Mechanising Agriculture Saves Labor - But is that Possible Without Ecological Setbacks?
The Global South has the opportunity of increasing productivity while reducing labor intensity, without copying ecologically damaging moncultures of industrial countries.
All views expressed in the Welternährung are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the editorial board or of Welthungerhilfe.
With many labor-saving technologies in the Global South rapidly on the rise, a pressing question emerges: Is it possible to reduce the heavy toil of farming without following the monoculture pathway of industrialized countries?
Labor questions have always been at the heart of agricultural change. Throughout history, farmers have sought ways to ease the burden of farming, inventing new tools and harnessing the power of fire, wind, water, and animals. Ox-drawn plows were used as early as 4000 BC in Mesopotamia, and water-powered mills emerged in China by around 1000 BC.
Over the past century, technological change has accelerated dramatically. Labor-saving technologies such as tractors have enabled large productivity gains – and fueled broader structural transformation. However, these developments also fundamentally changed the face of agriculture, leading to a rise of large-scale monocultures and a loss of crop diversity and landscape mosaics. These shifts are closely linked to widespread biodiversity loss and to declining climate resilience.
Farming isn’t always fun
Agriculture on the fields of most of the world’s 550 million family farmers is highly labor-intensive. In Zambia, smallholder farm families spend more than 1,000 hours to cultivate just one hectare of maize - from land preparation to weeding to harvesting (Adu-Baffour et al., 2019). Across the world, most of this work is performed by unpaid family members, including women and children. Agricultural labor can be fun and rewarding, but often it is not.
Preparing land or weeding with simple hoes under hot, humid tropical conditions involves strenuous physical effort that can harm human health - a burden that is likely to worsen under climate change (Dasgupta et al., 2021).
The large number of labor hours spent per hectare is closely tied to low labor productivity - and, ultimately, persistent poverty in rural areas. Long hours in the field also limit farmers’ ability to pursue off-farm employment or carry out essential household responsibilities such as cooking and childcare. For children, farm work can mean missing school or losing time to play.
While manual agriculture absorbs a great deal of labor, much of that labor is unpaid and linked to significant drudgery. This explains why farmers around the world often seek to reduce the burden of farm work. This is a universal trend, particularly strong in Asia and parts of Africa – where countries are undergoing structural transformation, with rural youth increasingly drawn to better-paying jobs in growing industrial and service sectors in the cities. As a result, farmers are often quick to adopt labor-saving technologies whenever the opportunity arises.
In North America and Europe, tractors and harvesting machines are so embedded in agriculture that they have become part of the very image of farming. Across much of Asia, small four-wheel and two-wheel tractors - especially in rice production - have spread rapidly in recent decades. In Sub-Saharan Africa, mechanization has historically been far more limited, but it is now steadily increasing (Daum, 2023). At the same time, farming has become increasingly reliant on pesticides, particularly herbicides. This is increasingly true for both the Global North and South. In Africa, some researchers speak about a “pesticide revolution”, fueled by a “flood” of inexpensive generic chemicals produced in China and India (Schwarze et al., 2023).
Many farmers are attracted to technologies such as tractors and pesticides because they reduce the long hours and heavy toil associated with agriculture. In Zambia, farm families using tractors for land preparation can cut land preparation time from more than 200 to 10 hours per hectare (Adu-Baffour et al., 2019). In Mali, herbicides reduce labour demand for weeding from 12 days to 1–2 days per hectare (Haggblade et al. 2017). In Burkina Faso, female farmers now refer to herbicides as “mothers' little helpers” (Moseley and Pessereau, 2022).
The risks of labor-saving technologies
However, while labor-saving technologies are highly appealing to farmers, they have far-reaching consequences for how farming is practiced and the appearance of rural landscapes (Daum et al. 2023). Mechanization is often linked to the simplification of farmlands, i.e. a rise of large-scale monocultures. In many countries, the increased use of large machines has led to smaller plots being enlarged and reshaped into big, rectangular fields, with trees, hedgerows and other landscape elements being removed.
This has stripped away the landscape mosaics that once supported diverse wildlife. Mechanized tillage, especially when not in line with with good agricultural practice, can also harm soil health and the organisms that depend on it. Poorly governed herbicides can also damage insect populations, soil biota, groundwater, lakes, and rivers.
Labor issues not only explain why labor-saving technologies are attractive to farmers but also often help explain why farmers do not adopt more agroecological practices - such as integrated soil fertility management, intercropping, and agroforestry.
While these practices can deliver important sustainability benefits, including enhanced biodiversity, they are often not adopted due to additional labor required - or they can have negative labor effects (Dahlin and Rusinamhodzi, 2019). Importantly, this additional labour burden often falls on women (Farnworth et al., 2016). An interesting study in China, by a team of researchers from the University of Hohenheim and the China Agricultural University found that rural outmigration and labor shortages were responsible for a “slow death of intercropping” in China (Feike et al., 2012).
Labor is the decisive factor
The above described labor dynamics explain why farmers often adopt technologies and practices that push them towards low-labor/low-biodiversity agriculture. From a socio-economic perspective, this choice is rational - farmers seek to reduce drudgery, free up time, and increase productivity. However, from a biodiversity perspective, it drives systems towards simplification, monoculture, and ecological decline. In other words, labor helps to explain why farming so often moves towards outcomes that benefit livelihoods in the short term but harm biodiversity in the long term. This has been the trend in many industrialized countries, and countries of the Global South face similar pressures.
