Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Dear All Greetings we have best discussion group at this platform.

The views express by dear discussion group members are all valuable and need to be given importance in current policy framework.

I wish to put my view in this way that agriculture intensification may not be the solution for the sustainable agriculture. Since demographic transitions and climate change is being discussed a lot which is natural phenomenon what is important, to adjust ourselves in this changing arena without further degradation of natural resources.

Therefore, to harness the ecological services in a sustainable manner, development process need to be linked with conservation of existing resources with good status.

Thanks

The ecosystem is now dominated by the mismanagement of industrial and service sectors.  What actually needed now is to coordinate all the sectors of the economy to interlink with the external sector.  The possibility of sustained growth would be possible only with is attempt.

Dear Danielle and Artur,

Bhaskar Save’s Low Risk Agro ecology vs MNC Agribusiness’ High Cost/ Risk Conventional Green Revolution/ Climate Smart Technology provides most of the answers you may be looking for in this discussion, also attached docs:

 http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/the-toxic-agriculture-of-monsanto-and-big-agribusiness-vs-agroecology-rooted-in-communities-and-locally-owned/

 “We are being far too kind to industrialised agriculture. The private sector has endorsed it, but it has failed to feed the world, it has contributed to major environmental contamination and misuse of natural resources. It’s time we switched more attention, public funds and policy measures to agro ecology, to replace the old model as soon as possible.” Dr David Fig, Biowatch, South Africa

Based on the results on his farm in Gujarat, Indian farmer and campaigner Bhaskar Save demonstrated that by following the agro ecology, his yields were superior to any farm using chemicals in terms of quantity, nutritional quality, biological diversity, ecological sustainability, water conservation, energy efficiency and economic profitability. 

Bhaskar Save: 1922 - October 2015, published in 2006 a famous open letter to the Indian Minister of Agriculture and other top officials to bring attention to the mounting suicide rate and debt among farmers. He wanted policy makers to abandon their policies of promoting the use of toxic chemicals that the ‘green revolution’ had encouraged and subsidized, even today .

According to Save, the green revolution had been a total disaster for India by flinging open the floodgates of toxic agro-chemicals which had ravaged the lands (paper attached) and lives of many millions of farmers (for example, read about the impact: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/309654/punjab-transformation-food-bowl-cancer.html, in Punjab). He firmly believed that organic farming in harmony with nature could sustainably provide India with abundant, wholesome food to the growing population. 

India had for generations sustained one of the highest densities of population on earth, without any chemical fertilisers, pesticides, exotic dwarf strains of grain or ‘bio-tech’ inputs – and without degrading its soil. For instance, see this analysis which highlights better productivity levels in India prior to the green revolution. (If further evidence is required as to the efficacy of organic farming, see this report, based on a 30-year study, which concludes that organic yields match conventional yields, outperform conventional in years of drought and actually build soil fertility rather than deplete it; and see this report that says that low cost low risk organic and sustainable small- holder producer communities could double farm production in all parts of the world, especially India, ensuring access to their own requirements of nutritious food thus reducing hunger, mal nutrition, poverty, effects of climate change and suicides - the big issues.) 

Save argued that numerous tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains. But in the guise of increasing crop production, exotic dwarf varieties were introduced and promoted. This led to more vigorous growth of weeds, which were able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. The farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding or spraying herbicides. In effect, farmers were placed on a chemical treadmill as traditional pest management systems were destroyed and soil degradation and erosion set in. This water-intensive, high cost external input model of the high risk economies of scale conventional green revolution technologies led to the construction of big dams, deep indebtedness, population displacement and a massive, unsustainable strain on water tables. Save noted that more than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. Maharashtra has the maximum number of big and medium dams in the country. But sugarcane alone, grown on barely 3-4% of its cultivable land, guzzles about 70% of its irrigation waters. 

For Save, in a country of farmers, it was essential to restore the natural health of soil by making required investments in Indian agriculture to solve the inter-related problems of poverty, unemployment and rising population. See his arguments in more detail here. 

