Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and Conventional ...lnweb90.worldbank.org/exteu/SharePapers.nsf/(ID)/D135D...Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and Conventional Agricultural

WorldDevelopmentVol. 31,No. 10, pp. 1721–1741, 2003� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0305-750X/$ - see front matter

-750X(03)00137-2
doi:10.1016/S0305www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and

Conventional Agricultural Systems in Bangladesh

GOLAM RASUL and GOPAL B. THAPA *

Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand

Summary. — This paper examines the sustainability of conventional and ecological agriculturalsystems based on their environmental soundness, economic viability and social acceptability.Significant differences were found in crop diversification, soil fertility management, pests anddiseases management, and use of agrochemicals. No remarkable variations were found in land-usepattern, crop yield and stability, financial and economic returns, risk and uncertainties, or foodsecurity. The findings suggest that ecological agriculture is relatively more sustainable, and it couldbe an economically and environmentally viable alternative to the conventional agricultural system.Ecological agriculture could become an alternative if market distortions created by subsidies wereremoved, and financial benefits were provided to resource-conserving farmers along with necessarysupport through extension, credit, research, and marketing.� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words — sustainable agriculture, ecological agriculture, conventional agriculture, Bangladesh,

Asia

*We extend our sincere thanks to three anonymous

referees for their constructive comments on this paper.

We acknowledge the funding support provided by the

Joint Japan/World Bank Graduate Scholarship Program

to the first author, which facilitated this study. Final

revision accepted: 18 March 2003.

1. INTRODUCTION

Agricultural production has increased tre-mendously in many parts of the world in thelast few decades through the increased use ofhigh-yielding varieties of seeds, inorganic fer-tilizers, pesticides and water, resulting in veryhigh costs of production (Biswas, 1994; Con-way, 1990; Edwards & Wali, 1993; Paoletti,Stinner, & Lorenzoni, 1989; Pretty, 1995;Repetto, 1987). Overuse and inappropriate useof agrochemicals have led to contamination ofwater, loss of genetic diversity and deteriora-tion of soil quality (O’Connell, 1991; Pretty,1995). It is estimated that 20–30 million ha ofland have been severely affected, and another60–80 million ha have been moderately affectedlargely by salinity and water-logging arisingfrom overuse and imbalanced use of irrigation,inorganic fertilizers and pesticides (Biswas,1994). Increasing evidence of human healthproblems associated with consumption of agro-chemicals, including pesticides, is also emerging(e.g., Marquez, Pingali, & Pails, 1992; Pingali &Roger, 1995; Rola & Pingali, 1993), as toxicelements have entered into the food chain(Harwood, 1990; O’Connell, 1991). Increasedvulnerability of crops to insect and pest attacks,loss of fish and other aquatic resources, de-clining crop yields, and deterioration of animal

172

and human health due to agrochemical basedconventional agricultural 1 have raised con-cerns about the long-term sustainability of suchsystem (WRI, 1993). The Republic of Bangla-desh is no an exception, as its agriculture ishighly dependent upon such inputs.In Bangladesh, where agriculture is the main

source of livelihood of two-thirds of the ruralpopulation, a serious concern has arisen aboutthe sustainability of agriculture in the face ofdeterioration of land quality, declining yield,and increased population. Being a land-scarcecountry, 2 emphasis has been given to increas-ing food production by intensifying the use ofland, inorganic fertilizers, pesticides and water.Subsidies are provided on inorganic fertilizers,pesticides, and irrigation equipment to enablefarmers to adopt these technologies for in-creasing crop yields (Hossain, 1988). This hascaused major changes in cropping patterns, useof agricultural inputs, and management of soilfertility. Likewise, cropping intensity and the

1

WORLD DEVELOPMENT1722

area under irrigation and HYV paddy have allincreased considerably. Use of inorganic ferti-lizers increased six times during 1970–90, andthe use of pesticides increased about threefoldin just one decade, during 1982–92 (Rahman &Thapa, 1999).On the other hand, the area under pulses,

oilseeds, fodder and natural inland fisheries isdeclining rapidly (FFYP, 1998). Traditionalcropping practices, such as mixed cropping,crop rotation, and intercropping, are alsogradually disappearing (Hossain & Kashem,1997). This has led to monocropping andhigher dependency on external inputs such asirrigation, inorganic fertilizers, and pesticides.Monocropping along with imbalanced use ofinorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and intensiveuse of land without application of organicfertilizers have led to deterioration of soilquality and fertility (Hossain & Kashem, 1997;Rahman & Thapa, 1999; Task Force Report,1991). More than 65% of the total agriculturalarea is suffering from declining soil fertility,and about 85% of net cultivable area has or-ganic matter below the minimum requirement(Hossain, 1990; Task Force Report, 1991). Asa result, crop yields are decreasing steadily,despite increased use of agricultural inputs(Ahmad & Hasanuzzaman, 1998; Ali, 1995;Hossain & Kashem, 1997; Pagiola, 1995;Rahman & Thapa, 1999).The increased use of inorganic fertilizers, in-

secticides and pesticides has led to contamina-tion of water bodies and the spread of diseases,which have adversely affected aquatic life,livestock and people (Asaduzzaman, 1995;Hossain, Salam, & Alam, 1994; Hossain &Kashem, 1997; Rahman & Thapa, 1999).Likewise, the excessive use of ground water issuspected to be the cause of the presence ofhigh levels of arsenic in ground water innorthern and northwestern parts of Bangladesh(Siddique, Chattergy, Zheng, & Kosmus, 1998;Ullah, 1998). Given the present state of de-clining soil fertility, decreasing yields, increasedand imbalanced use of inorganic fertilizers andpesticides, finding ways to produce food andfiber on a sustainable basis for the growingpopulation has become a serious challenge forBangladesh.A number of nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs), namely, UBINIG (Policy Research forDevelopment Alternatives), Proshika, andCARE Bangladesh have launched initiatives indifferent parts of the country to promote sus-tainable agriculture. While UBINIG, emphas-

zes whole farm sustainability, Proshika focusesmainly organic vegetable cultivation (Akter,1997) and CARE Bangladesh on sustainabilityof rice production through integrating fish withrice field and adopting integrated pest man-agement (IPM). These initiatives are confinedto certain pockets of the country, but aregaining importance gradually as there is in-creasing awareness of adverse health and envi-ronmental impact of conventional agriculture.UBINIG is a pioneer among a few agenciesdevoted to the promotion of sustainable agri-culture. Since UBINIG focuses on the wholefarm sustainability instead of particular pro-duction component, we chose UBINIG as casestudy. UBINIG’s program, locally called nayakrishi andolon or new agricultural movements,started its activities in Delduar subdistrict ofTangail district of Bangladesh in 1990. By June1997, it had expanded to 15 districts, and about20,000 farm households were practicing thistype of agriculture (Akter, 1997; Gain, 1998).This agriculture emphasizes greater use of on-farm resources, including crop residues, organicfertilizers, cropping diversification, mixedcropping, crop rotation, reduced use of inor-ganic fertilizers, and no use of pesticides. It triesto promote integration of crop, livestock andtree in farming systems, and conservation ofwater resources, preservation of seeds athouseholds level, and maintenance and en-hancement of biodiversity to make the systemboth environmentally and economically sus-tainable (Akter, 1997). Characteristically, thisagricultural system is similar to what is nor-mally known as ecological agriculture, 3 andthus hereafter is referred to as ecological agri-culture. Ecological agriculture is distinct fromconventional agriculture in terms of resourceuse, nature of input use, pattern of crops, de-gree of diversity, management and culturalpractices, methods of plant protection, man-agement of resources, and degree of depen-dency on local external resources andknowledge. 4

Akter (1997) reported that ecological agri-culture promoted by UBINIG is environ-mentally more friendly than conventionalagriculture. Based on rapid appraisal, thisstudy did not evaluate the economic perfor-mance of the system, overlooking the fact thateconomic performance is equally importantdeterminant of agricultural sustainability. Asfarmers increasingly confront declining percapita return arisen from miniaturizing landholdings caused by steadily growing popula-

ECOLOGICAL AND CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE 1723

tion, they are required to make additional ef-forts to increase agricultural production. Theywill thus adopt a agricultural system only whenit is both economically and environmentallysuitable. For small farmers such as those inBangladesh who are struggling for food secu-rity, current needs are more important thanfuture needs. Even profit-seeking large farmerswill not venture into ecological agriculture un-less it provides sufficient income.This study, therefore, attempts to examine to

what extent the ecological agriculture beingpromoted by UBINIG differs with the conven-tional agriculture in terms of agriculturalpractices and resource management and com-pares the two agricultural systems from envi-ronmental, economic and social perspectives.Although agricultural sustainability is not pre-cisely measurable (Pretty, 1995) as externalitiesof any agricultural system are very difficult tomeasure, amid growing emphasis on ecologicalagriculture, we have attempted to assesswhether such agriculture is showing symptomsof sustainability according to the above men-tioned three criteria by comparing it with theconventional agriculture. The findings of thestudy are intended to make a contribution toformulation of policies for sustainable agricul-ture development. They also provide a frame-work useful for sustainability assessment ofdifferent types of agricultural systems. The or-ganization of this article is as follows. Section 2offers a framework adopted for assessing agri-cultural sustainability based on the currentstate of knowledge, followed by Section 3, witha brief description of the study area andmethods of data collection. Section 4 presentsthe results and interpretation of findings interms of relative sustainability of conventionaland ecological agriculture, based on theframework of sustainable agriculture developedin Section 3. Section 5 concludes by highlight-ing policy implications for the promotion ofsustainable agriculture.

2. FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THEAGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

(a) The concept of sustainable agriculture

The concept of agricultural sustainability hasemerged in response to concerns about theadverse environmental and economic impactsof conventional agriculture (Hansen, 1996).The excessive and imbalanced use of agro-

chemicals has led to increased production costsand dependence on external inputs and energy,a decline in soil productivity, contamination ofsurface and ground water, and adverse effectson human and animal health (Biswas, 1994;Conway, 1985; Edwards, 1989). Overuse orimbalanced application of agrochemicals haveled to degradation of natural resources, therebyundermining their productive capacity (Ikerd,1993). Sustainable agriculture is often viewed incontrast with conventional agriculture as lowinput and regenerative (Lockeretz, 1989; Re-ijntjes, Bertus, & Water-Bayer, 1992), makingbetter use of farm’s internal resources throughincorporation of natural processes into agri-cultural production and greater use of knowl-edge and skills of farmers to improve theirself-reliance and capacities. It uses external andnonrenewable inputs to the extent that these aredeficient in the natural environment (Pretty,1995).In spite of common concerns about sustain-

able agriculture, there are large differencesamong the scholars and other stakeholdersabout the attributes of sustainable agriculture(Rigby & Caceres, 2001). Some (e.g., Conway,1990; Edwards, 1987; Ouedraogo, Mando, &Zombre, 2001; Pretty, 1995; Repetto, 1987;Reijntjes et al., 1992; Schaller, 1993; Tisdell,1996) consider low use of external inputs as amajor requirement for agricultural sustainabi-lity. Others, with keen interest in enhancingproduction (e.g., De Jager, Onduru, van Wijk,Vlaming, & Gachini, 2001; Hansen, 1996;Webster, 1997) find it necessary to increase theuse of external inputs to a some extent, so as tomaintain soil nutrient levels and crop yields.Scholars concerned mainly about ecologicalsustainability emphasize maintaining agro-ecological health (e.g., Altieri, 1995; Conway,1990; Edwards, Grove, Harwood, & Colfer,1993), biodiversity (e.g., Bothun et al., 2000 inClemetsen & van Larr, 2000) and landscapequality (e.g., Clemetsen & van Larr, 2000;Stobbelaar, Kuiper, van Mansvelt, & Kabo-urakis, 2000), and integrated nutrient manage-ment (Edwards & Grove, 1991) as necessaryconditions for agricultural sustainability. In thesame vein, Lampkin (1994) and Henning,Baker, and Thompsion (1991) find organic ag-riculture synonymous with sustainable agricul-ture, as it has no adverse impact on ecologicalhealth. But according to Hodge (1993, citedin Rigby & Caceres, 2001), no use of inor-ganic chemicals is not a sufficient conditionfor sustainable agriculture. There are others


(e.g., Lynam & Herdt, 1989; Smith & Mc-Donald, 1998; Tisdell, 1996) who seem to beconcerned mainly about economic aspect ofagricultural sustainability, such as net presentvalue, benefit cost ratio and profitability.Recently, ‘‘social capital,’’ which can be con-sidered as one of the components of socialsustainability, has also been added into theconcept of agricultural sustainability. Socialcapital, if mobilized properly, contributes toagricultural sustainability by helping farmers toenhance their knowledge and capabilities, andreducing dependency on external agencies byfacilitating co-learning, information sharing,and group works (Pretty & Ward, 2001; Pretty& Hine, 2000; Webster, 1999).Despite the diversity in conceptualizing sus-

tainable agriculture, there is a consensus onthree basic features of sustainable agriculture:(i) maintenance of environmental quality, (ii)stable plant and animal productivity, and (iii)social acceptability. Consistent with this, Yun-long and Smith (1994) have also suggested thatagricultural sustainability should be assessedfrom ecological soundness, social acceptabilityand economic viability perspectives. ‘‘Ecologi-cal soundness’’ refers to the preservation andimprovement of the natural environment,‘‘economic viability’’ to maintenance of yieldsand productivity of crops and livestock, and‘‘social acceptability’’ to self-reliance, equalityand improved quality of life.

(b) Indicators for assessing agriculturalsustainability

For any study on sustainable agriculture, thequestion arises as to how agricultural sustain-ability can be measured. Some argue that theconcept of sustainability is a ‘‘social construct’’(David, 1989; Webster, 1999) and is yet to bemade operational (Webster, 1997). The precisemeasurement of sustainability is impossible asit is site-specific and a dynamic concept (Ikerd,1993). To some extent, what is defined as sus-tainable depends on the perspectives of theanalysts (Webster, 1999). Although precisemeasurement of sustainable agriculture is notpossible, ‘‘when specific parameters or criteriaare selected, it is possible to say whether certaintrends are steady, going up or going down’’(Pretty, 1995, p. 11). Practices that erode soil,remove the habitats of insect predators, and cutinstead of plant trees can be considered un-sustainable compared to those conserve theseresources. According to Altieri (1995), farmers

can improve the biological stability and resil-ience of the system by choosing more suitablecrops, rotating them, growing a mixture ofcrops, and irrigating, mulching, and manuringland.According to Lynam and Herdt (1989), sus-

tainability can be measured by examining thechanges in yields and total factor productivity.The workshop organized by the Institute forLow External Input Agriculture (ILEIA, 1991)mainly emphasized productivity, security, con-tinuity, adaptability and integrity as measuresof sustainability. Beus and Dunlop (1994)considered agricultural practices such as the useof pesticides and inorganic fertilizers, andmaintenance of diversity as measures of sus-tainability. For sustainable agriculture, a majorrequirement is sustainable management of landand water resources. An International WorkingGroup (Smyth & Dumanski, 1993) has viewedmaintenance or enhancement of productivity,reduced risk, natural resources conservation,promotion of economic viability and socialacceptability essential condition for sustainableland management.Considerable efforts have been made to

identify appropriate indicators for agriculturalsustainability. Recently, OECD has developeda common framework called driving force-state-response (DSR) to help in developingindicators. Driving force indicators refer to thefactors that cause changes in farm manage-ment practices and inputs use. State indicatorsshow the effect of agriculture on environmentsuch as soil, water, air, biodiversity, habitatand landscape. Response indicators refer tothe actions that are taken in response tothe changing state of environment. Using theDSR framework, OECD (1997) identified 39indicators of issues such as farm financialresources, farm management, nutrient use,pesticide use, water use, soil quality, waterquality, land conservation, greenhouse gases,biodiversity, landscape, wildlife habitats, andfarm’s contextual information, including so-cioeconomic background, land-use, and out-put. Similarly, the British Governmentsuggested 34 indicators under 13 themes suchas nutrient losses to fresh water, soil P levels,nutrient management practices, ammoniaemissions, green house gas emissions, pesticideuse, water use, soil protection, agriculturalland resource, conservation value of agricul-tural land, environmental management sys-tems, rural economy and energy (MAFF citedin Webster, 1999).


Most of the indicators mentioned above aresuitable to evaluate agricultural sustainabilityat aggregate level. They cannot, however, beused to assess sustainability at the farm level,although individual farmers take the majordecision in land-use including mode of use andchoice of technology (Webster, 1999). Sandsand Podmore (2000) used environmentallysustainability index (ESI) as an indicator ofassessing agricultural sustainability and appliedit to farms in the United States. ESI representsa group of 15 sustainability subindices includ-ing soil depth, soil organic carbon, bulk densityand depth of ground water. Tellarini andCaporali (2000) used the monetary value andenergy value to compare the sustainability oftwo farms, high-inputs and low-inputs in Italy.Gowda and Jayaramaiah (1998) used nine in-dicators, namely integrated nutrient manage-ment, land productivity, integrated watermanagement, integrated pest management, in-put self-sufficiency, crop yield security, inputproductivity, information self-reliance andfamily food sufficiency, to evaluate the sus-tainability of rice production in India. Reijntjeset al. (1992) identified a set of criteria underecological, economic and social aspects of ag-ricultural sustainability. Ecological criteriacomprise the use of nutrients and organic ma-terials, water, energy, and environmental ef-fects, while economic criteria include farmers’livelihood systems, competition, factor pro-ductivity, and relative value of external inputs.Food security, building indigenous knowledge,and contribution to employment generation aresocial criteria.Although a large number of indicators have

been developed, they do not cover all the threeaspects of sustainability, ecological, economicand social. Due to variation in biophysical andsocioeconomic conditions, indicators used inone country are not necessarily applicable toother countries. Therefore, indicators shouldbe location specific, constructed within thecontext of contemporary socioeconomic situa-tion (Dumanski & Pieri, 1996). In Bangladesh,where the majority of farmers are smallholders,and average landholding size is less than onehectare, their immediate concern for agricul-tural development is how to increase crop yield,income, and food security and reduce the riskof crop failure. The overwhelming majority offarmers lack the capital required for the pur-chase of inputs, but normally have an adequatelabor force. Thus, in view of biophysical andsocioeconomic conditions in the study area, 12

indicators, representing ecological, economicand social dimensions of agricultural sustain-ability, have been selected for evaluation of theconventional and ecological agricultural sys-tems. The relevance of the indicators to assesssustainability and their usefulness both fromsocietal and farmers’ perspective were consid-ered in selecting them.

(c) Framework for determining indicators

(i) Framework for determining ecologicalindicatorsEcological sustainability was assessed based

on five indicators: land-use pattern, croppingpattern, soil fertility management, pest anddisease management and soil fertility status.These indicators provide insight about crop-ping systems and land management practiceswhich influence agricultural sustainability.Normally, there is a higher chance of agricul-tural sustainability with increasing croppingdiversification, mixed cropping and use oforganic fertilizers (Altieri, 1995; Edwards &Grove, 1991; Hossain & Kashem, 1997). On theother hand, increased land-use intensity, andapplication of inorganic fertilizers and pesti-cides jeopardize sustainability (Biswas, 1994;Conway, 1990; Repetto, 1987). (i) Land-usepattern was examined through proportion ofland under field crops, homestead and orchard.The chi-square test was employed at p < 0:05level to see the difference in land-use patternsbetween two agricultural systems. (ii) Croppingpatterns were analyzed using three criteria:cropping intensity, crop diversification andmixed cropping. Crop diversification wasmeasured through crop diversification indexusing the following formula:

ICD ¼ 1=ððPa þ Pb þ Pc þ � � � þ PnÞ=NcÞwhere, ICD¼ index of crop diversification;Pa ¼proportion of sown area under crop a;Pb ¼proportion of sown area under crop b;Pc ¼ proportion of sown area under crop c;Pn ¼proportion of sown area under crop n;Nc ¼ number of crops. Crops occupying lessthan three percent of cropped area were ex-cluded from the analysis. The seven majorcrops, paddy, wheat, jute, potato, sugarcane,oilseeds and pulses, were taken into consider-ation. (iii) Soil fertility management was eval-uated based on proportion of farmers usinginorganic and organic fertilizers, i.e., farm yardmanure and compost, and cultivating legumecrops. In addition, proportion of area covered


by each type of fertilizer, including legumes,and amounts of inorganic and organic fertili-zers applied per unit of land were considered.Chi-square and F tests were employed to testthe differences between ecological and conven-tional agricultural systems. (iv) Management ofpests and diseases was assessed based on pro-portion of farmers using biological, mechani-cal, and chemical methods. The chi-square testwas used to test differences between two sys-tems. (v) Soil fertility was examined throughchemical analysis of soil samples collected fromboth conventional and ecological agriculturalsystems.

