Evaluation of the
sustainability of farming systems
“... they were sawing the branches
on which they were sitting,
and they shouted to each other,
how one could saw faster,
and then with a crash they fell down.
Those watching them shook their heads.
And kept on sawing. "
"Exile', by Berthold Brecht (1938)
Frie Fagvekter
Prosjekt – NLH Høst 2000
Freya Grossmann
Studienummer:
962169
Institutt for
Økonomi & Samfunnsfag
Veileder:
Ragnar Øygard
Sensor: Arnor Njøs
Resumé på dansk.
Projektet tager udgangspunkt i
bæredygtig udvikling som den er defineret af hhv. WCED og forskere.
Definitionerne af bæredygtig
udvikling leder op til definitionerne af bæredygtigt landbrug, hvor jeg har behandlet
to hovedgrupper. Den første kaldes øko-øko-soc fordi den ligger vægt på både
økonomiske, økologiske og sociale aspekter af landbrugssystemet. Langt den
overvejende del af definitionerne tilhører denne gruppe.
Den anden gruppe rummer kun en
enkelt definition – fremstillet af Conway og Barbier. Disse to lægger vægt på
at produktiviteten kan opretholdes over lang tid og at systemet kan modstå
udefrakommende stress og chock.
I forlængelse af denne
definition præsenteres nogle formler til at beregne bæredygtigheden kortfattet.
Projektet præsenterer også
kortfattet nogle indicatorsæt udviklet af OECD og EU, og diskuterer på hvilket
niveau de kan benyttes.
I det sidste afsnit examineres
principperne for fire typer landbrug (traditionelt landbrug i troperne, den
grønne revolutions land, industrializeret landbrug i Europa og USA samt de
økologiske dyrkningsprincipper).
Konklusionen er, at der ikke
kan gives entydige svar på hvornår et landbrugssytem er bæredygtigt. De enkelte
dele – såvel som helet – må eksamineres nøje.
Endvidere er konklusionen at
den stigende befolkning udgør den væsentligste trussel mod landbrugssystemernes
bæredygtighed over hele kloden – hvad enten de trues af udpining eller
forurening af jorden og andre ressourcer eller GMO.
Derfor er alle verdens bønder
under press for at øge fødevareproduktion indenfor bæredygtighedens rammer.
Foreword
This project has been made as a “frie
fagvekter” project at NLH autumn 2000.
I have through the last year been doing a
lot of considerations about the term sustainability and on what scientific
background an evaluation of farming systems should be based.
I have through the process found help from
my supervisor Ragnar Øygard and Arnor Njøs from Jordforsk.
I would also like to show my appreciation
to Julia Jamieson who has done grammatical corrections on the first part of the
paper as well as given me her comments.
I wish all readers a merry x-mas and a
happy new year 2000/2001 – the first of
the new sustainable millennium!
Freya Grossmann
Index
Danish summary
Foreword
1. Introduction............................................................................................. 2
1.1. Defining the problem......................................................................... 2
2. Defining sustainable development............................................................. 4
2.1. Sustainability.................................................................................... 4
2.2. Sustainable development................................................................... 4
2.3. Discussion and
conclusions.............................................................. 16
3. Sustainable agriculture........................................................................... 20
3.1. Academic actors defining
sustainable agriculture............................... 21
3.2. Schools of thought........................................................................... 25
3.3. Food and Agriculture
Organisation.................................................... 29
3.4. The World Bank.............................................................................. 29
3.5. Discussion and
conclusion................................................................ 30
4. Indicators............................................................................................. 32
4.1. The EU project................................................................................ 32
4.2. OECD indicators............................................................................. 36
5. Sustainability of different farming systems............................................... 38
5.1. Geoclimatical conditions
for agriculture............................................. 38
5.2. Traditional farming in
the tropics....................................................... 39
5.3. Modernized agricultural
systems....................................................... 43
5.4. The organic farming
system - IFOAM............................................... 51
6. Overall discussion................................................................................. 56
7. Conclusion............................................................................................ 60
8. List of literature:.................................................................................... 63
Since the World
Commission on Environment and Development published their report “Our Common Future” in 1987
sustainability has been a concern in global political decision-making.
Agriculture, in particular, has been a sector where efforts have been made to
implement the principles, but often with different understandings of the term sustainability.
The Danish firm
Danagro a/s is a private consultant firm (partly owned by Landbrugsraadet and
Carl Bro a/s) that suggests, implements and evaluates agricultural projects
mainly in developing countries.
In autumn 2000
the firm contacted KVL with a proposal for some students to undertake
literature and methods studies about sustainable agriculture (project no. 1946
in the database of KVL Projektcenteret). The full description of their
suggested project can be found in app. 1 (Danish version) but because of the
time limit all the suggestions in app. 1 cannot be covered in this project.
In my education
in agronomy I have focused a lot on organic agriculture – a type of production
that is often claimed to be more sustainable – achieving some ecological and,
to some extent also, some social and economic needs for the farmers.
I have found it
interesting to take the starting point in this project, because I especially in
the last year I have become more aware of the differences in the understanding of
sustainability and how it affects the introduction and implementation of
different agricultural production systems around the world.
How are the terms sustainable,
sustainable development and sustainable agriculture defined? Is sustainable
agriculture the same as organic agriculture?
Is it diversified farming, soil
conservation or simply any type of farming that is profitable? Does sustainable
agriculture refer to specific farming practises, methods, or enterprises; or is
it simply a broad set of guiding principles? (Ikerd
et al. et al., no year). Does sustainable agriculture only include the perspective of
preserving natural resources (fuel, soil, water, phosphate, metals etc) for the
future generations or does it also include preservation of/increase in social
and economic welfare for the farmers and society? Can modern biotechnology be
combined with sustainable agriculture?
The report will analyse the problem by looking into how the three
terms are understood by agricultural scientists.
The report will also look into two different sets of indicators –
developed by OECD and European scientists for the EU – and discuss their
usefulness in practise.
The last part of the report will try to summarize some of the characteristics
of different farming systems and try to discuss their sustainability according
to the scientific definitions and how they meet other policies for agricultural
production (food security and rural development).
The systems
analysed will be:
·
Traditional
subsistence farming in the tropics
·
Two types
of Industrialized farming systems:
o “Green Revolution farming” in the
developing countries (first and second generation)
o Industrialized agriculture in the USA
and Europe
·
The
organic farming system (as defined by IFOAM)
It is important
to differentiate between the terms sustainability, sustainable development and
sustainable agriculture. Several researchers and institutions who have defined
or described the three terms, all emphasizing different values, priorities and
goals have done this.
To distinguish
between definitions and descriptions McNeill (2000) writes: a good definition
for scientific purposes is rigorous, minimal and exclusive, while a good
description is rich, informative and inclusive.
This chapter is
supposed to lead the reader to an understanding of two of the three terms:
sustainability, sustainable development and sustainable growth (which is
included in the discussion of sustainable development).
In what way do
the definitions share the same concerns and in what way do they differ from
each other? The chapter will introduce the history of the Brundtland report
(“Our Common Future” published by the WCED in 1987) and try to answer the
questions of where the report succeeded and where it failed.
The chapter
will also look into scientists’ definitions of sustainability and sustainable
development and introduce some of the conflicting opinions within sustainable
development of agricultural systems.
The term
sustainable agriculture will be covered in the next chapter.
Sustainability is a very broad term. Used alone the word refers to
something that should be “everlasting” for “the benefit of future generations”.
Thus it does not make sense without a further definition of what is supposed to
be sustainable. The word is most often used together with other words –
development, growth, agriculture, consumption, lifestyle etc.
O’Riordan
(1988) – an academic environmental scientist - defines sustainability as,
“a much broader phenomenon [than sustainable
development], embracing ethical norms pertaining to the survival of living
matter, to the rights of future generations and to institutions responsible for
ensuring that such rights are fully taken into account in policies and actions”
(Pezzey, 1989);
and it seems impossible to come any closer to a better definition.
The term
sustainable development incorporates the word “development” which is an important
term, especially for UN bodies and international institutions like CGIAR, the
World Bank (WB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as NGOs
dealing with third world problems. It is also important for many scientists.
The World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) established by the United
Nations has created (one of) the main definition(s):
“Sustainable
development is development that meets the need of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
·
The
concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to
which overriding priority should be given; and
·
The
idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization
on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
We will look further into the definition and its meaning and
background in the next parts of the report.
2.2.1
The World Commission on Environment and Development
After two
decades devoted to development – without reaching the wanted stage of economic
and social welfare for the world’s poor – the Secretary General and the General
Assembly to the United Nations (UN) established the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED). Gro Harlem Brundtland was chosen as
chairperson of the commission and 21 members from developing as well as
developed (both east and west block) countries were selected (WCED, 1987).
The commission
was asked to formulate “a global agenda for change” - an agenda that should lead the way for sustainable development
into the future. The title was “Our Common Future” with a direct link to former
reports – Brandt’s Programme for Survival
and Common Crisis, and Palme’s Common Security (WCED, 1987). By the
title it is indicated that it is more important to focus on what we have in
common than on differences throughout the world. That is in line with the UN
charter.
2.2.1.1.
The commission’s major concerns
The commission pointed out two major concerns in their report: The
inequitable distribution of economic and social welfare between rich and
poor - and the distribution of welfare
and natural resources between present and future generations (again in line
with the charter of the United Nations who facilitated the WCED) (Brundtland,
1998).
The WCED promoted economic growth, especially in the developing
countries. As well they emphasised a more equal distribution of the fruits of
growth. But the report also strongly linked poverty and environment by emphasizing
that poverty is both a consequence of and a source of environmental problems
(Brundtland, 1998).
The WCED (1987)
stated that, “economic growth and
development obviously involve changes in the physical ecosystem. Every
ecosystem everywhere cannot be preserved intact.”
By this
statement they emphasize that development is related to economic growth and
that this may have impacts on nature and environment, e.g. because of
agricultural practises. But although the agricultural practises change nature it
is considered a fundamental and integrated part of life for present and future
generations.
2.2.1.2.
Success or failure?
The report from
the WCED was at first met with scepticism from the developed as well as
developing countries. The developed countries found the report a threat to
their welfare while the developing countries feared that the growing concern
about environmental issues in the North would become a hindrance to development
and growth (Brundtland, 1998).
Despite all the
scepticism and critiques the report from the WCED succeeded in bringing the
agenda into politics all over the world
(McNeill, 2000) – as well as into the mind of all worldwide
organisations and small NGOs working with environment and development around the
world.
Why was that
so? And why exactly did this formulation succeed?
First of all,
the UN established the commission and all country groups were represented.
Since the commission had representatives from both the south, north, east and
west they had to come up with an agreement that could satisfy them all. The
definition underlines the relation between poverty (lack of development) and
environment, which was the intention with the commission from the beginning.
It has been
argued that the report has met global acceptance because its definition was
rather weak and almost without operational meaning. But at the same time this
weakness might be the major strength (Øygard, 1992). Suddenly there was a
definition everybody – independent of cultural or religious background and
state of development – could agree with. Nobody could argue against the
definition because they thereby would argue against helping the poor in the
developing countries; or against future generations’ right to have access to
the same resources we base our survival and living standards are based on.
The report also
succeeded because it was the first time the term sustainable development and environment were really linked and
brought into a global forum for discussion, and it was published at a time when
most people acknowledged that the state of world was/is a major threat to the
survival of humankind.
De la Court
(1990) points out two factors as to why it became a success: First, the report strongly linked poverty
and environmental problems. Second, the report, unlike the Club of Rome (who
published The Limits to Growth, 1972),
was optimistic.
The scientific
facts and data the report was based on are also widely accepted and
appreciated, which has made it impossible for criticisers to implement really
strong arguments in the debate that arose after the report’s was published (de
la Court (1990); Brundtland (1998)).
Because the UN
facilitated the commission’s work the report established background for actions
as well, although diplomacy always creates compromises. McNeill (2000)
describes four types of actors defining sustainable development: the academic,
the activist, the bureaucrat (political) and the bureaucrat (legal).
For the academic actor “the terms
‘sustainability’ and ‘development’ are clearly defined so as to be conceptually
distinct. Neither is explicitly valued, either negatively or positively. And
whether there is a conflict between those two has to be tested empirically.”
McNeill (2000)
gives the following examples: development might be defined as a “process of
increasing average material the well-being” and sustainable as
“not-irreversibly damaging the natural environment.”
Compared with
the academic group the terms are interpreted, or explicitly defined for the activist actor, so as to be
conceptually distinct; one or both are clearly valued, either negatively or
positively. Empirical testability is considered of less value. There are
conflicts within the group because there are different sorts of “activists”:
from the extreme to the moderate. An environmental activist is a person that
emphasizes the protection of nature and species over increased material
well-being. The development activist might give the opposite value to the two
factors.
The bureaucrat (political) actors are
diplomats working with and for politicians. They are described in McNeil,
(2000) according to the decision-making at the UNCED conference.
In the
preparatory meetings leading to the conference, the academics played an
important role. As the process continued, the activists and politicians took
over and the academics found themselves squeezed out. In the end the
bureaucrats had to confront both the empirical questions (“what are the
facts”?) and the policy questions (“what should be done”?).
In the end the
bureaucrats had to formulate words that should be as concrete, specific and
binding as possible – as well as agreeable for as many as possible. This
requires a lot of diplomacy – and thereby also to a lot of comprises.
There is an
important difference between a policy document and a legal binding agreement
(e.g conventions). At the Rio conference (UNCED), and subsequently, a number of
legally binding documents were signed. Such documents must be rigorous in the
sense that they distinguish between what is true by definition and what is true
empirically. They must also be cleared for value-based terms and avoid
self-reference (the United Nations have very strict rules for how conventions,
documents, agendas and even short letters must be written). This is where the
lawyer (bureaucrat (legal)) becomes
crucial.
The UN
Conference for Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio 1992 (20 years
after first conference was held in Stockholm) gathered politicians from all
over the world together with 20.000 NGOs at the NGO-forum next to the
conference. From Washington to Cape Town - from Canadian Inuits to Amazonian
Indians. Through this a major bond was established for saving what we have in
common - our planet.
Several
political agreements were not made the way they were planned. This can be
attributed to the USA’s decision not to sign strong agreements (Gore, 1992),
but also to the influence of the many actors during the process and their
different opinions regarding the documents’ contents.
Some principles
were implemented in the declarations in Rio though, and they are further
confirmed by all other UN conferences and summits in the 1990s (on Population
and Development (Cairo 1994), on Social Development (Copenhagen 1995), Women
(Beijing 1995), and on Human Settlement (Habitat II, Istanbul, 1996)
(Brundtland, 1998)).
Agenda 21 has
been particularly successful in bringing the environment and development
together on the local level. 150 countries and 1500 cities around the world now
have plans for ensuring sustainable development (Brundtland, 1998). The
Philippines is today an example of a country well advanced in the process of
implementing A21.
Ms. Brundtland
realized in 1998 that “we are still far from the goal. (…) Biological diversity
has been further reduced, pollution problems in the Third world have been
increased, and it has been confirmed that human activities have impact on the
Earth’s climate.” She realizes as well that the increases in (especially the
poor part of) the population, the poor dissemination of knowledge about
environmental problems to the public and the decrease in development aid from
the industrialized countries are the most serious reasons for this.
But it is also
important to realize that actions, based on the recommendations in Our Common Future, are being
taken towards a more sustainable future. Ms. Brundtland mentions: that
democracy is advancing all over the world; that some countries considered
developing 30 years ago can today be considered “developed”; that environmental
attention is greater than ever; that the Montreal Protocol has lead to 70%
reduction in greenhouse gases; that air and water pollution in the
industrialized countries is smaller today than 10 years ago and that “green
profiles” are spreading among companies (Brundtland, 1998).
The World Watch
Institute acknowledges that, “since the U.N. system was built, environmental
security has emerged as the third pillar of international relations” (French,
1995). I assume the first two are development and security/peace.
2.2.2.
Others defining and describing sustainable development
Already before
1983 the UN – as well as scientists - had taken several steps (e.g. UN
conferences on the Human Development; and on Environment and Development 1972 (UNCED
I)) in the direction of defining and describing what the term sustainable
development should include. The report built on these definitions as well as
scientific knowledge about what problems humankind was facing.
Both before and
after the WCED defined and described sustainability in 1987 so many scientists
and organizations have tried to define sustainability and sustainable
development that it has become a “fashion word” – a word everybody is using –
but sometimes with different content – in their passion for justifying their
own project, research, lifestyle or behaviours.
O’Riordan
(1988) recognizes that,
“It may only be a matter of time before the metaphor of sustainability
becomes so abused as to be meaningless, certainly as a device to straddle the
ideological conflicts that pervade contemporary environmentalism” (Pezzey, 1989).
The conflict
between environment and development is often considered and there are several
opinions towards it.
One definition
can be taken from the two institutional environmental scientists Goodland and
Ledec (1987).
“Sustainable development is here defined as a
pattern of social and structural economic transformations (i.e. “development”)
which optimises the economic and societal benefits available in the present,
without jeopardizing the likely potential for similar benefits in the future. A
primary goal of sustainable development is to achieve a reasonable (however
defined) and equitably distributed level of economic well-being that can be
perpetuated continually for many human generations” (Pezzey, 1989).
They are in the
definition (or description) including the same concern, about the present and
the future generations, as the WCED presented the same year.
Barbier (1987 –
ref. in Pezzey, 1989) - an academic economist – goes along with the WCED as
well, but although he uses more words, he does not come closer to the concept
(more a description than definition):
“the concept of sustainable economic
development as applied to the Third World (…) is therefore directly concerned
with increasing the material standard of living of the poor at the “grassroots”
level, which can be quantitatively measured in terms of increased food, real
income, educational services, health care, sanitation and water supply,
emergence stock of food and cash, etc., and only indirectly concerned with
economic growth at the aggregate, commonly national, level.
