Multidimensional Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture Practices of Cambodian Smallholder Farmers

Abstract

Agriculture is an important mainstay of the Cambodian economy and recent agriculture developments have lifted many people out of poverty. However, some key challenges remain in Cambodian rural areas. To further sustain the country’s development, new ways need to be found to drive future growth without negatively impacting its existing resources. Recent efforts led by development stakeholders have been dedicated to enhanc the sustainability of Cambodian agriculture. The local non-governmental organization MODE jointly with Louvain Cooperation focuses on helping vulnerable farmers to transition towards sustainable agriculture practices through specific training. This paper aims to assess the benefits of such an approach by using SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems), a methodology developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Core indicators of the four pillars of sustainability were evaluated through interviews with eighty farmers, equally distributed in two groups (target farmers and a control group), to assess the agricultural sustainability of their local farming system. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the two groups. The target group which was supported in their transition to sustainable practices showed a significant increase of net incomes, more diverse food production, and higher number of actions already taken or planned in order to mitigate the inherent risks of food production. The global index resulting from the combination of all core indicators revealed a significant difference between the groups, with more sustainable practices for the target farmers. However, overall the level of sustainability remained low to very low in both groups, which was partly due to the choice to work with vulnerable people defined by low productivity.

Assessing Sustainability in Cattle Silvopastoral Systems in the Mexican Tropics Using the SAFA Framework

“…SAFA has also been used to establish interventions; when applied in two Amazonian communities in Ecuador, critical areas, such as atmosphere, animal welfare and corporate ethics, were identified as critical to be strengthened with the use of communication and information technologies [ 17 ]. Likewise, in Cambodia, SAFA helped determine the success of training on smallholders, demonstrating that trained farmers increased their net income, had more diverse food production and had more planning aimed to mitigate their impact on the environment [ 18 ].…”

An overview and analysis of integral tools to monitor people, planet and profit sustainability dimensions of dairy development in East Africa

“…The key strengths of SAFA include the very wide coverage of sustainability indicators it can generate and the high level of data correctness. The tool is highly flexible and can be adapted for use in any part of the value chain as well as any region of the world (Heylen et al, 2020). Though the tool already integrates data from other existing sources, its key disadvantage is its requirement of detailed data, which might be difficult to collect.…”

Sustainability of Regional Agroecological Economic System Based on Emergy Theory: A Case Study of Anhui Province, China

“…In order to effectively assess the sustainability of an agroecological economic system, scholars have conducted research using many different methods and tools. They have constructed agroecological economic system sustainability evaluation methods, such as Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles (IDEA) or farm sustainability indicators [8], Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture (SAFA) [9], the driving force pressure state impact response (DPSIR) framework [10], the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method [11], grey relational analysis [12], and spatial data analysis [13]. However, these methods have an obvious shortcoming: there is still a lack of uniform standards for measuring inputs and outputs, natural and artificial resource consumption, and ecological losses of agroecological economic systems.…”