@農자료창고

The boundary between Tanguro Farm and the Amazon rainforest in Mato Grosso, Brazil. COURTESY OF CHRIS LINDER

The contrast is staggering. on one side of a narrow track is cool, moist rainforest, stretching northwest for hundreds of kilometers through the almost intact Xingu indigenous reserve. on the other side is hot, bare ground being prepared to plant soy on a farm the size of 14 Manhattans. This, says my guide, earth systems scientist Michael Coe, is the front line of deforestation in the Amazon – where the rainforest meets agribusiness, but also where a rainforest ecosystem is being degraded into savanna grassland.

It is also “the perfect laboratory” for exploring how forests interact with climate, and how that changes when the forest disappears, says Coe, of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. And it is where Brazilian and American scientists are keeping watch for the long-predicted tipping point – the moment when the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest, begins a process of runaway degradation, when so much forest has been lost that the transition to savanna is irreversible. That will be the moment when the Amazon ceases to be a carbon sink that helps protect the planet from climate change, and turns into a global source for carbon emissions. 

We are on Tanguro Farm in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, one of the world’s largest soy farms. A 16-hour bus ride from Brasilia, the farm is in the basin of the Xingu River, one of the Amazon River’s largest tributaries. A century ago, when the area was still remote jungle, eccentric British explorer Percy Fawcett disappeared here while searching for the rumored “Lost City of Z,” and where some 100 people died seeking to rescue him.

There may never have been a “lost city.” But the modern-day local town of Canarana is full of grain silos, bars, and John Deere franchises, servicing the big farms. one of the largest, Tanguro, was partly cleared for pasture in the 1980s, and converted to cultivation starting in 2003 by the Amaggi corporation, the world’s largest soy farming conglomerate. Today, half is comprised of fragments of forest; the rest consists of giant fields growing soy, corn, and, starting this year, cotton.

Thanks to a deal struck at a chance meeting between Woods Hole researcher Dan Nepstad and the company’s CEO and then-state governor Blairo Maggi, American researchers and colleagues from the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) have since 2004 been monitoring the forest and researching how the climate is changing in and around it. 

And following the widespread fires set this year on the fringes of the Amazon – breaking a run of 15 years during which deforestation had been dramatically reduced – places such as this are on the front line as the Amazon faces its most fundamental crisis, with temperatures rising, dry seasons lengthening, and rainforest trees being replaced by savanna species.

More than a third of the Xingu Basin, a region bigger than New York State, is now deforested. Scraps of tree cover are all that remain outside the still densely forested Xingu indigenous reserve at its heart. I am shown around by Coe and Divino Silvério, the son of a local farmer. whose research work on the station has garnered him a doctorate and a string of highly regarded scientific papers. “We have over a decade of data here. Nowhere else in the tropics has that,” says Coe.

Tanguro is one of the largest farms in Mato Grosso. In total, more than a third of the Xingu Basin has been deforested, much of it for growing soybeans.COURTESY OF MICHAEL COE

What they are seeing is alarming. 

Deforestation is dramatically raising local temperatures. The air over the farm is on average 5 degrees Celsius hotter than in the forested reserve over the fence: 34 degrees C, rather than 29 degrees C. The difference rises to a staggering 10 degrees at the end of the dry season, says Coe.

And the dry season is lengthening. Across the Xingu Basin and through the southern Amazon region known as the “arc of deforestation,” it lasts almost four weeks longer than half a century ago. 

Why these huge changes? The answers lie not in global climate change but in the impact of deforestation, says Coe. In the old days, the trees of the rainforest acted as water pumps, recycling most of the rainwater, which they pumped from underground and released into the atmosphere from the pores in their leaves, a process known as transpiration.

Transpiration requires large amounts of energy, taken from solar radiation. “Every square meter of forest removes the heat equivalent of about two 60-watt [light] bulbs burning 14 hours per day,” Coe calculated in one study. So it cools the air of intact forest. But take away the forest, and the air is instantly much hotter.