Save’s views may be out of step with global agribusiness interests and the international bodies, national governments and regulatory bodies they have co-opted or hijacked (see this, this, this, this, this and this), but there is an increasing awareness across the globe that the type of viewpoint put forward by Save and many others is valid and backed with evidence. 

Millions of farmers across the world already knew that what Save had stated was correct and have for a long time been protesting and resisting the industrial conventional green revolution high cost high risk model, dependent external input of seed/ GMO, agro chemicals and increasing requirement of water each year and being  imposed on producer communities across the planet. They are in step with what the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology (IAASTD) report (among others) advocates: a shift towards and investment in and reaffirmation of  following the agro ecology of the area.  

Likewise, botanist Stuart Newton’s notes that the answers to agricultural productivity do not entail embracing the international, monopolistic, corporate-conglomerate promotion of agro chemicals dependent hybrid/GM crops. He argues that India must restore and nurture its heavily depleted, abused and degraded soils and is endangering human and animal health by following the agro ecology. Newton provides good insight into the vital roll of healthy soils and their mineral compositions and links their depletion to the green revolution. In turn, these degraded and micro-nutrient lacking soils cannot help but lead to denitrified food and thus malnourishment: a very pertinent point given that the PR surrounding the green revolution claims it dramatically helped reduce malnutrition, hunger and poverty when the facts are otherwise. 

Over the past few years, there have been numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies putting forward proposals to support and invest in small holder producer communities and their agro ecology has not been put in their plans and budgets to ensure their access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, if they are to be sustainable in the long term. Instead, the inaction of governments on the ground producer communities are increasingly being marginalised and oppressed due to corporate seed monopolies, land speculation and takeovers, rigged trade that favours global agribusiness interests and commodity speculation (see this on food commodity speculation, this on the global food system, this by the Oakland Institute on land grabs and this on the impact of international trade rules). 

India has largely ignored he needs of the rural poor producer communities by continuing  to follow the World Bank/ US Government advice on moving out 400 million out of agriculture livelihoods, thus capitulating to US agribusiness interests and in the process seeking to demonise those who criticise the Government line. The  reasons given was that smallholder producers are not viable (policies behind making agriculture financially unviable) and the impacts are discussed in the article ‘Global Agribusiness Hammering Away at the Foundations of Indian Society‘. The urban-centric model of ‘development’ being pursued is unsustainable and is wholly misguided as about 20% of the population do not have jobs and thus the 70% of the  population (rural) must be put to work gainfully in agriculture as they can contribute to growth and development and become sustainable in the long term. 

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Professor Hilal Elver: 

“Empirical and scientific evidence shows that small farmers feed the rich world [see this]. According to the UN Food & Agrultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from small farmers… Currently, most subsidies go to large agribusiness. This must change. Governments must support small holder producer communities.”

Despite the top down approach adopted by the National Agriculture Research & Education System (NARES) in India, it should be noted that a good deal of inspiring work is now being made to happen by the policies of the Ministry of Rural Development which may soon make the NARES redundant unless they start contributing substantially to facilitating and creating capacity in the producer communities to follow their agro ecology and having access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, contributing to economic growth and development, becoming sustainable in the long term. 

In Tamil Nadu (South India), for example, women’s collectives have been restored their agro ecology/ nutritious food systems and follow low cost low risk farming methods, resulting in lower costs, higher farm production and improved nutrition.  

Before the green revolution India had 14,000 different varieties of paddy, but these traditional varieties were displaced by hybrid varieties developed based on the application on increasing quantities agro chemical and water use. Sheelu Francis is General Coordinator of the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu fighting back against the deleterious social, economic and environmental impacts of the conventional green revolution technologies. She states that by practicing agroecology, an increasing number of women farmers are now free from debt by growing many crops together – grains, lentils, beans, oilseeds each season thus have access to own requirements of nutrition and food, at little or no cost – creating biodiversity, producing most  inputs on farm (seed, compost, plant protection formulations and plant growth promoters) not using the high cost external agro chemicals. 