(ii) Framework for determining economicindicatorsEconomic sustainability was measured based

on three indicators: land productivity, yieldstability and profitability. These three indica-tors reflect the financial health of an agricul-tural system. If an agricultural system does notprovide sufficient food and income, farmers willnot adopt it. It does not matter to them whatecological benefits that system may have. (i)Land productivity was measured throughphysical yield of crops. Crop yield data werecollected through a household survey. The Ftest was employed to test the differences inyields between two agricultural systems. (ii)The stability of crop yield was examined byconstructing an index based on farmers’ sub-jective responses to a question related to yieldtrend. The index was constructed based on thefollowing formula:

ITY ¼ ðfi � 1þ fd � �1þ fc � 0Þ=N

where, ITY ¼ index of trend of yield, fi ¼ fre-quency of responses indicating increasing yield,fd ¼ frequency of responses indicating decreas-ing yield, fc ¼ frequency of responses indicatingconstant yield, N ¼ total number of responses.(iii) Farm profitability was determined basedon financial return, economic return and valueaddition per unit of land. Financial return wasanalyzed through gross margin, benefit-costratio and return to per unit of labor. Economicreturn was calculated by deducting the subsidygiven to agricultural inputs from gross returnsto adjust the transfer payments. As suggestedby A.P.O. (1994), value added per unit of landwas calculated by deducting the value of in-termediate goods such as inorganic fertilizers,pesticides, diesel and agricultural equipmentfrom the gross revenue.

(iii) Framework for determining socialindicatorsSocial acceptability was assessed in terms of

input self-sufficiency, equity, food security, andthe risks and uncertainties involved in cropcultivation. These indicators are relevant bothfrom societal and individual perspectives, as forlong-term agricultural sustainability it is nec-essary to reduce dependency on external inputs,to minimize risks and uncertainties in farmproduction, and to attain food security andequity in the society (Ikerd, 1993; Pretty, 1995;Tisdell, 1996). Input self-sufficiency was deter-mined on the basis of the ratio of local inputscost to the total inputs cost. The higher theratio of local inputs, the higher the input self-sufficiency. In view of the pervasive unem-ployment in rural areas of Bangladesh, theability to generate employment within the sys-tem was considered as an indicator of equityeffect. Family food security was assessed interms of adequacy of food grain produced aswell as farm households’ ability to purchasefood grain required for consumption. Risksand uncertainties were examined based oncropping diversification and diversity of agri-cultural income. An index of risks and uncer-tainties was constructed using the followingformula:

Ir ¼X3

i¼1

ðxi � xÞ

where, Ir ¼ index of risks and uncertainties,xi ¼ amount of income from the ith source,x¼ size of income at minimum risk level (whenthe proportion of income from three agricul-tural enterprises, namely crop production, or-chard and livestock is equally distributed), andP

¼ summation of absolute deviation of ithincome from the minimum risk level. The indexvalue is zero when all agricultural enterprisescontribute equally. The higher the degree ofdeviation, the higher the risk involved.

3. STUDY AREA AND DATACOLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

METHODS

(a) Study area

To make a comparison at the micro level,two agricultural systems, one each with con-ventional and ecological agricultural system,were selected from Delduar subdistrict of


Tangail district. Kandapara, one of the 13 vil-lages where UBINIG had promoted ecologicalagriculture, was selected as representative ofthe ecological agricultural system. Tukhnikhola,an agricultural system adjacent to Kandaparabut without a, UBINIG project, was selectedas representative of the conventional agricul-tural system (Figure 1). Both agricultural sys-tems are located in the same agro-ecologicalzone, named Young Brahmaputra and Jamuna

Figure 1. Location of the s

Floodplain (BARC, 1997), and comprise thesame soil series no. 6 characterized by loamyand sandy loam with good water-holding ca-pacity and moderately well drained (SRDI,1990).

(b) Methods of data collection and analysis

Data were collected from both primary andsecondary sources. Primary data were collected

tudy area in Bangladesh.


from farmers through a questionnaire survey,observation and discussions with progressivefarmers, farmers’ group, extension officials,women’s groups, and NGO workers. The sur-vey was conducted in the agricultural year1998. The sample size for the household surveywas determined by using the formula given byArkin and Colton (1963). Altogether, 45households were surveyed from the ecologicalsystem and 65 from the conventional system,representing about one-third of the householdsof each farming system. Household samplingwas done through a simple random samplingmethod.Twenty soil samples, 10 from each farming

system, were collected from randomly selectedfarm plots of sampled households. Leaving a2.5-m area along the four sides of the samplefield, nine well-distributed sampling spots wereselected for soil sample collection. Soil sampleswere collected from a 0 to 20 cm deep ploughlayer from the designated spot by using anauger. These samples were air-dried and weremixed thoroughly to make a composite samplefor each plot. Then, samples were collectedfrom paddy fields about one month after har-vesting of paddy. Each soil sample was dividedinto four equal parts from which two diagonalparts were retained and the remaining two partswere removed. This process was repeated untilthe successive quarter reduced to a weight ofabout 0.5 kg. The samples were then put intoplastic bags and were properly labeled showingsoil sample number, the farmers’ name andaddress, and date of collection. Then, the soilsamples were brought to the laboratory of theSoil Resource Development Institute, Dhaka,for analyzing. A total of seven properties, viz.soil pH, nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potas-sium (K), sulfur (S), zinc (Zn) and organicmatter content (OM), were analyzed.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(a) Ecological sustainability

(i) Land-use patternField crop production is the dominant type

of land-use in both farming systems. Nearly90% of the agricultural land in both systemshas been utilized for crop production. The re-maining area is utilized as homestead, orchard,and fishpond, without significant variation be-tween the two farming systems. But, the aver-age number of trees grown per households was

also found to be significantly higher (p < 0:10)in the ecological system (25) than in the con-ventional system (17). The greater number oftrees in the ecological system is partially at-tributed to the need for biomass to preparecompost to apply to the cropland, and partiallyto the objective of NGOs to diversify house-hold income. Relatively more trees on thehomestead help farmers not only to meet bio-mass requirement but also to fulfill households’fruit and fuel wood requirements and earn cashincome.

(ii) Cropping patternThe main crops cultivated in both systems

are paddy, wheat, jute, potato, sugarcane,mustard, groundnut, til (Sesamum indicum),masur (Ervum lens), khesari (lathyrus sativa),blackgram (Cicer arietinnum), and vegetables.Cereal crops, mainly paddy, occupy more thantwo-thirds of the cropped area. Considerablevariation was found in the cropping patterns ofthe two systems. More than half of the croppedarea is occupied by HYV paddy in a conven-tional agricultural system compared to aboutone-third in the ecological system. More than10% of the cropped area in the ecological sys-tem is occupied by sugarcane, while this cropaccounts for less than one percent of the areain the conventional system. Pulses, includingmasur (Ervum lens), khesari (Lathyrus sativa),blackgram (Cicer arietinnum) represented morethan 10% of the cropped area in the ecologicalsystem against less than 1% in the conventionalsystem. The average land area used for HYVpaddy, potato and oilseeds was found to besignificantly (p < 0:10) higher in the conven-tional farming system, whereas the area undersugarcane, pulses, jute and local paddy foundsignificantly higher (p < 0:05) in ecologicalsystem.Variation was also found in cropping inten-

sity, crop diversification and mixed cropping(Table 1). Cropping intensity in the ecologicalsystem was found to be higher than in theconventional system, and even higher than thenational average cropping intensity of 1.76(Rahman & Thapa, 1999). The higher croppingintensity is attributed to the practice of inter-cropping of legumes with sugarcane and localpaddy, as well as cultivation of these crops inthe dry winter season (November–March) be-tween two main crops. Relatively more highlycropped area under sugarcane, local paddy andjute facilitates farmers to practice these crop-ping.

Table 1. Cropping intensity, crop diversification and mixed cropping

Indicesa Index values

Ecological system Conventional system

Cropping intensity 2.00 1.80

Crop diversification 0.07 0.05

Mixed cropping 0.30 0.10

a The higher the index values, the higher the cropping intensity, crop diversity and mixed cropping.


Crop diversification and mixed cropping, aswell as cultivation of legume crops, suggestthat cropping patterns are relatively superior inthe ecological agricultural system. In particu-lar, cultivation of legume crops contributesnitrogen, organic matter and other plant nu-trients to the soil, and helps restore phospho-rous and potassium extracted by crops (Islam,1989; Mahmud, Rahman, & Johir, 1994;Wahab & Mohammad, 1954). Jute adds rela-tively more biomass (7.79–8.55 t dry matter/ha) to soil than paddy (1.14–2.93 t dry matter/ha) (Hossain et al., 1994). On the other hand,modern varieties of crops use relatively greateramount of nutrients than traditional varieties(BARC, 1997; Gowda & Jayaramaiah, 1998;Hossain & Kashem, 1997). The relativelygreater proportion of land under jute, pulsesand local paddy is an indication of relativelylarge amounts of biomass and plant nutrient tothe soil in the ecological system. This conclu-sion is reinforced by our soil test results (Table3). Likewise, the relatively high degree ofcropping diversification in this type of systemis conducive to making efficient use of differenttypes of nutrients available in soil and to in-creasing bio-diversity (Dahal, 1996). Crop di-versification reduces the risk of crop failure,thereby making farms less vulnerable to foodshortage. Mixed cropping, which is found rel-atively more frequently in the ecological sys-tem, enhances bio-diversity, in terms of bothhabitat structure and species, and soil quality,

Table 2. Use of organic and inorgan

Agricultural

systems

Organic fertilizers

FYM used

in per-

centage of

land

(Amt t/ha)

Compost

percentage

of total

land

(Amt t/ha)

Total

(Amt t/ha)

Ecological 52 (10) 63 (19) 29

Conventional 10 (7) 1 (14) 21

and helps to control pests and diseases (Stinner& Blair, 1990).