In general terms, the primary objective is reducing
the absolute poverty of the world’s poor through providing lasting and secure
livelihoods that minimize resource depletion, environmental degradation,
cultural disruption and social instability”.
Barbier
emphasizes that sustainable development primarily is related to increased
economic, social and material standards and secondarily to the protection of
the environment and depletion of natural resources. He goes further in his
description by recognizing that the economic development must go on at the
“grassroots’ level” (individuals) instead of the present methods where growth
in the GNP is considered equal to the state of development.
Although he
uses a lot of “examples” of how sustainable development should be defined, he
does not include democracy or people’s participation as sources for obtaining
the sustainable development.
His definition
is only concerning the Third World, while the living standards among the poor
in the First world, as well as the unequal distribution of resources related to
over-consumption there, is left out.
The last
sentence “through providing lasting and
secure livelihoods that minimize resource depletion, environmental degradation,
cultural disruption and social instability” is very weak since it is
undefined how these lasting and
secure livelihoods have to be provided or on
which values they should be based. It seems too easy to say when no actions
are behind it.
Markandya and
Pearce (1988 ref. in Pezzey,
1989)– academic economists – are also emphasizing our use of resources. They
are not concerned about individual species, but about the size of the resource
pool (especially the more physical and biological resources: water, soil,
plants etc.) – and how it influences the economic foundation for future
generations:
· “The basic idea [of sustainable
development] is simple in the context of natural resources (including
exhaustible) and environments: the use made of these inputs to the development
process should be sustainable through time. (…) If we now apply the idea of
resources, sustainability ought to mean that a given stock of resources – tree,
soil quality, water and so on – should not decline.”
· “sustainability might be redefined in
terms of a requirement that the use of resources today should not reduce real
incomes in the future (…).”
The same year
Barbier presented another formulation together with Pearce and Markandya (1988,
ref. in Pezzey, 1989) where they mainly emphasize economic and social growth
and distribution of welfare:
· “We take development to be a vector of
desirable social objectives, and elements might include:
· increases in real income per capita
· improvements in health and nutritional
status
· educational achievement
· access to resources
· a “fairer” distribution of income
· increases in basic freedoms.
(…) sustainable development is then a situation in
which the development vector increases monotonically over time.”
Development is
here mainly related to economic growth on the “grassroot” level. By including
“basic freedom” in the vector they give a link between development and human
rights and participation, a concept that is left out in the first descriptions.
The development is considered sustainable when the distribution of income and
access to basic education and health care is achieved.
The
distribution of natural resources are reduced to something humans are dependent
on - and not related to “soft values”
like preserving species we have never seen or will see - and the definition
does not include that actions need to be taken in order to ensure that there
are natural resources that future generations can have access to.
Maybe due to
the many definitions, the excitement whereby scientists defined sustainability
in the 1980s has decreased. It seems like the number of definitions have slowed
down during the late 1990s, but the term is still widely used within groups
working with agriculture, environment and development.
2.2.2.1.
Sustainable economic growth
Development is often related to economic growth and thus one of the
cornerstones in the Brundtland report was the consideration of sustainable
growth.
Gore (1992) refers to the academic mathematician Colin Clark from the
University of British Columbia as saying:
“A
lot of the apparent economic growth can in reality turn out to be an illusion
based on our lack of skills for incorporating the loss of natural capital.”
The WCED (1987) states that the introduction of sustainable growth can
only be done with a greater attention to resource efficiency. Similarly Porrit
(1984) – Director, U.K. Friends of the Earth – realizes that:
“All economic growth in the future must be
sustainable: that is to say, it must operate within and not beyond the finite
limits of the planet” (Pezzey,
1989)
Scientists have
also tried to define sustainable growth. Among those we find Pirages and Coomer
– referred to in Pezzey (1989):
Pirages – from conference
funded by the Institute of World Order (1977):
“[Sustainable growth] means economic growth that
can be supported by physical and social environments in the foreseeable
future.”
Coomer (1979):
“[The] sustainable society is one that lives within
the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society (…) is not a
“no-growth” society. (…) It is rather a society that recognizes the limits of
growth (…) [and] looks for alternative ways of growing.”
Economic growth has traditionally been measured as the change in the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)/Gross National Product (GNP). These indicators
have been proved inadequate for capturing the important aspects of sustainable
development content. In the rich countries the GDP is proportional to the consumption,
which is proportional to the pollution (Næss, 1990). National GNP per capita
does not show how the welfare is distributed within the country (a problem in
countries like India and Brazil – two huge countries with large populations of
rich as well as poor) and they do not include work within the households, loss
of environmental capital and welfare gathered outside the market.
Economic growth is based on two factors:
(CE) = Environmental capital and
(CM) = capital based on manmade activities.
Further the CE can be divided into renewable (CEr)
and non-renewable (CEn) resources.
Together CE and CM have to remain the same or
increase (grow) in order to prevent a reduction in the economy.
An example:
We assume there has been a reduction in a man made activity – for
instance a decrease in the computer market. In order to prevent a negative
growth on the national budget a government can allow more forest to be cut and
more timber to be sold. This way the man-made capital is substituted with
nature capital. Conversely an increase in the manmade capital should allow less
harvest of natural resources. But in this case human greed – or the pay back of
rent on loans to the WB – often seems to be the dominating attitude.
But when it
comes to stabilising the economic growth it is important to realize that many
environmental assets do not have man made substitutes. The result is
non-sustainability. We cannot replace extinct species and much environmental
capital has the feature of being irreversible (Pearce, 1989). This issue will
be further discussed in the end of the chapter.
Gore (1992) gives an example of how pollution of the environment can
turn out to be good business: The cleaning work after the oil leakage of Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound
actually increased the GNP of USA.
The concept of
economic growth is familiar to most people. Pearce (1989) calls it “capital
wealth” but emphasizes that it is time for introducing “environmental wealth”
as well, although it is a more complex concept.
To introduce
environmental wealth it is important to set prices on natural resources in
order to choose between manmade capital and environmental capital and to deduct
environmental damages from the GNP and thereby ensure a sustainable use of the
resources (Pearce, 1989).
This way of
estimating economic welfare does have several benefits for developing countries
with large areas of undisturbed forests and little industry and low-input
agriculture to create air and water pollution. This would increase their GNP
drastically, while countries like Denmark and the Netherlands with highly
industrialized agriculture and little “unspoiled nature” will find meaning in
re-establishing lost biotopes (for the benefit of the economy and people). But
some developing countries do not have many natural resources (countries with
deserts) and will thereby become even poorer than today.
It is easy to
set exact values for traded products like timber, food and fibres etc. because
they follow the market curve like manmade capital. It is more complicated when
it comes to resources without a market.
It is also
possible to estimate economic values for drinking water and the air we breathe
and even the ozone layer – at least it is possible to count the costs of
pollution - estimated as increased costs for health services and losses in the
labour force – due to increased mortality because of e.g. cancer. But how do we
value birds of the Amazon or zebras in Africa – sources our economic welfare do
not depend on. This is where “soft values” are becoming important. Maybe we
just feel better by knowing these species exist. A country like Costa Rica has
succeeded in creating such a “market” for the rain forest areas. Through NGOs
in the industrialized countries the government sell “forest certificates” where
individuals, firms and organizations buy a share of the forest.
The same is
considered for trade of CO2 permissions. During the Kyoto Protocol
negotiations the Clinton administration pushed forward the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) in order to get the developing countries to sign the agreements
(Barrett, 1999). And it can turn out to be good business for the developing
countries and a way for them to join the long-run clean development path
instead of the present path where they all compete for the same low-wages
manufacturing industries and the same markets for foodstuffs.
Barrett (1999)
gives the following example: Mexico presently emits approximately 110 million
tons of carbon-equivalent gas; it is projected to emit 220 million tons of gas a
year by 2020 if it follows the current trajectory. If Mexico is able to reduce
its emissions by just 10% below its cap, it would have 22 million tons of
emission permits to sell in 2020. The present projected price is 60 US$ per
ton. At this price, Mexico would be able to earn 1,2 billion $ per year, equal
to 0,5 of its GDP (» 40 billion
$ in the US economy).
Barrett further
finds it realistic that Mexico is able to reduce its emission by 25% in 2020.
UNCTAD (no
year) has made a list of commercial trades of gases between, or internally
within, firms, as well as a list of domestic trade initiatives. From this list
it is visible that Arizona Public Service in 1996 traded 2,5 million tonnes CO2
with Niagara Mohawk. And that BP Amoco traded 49,000 tonnes of CO2
in 1997. This was done in order to reduce the total BP emission 10% below 1990
level in 2010. The agribusiness firm DuPont has decided to set up a goal of 65%
reduction of greenhouse gases by 2010, using 1990 as the base year.
It is all about
creating a market for the environmental wealth, but Pearce (1989) emphasizes
that it is insecure to leave the responsibility of preserving “the right
amount” of natural capital to an unfettered market because the market economies
tend to behave as if environmental services were free goods.
Barrett (1999)
finds certain disadvantages (examples among others) with the Kyoto protocol:
The shift would not necessarily require greater reductions in the emissions in
the US; rather that US would simply have to buy a larger portion of its
emission permits, instead of being endowed with them from an international
body. It also makes it possible for a US firm to buy an old factory in India,
replace it with a modern one and sell the reduction in emission to the US or
other industrialized countries.
It is also
possible for a firm to buy land and spend money on reforestation – but this
might only lead displaced farmers cutting down forests somewhere else. The
world emission will steadily increase and deplete the ozone layer –regardless
of source of pollution – and thereby the problem of global warming is not
solved.
2.2.2.2.
Losses of natural capital and species
This group of
definitions is not as concerned about the relation between rich/poor and
present/future generations but more concerned about the relation between humans
and other species.
As described
above natural capital is strongly linked to economic growth. The loss of
natural capital, as well as individual species, is of concern for many
organisations (environmental activists/actors). Biodiversity is a higher
priority for this group than economic growth and social welfare (development),
although they do realize the link between poverty and environmental depletion.
Among the
actors who find preservation of biodiversity of major concern we find
organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and World Conservation Union
(IUCN).
The WWF has
been involved in price setting of species. They realize that environmental
capital is a major factor for rural economies in the third world because nature
provides timber, fuel, food and medicines etc. (Prescott-Allen &
Prescott-Allen, 1982). But they also realize that many difficulties are related
to the price setting.
Allen (1980 -
ref. in Pezzey, 1989) summarizes the IUCN definition of the term
sustainability:
“Sustainable utilization is a simple idea: We
would utilize species and ecosystems at levels and in ways that allow them to
go on renewing themselves for all practical purposes indefinitely".
"The importance of ensuring that
utilization of an ecosystem or species is sustainable varies with a society’s
dependence on the resource in question. For a subsistence society, sustainable
utilization of most, if not all its living resources is essential. (…) The
greater the diversity and flexibility of the economy, the less the need to
utilize certain resources sustainably, but by the same token the less excuse
not to".
(…) "it is essential (…) to ensure
that (…) people protect those parts of the biosphere that need protecting and
modify the rest only in the ways that it can sustain."
Later they do include development in the definition
by stating that,
"Sustainable development –
development that is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction of human needs and
improvement of the quality of human life”.
Furthermore the
IUCN state on their homepage (14/11-00; www.iucn.org) that no loss of species
is acceptable to them.
For the IUCN,
sustainable use of an ecosystem must include its ability to recover within an
acceptable time that prevents the extinction of species. The use of natural
resources must be at a reversible level.
The IUCN turns
the survival of other species into an ethical question for humans and the
survival of species is given a higher priority than the welfare of humans. They
do, however, acknowledge that resources (species) useful for humans should be
given the highest priorities – because our survival depends on it.
The IUCN also
claim that the numbers of species is related to achieve lasting satisfaction for
human needs and life quality.
But still many
species are not related to human survival or satisfaction – and some of them
even cause problems. Examples of this are tigers eating cattle and wolfs eating
sheep. These species are only of general human satisfaction when we can study
them under organized circumstances in a zoo or national parks. It is therefore
often only an ethical concern that is preventing the extinction of some
species.
The problem of
making the survival of species depend on ethical values is that human have
different preferences about this issue and ethical values change in society
over time.
While some –
like the IUCN and WWF – give all species the same concern others will argue:
“why should we bother about a species far away from our home? How do we in
North Europe or Rio benefit from birds or reptiles in the middle of the Amazon
jungle we have never seen – and never will see?”
Some people are
more concerned about returning beavers to the Danish nature, the musk ox in
Norway and the survival of the garden birds outside our window than about the
survival of species we have not even heard of. And the “Disneyfication”
(antromorphization) of urban people’s minds are considered as the largest
threat to the species without big brown “Bambi eyes” (Lomborg interviewed by
Hansen, 2000a).
The definition
from the IUCN does not distinguish between animal/plants and microorganisms
either. But the WWF does recognize this fact in the book “What’s wildlife
worth?” (Prescott-Allen & Prescott-Allen, 1982) where they draw the line
above microorganisms. This makes it “ethically possible” for humans to
extinguish infectious microorganisms to improve our living conditions.
In their
definition, IUCN acknowledges that rich societies might depend less on natural
resources – and that those societies
therefore have less excuses for exploiting the resource. These societies have
substituted the CN factor with CH. They thereby take away
the ethical foundation for rich countries to exploit natural resources. But the
trade of CO2 might change this aspect.
Not only
environmental organisations are concerned about what “natural base” we leave
for the future generations. Also Howe (1979; ref. in Pezzey, 1989) – an academic economist
– has shared some thoughts about having a natural resource base:
“activities should be considered that would be
aimed at maintaining over time a constant effective natural resource base. This
concept (…) implies not an unchanging resource base but a set of resource
reserves, technologies, and policy controls that maintain or expand the
production possibilities of future generations”.
Howe hereby
emphasizes that we need to consider activities for preserving resources for
future generations. He assumes that it is possible to preserve some essential
nature types and natural (genetic?) resources and techniques etc. for future
generations.
The
environmental scientists Brown et al. (1987 ref. in Pezzey, 1989) try to define sustainability in
narrow and broader senses:
“In the narrowest sense, the global sustainability
means the indefinite survival of the human species across all the regions of
the world. (…)
A broader sense of the meaning specifies
that virtually all humans, once born, live to adulthood and that their lives
have quality beyond mere biological survival. Finally the broadest sense of
global sustainability includes persistence of all components of the biosphere,
even those with no apparent benefit to humanity”.
This definition does not exactly point out the conflicts between
present and future generation or the distribution of resources between rich and
poor – like the WCED definition does.
The group defines sustainability in the narrowest sense as “survival
of human species”. Secondly they also give humans rights to a basic living
standard and in the broadest sense the give rights to other species in the
biosphere – which might be the reason for the use of ”human species” instead of
just simply “humans”. Thus, they emphasize the relation between humans and
other species.
2.2.2.3.
Sustainable use of resources
Some of the definitions emphasize the use of
fossil fuel and other non-renewable resources as the main concern. Goodland and
Ledec (1987) further describe that sustainable development is development that:
“ (…) implies using renewable natural
resources in a manner which doesn’t eliminate or degrade them, or otherwise
diminish their usefulness for the future generations. (…) Sustainable
development further implies using non-renewable (exhaustible) mineral resources
in a manner, which does not unnecessarily preclude easy access to them by the
future generations (…).
Sustainable development also implies depleting
non-renewable energy resources at a slow enough rate so as to ensure the high
probability of an orderly societal transition to renewable energy sources (…)” (Pezzey,
1989).
The definition
from a conference funded by the Institute for World Order (Pirages 1987 – ref. In
Pezzey, 1989) lies very
close to this:
“An ideal sustainable society would be one in which
all energy would be derived from current solar income and all non-renewable
resources would be recycled.”
In contrast to
these understandings of sustainable use of resources is Turner (1988) – an
academic economist - (ref. In Pezzey,
1989) who states that:
“It makes no sense to talk
about the sustainable use of non-renewable resources (even with substantial
recycling effort and reuse rates). Any positive rate of exploitation will
eventually lead to exhaustion of the finite stock.”
Our use of fossil fuel is a good example of this. The rate whereby
coal and oil reproduce is several million times slower than the use rate simply
because it takes millions of years to implement the carbon in living organisms,
for the organisms to die and decompose in the right environment for coal and
oil production.
The scientific
focus was already put on sustainable development before the Brundtland report
was published by the WCED in 1987. But the Brundtland report succeeded in
bringing the term into the political forums all over the world. The report was
in the beginning criticized by both north and south – because it was seen as a
threat to future development. The weakness of the definition they agreed upon
turned out to be the major force as well – because nobody could disagree with
it either.
The final
documents from the UNCED conference in Rio 1992 – which was held in line with
the recommendations of the report – was weaker than most countries wanted them
– due to the many actors influencing the decisions, and especially the
Bush-administration’s attitude of not signing strong agreements. But still many
countries – both developing and developed - have taken several steps towards a
more sustainable development.
After the WCED
report the number of scientific definitions exploded. Some scientists tried to
make stronger definitions while some tried to emphasize other values.
All the definitions cover one or more of the certain
conflicts/problems:
·
The
conflict between rich and poor people
·
The conflict
between present and future generations
·
The
conflict between humans and other species, and
·
Our
(ab)use of natural resources – both renewable and non-renewable.
The conflict between the rich and the poor exists because people in
the developed countries consume relatively more resources than the people of
the developing countries. And because the developing countries base their
development on harvest of natural resources –for example the rain forest is
something we all depend on, considered our external lungs.
The conflict between the present and the future generations exists for
the same reasons: because the present generation is consuming relatively more
resources compared with former generations – both because of our size but also
our consumption pattern – we are creating the risk of exhausting and ruining
resources for future generations.
The future generations are expected to be even larger, and the western
consumption pattern is assumed to become more widespread in the world.
Therefore we simply have an ethical responsibility of preserving
resources.
Scientists consider sustainable development to be very much related to
growth.