So, what is the way forward? The first step is to acknowledge the central importance of labor in agricultural decision-making. Most farmers will not adopt agroecological practices that increase labor demands - unless these practices offer substantial additional benefits or financial compensation. Meanwhile, labor-saving technologies such as tractors are highly attractive. Given the importance of labor for farmers’ livelihoods, there is clearly a need for solutions that address constraints while minimizing negative environmental impacts.
There are alternatives
At the farm level, this requires efforts to reduce the trade-offs associated with labor-saving technologies. One entry point is scale-appropriate mechanization, where machines are adapted to farm size and not the other way round. This refers to small and two-wheeled tractors as well as draught animals in some countries and agroecological zones (Daum et al., 2023). Such machinery is better suited to small plots with trees and hedges but also easier to finance, run, and repair. Combining mechanization with soil-preserving practices, such as Conservation Agriculture, can further help to reduce negative effects (Daum, 2023).
Precision sprayers that enable site-specific weed management can further reduce negative impacts (Gerhards et al., 2022). The ultimate goal should be pesticide-free agriculture, but farmers are unlikely to adopt it on a large scale if it results in lower yields and higher workloads, especially if they are not compensated through market premiums and subsidies as European farmers are.
Biodiversity-friendly farming is crucial
In addition to reducing the trade-offs of labor-saving technologies, biodiversity-friendly measures are needed. These include production-integrated measures such as patch cropping and intercropping, as well as set-aside measures, such as trees and hedges (Daum et al. 2023). For example, tree-islands can improve biodiversity in plantation agriculture (Zemp et al., 2023). But more research is needed on how such measures can reduce trade-offs regarding agricultural land and labor productivity. Mechanized options may be a solution in cases where better solutions for mechanized intercropping are required. Where the adoption of such measures leads to higher costs than benefits for individual farmers, financial compensation may be required, for example, as part of certification or ecosystem services schemes. Farm-level solutions must be accompanied by landscape level efforts, for example. This includes careful land-use planning and monitoring to preserve biodiversity hotspots, habitat mosaics, and patch connectivity.
Many countries in the Global South have a unique opportunity to learn from the experiences and mistakes of industrialized nations by avoiding the same large-scale, monoculture pathways. As shown, it is possible to achieve higher productivity while minimizing environmental impact and preserving crop diversity and landscape mosaics. However, for these pathways to succeed, labor issues must be at the core. A wide range of appropriate technologies and biodiversity-friendly practices already exist. When these are combined with the right research and development efforts, incentives and policies, it becomes possible to reduce the heavy toil of farming while safeguarding the environment.
References:
Adu-Baffour, F., Daum, T., & Birner, R. (2019). Can small farms benefit from big companies’ initiatives to promote mechanization in Africa? A case study from Zambia. Food policy, 84, 133-145.
Dasgupta, S., Van Maanen, N., Gosling, S. N., Piontek, F., Otto, C., & Schleussner, C. F. (2021). Effects of climate change on combined labour productivity and supply: an empirical, multi-model study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(7), e455-e465.
Dahlin, A. S., & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2019). Yield and labor relations of sustainable intensification options for smallholder farmers in sub‐Saharan Africa. A meta‐analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(3), 32.
Daum, T., Baudron, F., Birner, R., Qaim, M., & Grass, I. (2023). Addressing agricultural labour issues is key to biodiversity-smart farming. Biological Conservation, 284, 110165.
Daum, T. (2023). Mechanization and sustainable agri-food system transformation in the Global South. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 43(1), 16.
Farnworth, C. R., Baudron, F., Andersson, J. A., Misiko, M., Badstue, L., & Stirling, C. M. (2016). Gender and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 14(2), 142-165.
Feike, T., Doluschitz, R., Chen, Q., Graeff-Hönninger, S., & Claupein, W. (2012). How to overcome the slow death of intercropping in the North China Plain. Sustainability, 4(10), 2550-2565.
Gerhards, R., Andujar Sanchez, D., Hamouz, P., Peteinatos, G. G., Christensen, S., & Fernandez‐Quintanilla, C. (2022). Advances in site‐specific weed management in agriculture—A review. Weed Research, 62(2), 123-133.
Haggblade, S., Smale, M., Kergna, A., Theriault, V., & Assima, A. (2017). Causes and consequences of increasing herbicide use in Mali. The European Journal of Development Research, 29(3), 648-674.
Moseley, W. G., & Pessereau, E. J. (2022). Mother's Little Helper: A Feminist Political Ecology of West Africa's Herbicide Revolution. In Barcus, H., Jones, R., & Schmitz, S. (Eds.). Rural transformations: globalization and its implications for rural people, land, and economies. Routledge.
Schwarze, L., Daum, T., Birner, R. (2023). “Selling pesticides like biscuits” – challenges of pesticide governance in Zambia. Rural21, 3.
Zemp, D. C., Guerrero-Ramirez, N., Brambach, F., Darras, K., Grass, I., Potapov, A., ... & Kreft, H. (2023). Tree islands enhance biodiversity and functioning in oil palm landscapes. Nature, 618(7964), 316-321.
