Science Society Sustainability <http://www.i-
sis.org.uk>http://www.i-sis.org.uk
Why sustainable agriculture
The debate over sustainable agriculture has gone beyond the health
and environmental benefits that it could bring in place of
conventional industrial agriculture. For one thing, conventional
industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on oil, which is running
out; it is getting increasingly unproductive as the soil is eroded
and depleted. Climate change will force us to adopt sustainable, low
input agriculture to ameliorate its worst consequences, and to
genuinely feed the world.
But in order to get there, important changes have to be made in
international agencies and institutions, which have hitherto
supported the dominant model of industrial agriculture and policies
that work against poor countries, where farmers are also desperately
in need of secure land tenure.
This mini-series is a continuation of many articles that have
appeared in our magazine, <http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/isisnews.php>Science in Society since 2002.
1. <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FTWUCC.php>
Feeding the World under Climate Change
2. <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SACI.php>
Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social & Economic Issues
ISIS Press Release 07/10/04
Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social & Economic Issues
Various ecological, social and economic challenges must be addressed
if agriculture is to be truly sustainable. Martin Khor, Director of
the Third World Network, discusses the choices facing developing
countries and policy makers, and suggests some ways forward.
Urgent action needed on agriculture
Agriculture is perhaps the most outstanding issue and challenge for
sustainability. To attain the `sustainable development' goal requires
urgent actions on three fronts - the ecological, the social and the
economic. There is a looming crisis and possible calamity developing
in this all-important sector that must be urgently addressed, as it
impacts on the livelihoods of most of the world's people and everyone
else's food needs.
Agriculture is facing three major problems and choices:
(a) Ecology/Technology: Which technology to base the future of world
agriculture on? As the chemical-based model is faltering, the private
sector and global establishment are looking to genetic engineering as
the way ahead. But all the signs are that ecological farming is
superior, not only for the environment, but also for gains in
productivity and farmers' incomes. It has not been given the chance
to prove itself. It should be.
(b) The global economic framework: The economic environment has
turned extremely bad for developing countries' small farmers.
International Monetary Fund (IMF)-World Bank structural adjustment
has put pressure on poor countries to liberalise food imports and
abandon subsidies and government marketing boards. The World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) enables rich
countries to raise their subsidies and set up astonishingly high
tariffs, while punishing developing countries (which cannot increase
their subsidies, and which have to liberalise their imports further).
Commodity prices have slumped. These three factors are threatening
the survival of developing countries' farms and farmers. The entire
framework of global and national economic policies for agriculture
has to be thoroughly revamped.
(c) Land for the farmers: Many small farmers are poor and some are
becoming poorer. A main reason is unequal land distribution, where
small farmers have little land security or access and lose a large
part of their income to landowners. Land reform is urgently required
and landless farmers are fighting for their rights. But the
landowners in most countries have political clout and are resisting
change.
All three issues have to be resolved, and in an integrated way, if
sustainable agriculture is to be realised. Otherwise there will be an
absolute catastrophe, especially if the wrong choices are made.
Ecology & choice of technology
A review of aid practice is needed to correct past mistakes to lead
up to `sustainable agriculture and rural development'. Important
choices have to be made in technology. Aid and technical agencies,
including the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations (FAO) have supported the transfer of
environmentally harmful technology models, which have contributed to
tropical deforestation, depletion of fishery resources through trawl
fishing and to the inappropriate chemical-based `Green Revolution'.
Besides ecological damage, these models have also caused great social
hardship to forest dwellers, to rural communities whose lands and
water supplies are affected by pollution and soil erosion, and to the
millions of small fisherfolk whose livelihoods are threatened by
trawl over-fishing.
Aid flows for destructive forestry and fishery projects should cease.
So too should aid and loans for destructive commercial aquaculture
projects which are ecologically harmful and economically
unsustainable, and which harm farmers and fisherfolk whose lands and
waters are affected. Instead, there should be support for small-scale
community- managed and environmentally-sound forms of aquaculture,
aimed at augmenting local food supply, and as have been traditionally
practised in many countries.
In the past, most agricultural aid has promoted the Green Revolution
model, which uses seeds that respond well to large doses of inorganic
fertiliser and chemical pesticides. These few seed varieties have
displaced a wide range of traditional seeds, thus eroding crop
biodiversity. There is also mounting evidence of, and growing concern
with, other ecological problems, such as increasing soil infertility,
chemical pollution of land and water resources, pesticide poisoning,
and pest infestation due to growing pest resistance to pesticides.
These are not ad hoc problems, but symptoms of a technological system
in decline. The ecological and health hazards should no longer be
considered as the necessary costs to an economically and technically
superior system, because the system's most important claimed benefit,
high productivity, is itself now in question.