Government subsidies for high cost external inputs required for conventional green revolution systems, farmers gave up following their agro ecology/ traditional farming practices and agriculture systems. Francis says that farmers were encouraged to grow rice, wheat and other commodities because of government price support and subsidies which promoted growing, especially with hybrid/ GM seeds and agro chemicals. Rice and sugar cane use lots of water, so when it is the dry season or when there is drought, there is no production at all, putting producer communities into deep debt. 

The use of agro chemicals harmed the health of the producers, according Francis, not just because of the chemicals but because people consume polished rice which is not very nutritious (she says 46% of children are malnourished in Tamil Nadu).

When you combine the effects of degraded soils depleted of nutrients, chemical residues many times the acceptable level, mono crops as food is a recipe for catastrophe. Little wonder then that producers are now going back to their agro ecological practices and growing multiple nutritious crops, thus ensuring access to own requirements of nutritious, balanced diet and maintain soil health. 

However, it is an uphill struggle, as Francis notes: 

“People who try to hold onto their ways of life are marginalised from their land, their seeds, and their way of farming. Now the industries are trying to make them workers on their own land and to a large extent they have succeeded. That is why we are strongly opposing Monsanto and Syngenta and the whole project of GM (genetically modified) seeds.”

Elsewhere, in Africa, while Monsanto and The Gates Foundation are trying to force through a corpoand rate-controlled GMO/green revolution, the Oakland Institute recently published research that highlighted the “tremendous success” of agro ecology across the continent. By combining sound ecological management, using on-farm inputs renewable resources and managing pests and disease with low cost low risk approaches that increase their net incomes/ purchasing power, improves livelihoods whilst reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, effects of climate change and suicides of producer communities, agro ecology embodies a social movement for positive change. 

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, says that the research provides irrefutable facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits, while ensuring its contribution to growth, climate justice and restoring degraded soils and the environment. Frederic Mousseau, Policy Director of the Oakland Institute, who coordinated the research, adds that the research debunks the myths about the inability of agro ecology to deliver and highlights the multiple benefits of agro ecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural prodiction  while increasing farmers’ net incomes/ purchasing power, food and nutrition security being resilient. 

There are many successful farmer case studies and of different soils and agro climatic conditions  from across the world and this needs wide replication by contracting the successful farmers. However, what is ultimately required is a level playing field at the national and international level to stop the use of high cost external inputs in dry, rain fed and hill areas, to stop handing out massive subsidies for external inputs and to get off the destructive and wholly unsustainable and poisonous chemical treadmill. 

“Agro ecology is more than just a science, it’s also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it”, says Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague.

As Mindi Schneider goes on to say, ‘agro ecology is essentially a system that prioritises local communities, smallholder farmers, local economies and markets. It is a system that the Rockefeller-backed green revolution is dismantling across the globe for the last 60 years or so. The green revolution is in crisis and has/ is causing massive damage to the environment and to farmers’ livelihoods to the point where ecocide and genocide is occurring and the cynical destructionof agrarian economies has taken place. The solution ultimately lies in challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, the system of economies of scale ‘capitalism’ that makes such plunder possible and embracing and investing in sustainable economies of scope agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

Perhaps I may be stating the obvious, but I think it might be useful to ascertain precisely what is necessary to optimally harness the ecosystems services to ensure ecological and sustainable agriculture at an adequate level.

It is clear that the very possibility of the above mentioned state of affairs depends on the willingness and ability of those who are engaged in agriculture to ensure the following:

1. The ecosystem services involved are not over burdened at any time, and their optimal use is ensured.

2. Agricultural production  shall not be increased neither by using chemical means nor through qualitative or quantitative changes in agro-species in an area, which could either overtax the ecosystem services there or lead to environmental degradation that will reduce their current level.

These then, are the two categories of “don’ts”, which are often ignored. Now, moving over to the “do’s”, the following conditions should obtain:

3. Active steps should be taken to ensure the continuance of the optimal level of ecosystem services involved. This may entail either sustaining the biodiversity or living populations of an area, or the regeneration of its environment.

4. An increase in agricultural production in an area should be accompanied by the environmental actions necessary to ensure the increase in the level of ecosystem services necessary to sustain such an increase.

