished powerpoint

presentation.

RySS. (2018b). AP: India’sﬁrst natural farming state. ZBNF 2024.

Unpublished powerpoint presentation.

RySS. (2018c). Abstract data on earthworm populations in ZBNF vs.

non-ZBNF ﬁelds per square meter (RySS unpublished internal

data).

RySS. (2018d). Universalization of ZBNF: Comprehensive Action

Plan to cover all 60 lakh farmers in the State by 2025-26.

RySS. (2019a). Application for natural farming fellowship of Rythu

Sadhikara Samstha. Retrieved from http://apzbnf.in/careers/

application-for-natural-farming-fellowship-of-rythu-sadhikara-

samstha/

RySS. (2019b). How are community resource persons, natural

farming fellows and NGOs selected in the programme?

Retrieved from http://apzbnf.in/faq/

RySS. (undated). Andhra Pradesh Zero-Budget Natural Farming

(APZBNF). A Systemwide Transformational Programme.

Retrieved from http://apzbnf.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/

11/17092019-revisedConceptNoteforVC-nitiaayog_Final-for-p

rint.pdf

Shah, T. (2008). Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in

South Asia. London: Earthscan.

Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B.

L., Lassaletta, L., …Jonell,M.(2018). Options for keeping the

food system within environmental limits. Nature,562(7728), 519.

Stone, G. D. (2019). Commentary: New histories of the Indian

Green Revolution. The Geographical Journal,185(2), 243–250.

Subramanian, K. (2015). Revisiting the Green Revolution irrigation

and food production in twentieth-century India (Doctoral

thesis). Kings College London. Retrieved from https://

kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ﬁles/54484756/2015_Subramanian_K

apil_1348311_ethesis.pdf

Taneja, S. (2017). Sikkim in 100% organic! Take a second look.

Down to Earth magazine, 19th April 2019. Retrieved from

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/organic-tri

al-57517

Thakkar, H. (2010). India’s Trysy with the big irrigation projects.

South Asian Network of Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP).

Retrieved from https://sandrp.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2018/03/

failure_of_big_irrigation_projects_and_rainfed_agriculture_

0510.pdf

Thallam, V., Raidu, D. V., Killi, J., Pillai, M., Shah, P., Kalavakonda, V.,

& Lakhey, S. (2009). Ecologically sound, economically viable:

Community managed sustainable agriculture in Andhra

Pradesh, India. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved

from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/80510146

8267916659/pdf/759610WP0P118800agriculture0AP02009.pdf

Tilman, D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural

expansion: The need for sustainable and eﬃcient practices.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,96(11),

5995–6000.

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food

demand and the sustainable intensiﬁcation of agriculture.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108(50),

20260–20264.

Tiwari, R. (2019). ICAR to study zero budget farming before its

rollout. The Economic Times. 13 July 2019. Retrieved from

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agric

ulture/icar-to-study-zero-budget-farming-before-its-rollout/a

rticleshow/70201301.cms?from=mdr

Tiwari, V. M., Wahr, J., & Swenson, S. (2009). Dwindling ground-

water resources in Northern India, from satellite gravity obser-

vations. Geophysical Research Letters,36, L18401.

UNEP. (2018). Andhra Pradesh to become India’sﬁrst zero

budget natural farming state. Press Release, 2nd June 2018.

Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-

stories/press-release/andhra-pradesh-become-indias-ﬁrst-zer

o-budget-natural-farming-state

Vaidyanath, A. (1994). Employment situation: Some emerging

perspectives. Economic and Political Weekly,29(50), 3147–

3156.

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T.,

Vermeulen, S., …Jonell, M. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene:

The EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable

food systems. The Lancet,393(10170), 447–492.

Yadav, S. S., & Lal, R. (2018). Vulnerability of women to climate

change in arid and semi-arid regions: The case of India and

South Asia. Journal of Arid Environments,149,4–17.

20 Z. P. BHARUCHA ET AL.

Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
AGRON SUSTAIN DEV

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising desi cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment (z score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic (z= −0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (−0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers' finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.