(iii) Use of organic fertilizersDeclining soil fertility has been the major

concern for agricultural sustainability in Ban-gladesh. It is believed that declining land pro-ductivity can, to a considerable extent, beattributed to the lack of adequate amounts oforganic matter in soil (BARC, 1997; Hossain &Kashem, 1997). Traditionally, farmers used toapply farmyard manure (FYM) and mulchcrop residues to land to enhance soil fertility.This tradition has been abandoned graduallydue to reduced livestock herd size and in-creased use of dung and crop residues as fuel.As a result, most soils in Bangladesh haveorganic matter content less than 2%, some soilshave even less than 1% (BARC, 1997; Hossain& Kashem, 1997). A significant variation(p < 0:01) was found between two systems inthe use of organic fertilizers (Table 2). Nearlyall farmers in the ecological system are applyingorganic fertilizers to about two-thirds of theirland holdings, while only 20% of the farmers inthe conventional system are applying organicfertilizers to about 10% of their farmlands(Table 2).Significant variation (p < 0:05) was also

found in the amount of organic fertilizers used(Table 2). In the ecological system, both FYMand compost are being applied at a muchhigher rate than in the conventional system

ic fertilizers by agricultural system

Inorganic fertilizers

N

(Amt kg/ha)

P

(Amt kg/ha)

K

(Amt kg/ha)

Total

(Amt kg/ha)

148 40 44 232

227 74 82 383


(Table 2). Student t-test revealed the variationin the use of FYM and compost is significant(p < 0:01). This combined with the relativelyhigh degree of mulching practice in the eco-logical system has led to the relatively highamount of organic matter content in soil (Table3). Organic matter in the soil contributes toimprove soil structure and productivity (Poin-celot, 1986), as well as enhances the disease-resistant capacity of crops (Kotschi, Adelhelm,& Ann Hoesle, 1989). By recycling biomassadded in soil, the ecological system is providingglobal environmental services, as this contrib-utes to sequestrate carbon in soil.

(iv) Use of inorganic fertilizersMost farmers in the conventional systems,

and 80% in the ecological system, are applyinginorganic fertilizers to their farmlands. The in-tensity of fertilizer use is, however, significantlyhigher (p < 0:05) in the conventional system(Table 2). Although the use of inorganic fer-tilizers is about 40% lower in the ecologicalsystem, still the absolute amount used is con-siderably high. Ecological farmers said thatthey are gradually reducing the use of inorganicfertilizers, as drastic reduction may badly affectcrop yield, thereby jeopardizing their liveli-hood. According to conventional farmers,however, they have had to apply increasinglylarge amounts of inorganic fertilizers over thesuccessive years to maintain the yield due togradual deterioration of soil quality because ofcontinuous cultivation of rice with irrigationand overuse of inorganic fertilizers. Farmers inother parts of Bangladesh have had similarexperience (Hossain & Kashem, 1997; Rahman& Thapa, 1999).Moreover, farmers in the conventional sys-

tem are not applying fertilizers in a balanced

Table 3. Soil fertility statu

Soil properties Soil test value

Ecological system Convention

pH 5.67 6.24

Organic matter (%) 2.32 1.08

Nitrogen (%) 0.12 0.09

Phosphorous

(mg/g soil)

2.49 4.00

Potassium

(mg/g soil)

0.12 0.04

Sulfur (mg/g soil) 45.70 39.6

Zinc (mg/g soil) 0.92 0.18

a Interpretation was based on SRDI (1990) and BARC (19

way. N and P were found to be higher (227 and74 kg/ha, respectively) than the recommendeddose (158 and 37 kg/ha, respectively). The samesituation is prevailing almost all over thecountry. In Bangladesh, the use of N is aboutone-third higher than that of on average ofAsia (106 kg/ha against the recommended doseof 83 kg/ha), and about double than the worldaverage, whereas the application of P and K issignificantly lower than that of Asia and theWorld (Qureshi, 2002). N:P:K ratio in Ban-gladesh is 1:0.15:0.08, whereas in Asia and theWorld this ratio is 1:0.39:0.16 and 1:0.41:0.28,respectively. Such imbalanced use of inorganicfertilizers leads to depletion of N, K, and S, andaccelerated soil acidity (Conway, 1990; Hossainet al., 1994; Pagiola, 1995; Sattar & Mian,1999). Besides soil quality deterioration, thistrend would eventually make farming eco-nomically unviable by demanding increasedinputs and eroding farmers’ profit margin.Would reduced application of inorganic fer-

tilizers (about two-fifths) in the ecological sys-tem adversely affect soil nutrient levels in thelong-term, as rice being a fibrous crops takeslarge amounts of nutrients? Evidence fromBangladesh (Hossain & Kashem, 1997), China(Wu, Xu, & Wu, 1989), Kenya (De Jager et al.,2001), Madagascar (Stoop, Uphoff, & Kassam,2002), West Africa (Ouedraogo et al., 2001)and the United States (Pimentel, Culliney,Buttler, Reineman, & Beekman, 1989) suggestthat soil fertility and productivity can bemaintained and even improved by substantiallyreducing the external inputs if soil, water andbiological resources are managed properly.Organic fertilizers though contain low per-centage of energy, but they provide a variety ofmicronutrients to the soil in addition to con-tributing to good soil structure. Improved

s by agricultural systems

Interpretationa

al system Ecological system Conventional system

Moderately acidic Moderately acidic

Medium Low

Low Very low

Very low Very low

Low Very low

1 Very high High

Medium Very low

97).


structure helps to increase water-holding ca-pacity of soil, improve root development ofcrops, enhance biological activities in soil, andprevent nutrients leaching. In addition; goodsoil structure acts as buffer against acidity, al-kalinity, and other toxicity in soil (Altieri, 1995;Conway, 1990; Hossain & Kashem, 1997;Ouedraogo et al., 2001; Repetto, 1987).

(v) Soil fertility statusAs mentioned above, soil fertility in the study

area is evaluated on the basis of soil pH, andorganic matter content (OM), available nitro-gen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), sul-fur (S) and zinc (Zn). Soils in the conventionalsystem contain higher pH and phosphorous,whereas soils in the ecological system havehigher amounts of organic matter, nitrogen,potassium, sulfur and zinc (Table 3). Thus, soilfertility in the ecological farming system isbetter than in the conventional system. Organicmatter content not only influences soil pro-ductivity but also improves its texture andstructure. It helps to reduce leaching of nutri-ents, increases water holding capacity, supportsthe activities of microorganisms, improvesdrainage, reduces erosion and promotes planthormones (BARC, 1997; Dahal, 1996). Nitro-gen also is an indicator of soil fertility as itsrequirements for most of the crops are high andconsidered as a major determinant of growthand yield of crops (Hossain & Kashem, 1997).

(vi) Pests and diseases managementThere is significant variation (p < 0:01) be-

tween the two agricultural systems in pest anddisease control practices. Nearly all farmers inthe ecological system are controlling pests anddiseases by weeding and cultivating crops intime, catching insects using nets and light traps,and by applying herbal insecticides. By con-trast, 90% of conventional farmers are usinginorganic pesticides. Only 8% of the farmers are

Table 4. Average yield (kg/ha) of main

Crop name Ecological system Conven

Paddy HYV (Boroa) 4,594

Paddy local 1,998

Wheat 1,914

Jute 1,890

Potato 11,255

Pulses 725

Mustard 780

a Boro¼paddy cultivated in winter season with irrigation.

using both insecticides and other measures tocontrol insects.The type of insecticides used is also a matter

of concern. Most farmers use Diazinon andMalathion, belonging to the organophosphategroup, are highly toxic to almost all animalsand humans, and are extremely to moderatelyhazardous (WHO, 1984). Chronic exposure toorganophosphate can result in severe illness ordeath (Metcalf & Muller, 2000). Indiscriminateuse of pesticides and insecticides causes manyadverse effects, including soil and water pollu-tion, and sickness among farmers (Sattar &Mian, 1999). Farmers in the conventional sys-tem reported that they have had to increase thedosage and frequency of insecticides applica-tion. As a consequence, they are facing prob-lems that include earthworms, fish and frogsdying, diarrhoea, skin diseases, headaches anddeclining soil fertility. Similar experience wasreported by Rahman and Thapa (1999) in Ja-malpur, Jessore and Comilla regions of Ban-gladesh.

(b) Economic viability

(i) ProductivityThe average yields of major crops in the

conventional system were found to be higherthan in the ecological system (Table 4), al-though the difference is not statistically signifi-cant. This can be attributed to the applicationof significantly higher amounts of inorganicfertilizers and pesticides by farmers in theconventional system. But, farmers in the con-ventional system mentioned that yields of sta-ple crops were gradually decreasing due tooveruse of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides.This is clearly an indication of unsustainability.

(ii) Stability of the yieldThe index of yield stability constructed fol-

lowing the method described in Section 2(a)

crops by agricultural systems in 1998

tional system Relative (conventional¼ 100)

4,910 94

2,011 99

2,034 94

1,912 99

12,093 93

733 99

812 96


revealed a negative trend for all crops, in bothsystems, but with the exception of HYV paddyin the ecological system. The overall indexvalue for all crops was found to be )4.12 inthe conventional system, as against )2.25 inthe ecological system, indicating a consider-ably higher rate of yield decline in the for-mer system. This finding is consistence withwhat farmers said during discussions withthem.Official agricultural statistics for the district

under the scope of this study are not useful tosubstantiate the above findings, as field-levelstaff responsible for data collection have atendency to inflate production figures, becausetheir work performance is evaluated based onthese figures. But, information provided by thefarmers do justify that crop yields are gradu-ally going down. In 1987, the average yield ofpaddy was 5.58 t/ha in conventional agricul-tural system and 5.52 t in ecological system.By 1998 the yield of paddy had declined to4.91 t in the former system and 4.59 t in thelater. This is corroborated by findings of anempirical study conducted in the neighbor-ing Jamalpur district (Rahman & Thapa,1999).