Our problem then, is how we can induce those who are involved to be willing and able to observe the four conditions described above. In my view, here the question of willingness is more problematic than that of ability.

I used the phrase, “those who are involved” advisedly, for agriculture today represents an exchange with very few exceptions, i.e., it cannot exist as we know it, unless there are consumers who are able and willing to buy agricultural products. We shall not devote any time to discuss the role of middlemen in this exchange, for they may be considered to be a species of surrogate consumers.

Consider now smoking. Fewer and fewer are unaware of the medical implications of the habit and not all smokers are addicted to it. Still, a considerable number of people continue to smoke even though they know its possible harmful effects on health, and are able to quit if they would. What they lack here is a willingness to do so.

But here, we are talking about an issue whose ramifications are more immediate and affects billions. Hence, while one undertake reasonable measures to change people’s traditional value beliefs concerning the environment and agriculture in order to bring about a reasoned change in their behaviour, it is necessary to resort to legal means to hasten the requisite change in human attitude to ecosystem services and agriculture owing to its urgency. This aspect of the problem has been discussed by another contributor.

For what it is worth, let me now look at how may one inculcate in the public the factual belief that sustainability of an adequate and an appropriate agriculture depends on the commensurability between the ecosystem services it requires and the capacity of the environment to provide it. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that artificial provision of some such services for short-term gain may permanently impair the environments ability to provide them, leading to desertification, silting of rivers, loss of fertile top-soil, drastic reduction in rainfall, lowering of the water table, adverse weather, increase in temperature, etc., all of which could render agriculture impossible in previously arable areas.

I think the public belief in this may result from a suitable education campaign across the board. It should not be restricted to school education, which is a long-term means of achieving the same result. As the situation is critical, a more general approach seems to be indicated. A previous contributor has discussed this aspect of the main issue.

Next, we come to the question of one’s ability to make sure that agriculture and its adjuncts observe the four conditions we have talked about earlier. Let me begin with the consumer first, because if he is indifferent and ready to buy whatever is on sale (especially if it is cheaper), there will be no incentive for the producer to flout those conditions.

I suggest the following measures to render the purchaser able to support the observation of those four conditions, and the producer to observe them:

1. Very low tax on the agricultural income of farmers who observe those conditions.

2. Introduction of subsidised loans, seeds, training, and support services such farmers need. Here, we must distinguish between ‘free trade’ that does jeopardise the future of the whole world, and the ‘free trade’ that does not.

3. Great care should be exerted in providing ‘development aid’, particularly that ear-marked for industrialisation as it often leads to a drastic loss of ecosystem services. I have already talked about in a previous discussion, the socio-environmental disasters brought about by rogue development aid.

4. Products that meet our four conditions may legally carry a label indicating their conformity, enabling the customers to make an informed and responsible choice.

5. A deterrent tax comparable to that imposed on tobacco and alcohol may be imposed on the sale of agricultural products, whose production ignores those four conditions, and the money used to subsidise the conforming producers.

6. Stringently enforced controls on the use of agro-chemicals.

7. Establishment of strategically deployed sound food storage facilities and environmentally more benign means of food transport. Eg. Waterways and railways rather than by articulated lorries.

8. Enforcement of laws that prohibit the concealment of all potentially harmful non-dietary chemical compounds in foods. This is because the less one observes those four conditions in agricultural production, the more such chemicals in food, or their concentration.

At this point, I would like to suggest investment in agricultural innovations that would help those who are engaged in agriculture to avoid the “don’ts” above, and encourage them to embrace “the do’s”. I envisage the use of such innovations as requiring three logically linked set of ways and means.

Implementable policies:

I use this phrase in a limited sense, i.e., agriculture policy we need to achieve our present objective should not come in conflict with the current non-agricultural policies under implementation at national, regional or global level.

Secondly, those non-agricultural policies should positively support the agriculture policy we need in every possible way.

