They concluded: "All case studies which focused on food production in this research where data have been
reported have shown increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity." 

I encourage everyone to read it and check it out at:  http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

By the way, if you're looking for a good laugh, I know exactly who Norman Borlaug is.  I'm a student at Texas A&M, and the Borlaug Institute just so happens to be on the west campus where I work, which so happens to be an organic holistic teaching garden.  On the south side of one of the Borlaugh Institute's building walls is a row of citrus trees and bananas.

They are all organically grown and perform splendidly.  I may even send picture

"Finally, organic production on average requires more hand labor than does conventional production, but the labor is often spread out more evenly over the growing season25,60–62. This requirement has the potential to alleviate rural unemployment in many areas and to reduce the trend of shantytown construction surrounding many large cities of the developing world."

That's so...what's the word...Republican?  Let's get those folks workin' in the fields--we can't have them hanging around in shantytowns.

Why do people leave rural areas?  For better opportunities, right?  Farming is hard work, and serfdom isn't much of a career path.  Here's what your UN report says about that:

"Sustainable livelihoods based on organic agricultural production may appear to be keeping people in rural areas away from centres of power, and 'modern' society when the aspirations of some rural people may precisely be to gain sufficient resources to leave rural areas."

How can we empower women and children, and get them educations--which is the best path out of poverty?  Guess what: it isn't 8 hours a day hoeing.  Even that UN report you cite says that among the risks to women in that situation.  Here's the bit, on pdf page 50:

"In some cases organic farming systems may increase the household workload and the burden may particularly fall on women if the cropping intensity of the farm increases or new lands are taken into cultivation.  However with the exception of vegetables, additional income arising from sales of produce, particularly coffee and cotton for export, may go directly to the men, who are less likely than women to invest in children and the household as a whole.  Farmers are also sometimes hesitant to adopt more labour intensive farming methods sometimes associated with organic agriculture, particularly if they are to be used with crops they consider low value."

Increasing the burden on women is something that I'm opposed to.  Well-fed Westerners think we are talking about a happy Little House on the Prairie life with horsies and picket fences.  We aren't. 

So, to clarify: I'm opposed to serfdom for people who don't want that, and additional burdens on women and children.  Does that help?

However, I would like to draw your attention to one of the summary points in the beginning of the report:  "There is ample evidence (see later in this section) that production of organic food and beverages for both export and domestic markets can result in increased farmer incomes.  This reduces poverty and improves food security of farming households as well as their access to education and healthcare."

I'm not saying its a black and white issue or that its cut and dry, but the U.N. has done some extensive work on this issue and has important things to say.  I think its worth listening to the potential positive outcomes of organic agriculture for the very things we both seem to be trying to promote- access to education, womens rights and food security.

I mean, I know the part you quote from the UN report refers to "farmers" and I assume that means owners.  And of course that will trickle down to the staff.

Human nature being what it is, and farmers being who they are, a farmer who has done things one way for least,  say 30 to 40 years is about as likely to change as a three legged horse will win the Preakness. So it is really no wonder that Organic Production is about 2% of total US agricultural production, that is statistically insignificant.  While I could be wrong the only large transition to organics has occurred after the tobbacco buy outs where farmers were sort of forced to switch to something else and organics seemed a solution.

Since in the future there will be very few folks in the US willing to farm to earn a living that requires food stamps to make ends meet, the agri-businesses being no dummies,  they or the one or two that will survive, want the rest of the world to produce cheap ingredients for the stuff they call food at least for the next few quarters so they can pay their lobbyiest and get their bonuses. What our ag policies do to foreign ag culture insures we will continue to create a lot of wars as our policies upset local economies. In one sense this is good since it cuts down on the world populations that need to be feed and insures a sustainable military industrial complex. To pay for the wars they can sell us cheap food.

The State Department Science Advisior who believes "nitrogen is nitrogen claim" sort of like a protein is a protien until you feed the same species one of its own protiens and a prion is created, ought to check out the world's phosphorus reserves.

Without this vital and often unconsidered non renewable element you can't produce alot of the pesticides used, think round-up or the massive yields she beleive only chemical farming can sustain. Simply at the present rate of use by the end of this century there will not be very much available P to chemcialy farm, so if you think farther than the next quarter, the world's farmers will have little choice but to revert to organic methods if they want to grow food.

The US produces about 20% of the world's phosphorous, China I beleive is no. 2. Most of the known reserves are in place like Morrocco, Togo and Camerroon. 60 to 70% of the US phosphorous comes from mines in Florida around Tampa. Due to the fact that our current agricultural policy sort of separates production and consumption and alot of the elements like NPK are used once then flushed away,unlike in nature's plan where they are used many many times over,   it is estimated that these mines will be depleted within the next decade at current production rates. There is no subsitute for Phosphorous.There are susbistutes for stuff like Oil.

Also since it is a vital irrepalcable ingredient in making conventional explosives needed by the military I am sure at some point they will pipe in. If the public was upset about sending soldiers to war without protective equipment I am sure they and military will be real distraught sending soldiers to fight without explosives. Hand grenades and bombs that don't explode are not much bettter than throwing rocks.

So without the P it is doubtful conventional agricultural will feed millions let alone billions. Simply in the long term the world farmers will have no choice but to revert to methods and practices that have feed people for millions of years give or take a week or two. Either that or the world's population will be reduced not due to the wars caused by fighting over limited and dwindling amounts of available P but due to time honored population reduction events like famine and starvation.

So if the world decides not to send us the ingredients for the food American eat, or because they have also run out of P have nothing to export, or due to war the foreign food chain is disrupted,  I am sure Americans will eat the  " inefficiently grown poor produce" from organic farms rather than nothing at all. That is if there are any farmers left in the US to grow the food.

So in the long run the debate over organic vs conventional to me is just a lot of nonsense since the current agri business food chain is only as strong as it weakest link which in this case is the P.