Table 5. Profitability of HYV p

Ecological system

A Financial

1. Gross return (Taka/ha)a 27565.00

2. Total variable cost (Taka/ha) 22447.00

3. Return to per unit labor

(in Taka)

174.03

4. Operating capital–output ratio 0.78

5. Gross margin (Taka/ha) 5118.00

6. Benefit–cost ratio 1:23

Economic (Taka/ha)

7. Subsidy on inorganic fertilizers 282.00

8. Net returnb 4836.00

Value addition (Taka/ha)

9. Cost of inorganic fertilizers 1912.00

10. Cost of pesticides 0.00

11. Cost of diesel and charge of

agricultural machinery used

2398.00

12. Cost of intermediate goodsc 4310.00

13. Value addition per acre (1–12)d 23255.00

a Taka 1¼US$ 0.021 (in 1998).bGross margin––subsidy.c Cost of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, diesel fuel and agrdTotal return––cost of intermediate goods.

(iii) ProfitabilityProfitability was analyzed from both indi-

vidual and societal perspectives. Because oftime and budget constraints, it was not feasibleto analyze the profitability of all crops. Instead,HYV paddy was used for the profitabilityanalysis, as it is the major crop in both agri-cultural systems. Costs and returns were ana-lyzed based on variable costs, including costs ofhuman labor, animal power, power tiller, seed,fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides, irrigationwater, and interest on operating capital. Costsof inputs were computed on the basis of re-spective market price whether they have sup-plied from home or purchased. The cost offamily labor was calculated on the basis of theprevailing wage rate. Gross return was deter-mined based on reported crop yield and thefarm gate price.Financially, the conventional system is per-

forming better than the ecological system (Ta-ble 5). The gross profit margin was found to be6% higher in the conventional system than inthe ecological system. Labor is the major vari-able cost in both systems. The total variablecost was found to be slightly lower in the eco-logical system (Table 5), due to relatively lower

addy by agricultural systems

Conventional system Relative

(conventional¼ 100)

29462.00 94

23569.00 95

191.96 91

0.77

5893.00 87

1:25

479.00

5414.00 89

3255.00 59

630.00

2554.00 94

6439.00 67

23023.00 101

icultural machinery hire.


use of agrochemicals. As a result, both grossmargin and return per labor unit in the eco-logical system are lower than in the conven-tional system. But, the benefit–cost ratio isalmost the same in both systems, indicatingthat the return per unit of investment in theconventional system is not as attractive asnormally thought. Ecological farming is ex-pected to be more attractive for farmers in thefuture, as increasingly health-concerned urbanconsumers may be willing to pay more for ag-rochemical-free products.Financial return can be misleading, as it is

based on market prices of inputs and outputs.Financial analysis does not reflect the real costsand benefits, as it overlooks the effects of taxes,subsidies, and other transfer payments on price(Williams, 1992). Assessment of economic via-bility of agricultural systems necessitates ad-justments in transfer payment with price andcost. Economic analyses consider adjustedprice, which is determined by subtracting sub-sidy provided to agriculture (Williams, 1992).Inorganic fertilizers are subsidized in Ban-

gladesh. Urea production is subsidized at therate of Tk.1095/t, and imported urea wassubsidized at the rate of Tk.1400/t (WorldBank, 1998). On average, the subsidy on fer-tilizer was Tk.1.25/kg. Following Williams’(1992) method, subsidy was deducted from thegross returns to determine economic return.The result of the analysis revealed an insig-nificant difference in economic returns betweenecological and conventional systems (Table 5).Against the conventional belief, this findingsuggests that ecological agriculture is as effi-cient as the conventional agricultural system,and can be an economically viable alternativeto the conventional agricultural system, ifmarket distortions created by subsidy are cor-rected. The subsidy on inorganic fertilizersencourages farmers to use more than optimaldoses of fertilizers as happens in the conven-tional system. To assess economic viability, itis necessary to look into both tangible andintangible costs and benefits (Williams, 1992).If intangible costs of conventional agriculturesuch as declining crop yield and water pollu-tion, and intangible benefits of the ecologicalagriculture such as improved quality of soil aretaken into account, the ecological systemwould be economically superior to the con-ventional system. For instance, Brandon(1998) estimated that the loss of yield due toland degradation in Bangladesh is 2.5% peryear.

(iv) Value additionThe agricultural sector uses inputs from in-

dustrial and service sectors, including inorganicfertilizers, pesticides, fuel and agriculturalequipment. To determine the net contributionof agriculture to the whole economy, the valueof inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, fuels, andother inputs from outside the agriculture sectorhas to be discounted from the value of the ag-ricultural output (A.P.O., 1994). Accordingly,the value of intermediate goods such as inor-ganic fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel fuel werededucted from the total returns to determinethe amount of value addition per hectare ofland. The result of the analysis indicates insig-nificant variation between the two systems(Table 5). In fact, if the benefit of the valueaddition to the local society is considered, theecological system turns out to be better as itutilizes more local resources that generate in-come and employment opportunities for localpeople.

(c) Social acceptability

(i) Input self-sufficiencyThe high dependency on external inputs,

such as inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, diesel,and irrigation water, increases farmers’ vul-nerability to reduced profit, as they have nocontrol over supply and price of inputs. Sus-tainable agriculture should seek to minimize thedependency on external inputs (Altieri, 1995;Ikerd, 1993; Pretty, 1995). There is considerablevariation in the two systems in terms of de-pendency on external inputs. In the ecologicalsystem, there is a tendency to use more localinputs, i.e., labor, draught power, seed, organicfertilizers, and natural pesticides that accountfor about 66% of the total input cost. By con-trast, the dependency on external inputs, i.e.,inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel, andirrigation water, is greater in the conventionalsystem, accounting for 80% of the total inputcost (Table 6). What is the rationale for con-sidering irrigation water as an external input?As it is in the entire country (Huda, 2000),ground water is the main source of irrigation inthe study area, which is pumped out usingdiesel operated pumping sets due to lack ofelectricity. Diesel accounts for more than two-thirds of the cost of irrigation. Moreover, en-gines, their spare parts, and diesel fuel comefrom outside, which exposes farmers to the riskof rising production costs and dwindling profitmargins arising from market distortions and

Table 6. Input self-sufficiency by agricultural systems

Attribute Ecological system Conventional system

1. Cost of all variable inputs (Taka/ha) 22447.00 23569.00

2. Cost of local inputs (Taka/ha)a 16129.00 14862.00

3. Cost of external inputs (Taka/ha)b 6318.00 8707.00

4. Input self-sufficiency ratio (2/1) 0.72 0.63

a Local inputs include labor, draught power, seed, organic fertilizers, and natural pesticides.b External inputs include inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, diesel, and agricultural machinery.


changing national and international trade.Therefore, it is justified to consider irrigationwater as external input in the context of ourstudy area. When all these above mentionedfacts are taken into account, the ecologicalsystem clearly appears to be more self-sufficientin inputs than the conventional system.

(ii) EquityAbout one-third of the rural people in Ban-

gladesh are unemployed or underemployed,which is one of the major causes of poverty.Any activity that creates employment oppor-tunities will have a higher equity effect, througha process of chain reactions across the ruraleconomy. Thus, it is reasonable to considerlabor requirements and labor cost per unit ofoutput as indicators of the equity effect of anyfarming system.Paddy is the most important crop in both

agricultural systems. The cultivation of paddyis more labor intensive, though not significantlymuch greater, in the ecological system than tothe conventional system (Table 7). As a con-sequence, both labor cost per unit of produc-tion and labor cost per unit of profit are higherin the former type of farming system. Thisimplies that the ecological system has providedmore equitable benefits to local people.

(iii) Risks and uncertaintiesAgricultural activities in Bangladesh are fre-

quently affected by natural calamities such asfloods, cyclones, tornadoes, drought, and in-sects. Almost 50% of total land is flooded every

Table 7. Labor requirements fo

Labor requirement to produce 1 kg paddy (in man–days)

Labor cost per kg output (in Taka)

Labor cost per Taka of return

a Taka 1¼US$ 0.021 (in 1998).

year because of the concentrated rainfall duringthe monsoon period (Framjii, 1977). In the1998 flood, 50% of Aman and Aus paddy wasdamaged (Shahabuddin, 1999). Cropping di-versification helps farmers to minimize riskarising from natural hazards. In a situation offailure or damage to one crop, farmers will beable to gain some income from other crops in adiversified cropping system.As reflected in the relative income from dif-

ferent agricultural enterprises, including fieldcrops (Table 8), the ecological agriculturalsystem is more diversified than the conven-tional agricultural system. Consistent with this,the risk analysis based on the method men-tioned above revealed an index value of 0.74 forthe former system and 0.89 for the latter sys-tem, implying that the conventional system ismore vulnerable to the risk of economic loss.