The innovation we need here is an actual adaptation of integrated policy development as a government practice. This of course, depends on our actual ability to acquire a holistic perspective on policy issues. Unfortunately, policy formulation today is all too often is area specific, for example, Military, health, agriculture, and each policy is shaped by the experts of one given area. This reductive approach is the greatest stumbling block to our progress.

The other important policy change I envision involves devolution of decision-making power to local people, especially when the decisions are concerned with changes in the biological and the geographical constituents of an area. Many people and organisations have emphasised the necessity of this.

Ways and means:

Other things being equal, an implementable integrated agriculture policy should be commensurable with the available ways and means one may set aside for its realisation.

Even when it is so, one often runs into skeins of impenetrable red-tape woven by previous agreements, treaties, national, regional or even international laws that could easily foil our endeavours to benignly utilise ecosystem services to increase agricultural yield. Please consider the ongoing controversy on Maipo hydro-electricity project in Chile, which seems to be permitted by the current law, but if completed will turn over 100,000 sq.km. of Andean wilderness into a dessert.

I think this type of anomaly embodied in nearly every governing body should be stamped out without delay if we want to save and preserve what little ecosystem services we still possess on earth. It is inane for a government to agree on the importance of our present goal while permitting unrestricted felling of tropical hardwood saying that it is ‘legal’, or ‘we are just responsibly exploiting our own natural resources for the benefit of our people’. And I am afraid some of the clauses in international trade agreements and ‘development agreements’ are equally nefarious with respect to their effect on ecosystem service capacity.

So, what I would like to suggest is an innovative evaluation mechanism that should be empowered to investigate, identify and make public recommendations on what changes in current policies, agreements, and laws, etc., are required in order to make our integrated policy implementable. I shall not comment on the obvious components of ways and means like finances, technology, etc.

The crux:

Finally, I’d like to touch upon some essential fundamental changes in our perception of agriculture, because in reality that perception not only defines what is taught in the institutes of agriculture, but also how all of us think about it, and benefit from it.

It is not very flattering to ‘our progress’ when the fact remains that only the poor subsistence farmers and a few nearly self-sufficient small holders consciously or habitually value agriculture on rational and civilised grounds, viz., it is worthwhile because it’s the best means we have to meet our nutritional needs. Stating the obvious, unless we are fed, there would be none left to establish space colonies, engage in gene juggling, political hair splitting and such signs of progress.

So, it would be puerile to talk about ‘right to life’ unless we actively cherish and nurture agriculture, the best means we have to satisfy our cardinal need, i.e., nutrition.

If it is to be sustainable, the biological service requirements of agriculture should be commensurable with the ecosystem services our environment can provide without distress.

But our current economic thought is based on the primitive notion of acquisition of gain (material or power) by pandering to a real or advertisement generated demand. This simplistic idea of economy as a means of personal gain ad libitum has blinded most of us to the importance of agriculture and its dependence on our habitat, and made us think of it as just another industry, where profit is the spur.

I think if we thought and learned about agriculture as an endeavour not unlike medicine when doctors believed in Hippocratic Oath, and not just a trade that allowed some middlemen to get very rich by manipulating world’s hunger, I believe we can ameliorate the lot of billions without increasing the extent of current arable land provided that we are also willing to stop the population increase.

If agriculture education at all levels emphasises the need to balance the requirements of agriculture with the ecosystem services the habitat can offer, perhaps the future agriculturalists might resort to cooperation with their living habitat as an benign adjunct to their pursuit, rather than the mechano-chemical slash and burn method of the present.

Much work of course remains to be done. I doubt that the potential of ecosystem services in pest control, soil enrichment, yield enhancement via more complete pollination, water retention, etc., has been even partially realised. Let us hope interest in this area would increase, particularly where the environmental distress is increasing.

Complements of the season!

Lal Manavado.

I agree with Professor Kleijn that for ecological intensification to be successful farmers need to be involved from the beginning of the research and development phase through participatory research practices. A top down approach with recommendations coming from policymakers and researchers in laboratories will simply not be as effective--farmers need to be in the driver's seat at the beginning. This will also help farmers see the wide range of benefits--environmental, economic, and social--that ecological intensification practices can provide. And, as a result, this can help these practices spread more widely and quickly.

