Rice provides ~20% of human dietary energy and, for many people, a similar share of their protein. Rice cultivation, however, produces significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, comparable to those from the aviation sector. The main GHG from rice production is methane, mostly a result of conventional rice cultivation (CRC) keeping rice fields continuously flooded during the crop cycle. There is extensive evidence that alternate wetting and drying (AWD) of rice fields substantially reduces methane emissions. AWD is one component of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), an agroecological approach to the management of plants, water, soil, and nutrients. This article reviews field studies measuring GHG emissions associated with the adoption of AWD and SRI. The review confirms that both AWD and SRI offer substantial reductions in methane emissions per hectare compared with CRC. These benefits are, however, partly offset by increases in emissions of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. The studies also show that SRI (but not AWD) improves yield and therefore further reduces GHG emissions per kg of rice. The review concludes that while both AWD and SRI substantially reduce emissions per hectare and per kilogram of rice, SRI can simultaneously contribute to food security while addressing the drivers of climate change. Further investigation of carbon emissions and sequestration under different rice cultivation methods is needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) are both agroecologically-oriented production systems that support more productive, sustainable, and resource-conserving farming, with synergies arising from their respective assemblages of reinforcing agronomic methods. This review article examines the compatibility between CA and SRI, considering examples of their being utilized in complementary ways. The application of CA principles enhances the growth, yield, and performance of the crops grown under the cropping system as well as the health and resilience of the whole ecosystem. SRI practices create more favorable conditions for the development of crop plants below- and above-ground, including conditions that can be enhanced by CA management. SRI practices such as reduced plant density m⁻² can elicit a better phenotypic expression of the genetic potentials of crops grown with CA. For these two agronomic systems to converge at the field level, some of their respective practices for plant, soil, water, and nutrient management need to be modified or aligned. One such adaptation is to practice SRI in CA systems on permanent, no-till, mulch-covered raised beds, with rainfall or irrigation water in the furrows between the beds furnishing and controlling water and providing weed suppression and improved nutrient recycling. SRI rice cropping can benefit from the CA practices of no-tillage, mulch soil cover, and diversified cropping, both in paddies and on raised beds. Several examples have shown that this convergence of cropping systems is feasible for smallholding farmers as well as for larger-scale producers and also that SRI practices within a CA system are amenable to considerable mechanization. Further research and experimentation are needed to identify and assess appropriate practices for capitalizing upon their synergies.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) are both agroecologically-oriented production systems that support more productive, sustainable, and resource-conserving farming, with synergies arising from their respective assemblages of reinforcing agronomic methods. Application of CA principles enhances the growth, yield, and performance of the crops grown under the cropping system as well as the health and resilience of the whole ecosystem. SRI practices create more favorable conditions for the development of crop plants below- and above-ground, conditions that can be enhanced by CA management. SRI practices such as reduced plant density m-2 can elicit better phenotypic expression of the genetic potentials of crops grown with CA.. For these two agronomic systems to converge at field level, some of their respective practices for plant, soil, water, and nutrient management need to be modified or aligned. One such adaptation is to practice SRI in CA systems on permanent, no-till, mulch covered raised beds, with rainfall or irrigation water in the furrows between the beds furnishing and controlling water; and providing weed suppression and improved nutrient recycling. SRI rice cropping can benefit from the CA practices of no-tillage, soil mulch cover, and diversified cropping, both in paddies and on raised beds. Several examples have shown that this convergence of cropping systems is feasible for smallholding farmers as well as for larger-scale producers, and also that SRI practices within a CA system are amenable to considerable mechanization. This review article examines the compatibility between CA and SRI, considering examples of their being utilized in complementary ways. Further research and experimentation are needed to identify and assess appropriate practices for capitalizing upon their synergies.

"The Mandate of Heaven" published on 07 Oct 2019 by Brill.

Agriculture occupies more than a third of the world’s land with many, large-scale impacts on the environment and human health. This article investigates the failure of policy to manage these impacts, asks whether private law can fill the gap, and what this means for policymakers. The investigation takes the form of a case study of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (SNF) in English policy and law. The SNF industry has been chosen because, by its own account, it underpins the modern food system, which is recognized as needing urgent transformation. The article first assesses the damage caused by SNF to health and the environment and the potential legal remedies. It then assesses industry claims that SNF (a) provides food security, (b) is beneficial to soil and water, and (c) reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If misleading, these representations could amount to unlawful ‘greenwashing’. While private law can never replace good policy and regulation, the article concludes that there is evidence to enable private law to supplement policy, and that this role is made possible as well as necessary by the absence of effective regulation and enforcement. Private litigation could catalyze policymakers to implement the robust regulatory regime that agriculture demands. As the law must focus on scientific evidence and causation, it can also help elucidate and publicize the science on which policy is based. Finally, because of the strict constraints within which private litigation must operate, it can direct policymakers towards strategic interventions (or tipping points) that could catalyze systemic change.