(iv) Food securityFood security has remained one of the im-

portant concerns in Bangladesh due to verylimited land for agricultural use and an ever-increasing population. Food security at thefarm household level, according to FAO(1997), is a matter of individual householdshaving being able to meet their daily food needsfrom their own production, or the means toobtain food from off-farm sources. Overall,farmers’ own food grain production in theconventional system can meet food require-ments for 386 days as opposed to 324 days inthe ecological system, although landholdingsize and land quality are almost identical in

r cultivation of HYV paddya

Ecological system Conventional system

0.36 0.34

1.62 1.53

0.26 0.23

Table 8. Average household incomea

Enterprises Ecological system Conventional system

Income in Takab Percentage of total

income

Income in Takab Percentage of total

income

Field crops 8843.0 76 9601.0 82

Cereals 5042.0 43 7664.0 65

Cash crops 3801.0 33 1937.0 17

Livestock 2110.0 18 1550.0 13

Orchard 650.0 6 550.0 5

Total incomeb 11603.0 100 11701.0 100

a Income is calculated based on households reported income from different enterprises maintaining capital stock.b Taka 1¼US$ 0.021 (in 1998).


these two systems. This is mainly because in theconventional system, 79% of the land is usedfor food grain production, whereas 58% of theland is used for the same purpose in the eco-logical system. It should be noted, however,that the shortage of food grain in the ecologicalsystem is offset by income from other agri-cultural enterprises, including livestock andorchard. If the overall agricultural income isconsidered, there is no variation in food secu-rity between these two systems (Table 8).Moreover, due to the heavy emphasis on foodgrain production, conventional farmers havenot been able to meet the requirement of allkinds of nutrients, including vitamins, proteinsand fat required to keep the body healthy.Food security, in our opinion, is the farmers’ability to meet the requirement of balanced dietavailable from their own farm or other sources.Because they grow pulses and oilseeds, andraise livestock, ecological farmers are consum-ing more balanced array of foods.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICYIMPLICATIONS

The Green Revolution or the conventionaltechnology is pervasive in Bangladesh, and ef-forts are being pursued to promote this tech-nology to cope with the ever-growing demandfor food grain. Scientific research findings onconventional agriculture have revealed that thistype of agriculture has enabled farmers to fulfilltheir immediate needs at the cost of environ-mental degradation, thereby threatening thesustainability of the agriculture itself as well asthe health of people consuming its products.Cognizant of this, some efforts have been madein Bangladesh during the past decade or more

to promote ecological agriculture in the interestof sustainability and long-term well-being ofpeople. In this regard, the ecological agriculturebeing promoted by UBINIG is a pioneeringendeavor aimed at making agriculture envi-ronmentally sound, economically viable andsocially acceptable.The findings of this study reveal that even

after 12 years of the implementation of theecological agriculture promotion program, thistype of agriculture is not different from theconventional agriculture, particularly in termsof land-use patterns, crop yields, stability ofyields, risk and uncertainties, and food security.Likewise, there is no significant difference be-tween the two agricultural systems in terms offinancial and economic benefits, and valueadded. It should be noted that, although so farcrop yield and stability in the conventionalsystem have been maintained on par with theecological system by applying ever-increasingamounts of inorganic fertilizers, farmers’ haveexperienced declining yields over successiveyears. Farmers mentioned that crop yieldswould decrease substantially, thereby jeopar-dizing their food supply, if the amount of fer-tilizers is not increased. This is suggests a trendof agricultural unsustainability.One of the main reasons why ecological

farming has not been economically more at-tractive is that so far there is no difference inmarket prices of products from the two sys-tems. UBINIG is presently running a shop oforganic products in Dhaka. They offer farmersper kg one Taka higher than the local marketprice of rice and vegetables, and sell these farmproduces at very low prices, resulting in smallamount of profit. Still, there is very low de-mand for organic products due to poor pub-licity of advantages of such products and lack


of formal certification. Most consumers inBangladesh are as yet little concerned about thehealth effects of agrochemical-based productsyet. In the future, ecological agriculture willprobably be economically attractive as in-creasingly health-concerned urban people maybe ready to pay higher prices for produce freeof inorganic fertilizers and toxic insecticides.Promoting ecological agriculture requireschanges in consumption patterns from eatingagrochemical-based products to organic prod-ucts. In this regard, it is necessary to makepeople aware of advantages of organic prod-ucts and disadvantages of inorganic productsthrough mass media and educational cam-paigns. Own life is dear to most human beings;everybody wants to live a healthy and long life.Capitalizing this human characteristic, aware-ness creation programs should highlight healtheffects of organic products, so that consumerswill be increasingly attracted to such products.Regarding cropping patterns, there is no

significant variation in terms of area underdifferent types of crops, as the major percentageof landholdings are still being cultivated withpaddy in both conventional and ecologicalfarming systems. Significant variation wasfound if varieties of crops cultivated are takeninto consideration. Because of the promotionalefforts made by the project, the ecological sys-tem is considerably more diversified than theconventional system, which is a step towardsustainable agricultural systems.Significant variation between the conven-

tional and ecological systems is reflected in theuse of inorganic fertilizers and insecticides,which are the primary causes of land, water andatmospheric pollution, as well as degradationof food quality. Although the majority of eco-logical farmers still apply inorganic fertilizers,the amount that they apply is significantlylower than the amount that conventionalfarmers use. The most remarkable achievementmade by the project in the ecological farmingsystem is that only a few farmers are applyinginsecticides to crops. Using their indigenousknowledge, most farmers control insectsthrough the use of herbal insecticides and othermeasures, including traps. These qualities havemade the ecological system environmentallymore sustainable than the conventional system.Moreover, the ecological system has providedenvironmental services to the society by re-ducing the use of inorganic fertilizers and bycarbon sequestration in soil. In addition theecological system is considerably less dependent

on external inputs than the conventional sys-tem, thereby reducing farmers’ vulnerability toexternal forces.The findings of this study suggest that the

agricultural system being promoted by UBI-NIG is so far not very ecological in the strictestsense. But it has many advantages over con-ventional agriculture, as it provides improvedquality of foods, conserves resources and en-vironmental quality, without compromisingoutput and financial benefits. Relatively higheryields and financial returns in the conventionalsystem accrue through the application of muchhigher amounts of inorganic fertilizers andpesticides, which have resulted in severe costson the environment and society. If these costsand benefits are taken into account, the eco-logical agricultural system would be even betterboth financially and economically. To makethis agricultural system a financially attractiveactivity, these costs have to be accounted incost–benefit analyses, as degradation of naturaland environmental resources reduces produc-tivity and longevity of these resources and ul-timately adversely affects the sustainability ofthe system (Tisdell, 1996).The most serious challenge for policy-makers

in Bangladesh is how to reduce dependency oninorganic fertilizers and pesticides and main-tain soil fertility to provide sufficient food andincome to farmers without degrading environ-mental quality. Possessing very small land-holdings, on average less than 0.1 ha per capita,farmers have to at least maintain the presentlevel of crop yield. Since today’s food securityis more important than tomorrow’s for thesefarmers, they cannot reduce the amount ofinorganic fertilizers unless effective biologicalmeans of soil fertilization are available. Dis-cussions held with farmers revealed their con-cern about long-term negative implications ofthe application of inorganic fertilizers at anever-increasing rate. Still they cannot avoidthis, because of the lack of alternatives, on theone side, and the risk of food shortage, on theother.Crop diversification, integrated nutrient

management, and balanced use of inorganicfertilizers contribute to maintaining soil fertil-ity. Although a large number of crops, includ-ing spices, vegetables, pulses and oilseeds,appear financially superior than rice and wheat(e.g., Biswas & Mandal, 1993; Mahmud et al.,1994; Rahman, 1998), these two cereal cropsare being cultivated continuously year afteryear due to inadequate extension, research,


marketing and credit facilities, and farmers’concern about food security. Since so far cere-als have been the main thrust of research andextension programs, little attention has beenpaid to other crops, despite their great potentialto increase farmers income and maintainingsoil fertility. Changing the policy thrust fromgaining self-sufficiency in food production 5 toagricultural development according to loca-tional comparative advantages and reorientingresearch, extension and other institutionalsupport, including credit and marketing facili-ties, will help to promote crop diversification aswell as increase farmers’ income. Despite notproducing food by themselves, increased farmincome would enable farmers to purchase ad-equate food and other daily necessities.Provision of alternative sources of energy,

efficient use of biomass fuel through the pro-motion of improved stoves, and promotion ofmultipurpose agroforestry species will helpcontrol the use of biomass and manure, andincrease the supply of FYM required to main-tain soil structure and fertility. Compost isconsidered to be better than FYM in terms ofnutrient contents. Farmers should therefore betrained and encouraged to make compost-uti-lizing biomass and animal wastes available intheir farms. Application of FYM to crops wasa long-established common practice of farmersin Bangladesh. This practice has been consid-erably reduced, as in the absence of alternativeaffordable fuels, crop residues, manure andother biomass are being used as fuel for cook-ing and heating.Overuse and inappropriate use of inorganic

fertilizers and pesticides are largely due tomarket price distortions and lack of knowledgeabout adverse impacts of these products,stemming from policy failure to address theseissues and provision of inadequate extensionservices. Inorganic fertilizers subsidizes increasethe marginal return of using additional units ofinorganic fertilizers over marginal cost thatencourages the overuse of inorganic fertilizers.This is further reinforced by farmers’ lack ofawareness of adverse impacts of overuse andimbalanced application of agrochemicals. Al-though it is trying to phase out direct subsidieson inorganic fertilizers, the government is stillindirectly subsidizing inorganic fertilizers bymaking natural gas, which is an important in-gredient of fertilizers, available at a highlysubsidized price. The price charged for gas usedfor fertilizers, for example, is less than half thenormal price of gas; and on average the subsidy

on fertilizer is Tk.1.25 ($.028)/kg (World Bank,1998). Elimination of direct subsidy and grad-ual reduction of indirect subsidy on inorganicfertilizers along with the provision effective ex-tension services will help to reduce the overuseand imbalanced use of inorganic fertilizers andpesticides.Withdrawal or reduction of subsidies may

not, however, be enough to motivate farmers toreduce the use of agrochemicals, as the majoroff-site costs such as water pollution, depletionof aquatic life and biodiversity caused by theoveruse of agrochemicals are not borne byfarmers. Moreover, due primarily to their smalllandholdings, particularly small farmers’ timehorizons are much shorter and their discountrates much higher than those of society atlarge. Therefore, as in the case of developedcountries, major policy reforms are necessaryto divert financial benefits toward resourceconserving farmers and provide more supportto them through tax reduction or exemption,dissemination of information, extension, credit,research and marketing facilities. The challengefor policy makers in Bangladesh is how to im-plement and regulate policies, programs andsupport services in favor of farmers contribut-ing to resources conservation and providingclean food by practicing ecological farmingsystems.Given the small landholdings and large

population, it is necessary to diversify thefarming systems comprising livestock, fishraising, and agroforestry to make better use ofavailable resources and to gain their synergeticeffect. Rice–fish culture has, for example,proved potential to increase farmers’ incomeand nutrition status substantially as well as tomaintain environmental quality without ham-pering crop yield (Pretty & Hine, 2000). Live-stock and agroforestry also have potential toimprove farmers’ income and stability by effi-cient use of resources, but so far farmers havenot adopted these practices much due to limitedknowledge and skill, and unavailability inputscredit and other support services. Proper policyand institutional support along with coordi-nated efforts with NGOs will help to promotediversified ecological farming, resulting in in-creased high-value products and farmers’ in-come.Sustainable agriculture, indeed, demands

intimate knowledge and information aboutcrop, soil, pest, insects, market, price and en-vironment. Dissemination of knowledge andother information through existing government


extension agencies does not seem to be efficientand effective, because of lack of motivation andinadequate number of extension staff, arisingfrom a number of factors, including low salary.Overdependency on external agencies includingextension department, input dealers, make theextension system unsustainable. Therefore, at-tempt should be made to build and enhancesocial capital by organizing farmers in groups,encouraging farmers to farmers extension andsharing information conducive to build coop-

eration, trust, reciprocity and cohesivenessamong farmers, which facilitate social institu-tions, common rules, norms and sanctions ofbehavior (Pretty & Ward, 2001). This will ul-timately help to share knowledge and experi-ences, to take common decision to promotesustainable agriculture, such as adoption ofIPM, better management of irrigation water,tree plantation and other common benefitproviding initiatives, which cannot be under-taken by an individual farmer.