They emphasize this factor much more than for instance democracy and participation,
which are left out of many definitions. Personally, I consider those two
factors the cornerstones in a (sustainable) development that will lead to a
better distribution of both economic and social wealth and resources.
Most of the definitions of sustainable growth agree that growth in the
future has to depend on something other than natural resources. But scientists
and politicians have certain problems about putting prices to resources without
a market. Thus introduction of new economic theories (resource economics,
environmental economics) about growth have occurred in line with the
sustainable development.
As a result new ideas of trading preserved natural resources have
occurred. Price setting is an important factor and is assumed done by creating
a market (the theory is that as long as there are consumers - somebody who
values clean air and a healthy ozone layer etc. – who are willing and able to
pay for it, we can create a market).
The sale of tropical forests to “consumers” in the western world, and
trade with CO2 permissions are examples of this.
The disadvantage is that the market on its own does not solve the
problems because proper market mechanisms for this kind of trade are not
developed.
Many of the definitions refer to preserving nature (including species)
and resources. But none of them goes beyond this to define how the resources
should be preserved. Some of the suggestions are that we preserve a certain
resource base for the future. Establishing national parks and gene banks could
form such a resource base as well as a stop on mining certain resources when we
have exceeded a specified limit.
The problem with creating a natural resource base is that we are not
competent enough to define “how much forest” and “how much phosphate” will be
needed in the future – and what the preferences of wild species and resources
will be for future generations.
Within the definitions is also the concern that humans today
extinguish species we do not yet know are beneficial for us and by extinguishing
them we will never know how they would have contributed to the cure of epidemic
diseases like Ebola, cancer or AIDS.
And how many species are we then willing - and able - to preserve in gene banks and national parks? Is it
possible to preserve all genetic material?
Prescott-Allen
& Prescott-Allen (1982) conclude that “to preserve wild genetic resources,
protected areas need to be designed, distributed and managed so that they
maintain as much diversity as possible (…)”, but they also conclude that “the
genetic resources for development are so widespread and diverse that gene banks
and protected areas alone are not equal to the task of maintaining them all.”
If we see ourselves as the future generation – compared to the former
– we today have preferences for beavers in the Danish nature – an animal that
was extinct several centuries ago. Fortunately in this situation the species
has been “preserved” in other countries, in this case Germany, from where we
can import them. But we are in a much worse position if we have preferences for
globally extinct species like the dodo or Bos primi'genius - a wild ox-species extinct in the late 16th century (in Denmark
around 500 years B.C.).
Lomborg
(Hansen, 2000a) finds that we basically want to organize nature and preserve
species and nature for our own sake. He does not see any problems about not
having storks in Denmark if they live better somewhere else. It is just a
matter of our preferences locally – and our willingness to pay for having the
specie (e.g. by “buying” the land where we can create a proper environment).
Some scientists are trying to define “sustainable use of resources”.
But when it comes to non-renewable resources it makes no sense to talk
about the sustainable use because any positive consumption rate will lead to
exhaustion.
Thus, it is required that we start researching
on alternatives to the present consumption patterns and lifestyle where we are
depending on these non-renewable resources. For instance, substituting coal and
oil with wind and solar energy.
Increased research in this area will off
course occur when we are threatened by exhaustion of certain resources. In
order to obtain sustainable development we should just start this process now
rather than wait for the critical threat.
Activities like recycling of metals could also form such a resource
base. But how should we recycle our use of gasoline and coal? And are National
parks, genetic banks and books, where the agricultural technologies are
written, enough for the future generations to fulfil their needs?
Although many
definitions have been made before and after the WCED definition in 1987 that
one must be considered the main definition. The one people think of when they
use the term sustainable development.
The scientific
definitions do have some advantages though. They add new aspects to the debate
by emphasizing different values, and new theories of growth and development are
created by academics who thereby influence the political debate.
The definition
of sustainable development has its origin in the discussions of agricultural
development (Øygard, 1992) but today the discussion of sustainable development
has spread out to include energy use, industrial production, human settlement
and deforestation – among others.
Although
sustainable development has its origin in ideas of agricultural development,
sustainable agriculture can today be seen as sustainable development
implemented on arable, pastoral, silvopastoral or other types of land where
agriculture takes place.
Agriculture is
normally considered one of the most important sectors for development because
it affects almost all rural people by being the basis for employment and
income. By ensuring their living conditions the problem of urbanisation is
decreased.
Agricultural
land is also the main source for food and because many people, especially in
the developing countries are food insecure (because of the lack of
infrastructure or money), food is linked to development and economic growth.
Agriculture is also linked to nature sustainability because the production
depends on the condition of biological, chemical and physiological resources.
Agriculture is also, because of an increasing population – and thereby expected
future growth in the food production, considered a threat to the world’s
natural areas.
The number of
definitions decreases when it comes to sustainable agriculture - because the
definitions more or less emphasize the same values. But unlike the definitions
of sustainable development the definitions of sustainable agriculture search to
make the definitions operational – measurable – for practical purposes.
Also within the
agricultural development different actors are found, as described by McNeill
(2000) and discussed in chapter 2.
Pretty (1998)
further acknowledge five schools of thought – philosophical groups that can be
used for categorizing the political actors more carefully.
This chapter
presents some of the definitions of sustainable agriculture presented by
scientists and searches for the attitude towards sustainable agriculture within
international agricultural organisations. The most relevant for this study are
the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), (other UN bodies, WFP, UNEP; UNDP,
UNFPA etc., have agriculture included as parts of their rural development plans
as well, but will not be further mentioned here), the Consultative Group of
International Agricultural Research Centres (CGIAR) together with their
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the International Federation of Organic
Agricultural Movements (IFOAM).
The World Bank
(WB) also plays an important role since it is one of the three cosponsors of
CGIAR and because agricultural policies in the developing countries are
strongly guided by the WB through the agreements for providing loans. The
informer policy is known as structural adjustment programmes, while they
recently adopted a new policy where the
emphasis is put on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.
There are two
overall groups of definitions. The first group covers definitions that define
sustainable agriculture to be sustainable development implemented on
agriculture. This group emphasizes economic, ecological and social goals for
the production system, while the other group (that covers one definition in
this paper) emphasizes productivity over time and resistance to external
forces.
To separate the
two groups I will use the term eco-eco-soc group to define the first group,
while I have named the second after Conway and Barbier who are the scientists
behind the definition in this group.
3.1.1.
Eco-eco-soc group
The American
Society of Agronomy defines sustainable agriculture as:
“One that, over the long-term enhances
environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends,
provides for basic human food and fibres needs, is economical viable, and
enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole”
(Borch et al, 1994).
This can be
seen as an overall definition of sustainable agriculture because it emphasizes
that agriculture has to produce a certain output that supplies the basic needs
for food and fibres for people in general as well as having to be economically
viable for the farmer. Agriculture must also be socially viable for the farmers
because they, more than most other labour groups, are socially related to the
production. And the production must also create circles of benefits for society
as a whole (linkage to rural development).
The management
practises must also enhance the natural resource base (on which it depends) for
the benefit of future generations (long-term). Thereby the farmers are not only
given advantages but also responsibility for management of the resources.
I assume the
definition is created for agronomists working with extension and in the
agribusiness more than for the individual farmer. I find that the definition
creates a platform where agronomists can consider and discuss their own role in
the development of sustainable agriculture.
Harwood (1990)
writes: “Given the limits of vision, of data, and of the imprecision of a
process for arriving at consensus, I suggest using a “framework” definition
that can be filled with appropriate detail by country and by desired time
frame. A workable definition is
“an agriculture that can evolve indefinitely
toward greater human utility, greater efficiency of resource use, and a balance
with the environment that is favourable both to humans and to most other
species.”
Unlike the
first definition this one talks about humans in general and not farmers and
society specifically. In this definition, the system should be able to evolve
(develop) over time for the benefit of humans and environment, including most
species (not those who threaten us and our crops and livestock I assume).
Unlike the first definition he is not concerned with producing a certain output
of food and fibres or with the social welfare for farmers. Still this
definition is included in this group because it includes humans in the system
and not just environmental issues.
Other
scientists try to define sustainable agriculture by listing a number of goals
that have to be achieved before the system can be called sustainable. These
definitions are close to being descriptions, because they are briefly explained
in the list, with or without examples. They are therefore not minimal and
exclusive but rather rich, informative and inclusive as for descriptions
(McNeill, 2000). But they are also too little informative to be true
descriptions. Maybe the closest term is operational descriptions.
Altieri (1994)
lists five points. He states that a wider definition of agriculture as
sustainable means that it is:
· “ecologically sound: the quality of
natural resources is maintained and/or enhanced;
· economically viable: farmers can produce
enough for self-sufficiency and obtain adequate income by emphasizing efficient
use of locally available resources;
· socially just: resources and power are
distributed in such a way that the basic needs of all members of society are
met, and their rights to land use, adequate capital, market opportunities, and
technical assistance is assured;
· humane: all forms of life (plant,
animal, human) are respected;
· adaptable: rural communities are capable
of adjusting to constantly changing farming conditions.”
Pretty (1995)
from the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) gives an
operational definition of sustainable agriculture according to seven points:
“A sustainable agriculture (…) is any system of
food and fibre production that systematically pursues the following goals:
· A more thorough incorporation of natural
processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation and pest-predator
relationships into agricultural production processes;
· A reduction in the use of those
off-farm, external and non-renewable inputs with the greatest potential to
damage the environment or harm the health of farmers and consumers, and a more
targeted use of the remaining inputs used with a view to minimizing viable
costs;
· A more equitable access to productive
resources and opportunities, and progress towards more socially-just forms of
agriculture;
· A greater productive use of local
knowledge and practises, including innovative approaches not yet fully
understood by scientists or widely adopted by farmers;
· An increase in self-reliance among
farmers and rural people;
· An improvement in the match between
cropping patterns and the productive potential and environmental constraints of
climate and landscape to ensure long-term sustainability of current production
levels; and
· Profitable and efficient production with
an emphasis on integrated farm management, and the conservation of soil, water,
energy and biological resources.”
The American
network named Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE, formerly
known as LISA) (Benbrook, 1991) identify sustainable agriculture as rather a
goal than a distinct set of practises. They define the basic concept of
sustainable agriculture as
“a system of food and fibre production that
· improves the underlying productivity of
natural resources and cropping systems so that the farmers can meet the
increasing levels of demand on concert with population and economic growth;
· produces food that is safe, wholesome,
and nutritious and that promotes human well-being;
· ensures an adequate net farm income to
support an acceptable standard of living for farmers while also underwriting
the annual investments needed to improve progressively the productivity of
soil, water, and other resources; and
· complies with community norms and meets
social expectations.”
A similar
definition can be found in Pretty (1998) and Ikerd et al. (no year) also identify ecologic, economic and social
aspects and find that “these three dimensions are fundamentally inseparable dimensions
of the same whole. All three are essential, and thus, no one or two alone are
sufficient to ensure sustainability.”
Generally the
operational definitions are covering the same values and target-resources.
Along with the American Society of Agronomy they emphasize that the
agricultural system has to be ecologically, economically and socially sound
before it can be considered sustainable. The farmer’s social and economic life
is the cornerstone in the production system together with the natural resources
that should be enhanced over time.
Most of them
emphasize that the system has to be adaptable to local knowledge and practices
and acceptable within the rural communities (or society as a whole) as well.
Pretty is more
specific in what processes the farm has to depend on than Altieri. He is
emphasizing a wider use of locally available resources and system ecological
processes as well as a reduction in use of external inputs.
Both Altieri
and Pretty find that a more equal access to resources including land is
required for a more socially just development. This is more a concern within
the present generation and not between present and future generations, although
an increase in the population also creates local pressure on land where land is
handed over from father to sons.
Altieri,
Pretty, Harwood and SARE are all emphasizing local community values over
national and global perspectives like food security and GNP growth.
I will return
to these definitions in the last chapter in the report.
3.1.2.
Conway and Barbier
In contrast to
the above definitions Conway and Barbier have created a definition that values
long-term productivity. It differs from the others by not emphasizing
enhancement of the system, production or socio-economic issues. Instead they
emphasize long-term production as the main indicator of sustainability. The
definition promotes that a sustainable agricultural system not only has to keep
up its productivity in the long term but also to be resilient to crisis
situations (drought, hurricanes etc.).
“A sustainable agricultural system is one that has
the ability to keep up its productivity over time, including during external
stress or shock”
(Øygard, no year).
Productivity is
defined in term of the efficiency with which the factor of inputs (e.g. land,
labour, seeds, tools and equipment, fertilizers etc.,) are converted to output
within the production process (Cowing and Stevenson, 1981; Antle, 1988 in Ehui
& Spencer, 1990).
The factor of
resilience to external stress and shock in the definition by Conway and Barbier
is created from the realization that many ancient cultures have disappeared due
to agriculture systems collapsing because of external stress and shocks.
The major
external force to agricultural systems today is very well the increasing
population, especially in the developing countries (Njøs, no year). Where
systems of shifting cultivations have been persistent for centuries due to
20-25 years of fallow the population pressure now force may peasants to
decrease the fallow period in order to raise food production. This creates
risks for exhaustion soil, water and nutrients - and the system moves towards
less sustainability.
Denny &
Fuss (1983 in Njøs, no year) introduce the term “intertemporal total factor
productivity” (ITFP) which is in line with the definition by Conway and
Barbier. The total factor productivity is an index for all activities. The
change in ITFP over time, related to actual prices for products and activities
is an measurement for sustainability. This model makes it possible to include
nutrient losses on the negative side and use of legumes on the positive side if
it leads to the same production as bought fertilizer (Njøs, no year).
Njøs (no year)
gives another model (from Ehui and Spencer, 1990) for measuring sustainability
of a farming system:
P = Q/X
Where P is
productivity, Q is output (e.g. kg wheat/ha) and X is input (external or
internal, e.g. nitrogen fertilizers in kg/ha).
If the system should
be considered sustainable over time the aim is that factor P is not decreasing.
Thus it is necessary to use the total factor productivity, P’:
P’ = Q’/X’
Q’ is the
aggregate output; X’ is aggregate input.
Both formulas
can be further developed to illustrate the changes in productivity over time by
introducing DP’. It is not the aim of this project to
describe these formulas in details but rather create a general evaluation of
the definitions presented.
The Conway and
Barbier definition is obviously of higher quality for measuring sustainability
of farming systems than the definitions created by the eco-eco-soc group
because true mathematical formulas can be developed from the definition.
The definition
itself has some weaknesses though. It does not handle the fact of non-renewable
resources or distribution of economic resources at all.
The resource
consumption by agriculture is related to both the utilization of the inputs and
the ability of the input to renew (Njøs, no year) but this relation is not
included in the definition.
Farmers all
over the world have realized that the high yields created by the Green
Revolution can only be kept up over time by having a relatively higher input of
chemical fertilizers. At IRRI and other research stations in the Philippines,
the yields of the highest yielding variety in long-term fertility trials fell
steadily between 1966 and 1988. Similar yield declines have been detected in
India, Thailand and Indonesia. At Barrackpore wheat yields have declined from
4,4 t/ha and at Patnagar, rice has fallen from 6,4 to 5,2 t/ha. These declines
have only been reversed by increasing fertilizer applications by an extra 50%
(Pretty, 1995).
Thus question
is: Can a system be considered sustainable when depending so dramatically on
non-renewable external inputs?
It can be
argued that we later on can substitute the production of pesticides and
chemical fertilizers with renewable resources – and thereby keeping up
productivity over time – also in the future. But these to elements do have
impacts on the farming system that cannot be solved easily. Once the soil is
depleted or eroded it takes centuries to build up a sustainable (stable) pool
of organic matter.
I find it
strange that none of the scientists emphasize reversibility as one of the
cornerstones in sustainable agricultural management.
I find that the
Conway-Barbier definition not truly meet the need for increased food production
for the next decades.
We are facing a
time where it is not enough to keep up low productivity – but where it is
necessary increase productivity in a sustainable way.
I find that the
Conway-Barbier definition and the mathematical models do not fully meet the
needs of the farmers in the future as well as the eco-eco-soc definitions. But
I find that a combination of the two groups - the Conway and Barbier definition
can be used to measure the ecological sustainability of the farming systems
improved with the eco-eco-soc “model” – would be a good solution because they
complement each other.
Different political fractions are leading the development of
strategies for sustainable agriculture development.
The political fractions are adopting definitions from the scientific
world and it is therefore relevant to look into which definitions they are
dedicated to.
Like sustainable development has become a term everybody uses also all
international operators (WB, IFOAM, CGIAR, FAO, Worldwatch Institute etc.) are
talking about sustainable agricultural development as the future approach.
This section, five schools of thought will be presented and I will try
to make it visible how the term sustainable agriculture is understood and how
this affects actions taken towards more sustainable farming systems.
The actors I
will present as included within these groups can more be considered political
lobbyists than true bureaucrat actors as described by McNeill (2000).
Pretty (1998) lists five schools of thought for future options in
agricultural development: Optimists and complacents, the new modernists,
environmental pessimists, industrialists, and sustainable intensification.
The “schools”
are very narrowly defined and variations spreading over two or more groups are
widely found. In the following the political lobbies will be briefly summarized
and certain scientists and organisations will, through examples of their
understanding of the term sustainable agriculture, agricultural development and
mission statements, be connected to the different categories.
3.2.1.
Optimists and complacents
This group
believes that, in free market conditions, supply will always meet the demand.
The optimists
expect food production to grow for two reasons: 1) The fruits of biotechnology
research will soon ripen, so boosting plant and animal productivity; 2) the
area under cultivation will expand.
3.2.2.
New modernists
This group
argues that biological yield increase is possible on existing lands. It is
argued that scientific based high-input agriculture is more environmentally
sustainable than low input, as low-input agriculture, it is claimed, can only
produce low output. High-input agriculture will lead to less expansion into new
virgin land.
The target
includes the high potential lands already used in industrialized agriculture
and the “high-potential” lands that have been missed out for the last 30 years
of agricultural development.