Threatened and Near Threatened Underutilized Edible Fruit Species of Southern India for Food Security and Diversifying Agroecology

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

Southern India (SI) is bestowed with several threatened and near threatened (TNT) underutilized edible fruit species (UEFS) that contributes to food and nutritional security, particularly to the indigenous people. Unfortunately, information related to these natural products is fragmentary and least researched. The PRISMA Protocol was used to conduct a systematic review of the TNT-UEFS of the SI. The study confirmed that, of the total of 69 species of TNT-UEFS recorded, most of the species were reported to have medicinal, economical, and many other values, which need instant sustainable initiatives for conservation, consumption and cultivation. Among these species, 10 (14.5 %) were near threatened (NT), and 59 (85.5 %) were threatened. According to the IUCN Red List, the threatened species were further divided into three categories: Vulnerable (31 species), Endangered (20 species), and Critically Endangered (8 species). The provision of various ecosystem services is aided by integrating native and naturalized TNT-UEFS in various ecosystem restoration efforts through afforestation and reforestation. Consecutively, it helps India meet its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and neutralize land degradation by 2030. Hence, the study will provide baseline information for future research and be useful for policymakers to develop region-specific, scientific, and sustainable policies for SI.

Application of Jeevamrit Improves Soil Properties in Zero Budget Natural Farming Fields

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), utilizing natural resources, multiple cropping systems, and cow-dung-and urine-based products to improve soil biology, has been practiced by thousands of farmers in India. However, without any scientific proof, this traditional and ancient technique is mocked as a bugged theory in the scientific community. In the current study, we have investigated the effect of Jeevamrit-cow-dung-and urine-based formulation-on soil chemical and microbial properties of the ZBNF field coupled with metagenomic analysis and the economics of ZBNF. The percentage increase in soil properties, such as organic carbon, available phosphorus, and available potassium, was recorded up to 46%, 439%, and 142%, respectively, while micronutrients, such as Zn, Fe, Cu, and Mn, also increased up to 98%, 23%, 62%, and 55%, respectively, from 2017 to 2019. Whole genome metagenomic analysis revealed that Proteobacteria were dominantly present, and bacterial phyla including Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, and Panibacillus. On the other hand, Ascomycota was the dominating fungal phyla present in the soil sample. Further, functional analysis showed a high representation of genes/enzymes involved in amino acids and carbohydrate metabolism contributing to soil fertility, plant growth, defense, and development. Additionally, the cost-benefit ratio of ZBNF was double the farmer's practice when tested with the rice and wheat cropping system. The results from this study provide a new proof of concept and understanding of the potential of the ZBNF component, i.e., Jeevamrit, in improving soil properties.

Uptake of agroforestry-based crop management in the semi-arid Sahel – Analysis of joint decisions and adoption determinants

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Introduction Agroforestry plays a vital role in maintaining and developing the resilience and productivity of farms and landscapes. Scientific evidence from the Sahel region suggests that integration of trees and shrubs has the potential to improve temperature and moisture levels whilst providing bio-based fertilizer that contributes to increased yields of annual crops. However, little is known about the factors that influence the diffusion of agroforestry. This study examines joint decisions on the use of agroforestry alongside other complementary agricultural practices and disentangles agroforestry awareness from adoption and disadoption decisions. Methods Our analysis is based on a comprehensive farm-level dataset covering almost 3,000 farm households in Mali and Senegal. A large number of adoption determinants are utilized, with a special focus on information access, information flows and social groups. Results The findings suggest that extension access and training participation boost awareness of agroforestry-based soil fertility management, while information provided by public extension, NGOs and community members is strongly associated with higher adoption intensity. In the analysis of disadoption, farmer-to-farmers exchange in the community was found to be a key factor in the decision to maintain agroforestry use. Membership in cooperatives and youth groups appear to have a favorable effect on awareness and adoption in Mali, but less so in the Senegalese case. Similarly, only results from Mali show that adoption of agroforestry is accompanied by the adoption of other sustainable intensification practices and lower use of synthetic pesticides. Discussion We conclude that in order to support the transition to more widespread agroforestry-based soil fertility management, it is essential to strengthen public and NGO-based advisory systems that fully engage with local knowledge networks.