NOTES

1. Conventional agriculture is defined as the agricul-

tural system which is generally practiced. But different

people characterize it in different ways. Hansen (1996)

characterized it as capital-intensive, large-scale, and

highly mechanized agriculture with monoculture of

crops and extensive use of agrochemicals. Pretty (1995)

characterizes it as an intensive industrialized farming

system with high levels of external inputs, and resource

degradation. In this paper, we used conventional agri-

culture to refer the agricultural system broadly charac-

terized by intensive use of land with high external inputs

including high-yielding varieties of seeds, inorganic

fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, monocultures of

crops, low diversity, high dependency on external inputs,

and low use of on-farm resources, as majority of farmers

adopted this type of agriculture.

2. Bangladesh being one of the most densely populated

countries of the world (865 persons/km2), has one of the

lowest land–person ratios of about 0.06 ha (Ali, 1995;

UNDP, 1995). The high population growth (around 2%

annually) further reduces the availability of land for

agriculture by creating increased demand for land for

settlements, roads, industry, and other nonagricultural

uses (Ali, 1995; FAO, 2000; Rahman & Thapa, 1999).

3. Ecological agriculture’ is defined as abstaining from

using all inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and in that

sense UBINIG ’s agricultural system is not ecological as

it uses inorganic fertilizers. But, ecological agriculture,

synonymous with ‘‘regenerative agriculture,’’ ‘‘organic

agriculture,’’ or ‘‘low input agriculture,’’ ‘‘alternative

agriculture,’’ is a diversified system that emphasizes the

incorporation of natural resources in the production

process and makes better use of local resources and

conserve and manage resources by rational use of

external inputs to make the agriculture environmentally

and economically sustainable. In this paper, we use the

term ecological agriculture as synonymous with the

above mentioned agricultural systems.

4. The difference between conventional and ecological

agriculture is both means and ends. While the object of

the conventional system is tomaximize yield and profit by

exploiting resources as much as possible, the aim of the

ecological system is to attain long-term sustainability of

yield and profit by rational use of resources and judicious

mix of internal and external resources. For details see

Lockeretz (1989), Pretty (1995) and Zhengfang (1995).

5. The major policy thrust of Bangladesh agriculture

for the last few decades has been gaining self-sufficiency

in food production. Food self-sufficiency is equated with

food security. The findings of the study indicate that

although food production is relatively greater in the

conventional system, there is no difference between the

two systems in terms of food security. Although, total

rice production increased slightly from 1989 to 1999,

0.8% annually (FAO, 2000), production of pulses and

oilseeds largely declined and their import increased.

Imports of pulses almost doubled between 1991–92 and

1997–98, from 56,000 to 108,000 t. Oil seeds imports

increased about three times from 15,000 to 309,000

within the same period (Majumder, 2002).

REFERENCES

A.P.O. (Asian Productivity Organization) (1994). Man-ual for measurement and analysis of agriculturalproductivity. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organiza-tion.

Ahmad, K., & Hasanuzzaman, S. M. Q. (1998). Agri-cultural growth and environment. In R. Faruquee(Ed.), Bangladesh agriculture in the 21st century.Dhaka: University Press Ltd.


Akter, N. (1997). Alternative agriculture in Bangladesh:a studyofUBINIG,CDA,andPROSHIKAPrograms.Annual Research Report, Bangladesh Rural Ad-vancement Committee (BRAC), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Ali, A. M. S. (1995). Population pressure, environmentalconstraints and agricultural changes in Bangladesh:examples from three agroecosystems. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 55, 95–109.

Altieri, M. (1995). Agroecology: The scientific basis ofalternative agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Arkin, H., & Colton, R. R. (1963). Tables for statisti-cians (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and RowPublishers.

Asaduzzaman, M. (1995). Resource degradation andsustainable development in Bangladesh: some pre-liminary estimates. In Paper presented in seminar onplanning for sustainable development of Bangladesh,September 24–25, 1996 Bangladesh Institute ofDevelopment Studies, Dhaka.

BARC (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council)(1997). Fertiliser recommendation guide––1997. SoilsPublication No. 41, BARC, Dhaka.

Beus, C. E., & Dunlop, R. E. (1994). Agriculturalparadigms and the practice of agriculture. RuralSociology, 59(4), 620–635.

Biswas, R. M. (1994). Agriculture and environment: areview, 1972–1992. Ambio, 23(3), 192–197.

Biswas, M. R., & Mandal, M. A. S. (1993). Irrigationmanagement for crop diversification in Bangladesh.Dhaka: University Press Ltd.

Brandon, C. (1998). Environmental degradation andagricultural growth. In R. Faruquee (Ed.), Bangla-desh agriculture in the 21st century (pp. 109–118).Dhaka: University Press Ltd.

Clemetsen, M., & van Larr, J. (2000). The contributionof organic agriculture to landscape quality in theSogn og Fjordane region of Western Norway.Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 125–141.

Conway, G. R. (1985). Agroecosystem analysis. Agri-cultural Administration, 20, 31–55.

Conway, G. R. (1990). Agriculture and the environment:concept and issues. In S. Huq, A. Rahman, & G. R.Conway (Eds.), Environmental aspects of agriculturaldevelopment in Bangladesh. Dhaka: University PressLtd.

Dahal, H. (1996). Ecological approach to sustainableagriculture through integrated nutrient management:a micro-level study in the Eastern Tarai farmingsystem, Nepal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

David, S. (1989). Sustainable development: theoreticalconstruct on attainable goal? Environmental Conser-vation, 16, 41–48.

De Jager, A., Onduru, D., van Wijk, M. S., Vlaming, J.,& Gachini, G. N. (2001). Assessing sustainability oflow-external-input farm management systems withthe nutrient monitoring approach: a case study inKenya. Agricultural Systems, 69, 99–118.

Dumanski, J., & Pieri, C. (1996). Application of thepressure-state-response framework for the land qual-ity indicators (LQI) program. In Land quality indi-cators and their use in sustainable agriculture andrural development (p. 41). Proceedings of the work-

shop organized by the Land and Water DevelopmentDivision FAO Agriculture Department, January 25–26 1996.

Edwards, C. A. (1987). The concept of integratedsystems in lower input sustainable agriculture. Amer-ican Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 11, 148–152.

Edwards, C. A. (1989). The importance of integration insustainable agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosys-tems & Environment, 27, 25–35.

Edwards, C. A., & Grove, T. (1991). Integrated nutrientmanagement for crop production. In Toward sus-tainability (pp. 105–108). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Sciences.

Edwards, C. A., Grove, T., Harwood, R. R., & Colfer, J.P. (1993). The role of agroecology and integratedfarming systems in sustainable agriculture. Agricul-ture, Ecosystems & Environment, 46, 99–121.

Edwards, C. A., & Wali, M. K. (1993). The global needfor sustainability in agriculture and natural re-sources. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 46,vii–xxv.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1997).Implications of economic policy for food security.FAO publications no 40. Rome, Italy: FAO.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2000).Selected indicators of food and agriculture develop-ment in Asia-Pacific Region, 1989–99. RAP publi-cation no. 2000/15, Bangkok: FAO.

FFYP (Fifth Five Year Plan) (1998). The fifth five yearplan, 1998–2002. Planning Commission, Ministry ofPlanning, Government of Bangladesh.

Framjii, K. K. (1977). Irrigated rice. InternationalCommission on Irrigation and Drainage, India, pp.10–11.

Gain, P. (1998). Bangladesh environment: facing the21st century. In G. Philip (Ed.), Society for Environ-ment and Human Development (SHED) (p. 45).Dhaka: SHED.

Gowda, M. J. C., & Jayaramaiah, K. M. (1998).Comparative evaluation of rice production systemsfor their sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment, 69, 1–9.

Hansen, J. W. (1996). Is agricultural sustainability auseful concept? Agricultural Systems, 50, 117–143.

Harwood, R. R. (1990). A history of sustainableagriculture. In C. A. Edward, R. Lal, P. Maden, R.H. Miller, & G. House (Eds.), Sustainable agricul-tural system (pp. 3–19). Miami, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Henning, J., Baker, L., & Thompsion, P. (1991).Economic issues in organic agriculture. CanadianJournal of Agricultural Economics, 39, 877–889.

Hossain, M. (1988). Nature and Impact of the GreenRevolution in Bangladesh, International Food PolicyResearch Institute & Bangladesh Institute of Devel-opment Studies Joint Study. Washington, DC:IFPRI.

Hossain, S. M. A. (1990). The development of farmingsystems research in Bangladesh. In S. Haque, A. A.Rahman, & G. R. Conway (Eds.), Environmentalaspects of agricultural development in Bangladesh.Dhaka: University Press Ltd.

Hossain, S. M. A., & Kashem, M. A. (1997). Agronomicmanagement to combat declining soil fertility in


Bangladesh. In Paper presented in the 6th biennialconference of the Bangladesh Society of Agronomy,July 29, 1997, Dhaka.

Hossain, S. M. A., Salam, M. U., & Alam, A. B. M. M.(1994). Farm environment assessment in the contextof farming systems in Bangladesh. In Paper pre-sented in the third Asian farming systems sympo-sium, November 7–10, 1994, Manila.

Huda, S. A. T. M. (2000). Bangladesh case study. InSustainable agricultural development strategies forthe least developed countries of the Asian and thePacific Region (pp. 41–53). Economic and SocialCommission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Ikerd, J. E. (1993). The need for a systems approach tosustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment, 46, 147–160.

ILEIA (Institute for Low External Input Agriculture)(1991). Criteria for assessment. Workshop proceed-ings. ILEIA Newsletter 7(3), 21–23.

Islam, A. (1989). A Study of pulses oriented croppingpatterns under rainfed and irrigated conditions.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bangladesh Ag-ricultural University, Bangladesh.

Kotschi, J., Adelhelm, R. B., & Ann Hoesle, U. (1989).Ecofarming in agricultural development. TropicalAgroecology, 2. Berlin: GTZ, Elektra, Niedernhau-sen.

Lampkin, N. (1994). Organic farming: sustainable agri-culture in practice. In N. Lampkin, & S. Padel (Eds.),The economics of organic farming: An internationalperspective. Oxford: CABI.

Lockeretz, W. (1989). Problems of evaluating theeconomics of ecological agriculture. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 27, 67–75.

Lynam, J. K., & Herdt, R. W. (1989). Sense andsustainability: sustainability as an objective in inter-national agricultural research. Agricultural Econom-ics, 3, 381–398.

Mahmud, W., Rahman, S. H. & Johir, S. (1994).Agricultural growth through crop diversification inBangladesh. Working papers on food policy inBangladesh, No. 7. Washington, DC: InternationalFood Policy Research Institute.

Majumder, J. R. (2002). Institutional linkage analysis toidentify the constraints of technology transfer andadoption in agriculture: a case of crop diversificationprogram in Bangladesh. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

Marquez, C. B., Pingali, P. L., & Pails, F. G. (1992).Farmer health impact of long term pesticides expo-sure: a medical and economic analysis in the Philip-pines. International Rice Research Institute, Manila.

Metcalf, R. L., & Muller, F. (2000). Insecticides. In F.Muller (Ed.), Agrochemicals: Composition, produc-tion, toxicology, applications (pp. 495–502). Wein-heim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.

O’Connell, P. F. (1991). Sustainable agriculture. InAgriculture and the environment: The 1991 yearbookof agriculture. Washington, DC: US GovernmentPrinting Office.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment) (1997). Environmental indicators foragriculture. Paris: OECD Publication.

Ouedraogo, E., Mando, A., & Zombre, N. P. (2001).Use of compost to improve soil properties and cropproductivity under low input agricultural system inWest Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,84, 259–266.

Pagiola, S. (1995). Environmental and natural resourcedegradation in intensive agriculture in Bangladesh.Document of Agriculture and Natural ResourceOperations Division South Asia Region, WorldBank, Washington, DC.

Paoletti, M. G., Stinner, B. R., & Lorenzoni, G. G.(1989). Introduction. Agriculture, Ecosystems & En-vironment, 27, 1–2.

Pimentel, D., Culliney, T. W., Buttler, I. W., Reineman,D. J., & Beekman, K. B. (1989). Low-input sustain-able agriculture using ecological management prac-tices. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment, 27, 3–24.

Pingali, P. L. & Roger, P. A. (1995). Impact of pesticideson farmer health and the rice environment. IRRI,Manila, Philippines.

Poincelot, R. P. (1986). Towards a more sustainableagriculture. Westport, CT: AVI Publishing Com-pany.

Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Policiesand practice for sustainability and self-reliance. Lon-don: Earthscan Publications Limited.

Pretty, J., & Hine, R. (2000). The promising spread ofsustainable agriculture in Asia. Natural ResourcesForum, 24, 107–121.

Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and theenvironment. World Development, 29(2), 209–227.

Qureshi, R. H. (2002). Impact of agricultural practiceson environmental sustainability in South Asia. InAsian Productivity Organization, 2002: Impact ofagricultural practices on environmental sustainabilityin South Asia (pp. 38–85). Tokyo: APO Publications.

Rahman, S. (1998). Socio-economic and environmentalimpacts of technological change in BangladeshAgriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

Rahman, S., & Thapa, G. B. (1999). Environmentalimpacts of technological change in Bangladeshagriculture: farmers’ perceptions and empirical evi-dence. Outlook on Agriculture, 28(4), 233–238.

Reijntjes, C., Bertus, H., & Water-Bayer, A. (1992).Farming the future: An introduction to low externalinput and sustainable agriculture. London: Macmil-lan.

Repetto, R. (1987). Economic incentives for sustain-able production. Annals of Regional Science, 21(3),44–59.

Rigby, D., & Caceres, D. (2001). Organic farming andthe sustainability of agricultural system. AgriculturalSystems, 68, 21–40.

Rola, A., & Pingali, P. (1993). Pesticides, rice produc-tivity and health impacts in the Philippines. In P.Faeth (Ed.), Agricultural policy and sustainability.Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Sands, G. R., & Podmore, T. H. (2000). A generalizedenvironmental sustainability index for agriculturalsystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 79,29–41.


Sattar, M. A., & Mian, J. A. (1999). Agrochemicals:their effects on crop yields and soil properties. InPaper presented in seminar of Soil Scientist Associ-ation on land degradation and soil pollution, June15–18, 1999, Dhaka.

Schaller, N. (1993). The concept of agricultural sustain-ability. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 46,89–97.

Shahabuddin, Q. (1999). Poverty and floods of Bangla-desh. Available from <http://www.citecho.net/gram-een/> (downloaded on August 17, 1999).

Siddique, A. T., Chattergy, A., Zheng, J., & Kosmus, W.(1998). Studies of drinking water quality and arseniccalamity in ground water in Bangladesh. In Proceed-ings of the international conference on arsenicpollution of ground water in Bangladesh, February8–12, 1998, Dhaka.

Smith, C. S., & McDonald, G. T. (1998). Assessing thesustainability of agriculture at the planning stage.Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 15–37.

Smyth, A. J., & Dumanski, J. (1993). An internationalframework for evaluating sustainable land manage-ment (FESLM). FAO World Soil Resource Reportno. 73 & 74. Rome: FAO.

SRDI (Soil Resource Development Institute) (1990).Land and soil use guideline, Delduar Sub-district,Tangail. Bangladesh Soil Resource DevelopmentInstitute, Dhaka.

Stinner, B. R., & Blair, M. J. (1990). Ecological andagronomic characteristics of innovative croppingsystems. In C. A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Maden, R.H. Miller, & G. House (Eds.), Sustainable agricul-tural systems. Miami, FL: St. Luice Press.

Stobbelaar, D. J., Kuiper, J., van Mansvelt, J. D., &Kabourakis, E. (2000). Landscape quality on organicfarms in the landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment, 77, 79–93.

Stoop, W. A., Uphoff, N., & Kassam, A. (2002). Areview of agricultural research issues raised by theSystem of Rice Intensification (SRI) from Madagas-car: opportunities for improving farming systems forresource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems, 71(3),249–274.

Task Force Report (1991). Bangladesh developmentstrategies: Environment and development (Vol. 4).Dhaka: University Press Ltd.

Tellarini, V., & Caporali, F. (2000). An input/outputmethodology to evaluate farms as sustainable agro-ecosystems: an application of indicators to farms in

central Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,77, 111–123.

Tisdell, C. (1996). Economic indicators to assess thesustainability of conservation farming projects: anevaluation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,57, 117–131.

Ullah, S. M. (1998). Arsenic contamination of groundwater and irrigated soils of Bangladesh. In Proceed-ings of the international conference on arsenicpollution of ground water in Bangladesh, February8–12, 1998, Dhaka.

UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (1995).UNDP’s 1995 report on human development inBangladesh: environment. UNDP: Dhaka, Bangla-desh.

Wahab, A., & Mohammad, A. (1954). The role oflegumes in improving soil fertility. Pakistan Journalof Science, 6(1), 39–44.

Webster, J. P. G. (1997). Assessing the economicconsequences of sustainability in agriculture. Agri-culture, Ecosystems & Environment, 64, 95–102.

Webster, P. (1999). The challenge of sustainability at thefarm level: presidential address. Journal of Agricul-tural Economics, 50(3), 371–387.

WHO (World Health Organization) (1984). Paraquatand Disquat: environmental health criteria 38, Ge-neva: WHO.

Williams, T. O. (1992). Framework for economic eval-uation of smallholder agroforestry: with particularreference to the semi-arid zone of West Africa. In G.M. Sullivan, S. M. Huke, & J. M. Fox (Eds.),Financial and economic analysis of agroforestrysystems. Proceedings of a workshop held in July1991, Honolulu, HI.

World Bank (1998). Bangladesh: agricultural policyissues. Rural Development Sector Document, TheWorld Bank, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka.

WRI (World Resources Institute) (1993). Agriculturalpolicy and sustainability: case studies from India,Chile, the Philippines and the United States. Wash-ington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Wu, S., Xu, S., & Wu, J. (1989). Ecological agriculturewithin a densely populated areas in China. Agricul-ture, Ecosystems & Environment, 27, 597–607.

Yunlong, C., & Smith, B. (1994). Sustainability inagriculture: a general review. Agriculture, Ecosystems& Environment, 49, 299–307.

Zhengfang, L. (1995). Ecological agriculture in China.The Journal of Rural Development, 25(1), 1–24.

http://www.citecho.net/grameen/

http://www.citecho.net/grameen/

Documents

Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and Conventional ...lnweb90.worldbank.org/exteu/SharePapers.nsf/(ID)/D135D...Sustainability Analysis of Ecological and Conventional Agricultural