High input
farming seems of major interest to both groups, while the contradiction is
whether or not cultivated land will need to expand into new areas to meet the
food demands of the future. This combination of high production levels and free
trade seems to be the mainstream ideology within certain parts of the political
system.
The main group
in the optimist lobby is the World Trade Organisation (promoting
free trade) but also the Hudson Institute are placed here (Woodward, 1996).
Agro industrial firms (like: www.monsanto.com,
www.syngenta.com, www.dupont.com) and the CGIAR network who
have all increased their investments in biotechnology since the 1980s, are committed
to the New Modernist ideology.
The new input
is, for this group, seeds improved to be drought, pest, disease or chemical
resistant through biotechnological processes – including genetic manipulation.
Also animals are bread for higher production.
For the year
1998-2000 CGIAR had the mission to contribute,
through its research, to promoting sustainable agriculture for food security in
developing countries. Its goals are to alleviate poverty and protect natural
resources so as to achieve sustainable food security (www.cgiar.org).
The Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) to the CGIAR has published a paper where they give the
following definition of what sustainable agriculture should involve (ref. in
Pluckett, 1990):
“Sustainable agriculture should involve the
successful management of resources for agriculture to satisfy changing human
needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environment and
conserving natural resources.”
Within the
CGIAR system particularly the director general of the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) Per Pinstrup-Andersen is promoting the New Modernist
ideology by stating that the developing countries simply cannot afford to do
without biotechnology, and that the concern for nature and health among consumers
in the developed countries – especially Europe – is threatening the food
security for the poor because they support an agricultural management that is
likely to reduce yields (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1999; Pinstrup-Andersen &
Cohen, 2000; Pinstrup-Andersen et. al, 2000).
3.2.3.
Environmental pessimists
This lobby
suggests that the ecological limits to expand agricultural production are being
approached, are soon to be passed, or have already been reached.
They argue that
increases in cereal yields have slowed down, will slow more, stop or even fall,
particularly because of resource degradation.
The increasing
population is marked as a key issue, so population control is an issue of
policy concern. Dietary shifts, to increased consumption of animal products,
are also a concern.
According to
Pretty, this lobby does not believe that new technological breakthroughs are
likely (Pretty, 1998).
Lester Brown,
Chairman of the Board and Senior Researcher with Worldwatch Institute, is a
person who has promoted this ideology for decades.
To cite Pearce
(1996): “Brown has repeatedly warned of catastrophe. In 1967, then an
agronomist in the US government, he warned that “1961 marked a worldwide
turning point [when] food consumption moved ahead of production”. (…) In 1974
Brown said that there had been a “clear breaking point somewhere around 1973”
and in 1990 he said the breaking point occurred in 1984.”
In 1995 Brown’s book “Who Will
Feed China?” was released as the sixth book in the Worldwatch Institute's
Environmental Alert Series, where he warns the world about the increasing food
demand in China and how that will effect food prices and water consumption
during the coming years (www.worldwatch.org, Woodward, 1996).
Also many NGOs
within nature preservation are using arguments from this lobby to promote their
concerns about the condition of, and threats to, the wild nature.
3.2.4.
Industrialists – “the industrialized world to the rescue”
This group
believes that developing countries will never be able to feed themselves, for a
wide range of ecological, institutional and infrastructural reasons. The food
gap between the north and the south will have to be filled by increased
production in the north. The producers will then be able to trade their food
with those who need it or have it distributed as famine relief or food aid.
Increased
production in large mechanized operations will allow many small “marginal”
farmers to go out of business. The land can then be converted into protected
areas or wilderness. External inputs are considered crucial for feeding the
world.
Pretty, 1998
recognizes that “the problem of lack of effective demand among the displaced
farmers, or lack of employment for the millions who would leave the land in
this scenario, tend to be left out by this group.”
Pretty presents
this lobby as rather ridiculous and it has not been possible to find any
specific actors within this lobby.
3.2.5.
Sustainable intensification
This lobby
argues that there is empirical evidence that indicates that regenerative and
low-input farming (but not necessarily zero-input) can be highly productive.
The methods are farmers’ full participation in all stages of technology
development and extension. The evidence also suggests that agricultural and
pastoral land productivity is as much a function of human capacity and
ingenuity as it is of biological and physical processes.
The targets of
this group are currently unimproved or degraded areas whilst at the same time
protecting or even regenerating natural resources (Pretty, 1998).
Pretty and Altieri are some of the scientists within this group while
IFOAM – the umbrella organisation for 760 organisations and institutions
working with organic farming in some 105 countries - is the major actor within this lobby. They do not
carry out research or practical agriculture (although their head quarter is
placed on a farm in Western Germany) but search to be the worldwide movement of organic agriculture and provide a platform
for global exchange and cooperation and to stress and support the development of self-supporting systems
on local and regional levels (www.ifoam.org).
IFOAM defines that systems that fulfil the following criteria can be
considered organic (the highlights in the text shows where the definition meets
the ideology of sustainable intensification):
“[Organic agricultural] systems take local soil fertility as a
key to successful production. By respecting the natural capacity of
plants, animals and the landscape, it aims to optimise quality in all aspects
of agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by
refraining from the use of chemo-synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and
pharmaceuticals. Instead it allows
the powerful laws of nature to increase both agricultural yields and disease
resistance”.
and further that:
”Organic agriculture adheres to globally
accepted principles, which are implemented within local social-economic,
geoclimatical and cultural settings.”
They stress organic
agriculture’s increased dependence on the condition of the agro-ecosystem
because the organic farmers refrain from certain external inputs. Some
pharmaceuticals are allowed to use though, as well as some “natural”
pesticides, but these differ according to national/regional standards for
organic farming.
IFOAM has
recently become consultative status to the CSD (Committee on Sustainable
Development) and FAO and is an example of an actor moving from the activist
group up to becoming a political actor.
Some of the
other international actors within agriculture are not so easy to put into the
above categories. Among those are FAO and WB who are so large organisations
with so many key issues for development that cannot be totally dedicated to a
certain ideology of agricultural development.
The other major
international organisation for food and agriculture, the FAO, is encouraging
sustainable agriculture and rural development, which is defined as:
“a long-term strategy for the conservation and
management of natural resources. It aims to meet the needs of both present and
future generations through programmes that do not degrade the environment and
are technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.” (www.fao.org/UNFAO/WHATITIS.HTM,
19/11-00).
The first part
of the definition goes hand in hand with the definition of the WCED, while the
second part emphasizes that the development must “not degrade the environment”
and have to be “technically appropriate, economically viable and socially
acceptable” - the same values as the
definition by the American Society of Agronomy emphasizes.
In 1998 the WB
facilitated a symposium with the theme: "Sustainability in agricultural
systems in transition". They here adopted the following working definition
of sustainable agriculture presented by Harwood (1998):
"an agriculture which can evolve indefinitely
toward greater human utility, increased efficiency of resource use, minimal
depletion of non-renewable resources, an environmental interaction favourable
to humans and to most other species, and having structure consistent with human
goals."
These values
are similar to those emphasized by American agricultural development agenda in
the late 1980s (Harwood, 1990).
They further
adapted a minimum framework for evaluating agricultural systems with regard to
sustainability would be one which would have the following three strategic
outcomes:
(i) profitability - meeting
productive expectations and the relationships of those expectations to the
paths of intensification, and economic development;
(ii) environment and resource
conservation - through the maintenance of ecosystem functions and services
for the future;
(iii) social equity - in relation to
the quality of life for different sectors of society, with particular emphasis
on the alleviation of poverty.
The definition and framework do contain the
same values as the scientific definitions presented in the beginning of this
chapter.
There are in this chapter acknowledged two
different fractions of scientific definitions of sustainable agriculture.
The first group, here called eco-eco-soc
group, are emphasizing both economic, environment and social aspects of
sustainable agriculture. There are few differences between the scientists in
this group. The American Society of Agronomy gives a short definition while
most scientists end up with a list of goals for the system through pointing out
economic and social goals for the system as well as target resources for
preservation and certain management practices on which the production must
depend.
Another group is the Conway and Barbier group who have created a
definition that only emphasizes long-term productivity of the system.
The definition is operational because it is possible to measure the
sustainability over time. The weakness of the definition is that it does not
indicate on what conditions this productivity must depend. Some systems are
strongly depending on external inputs to keep up the production over time. It
can be argued that long-term is a very flexible expression but if the system is
depending on non-renewable resources it has a certain limit.
Most political actors have adopted the definitions of the eco-eco-soc group
in one way or another because sustainable agriculture and rural development are
strongly linked for them.
None of the
definitions are emphasizing reversibility.
Personally I
find it important that the production methods are reversible within a very
short time. That it is possible to go back to what was if the method fails.
This cannot be done if the soil or water is too eroded, exhausted or polluted –
either through use of pesticides or salination.
I find, that
only through incorporating reversibility in the definition a system can be
considered sustainable. Only political actors, IFOAM and IUCN, include this
factor (nature recovery) in the definition of sustainable agriculture/
sustainable development.
The contradictions between the political actors come when it comes to
defining acceptable technologies for sustainable agriculture. These
contradictions are shown in the chapter according to five schools of thought
acknowledged by Pretty (1998).
Table 3.1: contradictions between the Sustainable Intensification
and the New Modernists lobbies in schematic form with IFOAM and CGIAR as
examples.
|
|
IFOAM
|
CGIAR
|
|
Construction
|
Democratic
organisation
|
Overall
network for tropical agricultural research centres
|
|
Target land
|
Small-scale
farmers with traditional farming systems
|
High
potential land in the third world
|
|
Which level
|
Farm and
community level
|
Global level
|
|
Goal for the
system
|
Self-reliance
|
Global food
security
|
|
|
Respecting the
natural capacity of plants, animals and the landscape
|
Built-in
resistance to pest” – this might most easily be done through biotechnology
|
|
External
inputs
|
Minimal use
of external inputs
|
Justifies an
increase in the energy consumption when it is used by high-yielding
agriculture to prevent soil degradation
|
|
Fertilization
vs. fertility
|
Incorporation
of natural processes such as nutrient cycling and fixation and
|
“Losses in
soil fertility due to topsoil erosion and lack of fertilizer input are the
main source for lost fertility”
|
|
Romanticizing
nature
|
“The
powerful laws of nature”
|
“The Earth’s
precious life support systems (…) that are already under stress”
|
|
Nature vs.
farming (exact definition of nature is lacking in both cases)
|
Accepts
coexistence of nature and production within the agricultural system
|
Draw a line
between the agroecosystem and nature
|
|
Soil
fertility
|
Key to successful production
|
Also a key
issue for protection
|
|
Natural
resources
|
Conserving natural
resources on farm
|
Protect
agriculture from expanding into virgin land
|
|
Human health
|
Very
important factor
|
Concerns
about toxicity of chemicals to farmers and consumers
|
|
Manipulation
of the farming system
|
Accepted for
the benefit of humans. Reversible management practises are approved
|
Accepts
manipulation on farm level as well as manipulations of individual plants and
animals for the benefit of food security
|
Although the definitions
try to include goals and target resources and practises it is for some purposes
needed to develop indicators for sustainable agriculture to make the
definitions more operational.
For the Conway
and Barbier definition the goal itself that the productivity of the system
should be kept up over time can be used as a sustainability indicator.
For the
definitions presented by the eco-eco-soc group it is much more difficult
because the indicators have to cover many subjects within the economic, ecological
and social sphere of the farm.
The definitions
are also often implemented in the political decision-making processes, which
create conflicts due to different priorities for different groups (a farmer
might value food security on the community level higher than on the global
level, which a national politician might emphasize).
As the farmer’s
living conditions are put in the centre of the system the indicators have to be
operational within the farm level – and not necessarily on national level. In
this chapter we will look into the two different sets of indicators.
Not
surprisingly OECD and the European Union (EU) have facilitated the most solid
work of indicator development. While the EU research has tried to develop the
indicators on farm level – by designing prototypes - the OECD has developed
indicators that are supposed to guide national politics in the member
countries. The work done by OECD has not quite finished yet which makes it
impossible to say anything about the validity.
Still this
chapter searches to give an overview and an impression of the validity of the
developed indicators.
During the last
decade an inter-European Concerted Action of 25 research teams from 15 European
countries has been carried out. The Concerted Action has been sponsored by the
Commission of the European Union and coordinated by the Dutch researcher Pieter Vereijken. He has published
several articles about this and former research
but, unless others are mentioned, this chapter is based on the final manual
published (Vereijken, 1999) where the indicators are gathered for operational
(scientific) purposes.
It is very difficult to give a good summary of all methods presented by
the research group because the manual is covering so many aspects. For further
understanding I can only recommend to take a look into the manual itself.
I have through a course in ecological agriculture in Denmark in 1998
worked with a minor share of these indicators in practice through the creation
of a conversion plan for a Danish farm. We use the share about constructing a
multifunctional crop rotation. Thus the main presentation and discussion of the
indicators will be based on this part of the manual/study.
The research
project was set up to develop of environmental indicators for conventional,
integrated and organic farming by designing prototype farms. Vereijken (1990)
defines the directions of farming this way:
Conventional: the (very) high external input system that has
been the dominating practises in the Netherlands since the 50s. This system was
not of further interest when indicators were developed but used as reference.
Ecological/organic (EAFS): no use of chemical inputs in the
system. It was further grown according to the biodynamic concept and a
livestock component was integrated (20 dairy cows) (Vereijken, 1990).
Integrated (IAFS): replaces chemical inputs of pesticides and
minerals as much as possible with the mechanical and biological products and
processes, but does not ban them entirely. It has to produce a satisfactory
financial return.
Drawing up a hierarchy in 6 general objectives (see table 4.1.a),
subdivided into specific objectives as a base for a prototype in which the
strategic shortcomings of current farming systems are replenished.
This step is done to emphasize national, regional and local objectives. Vereijken
gives an example from Flevoland (the Netherlands) where abiotic environment is
the main objective, beyond nature/landscape and food supply. For other regions
other objectives must be emphasized.
The objectives are chosen from a list where each subobjective is given a
grade. The objectives (with subobjectives) on the list are:
ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENT (Soil, Water, Air),
FOOD SUPPLY (Quality, Sustainability, Quantity, Stability,
Accessibility),
NATURE/ LANDSCAPE (Flora, Landscape, Fauna),
BASIC INCOME/PROFIT (Farm level, Regional level, National level),
HEALTH/WELL- BEING (Rural people, Farm animals, Urban people) and
EMPLOYMENT (Farm level, Regional level, National level).
Especially the objective of health/well-being is a difficult because you
are forced to choose between the well-being of rural and urban people and farm
animals – which to me is an impossible situation. This priority system is
similar to the priorities between present/future generations, rich/poor people
and the priority between humans and other species presented in the chapter
about sustainable development.
The priorities in the “Vereijken system” can be done if the objectives
are seen as political instruments rather than something farmers should
prioritize. It is clear that most of the objectives are made for the national
level and only few for the farm level.
(2) Parameters and methods:
Transforming the major specific objectives (10) into multi-objective
parameters to quantify them, establishing the multi-objective farming methods needed
to achieve the quantified objectives.
The quantification can be based on the values suggested by the research
group. Table 4.1.a and
4.1.b list the (sub)objectives and methods the meet the objectives.
Table 4.1.a: Parameters developed by
the research group behind development of prototypes
of Integrated and Ecological Arable Farming Systems (I/EAFS) (Vereijken, 1999)
|
No
|
Objective
|
|
1.1
|
Environment Exposure to Pesticides-soil (EEP-soil) =
active ingredients (kg ha -1 ) * 50% degradation time (days).
|
|
1.2
|
P Available Reserves (PAR) = Pw count in NL = mg l-1
P2O5 in the cultivated soil layer,
1:60 extracted with water. P Annual Balance (PAB) =
P input / P output.
|
|
1.3
|
K Available Reserves (KAR) = K-count in NL = mg K2O
in 100 gram air-dry soil from the cultivated layer, 1:10 extracted with 0.1 n
HCl. K Annual Balance (KAB) = K input / K output.
|
|
1.4
|
Potential N Leaching (PNL) = kg ha-1 Nmin in the soil
layer 0 - 100 cm at the start of the period of precipitation surplus, e.g., N
leaching.
|
|
2.1
|
Infrastructure for Nature and Recreation Index
(INRI) =share of farm area managed as a network of linear and non-linear
habitats and corridors for wild flora and fauna, including buffer strips.
|
|
2.2
|
Plant (target) Species Diversity (PSD) = number of
species/INR of a farm, with conspicuous flowers by colour and/or shape,
attractive for fauna and recreationists.
|
|
2.3
|
Plant (target) Species Distribution (PSDN) = mean
number of target species/100 m of INR.
|
|
3.1
|
Quality Production Index (QPI) crop product -1 =
Quality Index (QI) * Production Index (PI) crop product -1 = (achieved price
kg -1 /top quality kg -1 ) * (on market kg ha -1 /on field kg ha –1 ) crop
product –1 . (QPI -1)
|
|
4.1
|
Environment Exposure to Pesticides-water (EEP-water)
= EEP-soil * mobility. (Mobility = Kom-1 and Kom = partition coefficient of
the pesticide over dry matter and water fractions of the organic matter
fraction of the soil).
|
|
4.2
|
Actual N Leaching (ANL) = mg l -1 Nmin in drainage
water, mean for period of precipitation surplus.
|
|
5.1
|
Flower Density Index (FDI) = mean number of flowers/m/month
of Infrastructure Nature/ Recreation.
|
|
5.2
|
Side-Elements Diversity (SED) = number of small
landscape elements diversifying the INR.
|
|
6.1
|
Net Surplus (NS) = total returns minus all costs,
including an equal payment of all labor hours.
|
|
6.2
|
Hours Hand Weeding (HHW) = mean number of hours ha
-1 in hand weeding.