Sustainable options for fertilizer management in agriculture to prevent water contamination: a review

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
Environ Dev Sustain

Synthetic fertilizers have been revolutionary in the way that the increased production of food crops has increased as a result of the application of synthetic fertilizers. Despite the fact that global N, P, and K consumption have increased from 64.9, 25.9, and 18.2 kg/ha in the year 2000 to 85.5, 33.2, and 20.4 kg/ha, respectively, they are still relatively low. Additionally, excessive use of inorganic fertilizers has also resulted in a deterioration of environmental systems, especially that of water resources. The presence of this toxic substance inside the human body is therefore due to the fact that it enters the body through the food chain and causes serious illnesses, such as cancer. For instance, in most countries, the maximum nitrate concentration for drinking water is restricted to between 45 and 50 mg/L. Besides promoting the use of chemicals and the application of fertilizers in farming, there should be a push to encourage the sustainable use of biofertilizers to protect the environment and human health. Composts that have been developed from various waste materials, such as poultry farms, dairy farms, and other sources, have proven to be very rich in N, P, and K. For example, compost generated from dairy farm wastes can provide a value of 45,100, 7300, and 9100 mg/kg of N, P, and K, respectively. In order to make the use of these biofertilizers in agriculture possible, it will be necessary to spread awareness among the farmers so that they can adopt the concepts of sustainable management in agriculture.

Natural Farming Practices for Chemical-Free Agriculture: Implications for Crop Yield and Profitability

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

The "Green Revolution" (GR) technology-induced agricultural intensification has transformed India from food scarcity to a food surplus country. However, this has also resulted into several adverse repercussions. Increased application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides with stag-nating/declining crop productivity has dovetailed with uncertain market conditions and climate change effects which has resulted in un-remunerative agriculture. Consequently, farmers have fallen into the debt trap due to the rising cost of crop production apart from health hazards due to serious exposure to harmful chemical pesticides. Natural Farming (NF), an agro-ecological approach to farming is believed to be an effective way to counter some of these challenges. The present paper presents field-level farmers' experiences of NF adoption in three states of India-Andhra Pra-desh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The study was conducted during February-March 2019 by surveying 295 NF adopted and 170 non-NF adopted farmers. It was found that NF practice has been followed by some farmers for more than 10 years but others have adopted during the recent past. There is variation in the practice followed by the NF farmers. There are farmers who are using Farm Yard Manure (FYM). A solid form of jeevamritha (liquid concoction of microbial inoculants) called as ghanajeevamritha was also found to be used by farmers in Andhra Pradesh. It was observed that non-NF yields are superior to NF yield without FYM. In most crops, however, NF with FYM had a greater yield than NF without FYM and non-NF farms. There has been a decrease in the variable cost and a marginal increase in the market price of NF produce. The study suggests that natural farming may be seen as one of the alternative practices which has potential to rejuvenate the agro-ecosystem, besides cost saving for the individual farmers.

Regenerative agriculture: a potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023
SUSTAIN SCI

Modern agriculture is underpinned by a colonial, industrial and productivist discourse. Agricultural practices inspired by this discourse have fed billions but degraded socio-ecological systems. Regenerative agriculture (RA) is a prominent alternative seeking to transform food production and repair ecosystems. This paper proposes that RA discourse is supported by a shared storyline binding diverse actors and discourses together—a discourse coalition. Consequently, multiple discourses contribute to the over-arching discourse of RA. A discourse analysis was conducted on texts from ninety-six organisations and complimented by twenty-two interviews in Australia and the USA. This analysis identified nine discourses contributing to RA discourse: Restoration for Profit; Big Picture Holism; Regenerative Organic; Regrarian Permaculture; Regenerative Cultures; Deep Holism; First Nations; Agroecology and Food Sovereignty; and Subtle Energies. This paper describes and examines these component discourses and discusses tensions that may make RA vulnerable to co-optation and greenwashing, diluting its transformative potential.

