How is green and sustainable agriculture evolving in youngest province of China?

Article Title: Spatiotemporal Variation and Evaluation of Agriculture Green Development: A Case Study of Hainan Province, China

Introduction

With the increasing environmental and resource problems associated with agriculture, the promotion of sustainable agricultural development has been recommended in many areas of China and also beyond its borders. As a contribution to achieving sustainable development goals, the Chinese government first proposed green development in 2015 and implemented the agriculture green development (AGD) program in 2017 to address a range of issues related to the future development of agriculture in China and the well-being of people living in rural areas. In contrast to the concept of traditional agricultural development, AGD is a benign development strategy that integrates environmental sustainability into sustainable economic and social development. Extensive research has shown that quantifying and tracking progress toward sustainable development is essential to guiding the policy development and implementation in different regions. However, there is no broad agreement on how spatiotemporal variation of AGD should be quantified to produce numerical values to represent appropriately the overall performance of AGD.

Methodology

Prof. Jianbo Shen from China Agricultural University and his team developed a systematic index evaluation system to assess the performance of socioeconomic, food production, and environmental components in a key economic region (Hainan Province) of China. It is based upon the operation of a modified NUFER (nutrient flows in food chain, environment, and resource use) model, used to assess the effects of strategy development and the pathway of AGD over space and time from 1988 to 2019. Scenario analysis was used to predict the future progress of AGD in Hainan Province, providing a reference for the formulation of relevant development policies for the region.

Results

The results show that Hainan improved its AGD index (representing the overall performance toward achieving AGD) from 38.8 in 1988 to 40.9 in 2019. The socioeconomic development and agricultural productivity have improved with time; environmental quality declined due to overuse of chemicals from 1988 to 2013, but steadily improved after 2013, indicating positive effects of reducing chemical input. There was a higher AGD index in the coastal vs. central regions and the southern vs. northern regions. Scenarios featuring improved nutrient management or optimized diet structure and reduced waste improved economic benefits and social productivity while concurrently reducing environmental degradation. However, high resource input, unreasonable waste management, and high environmental pressure are still the main limiting factors of AGD in Hainan Province.

Discussion

In the 1988–2013 period, the AGD index showed that the higher the score for economy and social development was, the lower the environmental score was for Hainan Province, indicating it was unsustainable to develop the economy and food productivity. Therefore, the realization of AGD in Hainan depends not only on improved crop yields and economic benefit to the communities but also on introducing the means/policies to restrict environmental pollution and degradation. Potential adaptations include optimized spatial planning of agricultural communities, rational fertilizer application in agriculture, a healthier diet, and a reduction in food waste. In addition, many countries now place emphasis on land management policies that make room for nature using techniques such as land sparing or land sharing.

Conclusion

The study quantified the spatiotemporal progress toward AGD in Hainan Province, highlighting important implications for future policies. This method can help evaluate the impact on food production, socioeconomic, and environment of implementing policies (e.g., the fertilizer-reduction) in regions. These results provide new insights for the future development of green and sustainable agriculture and formulation of agricultural policies in Hainan Province of China and even other developing countries that are facing or will soon face similar challenges.

Journal Information

• Journal: Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering
• Method of Research: Experimental study
• Subject of Research: Not applicable
• Article Publication Date: 8-Mar-2024

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article discusses the promotion of sustainable agricultural development to address food production issues.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The article mentions the improvement of socioeconomic development and economic benefits in the context of agriculture.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – The article highlights the need for optimized diet structure and reduced waste to achieve sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The article mentions the reduction of environmental degradation and pollution as important factors for achieving sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 15: Life on Land – The article suggests the implementation of land management policies to make room for nature in agricultural communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, and fishers.
• Target 8.4: Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavor to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation.
• Target 12.3: By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.
• Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
• Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies, and accounts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 2.3.1: Volume of production per labor unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size.
• Indicator 8.4.1: Material footprint, material footprint per capita, and material footprint per GDP.
• Indicator 12.3.1: Food loss index.
• Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning into primary, secondary, and tertiary curricula.
• Indicator 15.9.1: Progress towards national targets established in accordance with Aichi Biodiversity Target 2 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: eurekalert.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.