10.1. Environment Exposure to Pesticides-air
(EEP-air) = active ingredients (kg ha -1 )
* vapour pressure (Pa at 20 - 25ºC).
|
Table
4.1.b: Methods for meeting the objectives cited in table
4.1.a (Vereijken, 1999)
|
No
|
Method
|
|
1,1-1.4
|
Multifunctional Crop Rotation (MCR) = a farming
method with such alternation of crops (in time and space) that their vitality
and quality production can be put safe with a minimum of remaining measures
or inputs.
|
|
1.2-1.4
|
Ecological Nutrient Management (ENM) = a farming
method with such tuning of input to output of nutrients, that soil reserves
fit in ranges, which are agronomically desired and ecologically acceptable.
|
|
2.
|
Infrastructure for Nature and Recreation (INR) =
such layout and management of a network of landscape elements, that it is
accessible and livable to wild flora and fauna and attractive to urban and rural
recreationists.
|
|
6.1
|
Farm Structure Optimisation (FSO) = a mostly
indispensable method to render an agro-eco-logically optimal prototype also
economically optimal, by establishing the amounts of land, labour and capital
goods, which are minimally needed to achieve the desired Net Surplus.
|
(3) Design of theoretical
prototype and methods:
Designing a theoretical prototype by linking parameters to farming
methods. Designing methods in this context until they are ready for initial testing
(Multifunctional Crop Rotation as major method).
The multifunctional Crop Rotation is supposed
to fulfill certain goals for the farm. To give an example: to establish a
wanted soil cover (in order to minimize soil erosion) different categories of plants
are given values according to their biological, physical and chemical
profitability. Other strategies for optimizing diversity and nutrient
management in the rotation are also included in the manual.
(4) Layout of prototype to
test and improve:
Laying the prototype out on an experimental farm or on pilot farms in an
agro-ecologically appropriate way, testing and improving the prototype in
general and the method in particular until (after repeated laying out) the
objectives, as quantified in the set of parameters, have been achieved.
The manual also offers different tasks for testing and improving the prototype
and how the whole evaluation of the system should be made.
(5) Dissemination:
Disseminating the prototype by pilot groups (< 15 farmers), regional
networks (15 - 50 farmers) and eventually by national networks (regional
networks interlinked) with gradual shift in supervision from researchers to
extensionists.
This is where
the objectives are becoming accessible to individual farmers.
During our group work with one part of the
indicators we realized several things about their usefulness. It is obvious that the manual is developed
for scientific purposes and not for farmers. The indicators are also developed
for farm design and not evaluation purposes.
Multi-functionality of farming systems has become one of the key
issues for agricultural policies in the EU during the last years. That is what
Vereijken tries to create with the multifunctional crop rotation in the
research project. This is also what I find is the major strength in the manual
together with some of the indexes.
The objective
of the Nature and Recreation Index is something the farmer easily can handle on
his/her own while some of the more technical indexes require soil samples and
laboratory tests. Thus, it is very important to establish a strong connection between the
farmer and his/her extensionists/scientist in the implementation of prototypes.
After certain years the new practices (crop rotation etc.) might be so
well established on the farm that they do not need annual tests. I find, that
the indexes show a lot of interesting aspects of the farm management and can be
used as a guide towards more sustainable production according to ecologic,
economic and social parameters as emphasized by most definitions of sustainable
agriculture. The indicators
can thereby be useful for scientists because they establish a science based
fundament (parameters) for further interdisciplinary discussion and learning
about sustainable agriculture. What it is and how cultivation practises
influences the environment on and around the farm.
The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is one of the
political actors who are developing agro-environmental indicators (AEIs) for
agricultural sustainability. OECD is presently carrying out a large project of
making environmental indicators for agriculture. So far three reports has been
published: Vol. 1: Concepts and framework (1997), Vol. 2: Issues and design
(1999), Vol. 3: Methods and results (2000).
The whole
project is supposed to finish in 2001 with the fourth publication of how to use
the indicators in policy analysis (OECD/Parris, 1999). It is also supposed to
be an input from the OECD countries at the Rio+10 conference in 2002.
Appendix 2
shows the indicators as listed in vol. 2 by the OECD (1999). The indicators are
covering many areas shown in the annexes of the report.
Annex Table 1 (contextual
indicators): Land, population and farm structures
Annex Table 2: Water quality, water use, soil quality and land
conservation
Annex Table 3: Biodiversity, Wildlife habitat and landscape
Annex Table 4: Farm management (farm management capacity, on-farm
management practices), farm financial resources and socio-cultural issues
(rural viability)
Annex Table 5: Nutrient use, pesticide se and greenhouse gasses.
The topics
covered in the indicators are generally included in the frame most academic definitions
offer. But unlike these definitions the OECD indicators are not developed on
farm level but for national political decision-making. Thus, the agricultural
system is viewed on the domestic level and the indicators are covering topics
like: the number of farmers, the leaching of nitrogen to ground water (one farm
can therefore be a big polluter as long as the average content of nitrogen is
not exceeded), landscape etc.
The indicators
are developed because environmental
implications of farmers’ actions, however, are not always incorporated in their
costs and revenues, such as when agricultural chemicals leach into ground
water, thereby raising the costs of treating water for drinking (OECD, 1997
in OECD/Parris, 1999).
The OECD
further acknowledge that society also has responsibility of compensating
farmers for their losses is certain actions are demanded (for example
conserving land as habitats for wildlife).
Studying the
OECD indicators it is obvious that they are more concerned about agriculture’s
influence on the surrounding environment than creating a framework for
sustainable agriculture.
The OECD
indicators reduce a factor as socio-cultural issues to a matter of population,
agricultural income in relation to total income of rural households, institutions
and entry of new farmers, and not so much a matter of “soft values” like
well-being of farmers. In Britain farmers and farmworkers are about twice as
likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population, and suicide is the
second most common form of death among male farmers (Pretty, 1995).
Unlike the
Vereijken manual the OECD indicators are not offering any new methods for
monitoring sustainability in the field. Instead each indicator is briefly defined
and methods of calculations, interpretations and further refinement are
suggested and discussed in the reports.
It is possible
that the Vereijken manual can provide a farm framework within the OECD policy
framework because they are developed for different levels.
The first systems
are traditional tropical and subtropical subsistence farming. Due to the many
differences (climatically, cultural, religious, natural etc) these systems
cover a wide range of diversity connected to locality. These systems differ
from Green Revolution land by depending less on external seeds, fertilizers,
pesticides and irrigation and by only being small-scale farms.
The Green
Revolution is defining land in the tropics that benefited from the HYVs from
international research centres together with pesticides, fertilizers and
irrigation.
Industrialized
agriculture in the western world is highly mechanized, little labour intensive,
large and with uniform cropping systems.
The last
system, the organic production system, briefly defined by IFOAM in a former
chapter, might be more difficult to describe and discuss since these practises
take part in both tropical, subtropical and temperate – and even subarctic –
areas all over the world.
In
industrialized countries the organic farms are characterized by being as large
as conventional farms, at least in Denmark (Plantedirektoratet, 2000), but a
little more labour intensive, especially in row crops (Dubgaard, 1994; Bouwman,
1996; and Näf, 1995; all in Jansen, unpublished).
In tropical and
subtropical most experiments have been carried out on large plantations and
cooperatives but also small individual farmers are adopting the methods.
I will in this
chapter give some examples of implementation of sustainable agricultural
methods to the different farming types and discuss them in relation to the
definitions from the former chapters.
Farming in the tropics is covering a wide range of different farming
systems. The growing techniques are related to natural and climatically conditions
– and the tropical zone covers even larger differences in these two factors
than the temperate area does. The tropical zone also covers a wider range of
cultures and cultivation systems than the temperate zone.
The tropical regions are generally defined as those regions lying
between 23,5° north and 23,5° south of the equator (Ruthenberg,
1980).
The tropical region covers several subregions according to climate and
rainfall.
The farmland varies from humid to semi-humid and semi-arid land – from
lowland to highland, although a large part of the highland cannot be considered
tropical because of temperature and rainfall.
It is therefore difficult to generalize when describing the systems in
this group. Still, there are some major characteristics that are valid for all
systems.
For the tropical lowlands the following classification is accepted:
Areas with 2 - 4,5 humid month p.a. are classified as semi-arid, while
areas with 4,5-7 humid month p.a. are classified as semi-humid. Humid climates have
7 or more humid month (usually > 1400 mm p.a.) – a very humid climate would
have 9 month. Areas with less than 2 humid month p.a. can be classified as arid
land not suitable for agriculture (Ruthenberg, 1980). Tropical highlands have
their own classification system, but no particular examples will be given from
this category.
It is assumed that 60 % of the worlds cultivated farmland is farmed
with subsistence agricultural methods (Cox & Atkins, no year).
Subsistence agricultural soil management range from soils turned by
hand tools and ploughs pulled by cattle or maybe tractor to advanced systems of
agroforestry or terrace farming. The characteristics of these systems are that
they haven’t benefited from the Green Revolution, have a low rate of
mechanization and external inputs (chemicals and fuel) – human labour and local
available resources are the main inputs.
Subsistence farming in the tropics covers a wide range of systems:
pastoralism, intercropping, agroforestry (shifting cultures, alley cropping,
tanguya) and terrace farming. Most subsistence systems also include some kind
of live stock component.
Indigenous farming systems and environmental lore are always rather
site-specific and only a few aspects can be transferred and diffused elsewhere.
Based on literature reviews Barraclough (1995) concludes that traditional
cropping and pastoral systems, if judged by environmental and livelihood
criteria, have often been superior to modern farming systems. They are less
risky, more equitable and make fuller productive use of available human and
natural resources. But he also finds that modern science and technology can
make great contributions to these systems but also that it is much more complex
to make farmers adopt these technologies than first assumed.
Okigbo (1990) gives the following characteristics of African
agriculture:
1. The objective of producing is mainly for
subsistence, but increasingly commercial
2. 80% of the farms are 5 hectares or less
3. Slash-and-burn cultivation is widespread
4. Most labour is manual using simple
tools. Use of livestock for work is limited due to tryanosomiasis, and mechanisation is limited to ploughing
5. Marked division of labour between men
and women
6. Soil fertility maintenance is dependent
on nutrient cycling, N-fixation, fallow periods, manures and households refuse.
App. 63% the fertilizers used are added to catch crops
7. The use of external inputs is very
limited. Manual and cultural control of pests is widespread
8. The cropping systems are generally more
complex and diverse than for developed countries. Intercropping is the most
common technique for low-resource farmers to improve crop yields. Small
livestock is an important component in most non-pastoral systems in the humid
and sub-humid areas. Large animals are mainly kept by pastoralists in the more
arid areas
9. Irrigation is limited. Traditional
hydraulic systems are used in dry areas
10. Yields are usually low due to unimproved
varieties and breeds of animals
11. Production per unit energy is usually
higher than in “modern” agricultural production systems.
I assume these characteristics are valid for a wide range of
subsistence farms – also outside Africa.
Generally the traditional systems are found to have a larger
biodiversity in the fields as well compared with modernized farming, as well as
a lower consumption of fossil fuel (Pretty, 1995).
Some other characteristics of different subsistence farming systems
will be given here, although not all can be covered:
Pastoralism is defined as food production systems
in which herding people depend for subsistence entirely, or almost entirely, on
livestock products (Cox & Atkins, no year.). These cultures are today
mainly connected to the arid and semi-arid areas and are most often nomad
cultures. These farm units move over long distances in their search for feed
for the animals.
It is estimated that these cultures covers some 100 million people in
Africa and Asia (Cox & Atkins, no year.).
Most property rights within these cultures are related to animals –
land is not owned. This gives from time to time conflicting goals with
governments and environmentalists trying to establish National Parks and other
preserved areas. In this context humans and livestock is not considered an
integrated part of nature although they might have been crossing the land for
the last centuries.
The system is vulnerable for increasing populations and shifts in
climate.
It is assumed that a family need 35-40 cattle (of different age) to
obtain adequate living standards. In areas with annually 750 mm of rain the
herd needs to be supported by 40-60 hectares of land. In drier regions
(annually rain fall 250 mm) the herd is supported from 400 hectares of land
(Cox and Atkins, no year).
Pastoralists associate large number of people with large number of
livestock because the systems are designed for subsistence. Thus, an increase
in the population makes the system vulnerable because the natural resource
base, on which they depend, is exploited earlier (Cox and Atkins, no year).
Okigbo (1990) finds the systems sustainable as long as this carrying
capacity is not exceeded. This can follow the definition made by Conway and
Barbier because the system is able to keep up the productivity over time. As
long as the system is functioning it is likely that it meets the economic and
social needs of the people. But it is likely that these cultures are influenced
by modernizations as well and that their desires and needs are changing over
time. This can lead to overgrazing or urbanisation if the young decides to live
this lifestyle. Thus it is required to follow these systems carefully over the
next time to find the balance between the needs of the people and the natural
carrying capacity for these systems.
Agroforestry is a very ancient and widespread form
of agriculture and covers a wide range of systems where trees are included in
the production. The trees can either be planted (i.e. alley cropping, home
gardens) or be a part of a forest where trees are cut regularly as a part of
the rotation and crops sown on the area. Also livestock can be a part of
agroforestry systems.
Stinner and Blair (1990) claim that agroforestry, ecologically and
agronomically, can accomplish a great deal that other systems cannot. They
state that overall, agroforestry stabilises the cropping system. The trees do
not only provide shade from sun and wind, timber and firewood, but also
preservation of soil since they have deeper and stronger root systems than
crops. A number of trees, such as Acacia
and Leucaena, are leguminous, and
thereby provide free nitrogen fertilizer for the system. The Paulownia tree is able to grow up to 2,5
meters per year providing 400 kg’s of small branches and 30 kg’s leaves for
fodder and soil amendment after ten years. Due to the long root system the trees
do not compete with crops for nutrients and water (Pretty, 1995).
Several different agroforestry systems exist. One of them is named
shifting cultivation (slash-and-burn,
swiddening, milpa and more than 25 other terms) and is a general
agricultural pattern in which an area of land is cleared of vegetation,
prepared for planting and cultivated for a relatively short period; then
abandoned and new land cleared (Cox and Atkins, no year).
Also these systems are vulnerable to an increasing population because
the time between clearing the land is shortened in order to increase food
production. In 1957 the UN assumed 200 million people depended on these
systems, whereas today the number is assumed to have increased to 400 million
(Cox and Atkins, no year). But this agroforestry system is also reported highly
producing and are therefore less vulnerable for the increasing population. It
is reported that the output in kilocalories for the Tsembaga agricultural
system. The tribe is occupying 8,3 km2 tropical lowland and montane
forest in the east-central New Guinea is slightly higher per hectare than
obtained for US Midwestern corn farming (Rappaport in Cox and Atkins, no year).
Terrace farming is systems where
terraces are build up either according to the curves on the field or small
local terraces around each plant. The aim is to prevent soil erosion by
creating flat land instead of slopes. They are found both in Asia, Africa and
Latin America where they have been productive for centuries or even
millenniums.
The best examples of this system might be found on the Philippine
Islands where paddy rice has been successfully grown for the last 3000 years
(Cox and Atkins, no year).
It is also acknowledged that a lot of attention should be given to the
systems for a long period of time when terraces are constructed. The terraces
need regularly maintenance otherwise they can cause even larger soil erosion
than without (Pretty, 1995).
Livestock. Most traditional systems incorporate
some form of animal husbandry and livestock is in many places traditionally
linked to wealth; and it can help accomplish economic and environmental
sustainability (Stinner & Blair, 1990).
The livestock component can take many shapes. The livestock can be
ruminants like cows, goats, camels or sheep, or it can be horses, pigs, or
poultry. The livestock component is covered in the presentation by Okigbo
(1990) summarized above. Combinations of fish and rice are also known from East
Asia. The choice of animal are linked to cultural behaviours (nomads, bride
price), religious traditions (Muslims and Hindus) as well as more
socio-economic conditions – what can the farmer afford to buy.
An essential component of animal- and crop-integrated agriculture is
the cycling of nutrients through manure and plants. Long-term studies have
indicated that crop yields obtained with manure can be comparable to, or
greater than, those obtained with inorganic fertilizer (Baldock and Murgrove,
1980; Welch, 1979 ref. in Stinner and Blair, 1990).
Livestock do not only have benefits for the society. Overgrazing is a
typical cause of desertification in vulnerable areas (e.g. Caucasus and Sahel).
When introducing satellites as a source for measuring the land use in Caucasus
millions of sheep suddenly occurred. Those animals had been hidden in the
mountains and succeeded in escaping legal registration (Gore, 1992).
Due to the
large diversity of systems for subsistence agriculture it is necessary to look
into some overall aspects of sustainability rather than small examples.
It is possible
that both Green Revolution farming and organic production methods can enhance
the sustainability of the subsistence farms in the developing countries. But no
examples of these methods will be discussed here since they will be presented
separately later in the chapter.
Instead other
examples of sustainable agriculture will be covered here.
Integrated pest
management
(IPM) programmes have been introduced in many countries due to the better economy
for farmers by spraying less. Pretty (1995) reports of higher yields/net income
for farmers from ten programmes in West Africa, South- east Asia, Central
America and the US. IPM will be further examined in the Green Revolution part
because those systems are much more pesticide intensive than traditional
farming in the tropics.
Pretty (1995)
also finds that implementation of programmes focusing on soil and water
conservation, land rehabilitation, nutrient conservation, raised field
agriculture, green manuring and IPM are able to raise yields two to five fold.
Okigbo (1990) sees the population growth as the major threat to
sustainable agriculture in Africa. The growth rate for the population is 3,2%
annually while food production only grow 1,2%. Aiming for more food farmers
increase the number of animals, leading to overgrazing, increase intensity of
cultivation, deforestation and uncontrolled burning of vegetation.
He also finds the increasing dependency on imported food and political
instability as two major factors threatening sustainable agriculture.