In areas where the model has operated for a longer period, there is
evidence of declining yields and rising costs. In 1993, the FAO chief
for Asia Pacific declared the Green Revolution era over. There is
increasing deficiency of trace elements in the soil because of
intensive use of mineral fertilisers, while continued high dependence
on pesticides is not technologically sustainable. He revealed a yield
decline of 1 to 3% per year in some fields using the Green Revolution
technique, a situation described as "a recipe for disaster within one
generation" by the FAO regional officer for integrated pest control,
Peter Kenmore. Developments in some of the best-managed experimental
farms have added to the pessimism. In International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) test plots, varieties that yielded 10 tonnes per
hectare in 1966 were yielding less each year and produced less than 7
tonnes per hectare by the mid-1990s. IRRI scientists attributed the
declines to environmental degradation, with irrigated land unable to
cope. The detrimental changes included a reduction in the period when
the soil was dry, the substitution of inorganic for organic
fertilisers and a greater uniformity in the varieties grown. These
factors are all intrinsic components of the system.
With disillusionment setting in on the Green Revolution, there is a
danger that agriculture aid will turn to genetic engineering.
Companies, universities and foundations have already pumped enormous
funds into biotech research. But the claimed benefits of genetic
engineering are far from proven, while there is increasing evidence
of real and potential risks (see the Independent Science Panel (ISP)
report, www.indsp.org). Scientists now point to scientific flaws of
the genetic engineering paradigm, showing why it is impossible to
predict the consequences of transferring a gene from one organism to
another in a significant number of cases. This calls into question
the value or usefulness of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Moreover, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may migrate, further
mutate and multiply, and in some cases the stability of affected
organisms and ecosystems could be disrupted and threatened. The more
specific risks in agriculture are that some transgenic crops could
become noxious weeds, and others could transfer new genes to wild
plants, which themselves could then become weeds. The new weeds could
adversely affect farm crops and wild ecosystems. Similarly, GE fish,
shellfish and insects could become pests under certain conditions.
There is also a possibility of new viral strains giving rise to new
plant diseases. Of particular concern is the risk that transgenic
crops may pose a threat to wild plants and traditional crop varieties
and thus accelerate the rapid loss of agricultural biodiversity,
especially in developing countries, many of which are world centres
of crop origin and diversity.
Finally, there is growing evidence of the hazards to human health of
consuming foods containing GMOs. Consumers around the world are now
voting against GE foods and opting for organic food.
The transfer to developing countries of projects or experiments
involving genetic engineering could be hazardous - at least until
adequate safety regulations are put in place in these countries. So
far these regulations have not yet been adopted widely. There should
thus be a moratorium on the introduction of GE products in
agriculture until adequate capacity is established. A mechanism
should also be set up to ensure that there will not be the transfer
of hazardous genetic engineering experiments, research and products
to developing countries. The Biosafety Protocol should be greatly
strengthened.
Meanwhile, ecological agriculture should be given the chance it
deserves. Priority support should be made to research and projects on
ecological and community-based farming practices and systems; so far,
relatively few resources have been made available.
The value and productivity of Third World traditional agriculture has
been underestimated because of the wrong estimation methodology used
in comparing it with the Green Revolution model. Studies should be
sponsored to understand the many types of low-input ecological
farming methods, traditional as well as modern. Such studies should
include analyses of their workings; energy efficiency; use of inputs;
outputs of all the different crops, products and activities and the
relationships between them; and the nature and use of agricultural
diversity. The studies should also incorporate the various problems
encountered in practice (such as shortage of manure, pest control,
water management), and the methods for solving them.
There is a prevailing premise that while `sustainable agriculture'
may be good in preserving the environment, it is inferior and
inadequate in terms of productivity and thus cannot be relied on to
feed increasing populations. This premise is a prejudice, for there
is evidence that ecological farming can be even higher yielding than
the Green Revolution method.
Vandana Shiva cites the studies of eminent Indian rice scientist, Dr
Racharia, who showed that indigenous varieties can be high yielding,
given the required inputs, and that the yields of many traditional
farmers "fall in or above the minimum limits set for high yields".
She concludes: "India is a Vavilov centre of genetic diversity of
rice. Out of this amazing diversity, Indian peasants and tribals have
selected and improved many indigenous high yielding varieties. In
South India, in semi-arid tracts of the Deccan, yields went up to
5,000 kilogram/hectare under tank and well irrigation. Under
intensive manuring, they could go even higher."
At an FAO Asian regional seminar on sustainable agriculture in 1993,
a Filipino agricultural scientist, Nicanor Perlas, presented case
studies of successful vegetable and rice farms using ecological
methods in the Philippines. In the largest set of adjacent farms
totaling 1 000 hectares using the bio-dynamic farming method, there
was a yield increase of 50-100 per cent and an increase in net income
by farmers of 200-270 per cent, compared to the conventional (Green
Revolution) method. According to Perlas, the lessons from the case
studies are that sustainable agriculture can be practised in large
scale; yields do not necessarily drop without chemical fertilisers
and pesticides; and a rapid (even immediate) transition from chemical
farming to sustainable agriculture is possible if correct technical
principles are followed.
Also in the Philippines, MASIPAG (an alliance of farmers and
university scientists) has pioneered an alternative rice farming
method, which is non-chemical and uses seeds that are suited to
particular regional weather conditions. By 1993, the method was used
in 4 200 hectares spread over 23 provinces. MASIPAG's average yield
per hectare was 4-5 tons of rice (ranging from the lowest 3.5 tons to
the highest 8 tons), compared with the overall national average of
2.7 tons and the national average of 3.5 tons for irrigated rice
fields with fertiliser applied.
There are many other examples of successful and high- yielding
ecological farming in various parts of the world (see the ISP report,
<http://www.indsp.org/>www.indsp.org, also "Rice wars" series,
<http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis23.php>Science in Society 23).
Yet only a minute fraction of agricultural aid (in either research or
projects) has been spent studying or promoting them.
Aid should now flow towards:
(a) reassessing the concept and measurement of agricultural
productivity, duly recognising the value of traditional and
ecological farming and enabling a scientific comparison with
conventional Green Revolution methods;
(b) studying sustainable agriculture systems, their operations and
dynamic inter-relationships, their problems and solutions to these
problems;
(c) sustainable agriculture experiments, test farms and demonstration farms;
(d) training programmes for farmers, policy and extension officials,
and NGOs on sustainable agriculture;
(e) supporting farmers' programmes and government programmes in
implementing sustainable agriculture, which could eventually take
place on a large scale;
(f) supporting farmers, community groups and governments in
establishing community-based seed banks to revive and promote the use
of traditional varieties, and supporting the subsequent exchange of
seeds amongst farmers and the improvement of seed varieties, using
appropriate traditional breeding methods.
Since the United Nations Conference On Environment And Development
(UNCED) in 1992, there has been agreement in principle of the need to
move away from environmentally harmful to sustainable agriculture.
However, while there has been increased interest and awareness of
ecological farming, aid agencies and the international agricultural
technical agencies have not taken any effective action to phase out
chemical-based agriculture nor to promote sustainable agriculture.
Moreover, consumers worldwide are now opting for organically grown
food. There is a cultural and safety basis now to provide the demand
for ecologically produced food.
A large dose of commitment is needed by the aid and loan agencies.
They need to put their resources where their lip-service is, and to
take the above measures, at the least, so that greater scientific
understanding of sustainable agriculture can be achieved, and a
paradigm shift in policy can take place. Such a policy shift is
important, for sustainable agriculture today remains largely at the
level of anecdotes and case studies. The biases against it are
deep-seated, so policy-makers are still chasing after new
technological miracles to feed the world, whereas the essential
elements for both sustainability and productivity already exist and
need to be rediscovered: the indigenous knowledge of farming
communities and the diversity of Nature's resources.
Structural adjustment & the WTO
Globalisation is now the main determining economic factor in Third
World agriculture, the main channels being the Bretton Woods
institutions (World Bank and IMF) and the WTO. The agriculture
component of structural adjustment programmes usually included
cutbacks in government expenditure on the agricultural and rural
sector; privatisation of state marketing institutions; liberalisation
towards private land ownership; liberalisation of agriculture
imports; removal or reduction of agricultural subsidies; and the
`freeing' of food and other agricultural prices.
The liberalisation of agricultural imports has had an especially
damaging effect on the Third World farm sector, and pressures
increased after the establishment of the WTO and especially its AoA.
Under the AoA, developing countries must remove non-tariff controls
on agricultural products and convert these to tariffs, then reduce
the tariffs by 24 per cent over 10 years. Cheaper imports are
threatening the viability of small farms in many developing
countries. Millions of small Third World farmers could be affected.
There is also increased fear of greater food insecurity, as
developing countries become less self-sufficient in food production.
For many, food imports may not be an option due to shortage of
foreign exchange. They have to depend on food aid.
A 2000-2001 FAO report on 14 developing countries' experiences in
implementing the AoA showed that import liberalization had a
significant effect. The average annual value of food imports in
1995-98 exceeded the 1990-94 level in all 14 countries, ranging from
30 per cent in Senegal to 168 per cent in India. The food import cost
more than doubled for two countries (India and Brazil) and increased
by 50-100 per cent for another five (Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan,
Peru and Thailand). In all but two countries, food import growth
exceeded export growth. Some countries were obliged to set applied
rates well below their WTO bound rates due to loan conditionality.
Several countries reported import surges in particular products,
notably dairy products (mainly milk powder) and meat. In some
regions, especially the Caribbean, import-competing industries faced
considerable difficulties.
In Guyana, there were import surges for many main foodstuffs that had
been produced domestically in the 1980s under a protective regime. In
several instances the surge in imports has undermined domestic
production. For example, fruit juices imported as far away as France
and Thailand have now displaced much of domestic production.
Producers and traders of beans indicated that increasing imports have
led to a decline in the production of minca peas, developed and
spread throughout Guyana in the 1980s. The same applied to local
cabbage and carrot. The fear was expressed that without adequate
market protection, accompanied by development programmes, many more
domestic products would be displaced or undermined sharply, leading
to a transformation of domestic diets and to increased dependence on
imported foods.
In Sri Lanka, policy reforms and associated increases in food imports
have put pressure on some domestic sectors, affecting rural
employment. There is clear evidence of an unfavourable impact of
imports on domestic output of vegetables, notably onions and
potatoes. The resulting decline in the cultivated area of these crops
has affected approximately 300 000 persons involved in their
production and marketing.
The rich countries have been notorious for their high protection and
subsidy for their own farm sector. The AoA has allowed them to
continue high protection through tariffs (some are 100 to 300 per
cent) as well as continued export and domestic subsidy. Indeed, the
OECD countries' total domestic farm subsidies rose from US$275
billion (annual average for 1986-88) to US$326 billion as an increase
in `non trade distorting subsidy' (allowed under WTO) more than
offset `trade distorting subsidy' (which has to be reduced under WTO
rules). Thus, highly subsidised and artificially cheap food from rich
countries are entering the poorer countries that have no funds for
subsidies and are being pressured to further cut their tariffs.
Meanwhile, the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) Agreement also poses a threat to farmers (not only in
the South) as governments are required to patent some lifeforms,
giving intellectual rights protection to plant varieties. This
facilitates `biopiracy' (appropriation of farmers' knowledge by
companies) and is leading to a situation where farmers have to prove
they did not `steal' the seeds of protected plant varieties owned by
companies.
What should be done?
(a) Structural adjustment conditions must be changed, so that
countries can adopt pro-poor and pro-local farmers' policies. The
IMF, World Bank and donor countries should stop putting pressure on
developing countries to liberalise their agricultural imports, or to
give up subsidies or marketing assistance to farmers.
(b) The AoA must be radically changed. Developing countries should,
under special and differential treatment, be allowed to take tariff
and non-tariff measures to protect the viability and livelihoods of
their small farms. They should be exempt from the disciplines of
import liberalisation and subsidy for food products for domestic
consumption. Developed countries should not continue to artificially
cheapen their products by subsidy for export.
(c) The TRIPS Agreement should be amended to prohibit the patenting
of lifeforms and to enable developing countries to set up their own
version of a sui generis system to protect the rights of farmers and
indigenous communities as the innovators of plant varieties, without
being challenged.
(d) Developing countries should be allowed the flexibility to
establish their own agriculture policies, with the priority of being
able to have farmers produce food without being hampered by
inappropriate and damaging rules of the IMF, World Bank or WTO.
Access to land & other social issues
Farmers and the rural population in developing countries also face
serious social problems. First among these is insecurity of land
tenure, and lack of access to land. Many farmers are tenants,
beholden to landlords, to whom they pay rent that can significantly
reduce the family income. In many countries, unequal land
distribution, and the exploitation of landless peasants, is the major
cause of rural poverty and insecurity. Sustainable agriculture and
rural development requires a new commitment by governments and
international agencies to improve the land access and land rights
situation of farmers and indigenous communities. These communities
are also affected by development projects, such as dam, forestry and
mining projects, which displace them.
Thus the issue of the human rights of these disadvantaged groups is
crucial in the striving for sustainable agriculture.
Conclusion
The agricultural sector has multiple roles in developing countries:
to help ensure food security, anchor rural development, provide
resources for the livelihood and adequate incomes of a majority of
people, all without destroying the environmental base. There are thus
two inextricably linked components, the social and environmental, to
agricultural sustainability.
The erosion of the spirit and practice of international cooperation,
especially on a North-South basis, is having serious repercussions on
agriculture and on rural development in developing countries. This
erosion is most noticeable in the decline in aid. However, the
globalisation process facilitated by structural adjustment, the
Uruguay Round and the WTO, has even more serious implications.
It is thus imperative that a change of mindset takes place, to review
the present damaging framework and build a new paradigm of policies
that can promote sustainable agriculture.
Whether such a paradigm shift takes place in agriculture is the acid
test of the success or failure of sustainable development in the
years ahead.
This article is an edited version of Third World Network Briefing
Paper No. 5, June 2003.
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at <http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/SACI.php>http://www.i- sis.org.uk/SACI.php
See:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/jb18.htm
Sustainable agriculture: The ecological, social and economic issues
and the real test for WSSD
Also:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/jb19.doc
TWN Briefings for WSSD No.19
Sustainable Agriculture is Productive!
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/