Abstract
Sustainable intensification has been proposed as a pathway to achieve food security and reduce environmental impacts of agriculture by focusing on narrowing yield gaps on existing agricultural land while improving resource use efficiencies. There is a general consensus that regions with large yield gaps can benefit most from sustainable intensification but it remains unclear how sustainable this is for farmers given their current resource constraints and livelihood strategies. Here, we draw upon three contrasting case studies, for which detailed data at field and farm levels were available for yield gap decomposition, to assess how sustainable intensification of crops (at field level) works out at farm level using environmental and socio-economic indicators. Although there is large potential for future intensification (more output with more input) of cereal production in southern Ethiopia, current input use in these farming systems is not economically and environmentally sustainable at farm level. The same is true for rice production in Central Luzon where sustainable intensification (more output with less input) can help to narrow yield gaps and improve N use efficiency (NUE) but it is not profitable due to the heavy reliance on costly hired labour. Trade-offs between yield gap closure and labour productivity were also observed in the aforementioned farming systems. Arable farms in the Netherlands exhibit small yield gaps as well as higher economic performance, NUE and N surplus compared to those observed in Southern Ethiopia and Central Luzon. For improving environmental sustainability, these farms require increases in resource-use efficiency and a reduction of the environmental impacts through a lower use of inputs (same output with less input). We conclude that public investments conducive for innovation and profitable farming are essential to make technologies accessible and affordable for farmers and to ensure that yield gaps can be narrowed and sustainability objectives served at the farm level.
Highlights
The world faces an enormous challenge to supply affordable food to an ever-increasing human population without overexploitation of nat ural resources and degradation of ecosystems services (Tilman et al, 2011)
The analysis presented here draws upon a comparative analysis of farming systems with different degrees of agricultural development and intensification (Table 1)
Actual yields were smallest in southern Ethiopia, intermediate in Central Luzon (Philippines) and greatest in the Netherlands (Fig. 1)
Summary
The world faces an enormous challenge to supply affordable food to an ever-increasing human population without overexploitation of nat ural resources and degradation of ecosystems services (Tilman et al, 2011). Sustainable intensification aims to narrow yield gaps on existing agricultural land while increasing resource-use efficiencies (Cassman and Grassini, 2020; Vanlauwe et al, 2014). There is consensus that regions with large yield gaps can benefit most from sustainable intensification (Cassman and Grassini, 2020; van Ittersum et al, 2016). The efficiency yield gap is defined as the difference between the technically efficient yield (YTEx, the maximum yield that can be achieved for a given input level) and Ya and captures the contribution of sub-optimal time, form and/or space of crop management practices. The resource yield gap is defined as the difference between the highest farmers’ yield (YHF) and YTEx and it is attributed to a sub-optimal amount of inputs applied. The technology yield gap is defined as the difference between Yp or Yw and YHF and it can be attributed to the use of inferior technologies (e.g., varieties or balanced nutrition) in farmers’ fields than those needed to reach Yp or Yw
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