Many of the traditional farming systems in the tropics can be
characterized as being sustainable. Their energy consumption is low due to the
low rate of mechanization and fertilizer use. Most of the systems are ancient –
which means that they have been able to keep up their productivity over time
according to the Conway and Barbier definition.
There are many threats to the sustainability of these systems though.
The main one is the increasing population in all developing countries, which
forces farmers to exploit the land by increasing livestock or decreasing time
of fallow.
Also the needs for people in the developing countries are changing
which further force farmers to try to create larger income on their land.
Thus attention must be paid to the sustainability of these systems in
the future. To make sure they evolve towards sustainable agriculture and not
exhaustion of natural resources.
Many examples
are found on sustainable intensification in the tropical farming systems. Some
of them are high yielding and comparable with modernized agriculture, while
most of them can increase yields drastically and enhance the quality of the
local environment by putting attention into soil and water conservation, land
rehabilitation, nutrient conservation, green manuring and IPM. Also systems
without the use of pesticides are found to be sustainable according to the
eco-eco-soc definitions because even if they are lower producing they give a
larger gross margin for the farmers.
Because of the
large diversity among tropical farming systems, and because they are developed
on basis of local resources it is difficult to create an overall strategy
towards sustainable agriculture for these systems. But it is definite that
these systems comprise a large potential – both for increased food production
and sustainable practises.
Implementation
of GMO crops is also a possibility to these systems.
The Green Revolution farming is a type of agricultural development
based on high input of seeds of high yielding varieties (HYV), fertilizers,
pesticides and irrigation. These production systems are only found in the third
world countries, although the development is very similar to the development of
industrialized agriculture in the western as well as tropical countries (cotton
and coffee estates).
The promotion of the Green Revolution farming systems has been
strongly promoted by the research institutes in the CGIAR network.
The cornerstones in the Green Revolution was (Harwood, 1990; Pretty,
1995):
1.
Food and
not export crops
2.
Research on
finding and developing new and improved farm (and related) technologies;
3.
Arranging
the importation and/or domestic production of farm supplies and equipment
needed to put the new technology into use;
4.
Creating a
progressive rural structure, or “organisation of the countryside”, that
provides channels through which goods and informations can move easily back and
forth between farm and society;
5.
Creating
and maintaining adequate incentives for farmers to increase production;
6.
Improving
agricultural land;
7.
Educating
and training technicians to accomplish all of these tasks competently.
This form of
production takes place on some 215 million hectares of the most productive
soils with reliable water and infrastructural conditions (Pretty, 1995).
The goal of the Green Revolution was to increase food security through
increasing the yield in food crops dramatically – because of the increasing
population – and decrease food prices, a goal that was met successfully. The
yields in the main food crops rice rose drastically and the yields of wheat
doubled within 30 years (Pretty, 1995) and many countries in Asia have by this
revolution achieved food security, or even food surpluses (Harwood, 1990). Food
prices have also decreased significant in the same period.
Since the mid-60s the global food production per capita has risen 7 %,
with the largest increase in Asia where per capita food production has grown
30-40 %. In contrast the food production per capita fell 20 % in Africa from
1964-1992 (Pretty, 1995). The Green Revolution land is assumed to be supporting
some 2,3-2,6 billion people (Pretty, 1995).
From a national point of view the Green Revolution is considered a
success while the farmers’ points of view might be different for some areas.
Röling & van der Fliert (1998) give the
following description of how the Green Revolution was implemented in Indonesia:
”From 1968, when famine threatened the
Indonesian people, (…) HYVs of rice and agrochemicals were introduced, often by
force. (…) In some areas, crops of farmers not growing the new HYVs were cut
down by village officials, or planting of HYVs and use of fertilizers were
enforced by the army.”
Pesticide applications were often decide by
officials and entire areas were sprayed by plane (Röling & van der Fliert, 1998).
Also when it comes to
natural resources the impact
of the Green Revolution has been remarkable. About half of the rice, wheat and
maize areas in the developing countries are planted with HYVs and the
consumption of fertilizers and pesticides has grown rapidly alongside (Pretty,
1995).
Röling & van der Fliert (1998) and Pretty (1995) list the
following environmental and farming problems caused by the Green Revolution:
1. Serious environmental and human health
effects
2. Threats to food security through vast yield
losses as a result of mass resurgence of pests (broad-spectrum pesticides used
by farmers kill both pests and their enemies. This results in massive outbreaks
of secondary pests)
3. Continuous monocropping creates an
environment where pests can always find sufficient food
4. Traditional rice varieties – and thereby
genetic diversity - are lost in situ
5. Indigenous knowledge are lost
WHO (1990 in
Pretty 1995) assumes that a minimum of 3 million, and perhaps as many as 25 million
agricultural workers are poisoned with perhaps 20,000 deaths. The Chinese
Ministry of Agriculture suggested that 10,000 farmers died in 1993 from
poisoning with pesticides (Pretty, 1995).
The Green
Revolution has also had some serious social side effects. Pretty (1995)
summarize that external inputs of machines, fossil fuels, pesticides and
fertilizers have displaced workers in Green Revolution lands and has forced
migration. In some regions it has especially affected women. Local institutions
have become co-opted by the state or simply withered away.
Introduction of
sustainable agriculture into Green Revolution land has so far nearly only been
represented by introduction of integrated pest management (IPM) in rice
production, mainly in South and Southeast Asia (Pretty, 1995; Röling & van
der Fliert, 1998), and especially Indonesia where the presidential decree
banned 57 brands of pesticides for rice production in 1986. In 1989 a national
IPM programme were established (Pretty, 1995; Röling & van der Fliert,
1998).
Subsidies on
pesticides where at the same time reduced from 85% to zero and thereby an
optimal environment for implementation of the programme was created. In October
1995 the programme had trained an estimated 229,000 farmers in farming schools
(Röling & van der Fliert, 1998).
Pretty (1995)
summarize the potential for sustainable agriculture on Green Revolution land
being able to stabilize or slightly increase yields.
Researchers
belonging to the New Modernist lobby calls for a new Green Revolution to feed
the growing population in the future. This time the revolution is supposed to
be based on biotechnology. The target lands are present Green Revolution land
as well as high potential land that did not benefit from the first revolution,
especially in Africa where the food insecurity is highest. The CGIAR centres as
well as researchers at universities and private agro-business are supposed to
play the major role in the development of these technologies.
For the coming
years CGIAR has pointed out five major research thrusts. It is of interest that
biotechnological issues are included in them all, except the thrusts concerning
national research institutes (highlighted in the text):
Increasing Productivity.
The CGIAR strives to make developing country agriculture more productive through genetic improvements in
plants, livestock, fish, and trees, and through better management
practices. One important feature of the CGIAR’s productivity research is its
focus on building into plants greater resistance to insects and diseases that
adversely affect productivity and the stability of production in the tropics.
While protecting farmers from losses, these improved plants protect the
environment because they require little, if any, chemical inputs.
Protecting the Environment. Conserving
natural resources, especially soil and water, and reducing the impact of agriculture on the surrounding
environment, is an essential, and growing, part of the CGIAR’s efforts.
The CGIAR plays a leading role in developing new research methods to identify
long-term trends in major agricultural environments, and in developing
solutions to pressing environmental problems.
Saving Biodiversity. The CGIAR holds one of the world's
largest ex situ collections of plant genetic resources in trust for the world
community (…).
The terms of the agreements signed between the FAO
and CGIAR Centres, stipulate that the germplasm within the in-trust collections will be made
available without restriction to researchers around the world, on the
understanding that no intellectual property protection is to be applied to the
material.
Improving Policies. Agricultural producers are heavily influenced
by public policy. The CGIAR’s policy research aims to help streamline and improve policies that strongly
influence the spread of new technologies and the management and use of
natural resources.
Strengthening National Research.
The CGIAR is committed to strengthening national agricultural research in
developing countries (…) and formal training programs for research staff (www.CGIAR.org/whatis.htm; Pinstrup-Andersen
& Cohen, 2000).
As stated in the New Modernist part especially Pinstrup-Andersen from
IFPRI argues that the developing countries simply cannot afford not to use GM
crops (years) and that we at least should offer the African farmer the
opportunity to choose (source). What the article does not say how many options
she should have for choosing.
It is assumed
that some 1,2 billion people in the OECD countries and Eastern Europe are
supported by industrialized agriculture (Pretty, 1995).
The farms
within this group are large. The average size in Denmark is app. 50 hectares
while the average number of hectares is much larger in the “corn belt” in the
US Midwest.
These farms are
characterized by being strongly mechanized and little labour intensive. The often
only employ the farmer, and sometimes only part time.
The most grown
crops are different kinds of cereals for human or livestock consumption (wheat,
maize, barley, oat, rye), oilseeds (rapeseeds, soybeans) and potatoes,
vegetables and seeds. Monocropping is the most common practise. Consequently
use of legumes is related to pastures and seed production.
Pastures,
either permanent or in rotation, is also common in some regions.
Large-scale
monoculture is the most common farming practise together with chemical
fertilizers and pesticides.
Where
agricultural production has been improved by modern technologies there has too
often been seen adverse ecological and social impacts: pollution of soil, water
and air, intoxications of humans directly or indirectly, depletion of natural
resources, decrease in biodiversity – especially among domesticated crops and
livestock – and transformation of rural communities (Pretty, 1995).
Another
disadvantage of chemical fertilizers is that they do not add organic matter to
the soil and therefore contribute to soil degradation.
More examples
of implementation of sustainable agriculture to modernized agricultural land
are found in the USA and Western Europe than on Green Revolution land.
Many individual
examples of more sustainable agricultural practices are found on farms.
The consumption
of pesticides has generally been decreasing since the middle-80s and many OECD
governments (Canada, the US, Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark) have during
the late 1990s introduced programmes for further pesticide reduction by some
20-50 %. The Clinton administration was aiming for introduction of IPM on 75 %
of the total farmland by the year 2000 (Pretty, 1998).
Reduced tillage
is widely used, especially among American farmers. Brady (1990) assumes that
some form of reduced tillage is used on 40 % of the cropland in the US.
Reduced
tillage, or conservation tillage, is defined as a method that leaves 30% of the
crop residues on the soil surface. The system is widely adopted because it is
approved for lowering farm expenses, reduce soil erosions and run offs, aid
soil organic matter conservation, and increase soil moisture retention (Stinner
and Blair, 1990).
Of the cultivated area in the Queensland 90 % require protection from
soil erosion mainly due to rainfall running off the soil surface (Hamilton,
1998).
Thus, the number of landholders using reduced or zero-tillage has
dramatically increased in Queensland, Australia from 1990 to 1994 (Hamilton,
1998). The diagrams are shown in figure 5.1:
Figur fra
Röling s. 173
Ikerd et al. (no year) has in 1996 done a field study of
perceptions of sustainable agriculture among Missouri farmers. Their responses the
question of what sustainable agriculture means can be seen in figure 5.2. 35 %
of the farmers answered reduced tillage on the question.
Figure 5.2: Missouri farmers’
perceptions of the term
sustainable agriculture. From Ikerd et al. et al. (no year).
The results indicated a mixture
of perceptions among farmers regarding the meaning of sustainable agriculture.
Some responded by selecting farming methods, such as diversified farming and
organic farming, and others chose farming practices, such as conservation
tillage and crop rotations. However, the two most frequently descriptive terms
used to define sustainable agriculture were profitable and environmentally
sound, with more than half of the respondents choosing profitable as one of
their three choices.
Socially acceptable was the
least frequently chosen term among those provided for consideration. This
likely reflects a lack of understanding of what socially acceptability, social
responsibility, or social justice has come to mean with respect to the sustainability
issue on the part of farmers responding. In answers to later questions it
became clear that viable family farms and healthy rural communities are closely
linked with the issue of sustainability in the minds of farmers. But, community
and family issues had just not yet been linked with "sustainable
agriculture."
Farmers were
further asked to identify new farming methods or practices they had tried
within the last five years to improve the overall sustainability of their
farming operation. They were provided with a list from which they could check
as many as they choose. The results are shown in figure 5.3 below.
Figure
5.3: methods of sustainable agriculture methods tried out
by
Missouri farmers. From Ikerd et
al. (no
year).
The most tried new method among
farmers was conservation tillage. Conservation tillage included ridge tillage,
minimum tillage, and no tillage. The conservation compliance provisions of
recent farm bills may have played a significant role in the adoption of
conservation tillage practices. The second most common new practice was pasture
management. The survey was conducted in an area of the state where livestock is
a prevalent farm enterprise. Recent emphasis on pasture management in Missouri
seems to have had a significant impact on farmers in the survey counties (Ikerd
et al., no year). Surprisingly only very few of the farmers had tried out IPM
methods. It is explained by Ikerd et al. (no year) to be due to the fact that
many of the farmers in the survey did relatively little crop farming.
Where IPM techniques are widely
used and approved by many third world farmers American and European farmers,
despite their higher education and access to new informations about biology,
population dynamics, economic thresholds etc, have been much less enthusiastic
about adopting these methods (El Titi and Landes, 1990).
An example of
systematic implementation of sustainable agriculture is integrated agriculture.
There do not exist a set of regulations for this kind of farming as for organic
agriculture and systematic research on this type of agriculture (IAF) is mainly
known from the Netherlands where the Dutch government has been supporting
research studies on three experimental farms since 1979 (Vereijken, 1990).
The definition
of IAF is done according to the definition of integrated farming in the former
chapter and comprises two different sets of change:
1. the adoption of different external
technologies, such as new cultivars or machines, and the purchase of service
from specialized agencies. This type of change does not really require the
farmer him or herself to change much;
2. a transformation in farming practices,
i.e. managing the farm as an ecosystem based on observation, interpretation and
anticipation. This type of change requires the farmer to go through a great
deal of learning of both experiential and technical kind.
In this
specific study the use of pesticides were reduced 50-60% from 1986-1990 and the
economic outcome for IAF was moderately better than for organic and conventional
farming. Thus, it was decided to carry out field studies on private farms (van
Weperen et al., 1998). Adoption of IAF by the year 2000 was foreseen (Wijnands
et al., 1992 in van Weperen et al., 1998).
The conclusion
of this study was that the 38 participating farmers found the project
attractive due to several reasons: IAF makes a bigger claim on farmers’ skills
and was seen as a learning process. It was found that IAF was in line with
changes the farmers saw was already taking place in the agricultural sector,
and it was identified by some as a genuine alternative to conventional farming
(van Weperen et al., 1998).
When it comes
to energy consumption industrialized agriculture has a much higher input of
energy per kilocalorie produced than traditional agriculture in the tropics.
The input comes both from fuels for machinery and from the production of
fertilizers – as well as other management practises (milking, light, drying of
harvest etc.).
It is often
assumed that industrialized agriculture is consuming more and more energy but a
French case study shows evidence of the opposite. The study has analysed the
energy consumption in French agriculture from 1959 to 1989 and has found that
the total energy consumption for agriculture has been decreasing (slightly)
since 1977, and significant compared to the output, or per tonnes wheat
produced (Bonny, 1993). A figure in the paper shows the decreasing trends of
energy intensity after 1973 for USA, Germany, France, Italy, UK and Japan as
well (the oil crisis seems to have influenced the consumption). The conclusion
from the study is that agriculture is not using less energy more uses it more
efficiently in relation to yields.
GM crops also
find their way into industrialized agriculture in America and Europe for the
same reasons as for Green Revolution farming. Europe has for a long time had a
defensive role in the spread of the techniques on fields but GM crops have now
found their way into European agriculture as well.
5.3.3.
Conclusion on industrialized agriculture
Generally modernized farming is dominated by monocultures and
biodiversity has generally been decreasing on modernized farmland. Where
subsistence farmers favour biodiversity in the system for enhancing
productivity diseases, pesticides in modern agriculture control pests and weeds
and chemical fertilizers have made it of less importance to recycle nutrients.
Pretty (1995) states that 75% of genetic diversity of crops has been lost
during the 20th century. Only 150 plants are cultivated today and
only three provide 60% of calories derived from plants. CGIAR holds large banks
of genetic resources for preservation and research purposes but as the
discussion of biodiversity in the sustainable development chapter did not give
us the answer of how and how much to preserve for future
generation the discussion of preservation of genetic resources for agriculture
will not give us a clear answer either. And it is definite that the loss of
genetic resources from gene banks is of larger risk than if they were
cultivated in situ. Simply because
“houses” be destroyed from fires, natural disasters and attacked from “enemies
of the state” (whatever shape they must have – it actually nearly happened to
the “potato bank” in Peru in the 1980s) etc.
Not many examples of implementation of sustainable agriculture on
Green Revolution land are found. The IPM strategies are widely accepted
especially in Indonesia (due to national agricultural policies) but beside that
no consequent examples are found. The CGIAR research centres and the big
agribusiness companies points out biotechnology as the new technology on which
future food security and sustainable agriculture in the developing countries
should rely.
Unlike Green
Revolution farming several examples of implementations of sustainable
agricultural practises are found in Europe and the US. Among those are
conservation tillage and lower pesticide use in most OECD countries. IPM
strategies have had longer implementation time in Europe and the US despite the
higher levels of education and access to informations, than for developing
countries.
Pretty (1995)
summarize the evidences of implementation of sustainable agriculture to
modernized agriculture:
1. stabilized or lower yields in
industrialized countries, coupled with substantially environment improvements
2. stabilized or slightly higher yields in
Green Revolution lands, with environmental benefits
Consequently
implementation of integrated farming (IAF) is developed in the Netherlands
where also the indicator set we have looked into in chapter 4 is developed. The
IAF farming system obviously achieves some ecological goals by reducing the
input of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The system did also offer a
financial alternative to normal conventional practises and was also socially
acceptable for the farmers.
Due to the
successful implementation of sustainable agricultural methods on modernized
agricultural land in Western Europe and USA, conventional agriculture today is
totally different from what was considered conventional agriculture 10-20 years
ago. The environmental impacts are much less today than just some years ago due
to new policies and farming methods.
