Yes! it is highly feasible but one advocate, or a farmer or a person cannot do it alone but it will require all stakeholders with government lunching a campaign. Strategies may also require a degree of timing to be successful, such as deciding the best time of year to launch a new ad campaign. Adopting the use of organic fertilizer to revert the residual lands and integrated pest management practices may avoid short-term difficulties for benefactors such as farmers and exporters. Policies have to be instituted to implement the revised strategies. All stakeholders may not agree with the new strategic direction. They may resent the new interventions given because it may slow or reduce their profitability and, as a result, not put forth the maximum effort that is required for the new strategies to succeed. Part of Ministry of agriculture or government responsibility will be to convince all members in the organization that the changes, in the long run, will benefit everyone. If the Ministry of agriculture or government communicates the reasons behind the change in strategy, resistance can be minimized, and stakeholders are more likely to support the decisions that were made. Effective communication can achieve success through initial awareness creation and education in sustainable intensive farming system and interconnected thinking with stakeholders and in schools with students who may go on to become farmers, leaders and decision-makers.

Dear Binayak

Reviews of shift from chemical to organic agriculture suggests that it takes atleast 3-5 years for a farm to earn as much as earlier. As governments subsidise industries, why cannot it subsidise organic farmers for that time?

Organic agriculture is a public good, as it ensures that earth nutrients are there for the next generation. It consumes less of ground water. Further, organic products are good for the farmers and consumers too.

Having said that care needs to be taken to ensure that work load of women does not increase, as male migration from rural to urban areas is high. Introduction of drudgery reduction organic farming is necessary

Best

Ranjani

I think there is no simple answer to this question. It is feasible in areas that do not face multiple environmental challenges. The objective of converting from conventional to organic should focus on eventually closing the nutrient loop, in other words a farm should be able to grow crops, rear livestock and be able to use the residues and manure as fertiliser without buying chemical sources. Groundwater and surface water should also be protected, and the system should be efficent in using water and energy. During the intial years the farm may lose profits due to a reduction in yields, but as the buildup of nutrients and organic matter occurs the yields will go up again. A sustainable biologicl system should use the principles of conservation agrictulture, soil health and smart agriculture. It is possible to do this at catchment level, but it should start at farm level. Some useful sites:

http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/en/

https://csa.guide/csa/what-is-climate-smart-agriculture

http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-degradation-restoration/global-soil-health-indicators-and-assessment/global-soil-health/en/

We have some examples that have been in place for generations, see:

http://www.fao.org/giahs/en/

GIAHS's are deeply embedded in culture, so the challenge may be, or is, social and less technological in nature. Check out the work at The Land Institute for directions taken on the North American tallgrass prairie ecosystem, the founders also understand that culture is key in this transformation:

https://landinstitute.org/

The problem is people and the answer is people, once we recognize and accept that good food, clean water and air are more important than GDP then we are on our way...until that point, well...

There is a similar notion in a question thread on Research Gate that was asked four years ago and has over 2940 questions (today). Beware! When we start asking questions about culture the obfuscation begins using "science" and "data" "results" etc. as ways of diverting attention away from the real human need to change.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_time_we_shift_emphasis_from_technological_solutions_to_climate_change_focus_on_the_Human_Dimension