Thanks again for all of the great comments! Please keep them coming!

Dear all

Prof Swaminathan endorses and supports the efforts being made by multi lateral agencies and your advice to Government, Donors and NARES to support and fund the rural poor producer communities to follow their low cost low risk 'Agro ecology', his mail trailed below.

Government, NARES, Financial Institutions, Donors  and Multi lateral Orgs need to focus and support/ fund Agro ecology, moving away from the high cost high risk ‘Conventional Industrial Agriculture’, the cause of climate change, agrarian crisis and suicides.

Trailed below is an article by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, FAO Coordinator for Economic and Social Development, published in South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) #8145, 30 November 2015, reiterating the fact that the way forward is following low cost low risk  food systems for long term sustainability, if we are to ensure access by producer communities (about 50% of world population) to safe nutritious food and health, as they do not have the money to buy.

Better Nutrition for Better Lives Rome, 26 Nov (IPS/Jomo Kwame Sundaram*)

Food systems are increasingly challenged to ensure food security and balanced diets for all, around the world. Almost 800 million people are chronically hungry, while over two billion people suffer from "hidden hunger," with one or more micronutrient deficiencies. Meanwhile, over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them clinically obese, and hence more vulnerable to non-communicable diseases.

Overcoming hunger and malnutrition in the 21st century does not simply involve increasing food availability, but also improving access, especially for the hungry. Creating healthy, affordable and sustainable food systems for all is the most effective way to achieve this.

Since 1945, food production has tripled as average food availability per person has risen by 40 per cent. But despite abundant food supplies, almost 800 million still go hungry every day of whom most live in developing countries. Many more go hungry seasonally or intermittently. Hunger affects their ability to work and to learn. Clearly, the problem is not just one of food availability, but also of access.

The health of over two billion people is compromised because their diets lack essential micronutrients, which prevents them reaching their full human potential.

"Hidden hunger" or micronutrient deficiencies, undermines the physical and cognitive development of their children, exposing them to illness and premature death.

Ironically, in many parts of the world, hunger co-exists with rising levels of obesity. Over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them deemed obese.

This, in turn, exposes them to greater risk of diabetes, heart problems and other diet-related non-communicable diseases.

FOOD SYSTEM: PROBLEM AND SOLUTION

Food systems must become more responsive to people's needs, including food insecure, socially excluded and economically marginalised households.

Mothers, young children, the aged and the disabled are especially vulnerable. Adequate nutrition during the "first thousand days," from conception to the child's second birthday is especially critical.

Our challenge then is not simply to produce and supply more food, but to ensure that better food is consumed by all, especially those most in need. And this has to be sustainable in terms of the environment and natural resources to ensure the capacity of future generations to feed themselves.

Increasingly intensive industrial farming systems and massive food wastage are often simply unsustainable. Food production has often put great stress on natural resources - exhausting fresh water supplies, encroaching on forests, degrading soils, depleting wild fish stocks and reducing biodiversity. We need to recognize and deal with these challenges urgently. Fortunately, we also have the means to transform food production systems to make them more sustainable and healthy by empowering local communities.

HEALTHY FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER PEOPLE

Strong political commitment is required to prioritize nutrition and to improve food systems. Food system policies, programmes and interventions should always strive to improve diets, nutrition and people's access to and consumption of foods adequate in quantity and quality - in terms of diversity, nutrient content and safety.

Food production research and development should focus on ensuring more diverse, balanced and healthy diets, including more nutrient-rich foods, as well as ecological and resource sustainability. Natural resources must be used more efficiently, with less adverse impacts, by getting more and better food from water, land, fertilizer and labour.

Nutrient dense foods, such as milk, eggs and meat, are improving diets for many, while livestock continues to provide livelihoods for millions. Yet, livestock production and consumption need to be more sustainable, with far less adverse effects on climate change, disease transmission and overall health.

Such food system reforms need to be accompanied by needed complementary interventions, including public health, education, employment and income generation, as well as social protection to enhance resilience.