But whether the
farming systems can be considered full sustainable is doubtful.
The use of GMOs in relation to sustainable agriculture will be
included in the overall discussion because it affects more than one farming
system.
Organic agriculture and IFOAM have briefly been presented in chapter
3.
IFOAM develops international overall standards for certification of
organic production systems. The standards are not to be seen as certifying
rules but a guiding concept for the national/regional rules. The IFOAM
standards are approved by democratic congresses.
Organically produced food has since 1999 been implemented in the Codex Alimentarius
and organically produced food and fibres is today a globally approved and
well-defined concept.
In this section I will try to analyse how this production system meets
the definitions of sustainable agriculture by looking into more definitions and
examples.
On the homepage (www.ifoam.org) IFOAM gives the following definition
of organic farming, which they consider “sustainable agriculture in practice”:
“Organic agriculture includes all agricultural
systems that promote the environmentally, socially and economically sound
production of food and fibres”.
By writing “all agricultural systems…” they accept to include
“sub-organic” systems like i.e. biodynamic agriculture and permaculture,
because these systems, although they have different philosophical origins, fit
the over-all boundaries of organic agriculture.
They further
state that they are committed to a
holistic approach in the development of organic farming systems including
maintenance of a sustainable environment and respect for the needs of humanity
(www.ifoam.org).
IFOAM’s
criterias for organic agriculture follows the recommendations for sustainable
agriculture given by the eco-eco-soc group.
Whether this
system meets the definition made by Conway and Barbier has to be measured over
space and time. Like Pretty (1995) and Altieri (1994) they focus on local farm
and community level and not the global perspective like FAO, CGIAR and IFPRI.
Like Pretty (1995) they also focus on farmers’ participation in the process –
not on an “over-farm instance’s” domination.
To ensure that
organic agriculture is (becoming) socially sound, not only to the farmer but
also the employed workers in production and processing IFOAM has found it
relevant to integrate social justice in the guiding standards. Although the
integration of this issue does not have an exact measurable effect it shows the
intentions of making organic agriculture not only environmentally sound but also
socially sound. The social standards include that all ILO conventions relating
to labour welfare and the UN Charter of Rights for Children should be complied
with. All employees and their families should have access to potable water,
food, housing, education, transportation and health services, and social
security including maternity, sickness and retirement benefit. They should also
be ensured to become equal wages when doing the same job and have equal
opportunities irrespective of colour, creed, gender and culture. Also labour
conditions regarding noise, dust etc. should be within acceptable limits and
workers should have adequate protection (IFOAM, 2000).
5.4.1.
Organic farming and sustainable agriculture
What the
organic systems all over the world have in common is the refraining from
chemo-synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and the thereby occurring need for
preventing instead of solving problems (www.ifoam.org).
Organic farming systems are generally characterized by a large
diversity of crops. Organic farmers have long ago seen the benefit of crop
rotations, intercropping, catch crops and legumes in order to obtain the best
non-chemical way to protect the crops from attacks from pests and diseases, to
minimize weed pressure and obtain the best nutrient management for the farm.
Thus organic farms are much more diverse than modernized farming (Lampkin,
1998). The use of organic manures is also a cornerstone in the production
system and helps building up the pool of organic matter in the soil as well as
the soil microbial biomass (Lampkin, 1998).
Woodward (1996) finds that organic farming in particular is adoptable
to the tropical areas. “Organic farming
based on locally adapted, intensive biological systems work extremely well and
can be highly productive particularly across a range of basic food crops. They
are stable and relatively secure on vulnerable soils and in volatile climatic
conditions due to their focus on “living” organic material, which provides a
buffer for soil and water. As such they are very appropriate for Southern
countries.”
Pretty (1995) brings examples from organic coffee production in
Mexico, cotton in Turkey and cereal and dairy production in Europe.
For cotton growing in Turkey (two farms) the yields
were found to be 50-80% of conventional (UNDP (1992) in Pretty, 1995), but
organic cotton growing takes place in 26 countries including, USA, Pakistan,
Uganda, Greece, Turkey, Egypt and India. Yields are in average 20% smaller but
it has been shown that it is cheaper to produce organic cotton due to the
pesticide intensity in conventional production (app. 75% of all insecticides
used in the world) (http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov99/1999L-11-18-01.html).
FAO (www.fao.org/organicag/doc/zimbabwe.htm) have approved another organic cotton
project in Zimbabwe initiated by resource-poor (mainly women) farmers in the
Zambezi Valley. 400 households are involved in the enterprise, each household
having access to 5 ha.
The needs addressed were the
farmers' needs for income generation, improved health and a clean environment;
and European consumers need for organic cotton T-shirts.
The objectives of the project
have been to assist farmers who wanted to eliminate pesticides from their
farming systems, to promote a farming system which would lead to environmental
conservation/rehabilitation and to promote development through trade. The
further objectives have been to provide support to women who want to grow
cotton organically and to establish a sustainable organic farmers association,
which will support the organic farmers in the area.
Marketing of the organic products from this project
is a crucial aspect of the project. The organic seed cotton is sold at a
premium, which is currently 20%, and the harvest of lint is being locally
processed into export-quality, printed T-shirts. 5% of the premium is used to
reward Farmer Field Workers judged by their farmers and an attached research
staff to have performed well during the season.
The project has made
significant contributions to sustainable agriculture and land use management by
elimination of organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides from the farming
system, by providing information and training in sustainable agriculture
directly to farmers and through conservation of indigenous trees.
Certain problems are also faced
though. To contribute to economic viability of the project it is required that
each farmer produces at least 100 tonnes of organic cotton annually. The
organic farmers association must also be able to handle large sums of money in
a transparent way and be able to negotiate with the business partners to get a
good deal for its members. Another important factor is that agrochemical
companies must be prevented from undermining the enterprise.
In Mexico several cooperatives growing
organic coffee are found (UNDP (1992) in Pretty, 1995 and Garcia Lopez from the
UCIRI union at: www.fao.org/organicag/doc/mexico2.htm). The UCIRI cooperative is covering 3000 families
in 37 communities. They have grown organic coffee since 1985 and yields are
30-50% above average conventional yields, although they are not comparable with
the yields of large coffee estates.
The conservation methods are
terrace forming and composting and in particular the composting of the coffee
pulp is having positive impact of the local environment since the normal
practise in Central America is to lead the pulp into streams and rivers where
it creates serious pollution every year.
The coffee is marketed through fair-trade
organizations (to Denmark among others) and partly administrated by the
cooperative (for education and health services, infrastructure and shops) so
providing premiums for the farmers to take responsibility for their own
livelihoods and for society as a whole. The same objectives were acknowledged from
a similar community projects in met in Chiapas, Mexico (by Ronald Nigh from
Ass. de Dana, A.C. www.fao.org/organicag/doc/mexico1.htm).
For the European and American systems Pretty (1995)
finds an average decrease in yields of 5-10% for crops and 10-20% in livestock
due to the lover stocking rates on clover-based pastures. Lampkin (1998) argues
for 10-30% lower yields in cereals.
Labour requirements are expected to increase
124-295% compared with conventional farming in Denmark and 114-1000% in vegetables
in the Netherlands, and 116-167% in Switzerland (Dubgaard, 1994; Bouwman, 1996;
and Näf, 1995; all in Jansen, unpublished).
When it comes to energy use the main difference
between organic and conventional farming is found in the industrialized countries
where all food and fibre production rely on inputs form fuel.
Danish studies have recently proved 20-30% higher
energy consumption at conventional dairy farms compared with organic dairy
farms when direct and indirect energy consumption is included due to the high
energy consumption in the production of chemical fertilizers (Dalsgaard in
Vestergaard, 2000).
Subsidies and premiums (Lampkin (1998) gives
examples of up to 100% premiums for vegetables, and the same is reality on i.e.
clover seeds in Denmark) make the production form a realistic alternative to
conventional and integrated farming in those countries. Denmark and Sweden are
probably the best examples of the link between consumer demand and production,
where Britain have had larger consumer demands than production for a long time
as Norwegian organic farmers struggle to create a market for their products.
I take these examples to be representative for
organic farming worldwide.
5.4.2.Discussion
and conclusion
Organic agriculture is widely accepted by scientists, consumers,
farmers, NGOs and politicians as one form of sustainable agriculture.
Vereijken (1999) states that organic systems [in Europe] have no
quantified objectives in environment and nature/landscape and as a result, they
need to be considerably improved to become acceptable to the majority of
consumers.
He finds that organic systems (in Europe) can be considered sustainable
if they are willing to achieve more than is required by current minimal
guidelines of the EU organic label. Nevertheless, organic farming has a
strategic significance to Europe because it is the first example of a market
model of shared responsibility of consumers and producers for the rural areas.
For the Zimbabwe cotton project and the Mexico
coffee cooperatives training of farmers and technicians have been one of the
cornerstones as well as participation is seen as the key to success in all
projects.
The combination of organic farming in
the tropics and fair-trade with companies or organizations in the north are
also a key to success and several researchers also find strong links between
the organic movement and the fair trade movement because the two “ideologies”
meet the demands from the same consumers (Porritt, 1995; Nickoleit, 1995).
Organic farming all over the world depends on premiums and/or subsidies
to match the economic and social needs for the farmers and ecological needs for
farmers as well as the surrounding environment. The organic farming methods are
in particular of benefit to vulnerable tropical land and self-reliance farmers.
When these factors are present organic farming is acknowledged, as
meeting ecological, economic and social desires for farmers and society as a
whole – in line with the definitions by the eco-eco-soc group.
In the sustainable development chapter the
attention was mainly paid towards poor vs. rich humans and future and present
generations and how the resource base should be distributed.
The definitions of sustainable agriculture make another
starting point by reducing the target group (to farmers and in minor grade
urban people) and resources (those on which agriculture depends and in minor
grade the surrounding environment). The reason for this step is the
acknowledgement of the fact that large parts of the very poor people in the
world live in rural areas and therefore a special attention must be paid to
their living conditions and development.
The Conway and Barbier definition further reduces
the definition to be a matter of productivity and not economic and social
welfare because it makes the definition more measurable and thereby solid than
the eco-eco-soc definitions where each farmer’s preferences must be discussed
in each case.
The growing population in the world stress both agricultural
scientists and politicians – among others. To feet the future population is
thus pointed out as a key subject for the future agricultural development. This
gives often conflicting goals with the effort to create sustainable agriculture
because agricultural systems that have been proved sustainable for centuries
are now put under stress which leads to exploitation of natural resources.
Some argue that new crops improved by biotechnology
to survive water stress, lack of phosphate, attacks from pests and diseases
etc. will be the way to feed the world in the future. Some argue, at the same
time, that the developing countries will never, or at least not soon, be able
to feed themselves whereas food production should be increased in the developed
countries. GMO crops are finding their way into agriculture in these countries
for this reason.
The
use of GMO crops is rather difficult to consider sustainable or not.
It is likely that these techniques really can increase food
production. And it is likely that these systems will rely less on external
inputs than the first generation techniques of the Green Revolution thereby
increasing farmers’ self-reliance. It is also likely that the use of these
techniques can take the pressure of the expansion of agriculture into natural
areas.
I see that GMOs are in conflict with some of the
priorities of nature preservation in e.g. Denmark.
It is not yet known how the GMOs affect our health
and nature. And personally I would rather have more forest or other “natural”
(forest management will not be included in this discussion although it could be
relevant) biotopes in Denmark than high producing agriculture – with all the
environmental costs it is leading to - for the benefit of other people to feed
on the food and preserve their local natural resources.
I do find it fair that natural resources in the
developing countries are preserved – but also that they should feed themselves
if possible.
Some scientists argue that organic farming is a
threat to the food-insecure because it gives lower yields (at least in Europe).
But it seems like politicians from the countries in
the European Union have no intensions about raising food production. 15% of the
arable land is subsidised as set-a-side every year. This is app. Equal to the yield
decreases in organic agriculture compared with conventional.
If the set-a-side were transformed into nature –
deforestation or nature areas for endangered species and nature, as a whole the
set-a-side politics would lead to more sustainable development for the society.
But instead farmers are prohibited to even simple agricultural practises like
cutting the grass in order to make it possible to turn the land back to arable
land as soon as a market for the products occur. This at the same time as FAO assumes
that 800 million people are not getting enough food.
Thus there are several conflicts between
production, nature and set-a-sides in EU. I feel that this arable land must be
used for something better either sustainable food production or nature conservation/
rising – and that it would be relevant to discuss sustainability of the farming
system with and without these practises.
Although conventional agriculture is taking serious
steps towards more sustainable practises a more conceptual thinking is required
in order to decrease energy consumption further, soil erosion, nutrient and
pesticide leaching etc.
Much more could be done but putting more attention
into nutrient cycling and nitrogen fixation. The use of external inputs is the
factor that increases energy consumption dramatically (around 20% compared with
organic farms under same conditions) and nitrogen leaching is one of the
serious causes of growth of algae in fresh water and sea in e.g. Denmark – but
probably also in other places.
I strongly believe that organic agriculture can
teach industrialized agriculture a lot about nutrient and pest management. And
that it have social benefits for farmers and consumers and benefits for
landscape and nature as a whole.
The debate of food security is also sometimes too
focused on that specific question – instead of realizing that farmers’ needs
are more than just food security but also clothes, tools, transport, medical
care etc.
Facing this fact it is obvious that sustainable
agriculture must meet some economic needs that are raised above simply food for
survival.
But if the system should be considered sustainable according to the
eco-eco-soc definitions it must also increase economic and social welfare for
the producers and with the present market situation for GMOs in Europe (the
same situation seems to rise among American consumers as well) the
possibilities for export are rather bad – something American farmers have
realized. Thus, the present economic stability for export crops is rather
insecure and the area grown with GMO maize in the US has decreased form 33% in
1999 to 25% in 2000 an recently, at a congress held on the Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural University of Denmark, Gary Goldberg, director of the American
Corn Growers Association, apologized to European consumes for the American
government’s export pressure on the EU on this issue (Hansen, 2000b).
Especially the terminator gene in plants implemented by Monsanto
(developed by USDA and the Delta and Pine Land Company) is indicating the agribusiness’
intentions of making farmers dependent on their products also in the future.
After serious critiques – especially from Farmers’ Unions Monsanto have now
decided to stop the development of this gene for commercial use. Still farmers’
trust in the technique has been shaked by the existence of this gene.
At the moment it is also uncertain how the GMO crops will influence
the local environment and human health in the long term as well as enhance
social welfare for rural people.
If future research shows evidence of hazardous impacts on human health
or environment created by GMOs this technique cannot be united with sustainable
agriculture according to the definitions made by the eco-eco-soc group. The
same is the case if the terminator gene finds its way back to commercial crops
because it will decrease farmers’ self-reliance and decrease their social
welfare.
If the definition from Conway and Barbier is used the biotechnology
might find its way into sustainable agriculture because the farming system
might be able to keep up its productivity over time and the definition itself
do not give any limits of the use of certain technologies.
It is difficult to point out one or more specific
agriculture system and characterize it as sustainable or not. No universal
indicators are developed for this purpose – at might never be because the
systems are so difficult and complex.
Instead it is necessary for the farmer,
extensionists or researchers to point out some key issues that have to be
sustained. These can be picked according to the many definitions presented in
this report:
1. Long-term productivity - to meet the
needs of the future generations
2. Energy consumption – to save resources
for the future generation and decrease pollution of the air
3. Increase biodiversity – intercropping,
agroforestry, livestock, cover crops, catch crops and rotations etc. are all
proved to have benefits for biodiversity (the “good” part indeed) as well as
productivity
4. Economic – to ensure that farmers can
obtain a proper living standard
5. Socially – to ensure that farming
practises meet the social and cultural lifestyle of the farmer and that he/she
is given respect in society
Basically Pretty (1995) sees sustainable
agriculture as something between organic farming and high-input farming. He
does approve organic agriculture as being ecological and socially sustainable,
but finds that only if sustainable agriculture is moved closer to modernized
farming practises sustainable agriculture will be available to all farmers,
because organic agriculture relies so heavily on subsidies and consumer
premiums.
Consumer premiums are related to the industrialized
countries. And to obtain good living conditions (economic and socially) organic
farming in the developing countries are depending on fair trade organizations
who are willing to pay these premiums.
It is obvious though, that particular Sustainable
Intensification, including organic farming, hold some of the keys to future
food security and sustainable agriculture. The potential of increasing yields
in traditional farming systems in the developing countries by conserving
methods seems to be very high.
Organic farming do hold the idea about meeting
social and economic needs for farmers and farm workers. And the ideas are
implemented regularly on farms around the world. The organic agriculture
movement is connected to the fair trade movement as well. But how strong and
how certification standards are encouraging/limiting the access of organic food
from the developing countries into Europe and other developed countries need
further examination before a clear answer can be given on whether organic
farming in particular meets these goals.
Since the WCED published their report “our common
future” a lot of political and scientific attention has been paid to the issue
of sustainable development.
Through a summary of the scientific definitions
four main focuses are pointed out:
1. The distribution of resources between
the rich and the pour
2. The distribution of resources between the
present and the future generations
3. The relation between humans and other
species
4. Sustainable use of renewable and
non-renewable resources.
The question of sustainable growth is also raised
and new methods for valuing natural resources are introduced.
The concerns of the sustainable
development definitions are transferred into the dominating definitions of
sustainable agriculture as well. Two key groups of definitions are found within
sustainable agriculture:
One group emphasize some
ecological, economic and social goals for the farming system and the managing
farmer. This is the dominating group of definitions realizing that it is
impossible to implement sustainable conservation methods if the farmer is not
paid remarkably in return for the extra work he is doing. It is also required
that sustainable agricultural development meets other needs for the farmer than
just food security.
The other group of definitions
encourage long-term productivity of the farming system – and that it has to be
persistent to external forces.