Natural Farming: A Sustainable Ecological Approach towards Soil Health

Chapter

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Since the green revolution, India has seen an alarming rise in the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Use of chemicals excessively has a detrimental effect on the ecology, soil, human health and groundwater purity. The Zero Budget Natural Farming method was used in this case to reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In India, agriculture is a big sector. It is necessary for the survival and growth of the Indian economy. The majority of farmers rely heavily on inorganic, external chemicals like fertilizers and pesticides, which over time deplete soil fertility and damage groundwater and other ecosystems that depend on water. The health of Indian farmers is seriously threatened by the ongoing use of pesticides and chemicals. Zero-budget farming has the ability to drastically cut costs associated with production. Low-cost farmers use mulching, soil safeguards, organic pesticides, and fertilizers. The four basic pillars of natural farming on a tight budget are Jivamrita, Beejamrit, Acchadana (Mulching), and Whapasa. Farmers with limited resources employ fertilizers, natural pesticides, mulching, and soil conservation techniques. Retaining crop wastes over time restores soil fertility and helps to maintain soil health. The control of pests and diseases is a crucial component of low-cost natural farming crop production techniques. To achieve food security in the face of climate change, a comprehensive system approach incorporating natural agricultural principles for sustainable agriculture is required. I have covered the idea, necessity, advantages, major pillars, principles, opportunities, and obstacles of adopting zero budget natural farming, as well as the aspects to scale up zero budget natural farming.

Digital tools for rural agriculture extension: Impacts of mobile‐based advisories on agricultural practices in Southern India

Article

Mar 2023

Impact of Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) on Small and Marginal Farmers

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

The Green Revolution has dominated India's agriculture industry for more than 40 years. The economy has been impacted by the Green Revolution's increase in agricultural productivity and output.Now a day’s using conventional techniques in agriculture is like cancer to our soil and health as well. In addition to making the soil barren, it eventually causes the farmer to become insolvent. One such low-input, climate-resilient agricultural method is called Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), which encourages farmers to employ inexpensive, locally sourced, and readily available inputs rather than synthetic fertilizers and commercial pesticides. So ZBNF is beneficial for the small and marginal farmers because it needed low input cost, have high input use efficiency, recycle farm wastes.

Zero Budget Natural Farming in India -from inception to institutionalization

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2019

This paper delineates the growth of Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India. From its origins as a peasant-led social movement in the state of Karnataka, to becoming institutionalized in a state program in Andhra Pradesh, ZBNF is attaining scale and reaching more and more peasant families. We look at some of the key factors that have triggered ZBNFs growth, as well as highlight some of the challenges and contradictions that may arise in the institutionalization process.

Performing alternative agriculture: Critique and recuperation in Zero Budget Natural Farming, South India

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2018

Daniel Münster

This article explores how 'Zero Budget Natural Farming', an Indian natural farming movement centered on its founder and guru Subhash Palekar, enacts alternative agrarian worlds through the dual practices of critique and recuperation. Based on fieldwork among practitioners in the South Indian state of Kerala and on participation in teaching events held by Palekar, I describe the movement's critique of the agronomic mainstream (state extension services, agricultural universities, and scientists) and their recuperative practices of restoring small-scale cultivation based on Indian agroecological principles and biologies. Their critique combines familiar political-ecological arguments against productionism, and the injustices of the global food regime, with Hindu nationalist tropes highlighting Western conspiracies and corrupt science. For their recuperative work, these natural farmers draw, on one hand, on travelling agroecological technologies (fermentation, spacing, mulching, cow based farming) and current 'probiotic', microbiological, and symbiotic understandings of soil and agriculture. On the other hand, they use Hindu nativist tropes, insisting on the exceptional properties of agrarian species native to, and belonging to India. I use the idea of ontological politics to describe the movement's performances as enacting an alternative rural world, in which humans, other-than-human animals, plants, mycorrhizae, and microbes are doing agriculture together. Keywords: agricultural anthropology; alternative agricultures; naturecultures; critique; ontological politics; small-scale cultivators; India; Kerala; Subhash Palekar

Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2018
NATURE

The food system is a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. Here we show that between 2010 and 2050, as a result of expected changes in population and income levels, the environmental effects of the food system could increase by 50–90% in the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, reaching levels that are beyond the planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity. We analyse several options for reducing the environmental effects of the food system, including dietary changes towards healthier, more plant-based diets, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste. We find that no single measure is enough to keep these effects within all planetary boundaries simultaneously, and that a synergistic combination of measures will be needed to sufficiently mitigate the projected increase in environmental pressures.

The paradox of irrigation efficiency

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2018

Higher efficiency rarely reduces water consumption

Pathways for the amplification of agroecology

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2018

A transition to an agriculture based on agroecological principles would provide rural families with significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits. If agroecology has such great potential to feeding the world, why it is not adopted more widely by farmers? Most research analyzing factors needed for scaling up agroecology focuses on the social and policy dimensions. Herein we argue that a key challenge for the amplification of agroecology lies in the translation of agroecological principles into practical strategies for soil, water, and biodiversity management to enhance production and resilience. We use old and recent case studies to understand how amplification of agroecology has happened, both in numbers of farmers and at a larger geographical scale. We focus on two main strategies that have proven effective in the past: (a) the revival of traditional agricultural systems which offer promising models of sustainability and resilience and (b) the creation of “agroecological lighthouses” from which principles radiate out to local communities, helping them to build the basis of an agricultural strategy that promotes efficiency, diversity, synergy, and resiliency. Such agroecological strategies must be complemented by policies and solidarity market arrangements to provide economic viability to the amplification of agroecology.

Global Assessment of Agricultural System Redesign for Sustainable Intensification

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2018

The sustainable intensification of agricultural systems offers synergistic opportunities for the co-production of agricultural and natural capital outcomes. Efficiency and substitution are steps towards sustainable intensification, but system redesign is essential to deliver optimum outcomes as ecological and economic conditions change. We show global progress towards sustainable intensification by farms and hectares, using seven sustainable intensification sub-types: integrated pest management, conservation agriculture, integrated crop and biodiversity, pasture and forage, trees, irrigation management and small or patch systems. From 47 sustainable intensification initiatives at scale (each >104 farms or hectares), we estimate 163 million farms (29% of all worldwide) have crossed a redesign threshold, practising forms of sustainable intensification on 453 Mha of agricultural land (9% of worldwide total). Key challenges include investment to integrate more forms of sustainable intensification in farming systems, creating agricultural knowledge economies and establishing policy measures to scale sustainable intensification further. We conclude that sustainable intensification may be approaching a tipping point where it could be transformative.

Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture: Greening the World's Food Economy

Book

Jun 2018

Commentary: New histories of the Indian Green Revolution

Article

Feb 2019

Glenn Stone

The Green Revolution continues to be a touchstone in debates on food production. Accounts generally cite “high‐yielding” dwarf wheat and rice spreading through Asia and particularly India, resulting in lives saved, agriculture modernised, and under‐utilised workers moved off farms. This Commentary examines the forces that popularised this version of events and then reviews a significant new body of writing, comprising five major works by historians. The new work provides a fundamental rethinking of many key aspects of the revolution, including the motivations behind it, the merits of the agricultural science in India that it displaced, whether the new seeds actually led to increased food production, and how concepts of desirable plants changed. A rush of new books and dissertations by historians upends common thinking of the Green Revolution in India.

Policies for Ecological Intensification of Crop Production

Article

Feb 2019
TRENDS ECOL EVOL

Ecological intensification aims to increase crop productivity by enhancing biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, while minimizing the use of synthetic inputs and cropland expansion. Policies to promote ecological intensification have emerged in different countries, but they are still scarce and vary widely across regions. Here, we propose ten policy targets that governments can follow for ecological intensification.

Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems

Article

Feb 2019

Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract and Figures

Recommendations

Green Minds project

Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture