Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social & Economic Issues

[Guest guest]

7 Oct 2004 19:19:56 -0000

 

Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social &

Economic Issues

 

 

press-release

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

========================================================

 

 

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, Science in Society since 2002.

 

Feeding the World under Climate Change

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FTWUCC.php

Sustainable Agriculture: Critical Ecological, Social &

Economic Issues

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SACI.php

 

 

 

 

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.

 

© 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, www.indsp.org, also " Rice wars " series,

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;

 

© 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.

 

© 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

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list at

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/.php

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20

7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT

PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY

AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/