With the growing population in
the world many systems that have been sustainable for the last centuries are
now in risk of collapsing due to over-grazing and exhaustion of soil and other
natural resources. Unfortunately the definition is not very precise when it
comes to which technologies are acceptable but the definition creates the
foundation for measuring (productivity/) sustainability of the agricultural
systems – something that the EU and OECD indicators do not offer. They are developed
for political and scientific purposes but they can be useful for creating
another discussion of sustainable agriculture based on the goals of both
farmers and society and how all goals are met acceptably.
When it comes to the use of
non-renewable resources modernized agriculture is less sustainable than
traditional agriculture as well as organic agriculture in the developed
countries.
The depletion of resources is
substituted by large inputs of fuel (for machinery and fertilizers) regardless
of being Green Revolution land or modernized agriculture in the industrialized
countries. Also organic farming in the industrialized countries is more fuel
consuming than farms in the third world but they do reduce the consumption
notably due to the refrain of chemical fertilizers.
When it comes to biodiversity
traditional agriculture in the tropics are more sustainable compared with
modernized farming’s monocultures. CGIAR do hold large quantities of genetic
resources in gene banks around the world but the diversity on the farmland is
generally reduced during modernization times – both due to HYVs etc., which
have substituted traditional varieties – and due to the use of pesticides. The
large diversity of crops known from traditional tropical systems does create precious
biotopes for wild species.
But – Traditional agriculture in
the tropics are low yielding compared with modernized farming and with the
increasing population farmland is assumed to spread into virginal forest and
other kinds of potential land for farming.
To prevent all rain forests to be
cut etc. it is strongly needed to increase food production on the existing land
and especially non-modernized farms are the targets for future food production.
Five schools of thought have been
presented in the report and the New Modernist group and the lobby for
Sustainable Intensification are dominating the debate at the moment – as well
as representing the two poles.
It is likely that both ideologies
hold some of the right cards for increasing future food production.
The new modernists encourage
biotechnology as the cornerstone in future production so increasing yields and
decrease farmers’ dependence on external inputs.
There are two major constraints
on this production. The unclear situation about how these crops/animals are
affecting human and animal health, animal welfare, and the environment as a
whole have created an insecure market for these crops – especially in Europe.
Another constraint is lying
within the agribusiness firms themselves because of the existence of the
terminator gene. The knowledge of this have given a wide range of – especially
American – farmers “second thoughts” about the usefulness of this technology.
The Sustainable Intensification lobby
do not see biotechnology as the main technique for the future. They identify
traditional methods of soil and water conservations, crop diversity, nutrient
cycling, nitrogen fixation and rotations etc. as the main techniques. The lobby
covers the organic farming movement, represented by IFOAM, which systematically
implement these strategies although they differ from farm to farm according to
the local or regional resource base.
Several methods and techniques
are approved as sustainable and they are more widely found in modernized
agriculture today than just some decades ago. Among those are: reduced tillage,
legumes, soil cover and integrated pest management.
IPM has not found a solid
foundation in the industrialized world but political strategies have lead to a
more efficient use of fertilizers and many pesticides.
Indicators are developed for
measuring sustainability of agriculture. The two set examined in this paper is
more developed for political and scientific purposes than for farm-based
analysis by the farmer.
It is also very difficult to give
one clear instruction on how to evaluate sustainable agriculture because of the
diversity around the world. And also because each little part of the system
(soil conservation, economy, social stability, water management etc) has to
evaluated separately according to different methods – as well as the system
needs to evaluated as a whole. Thus, a holistic approach is required as well as
insight in the biological, physical, chemical and socio-economic process is
required.
I would suggest that some goals
fort he farm or community is developed in cooperation with the involved parts
each time agricultural development is brought into focus. For this purpose it
is required with a holistic approach rather than focusing on particular soil
management practises or special systems. Especially because many practises and
systems can be categorized as sustainable in one place and totally fail in
another.
Although the excitement whereby
scientists have defined sustainable development and agriculture has slowed
drastically during the last decade the political attention has not. The term
has just become a more incorporated part of decision-making processes than
before. But it is still important to discuss the definitions once in a while to
keep the focus on the important parts in the discussions. In the next two years
in particular – while we are waiting for the Rio+10 conference.
Altieri,
M.A. (1994): Sustainable
Agriculture. pp. 239-247 in Encyclopedia of Agricultural
Science, Vol. 4. Publ. by: Academic Press, Inc.
Barraclough,
S. (1995): Social Dimensions of Desertification: A Review of Key
Issues. Pp. 21-80 in Social Aspects of Sustainable Dry Land Management. Ed. By
D. Stiles. Publ. on behalf of UNEP by
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore.
Barrett,
J. (1999): Cleaning up the
Kyoto protocol. Found on: www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/Ib131.html (8/12-00).
Benbrook,
C.M. (1991): Introduction.
Pp. 1-12 in: sustainable agriculture research and education in the field. A
proceedings. Board on Agriculture, National Research Council & National
Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Bonny, S.
(1993): Is
agriculture using more and more energy? A French case study.
Pp.51-66 in Agricultural systems 0308-521X/93/$06.00. Publ. By Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd, England.
Borch,
H., A. Vatn and R. Øygard (1994): Robust landbruk – Begreper, processer og aktuelle forskningsfelter. Senter
for bærekraftig utvikling – NLH.
Brady, N.C
(1990): Making
agriculture a sustainable industry. Pp.20-32 in: Sustainable agricultural systems.
Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and House. Publ.: Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Iowa.
Brundtland,
G. Harlem (1998): Opening the conference: Knowledge for a sustainable development.
Pp. 5-12 in: The Brundtland Commission’s Report – 10 years. Ed. By Søfting, G. Bang, Benneh, G., Hindar,
K., Walløe, L. and Wijkman, A. Publ.: Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.
CGIAR
(2000): SDR/TAC/:IAR/00/04: Consultative Group on
International Agricultural research. Technical Advisory Committee, Special
Meeting, FAO, Rome 25-27 January 2000. www.cgiar.org/tac/2010vision/syndoc.pdf
Court, T.
de la (1990): Beyond
Brundtland. Green
development in the 1990s. New Horizons Press, New York.
Zed Books Ltd.
Cox and
Atkins (no year): Agricultural Ecology. Ch.
5 and 6. pp. 55-101 in Bærekraftigt landbruk – artikkelsamling III. Ås-NLH
1993. Collected by Colin Murphy.
Ehui, S.K.
& D.S.C. Spencer (1990): Indices
for Measuring Sustainability and Economic Viability of Farming Systems. Publ.
By: Resoruce and Crop Management Program. Internationa Institute of Tropical
Agriculture.
French,
H.F. (1995): Partnership
for the Planet: An Environmental Agenda for the United Nations. Worlds
Watch Paper 126. Publ. World Watch Institute July, 1995.
Gore, Al
(1992): Jorden i
Balance. Gyldendals forlag, København.
Hansen,
M.B. (2000a): Vi
beslutter selv (Interview med Cand.scient.pol. Bjørn Lomborg). Pp.
16-17 in : Jord og Viden no. 20, 28th of September 2000.
Hansen,
P. (2000b): Undskyld
for gensplejsning. Pp. 20 in Økologisk Jordbrug no.
225, 6th of October. Magazine publ. By Landsforeningen
Økologisk Jordbrug, Århus, Denmark.
Hamilton, G. (1998): Co-learning tools in Southern Queensland. Pp. 173-190 in:
Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Ed. by: Röling and Wagemakers. Publ. at
Cambridge University Press.
Harwood, R.R. (1990): A history of sustainable agriculture. Pp. 3-19 in: Sustainable
agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and House. Publ.:
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
Harwood, R.R. (1998): Key note speaker at
the World Bank Baltimore symposium "Sustainability in agricultural systems
in transition". Ref: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/682a71375350c6f9852567f50073f6a7/e2c32bfab271e7ff8525688e0075bb1a
IFOAM (2000): Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing decided by the
IFOAM General Assembly in BASEL, Switzerland, September 2000. Publ. by:
IFOAM standards committee & basic standards.
IFOAM
(no year): Information about IFOAM.
IFOAM homepage: http://www.ifoam.org/whoisifoam/generel.html#What is organic
agriculture
Ikerd, J.E., D. Osburn and J.C.
Owsley (unknown year): Some Missouri Farmer’s
perspectives of sustainable agriculture. University of Misssouri. Found on
the Internet: www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/JIkerd/papers/tsu-surv.htm
Jansen, K.: Labour
Livelihoods and the Quality of life in Organic Agriculture. Unpublished manuscript
submitted to Biological Agriculture and Horticulture
Krogsdam
Krøier, AA (2000): Salt- og jorderosion truer landets livsnerve. Pp.
14-15 in Jord og Viden no. 23 9th of November.
Lampkin,
N. 1998: Organic Farming.
Farming Press, UK. 2nd ed. 3rd reprint.
Luna, J.M.
& G.J. House (1990): Pest management in sustainable agricultural systems. Pp. 157-173
in: Sustainable
agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and House. Publ.:
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
McNeill, D. (2000): The Concept of Sustainable Development. P.p.10-29 in: Global
sustainable development in the 21st century. Ed. by: Keekok, L.,
Holland, A. and McNeill, D. Publ. Edinburgh University Press.
Nickoleit, G. (1995): Importance of fair trade for IFOAM and the organic movement. Pp.
29-37 in Trade in organic products. Conference proceedings ed. by Haccius, M.,
Bernd, A. and Geir, B. IFOAM. Tholey-Theley.
Njøs, A
(no year): Bærekraftig
utvikling i jordbruket. Paper handed out by himself. Contact
him at Jordforsk, Norges Landbrukshøgskole, Ås, Norway.
Næss, A.
(1990): Hva er
bærekraftig utvikling? In: Supermarked eller fælles fremtid?: EF,Økokrisen
og Norges valg. Ed. by Album, G. et al. Publ. Cappelen, Oslo.
OECD (1999): Environmental indicators for agriculture. Vol. 2: Issues and Design.
The York Workshop. Organisation for
economic co-operation and development. Contributors: Parris, K.; Pearce, D.;
Doyle, C.J.; Moxey, A.; Thomassin, P.J.; Baldock, D.; Elliot Morley, M.P.;
Viatte, G. and Coates, D.
Pearce, F. (1996): Crying out for food. Pp.14-15 in New Scientist November 9th
1996.
Pezzey, J. (1989): Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development. The
World Bank Policy Planning and Research Staff. Environment Department Working
Paper No. 15. Pp. 63-71: app. 1: Definitions of sustainability in the
literature.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (1999): The
Developing World Simply Can't Afford To Do Without Agricultural Biotechnology.
Contributed to The Washington Post, International Herald Tribune opinion/letters,
Thursday, October 28, 1999. www.ifpri.cgiar.org
Pinstrup-Andersen,
P. & Cohen, M. (2000): Biotechnology and the CGIAR. Paper prepared for presentation at the
international conference on “Sustainable Agriculture in the Next Millennium – The
Impact of Modern Biotechnology on Developing Countries,” sponsored by Friends
of the Earth Europe, Oxfam Solidarity Belgium, and the Dag Hammarskjold
Foundation, Brussels, Belgium, 28-31 May, 2000. Found on: www.cgiar.org
Pinstrup-Andersen,
P., R. Pandya-Lorch & M.W. Rosegrant (2000): The World Food Situation: Recent
developments emerging issues, and long-term prospects. 2020 Vision. Food
Policy Report. Publ. by: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Plantedirektoratet
(2000): Økologiske
Jordbrugsbedrifter 1999. Autorisation.
Produktion. Publ. by Ministeriet for
Fødevarer, Landbrug of Fiskeri – Plantedirektoratet.
Plucknett, D.L. (1990): International goals and the role of research centres. Pp. 33-49 in:
Sustainable agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and
House. Publ.: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
Porritt, J. (1995): Organic and Fair Trade: the need for integration. Pp.35-37 in The
future agenda for organic trade. Ed. by. Maxted-Frost, T. IFOAM Conference proceedings.
Soil Ass. Bristol.
Prescott-Allen, R. and C.
Prescott-Allen (1982): What’s wildlife
worth? Economic contributions of wild plants and animals to developing
countries. An Earthscan Paperback. Publ. By: International Institute for
Enviroment and Development and World Wildlife Fund-US.
Pretty, J.N. (1995): Regenerating agriculture – Policies and practice for Sustainability nd
self-Reliance. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
Pretty, J.N. (1998): Supportive policies and practise for scaling up sustainable
agriculture. Pp. 23-46 in: Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Ed. by:
Röling and Wagemakers. Publ. at Cambridge University Press.
Ruthenberg, H. (1980): Farming Systems in the Tropics. Third edition. Publ. Oxford
University Press.
Röling, N.
& E. Van der Fliert (1998): Introducing integrated pest management in rice in Indonesia: a
pioneering attemt to facilitate large-scale change. Pp. 153-171 in: Facilitating
sustainable agriculture. Ed. by: Röling and Wagemakers. Publ. at Cambridge
University Press.
Stinner, B.R. & J.M. Blair
(1990):
Ecological and agronomic characteristics.
Pp. 123-140 in Sustainable agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden,
Miller and House. Publ.: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
el Titi,
A. & H. Landes (1990): integrated farming system of Lautenbach: a practical contribution
toward sustainable agriculture in Europe. Pp. 265-286 in Sustainable
agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and House. Publ.:
Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
UNCTAD (no year): Commercial and Domestic initiatives. Found on
www.unctad.org/en/subsites/etrade/etinit.htm (8/12-00)
Vereijken, P. (1990): Research on integrated arable farming and organic mixed farming in the
Netherlands. Pp. 287-296 in Sustainable agricultural systems. Editors:
Edwards, Lal, Madden, Miller and House. Publ.: Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Iowa.
Verijken, P. (1999): Manual
for prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in
interaction with pilot farms. Published by AB-DLO, Wageningen.
Vestergaard
(2000): Oliekrise gavner økologien. Pp. 4 in
Økologisk Jordbrug no. 227, 3rd of November. Magazine
publ. By Landsforeningen Økologisk Jordbrug, Århus, Denmark.
Villachica, H.; Silva, J.E.;
Peres, J.R. and Magno C. da Rocha, C. (1990): Sustainable agricultural systems in the humid tropics of South America.
Pp. 391- 437 in: Sustainable agricultural systems. Editors: Edwards, Lal,
Madden, Miller and House. Publ.: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa.
van
Weperen, W., J. Proost & N. Röling (1998): Integrated arable farming in the
Netherlands. Pp.102-121 in: Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Ed. by: Röling and
Wagemakers. Publ. at Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, L. (1996): Can Organic Farming Feed the World? Pp. I-IV in Elm Farm Research
Centre, November 1996.
World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED) (1987): Our common
future. Oxford University Press.
Øygard,
R. (1992): Bærekraftig
utvikling. Å mette verdens økende befolkning. Pp. 25-35 in
Landbruksøkonomisk Forum nr 4/1992.
Øygard, R.
(unknown year): Overhead with definitions
Appendix 1: Suggested project frame made by Danagro a/s.
Oplæg til studie omkring litteratur og metode til
sammenligning af bæredygtigheden af forskellige produktionssystemer i Asien,
Afrika og Latinamerika
Litteraturstudie
1) Oversigt over
litteratur omkring konkret sammenligning af forskellige
produktionssystemer i udviklingslande, herunder det økologiske. Kan være
sammenligning af udbytter, betydning for indkomst, jordfertilitet,
fødevaresikkerhed, arbejdskraft, sociale forhold, etc. Kort beskrivelse samt
gruppering af litteraturen udfra deres forståelse af bæredygtighedsbegrebet,
metodevalg og resultater, jvf. pkt. 5 og 6 nedenfor.
2) Oversigt over
projekter/forskning (hvem, hvor) til belysning af bæredygtigheden af
forskellige produktionssystemer, herunder det økologiske. (Check
CGIAR-systemet, IFOAM, IFPRI, FAO, ODI, IIED, ILEA). Kort beskrivelse og
gruppering af projekterne udfra deres forståelse af bæredygtighedsbegrebet,
metodevalg og foreløbige resultater, jvf. pkt. 5 og 6 nedenfor. Angivelse af
kontaktpersoner.
3) Oversigt over
litteratur og projekter til belysning eller udvikling af metoder til
foretagelse af sammenligning af forskellige dyrkningssystemer i forskellige
verdensdele/lande. Hvor / hvem arbejder med sådanne metoder (Check samme som
ovenfor samt økologiske forskningsinstitutioner i Schweiz, Tyskland, Østrig,
Italien samt EU-projekter, FØJO). Kort beskrivelse og gruppering af projekterne
og litteraturen udfra de metoder, der arbejdes med, og evt. det værdigrundlag,
der arbejdes udfra, jvf. pkt. 5 og 6 nedenfor.
4) Oversigt over status
af arbejdet omkring operationalisering af bæredygtighedsbegrebet under
Committee on Sustainable Development, UN, samt generelt status på udvikling af
bæredygtighedsindikatorer relateret til udvikling og landbrug
Metodestudie
5) Oversigt over
forskellige metoder til sammenligning af (bæredygtigheden af) forskellige
dyrkningssystemer. Oversigt over og gruppering af de metoder der anvendes og er
under udvikling.
6) Oversigt over de
forskellige værdigrundlag og fortolkninger af bæredygtighedsbegrebet der
ligger til grund for de forskellige sammeligninger, herunder deres vægtning af
økonomiske, sociale, miljømæssige og kulturelle forhold.
(Der ønskes også en
oversigt over, hvordan de forskellige værdigrundlag og fortolkninger udmyntes i
forskellige måder at operationalisere begrebet på, således at det kan måles
(udvikling af indikatorer)).
7) Skitsering af
sammenhængen mellem metodevalg og værdigrundlag.
8) Vurdering af
metodernes anvendelighed, styrker og svagheder, præmisser, i relation til
vurdering af bæredygtigen af forskellige dyrkningssystemer i udviklingssammenhæng,
på landbrugsniveau (fattige bønder) samt nationalt niveau.