Governments, consumers, producers, distributors, researchers and others need to be more involved in the food system.

SMART INVESTMENT

Better nutrition also makes economic sense. About five per cent of global economic welfare is lost due to malnutrition in all its forms owing to foregone output and additional costs incurred. Expenditure to address malnutrition offers very high private and social returns. Yet, only about one per cent of the total aid budget is allocated for this purpose.

The follow-up to the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in Rome late last year provides a historic opportunity for political decisions and concerted interventions to enhance nutrition for all through better policies and international solidarity. Currently, less than one per cent of foreign aid goes to nutrition. It is hard to justify not making the desperately needed investments in better nutrition for better lives.

[* Jomo Kwame Sundaram is the Coordinator for Economic and Social Development at the Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.]

Hi All,

While policies supporting the ecological intensification of agriculture are important, they are by no means enough to create a transition in agriculture. The agricultural sector is conservative and for good reason. Their income and livelihoods depend on what they do on their farms and fields. Experimenting with novel unproven practices can be costly.

In my book, the best approach to make agriculture more sustainable, biodiverse and resilient to future change is to hand farmers the knowledge they need to make informed decisions. Quite often, individual farmers are interested in applying novel ecological practices such as enhancing wild pollinators on their farms. But they simply don’t know how to do it. They may also worry that measures have adverse side-effects, such as added flowers luring away pollinators from their crops rather than enhancing them. Combined demonstration and research projects can show farmers how certain practices are done and may help take away the worries they have.

Such projects should be accompanied by research examining the agronomic, economic and biodiversity effects of these measures. This has the added benefit that it confronts scientists with the practical implications of their theories and recommendations. When the evidence shows that farmers may indeed benefit from managing their farms in a way that enhances key ecological processes they will be more inclined to adopt these novel management practices. Subsidies or tax benefits may help but what is probably more important is that farmers can see what it looks like and hear enthusiastic stories from their peers and neighbours.

Often you need to start with a couple of forerunners; open-minded farmers who are always looking for ways or opportunities to do things better or just different. In the Netherlands we are now doing a demonstration/research project with blueberry farmers to examine whether increasing floral resources on their farms can enhance productivity of their crops and perhaps also help them control spotted wing drosphila (Drosophila suzukii), a major novel pest. Apart for the research and the seeds, which are being contributed by us scientists, the farmers pay for all expenses of these measures (establishment, regular management, opportunity costs). Not a trivial thing. If results look promising, I think other farmers will rapidly take over these practices. Not in small part because the initiative for the study came from within the sector.

Hello everyone,

I think the comments of Ms. Anique Hillbrand provides some concrete reflections on the challenges of ecological intensification.  As she notes there are major losses under current systems of agriculture; yet little incentives for farmers in the current economic system to rectify these.  Thus the German government is working on instruments to increase awareness and provide incentives to reverse such trends- all of which sound very appropriate and constructive.

But is this not a somewhat a reverse engineering to solve, not prevent a problem?  One could suggest that such incentives are in part papering over the failings of our overall food systems.

In this respect, I find the article "Envisioning the Future Development of Farming in the USA: Agroecology Between Extinction and Multifunctionality? " by Frederic Buttel (Buttel, F. 2007. Envisioning the future development of farming in the USA: agroecology between extinction and multifunctionality. The Many Meanings and Potential of Agroecology Research and Teaching. http://www.agroecology.wisc.edu/downloads/buttel.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2010) very interesting.    The forces propelling American agriculture are not so different from those propelling European agriculture, in that farmers in both regions are faced with massive profitability "squeezes" that developed country governments have the capacity to address through subsidy support programs.

Yet the question that Anique's example presents, is whether there might be other ways to address the "squeeze" imposed on farmers. If we had a system of accounting that more genuinely undertook true cost accounting for agriculture, such that farmers prices for goods sold might reflect the costs for pollution and negative impacts from their form of agriculture, but that the market would also recognise and remunerate the many positive externalities produced by farmers practicing more ecological forms of agriculture, could we not more effectively build mechanisms for a transition to a more sustainable agriculture?