The transpiration of a typical large Amazon tree also releases around 500 liters of water a day into the atmosphere. The moisture creates clouds and rain that sustain the forest. Three-quarters of the rain falling in the forested parts of the Xingu Basin is recycled back into the air in this way. But that proportion falls to 50 percent or less if the trees are replaced by pasture or croplands.

The Amazon currently still generates about half its own rainfall, with some rain blowing on the trade winds from the Atlantic Ocean falling and then transpiring back into the air five or six times as it crosses the vast basin. But deforestation has reduced annual moisture recycling in the Xingu Basin by 35 cubic kilometers in the past two decades, according to Silvério.

So deforestation creates what Coe calls “a giant change to the water and energy balance. The climate shifts.” Permanently steamy jungle is replaced by a hotter, drier climate, with dust devils replacing transpiring trees.

The change is especially important at the end of the dry season. Tapping water deep underground, trees keep transpiring even after months without rain. In fact, thanks to the energy from the unrelenting sun, they transpire even more in the dry season than in the wet season. Research at Tanguro has confirmed that this is vital to ending the dry season, because it provides the first moisture for the rains to resume, says Coe.

As the climate changes, so does the vegetation. Rising temperatures and a longer dry season, both caused by the loss of trees, create water stress that flips ecosystems from rainforest to savanna.

A long dry season also makes the forests more susceptible to fires. And fires in turn accelerate the change in vegetation. As Coe puts it: “Fire is nature’s way of starting over.” And now when it starts over here, it shifts to savannah species.

Experimental blazes on the Tanguro Farm allow scientists to study how the Amazon forest responds and regrows after fires. COURTESY OF WHRC AND IPAM

The combination of rising temperatures, longer dry seasons, and more fires is driving the “savannization” of the forests – a process first predicted in 1991 by Brazil’s pre-eminent climate scientist, Carlos Nobre. “When the dry season becomes longer than four months, tropical forest turns to savanna,” he told me when we met in his hometown outside São Paulo after my visit to Tanguro.

For many years this was just a prediction from climate models. But, says Paulo Moutinho, a senior scientist at IPAM and a fellow of Woods Hole, “Our fire studies at Tanguro were the first to test Nobre’s savannization model in the field. We are demonstrating what Nobre predicted — that fire transforms rainforest into savanna through speeding the invasion of cerrado trees.” Silvério has overseen a detailed inventory of thousands of trees in the forested areas of Tanguro Farm. The second census, currently under way, has found a decline in the number of species in just the past four years. Big rainforest trees in particular are being replaced by fast-growing pioneer species, many more widely known in savanna regions.

Experimental plots at Tanguro, in which patches of forest are subjected to burning, show how following the fires, savanna trees and grasses move in to replace the lost rainforest. The grasses in particular are more flammable, so the next fire burns more fiercely than the first. 

The managers on Tanguro Farm have been attempting to follow the government’s Forest Code, which requires them to plant native rainforest tree species onto land near rivers that was illegally cleared by the cattle ranchers that preceded them. But the new savanna climate means rainforest saplings won’t grow, says Coe. “Probably savannah species would grow, but the code says you have to restore what was there before.” So instead, the company leaves these riparian areas fenced off in the hope the native species will find a way to return. Nobody is holding their breath.

Nobre argued in 2007 that there could come a point where savannization is unstoppable across large swaths of the Amazon. He said the tipping point could occur if 40 percent of the forest was lost. More recently he has warned that, with the background global rise in temperatures, that threshold could be much closer – at between 20 and 25 percent loss. With Brazilian government scientists putting the current loss at 19.7 percent, the doomsday could be close.

Some leading Brazilian researchers interviewed for this article questioned whether there is a single tipping point that applies to the entire Amazon. It could be a more gradual process. The more pristine north and west could survive. But other regions in the south and east, including Mato Grosso, are well past 25 percent loss. And in Tanguro, accelerating savannization seems to be under way right now.

This matters for the planet as a whole. For, says Jose Marengo, research director of Brazil’s National Center for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters, switching from rainforest to savanna will change the Amazon from its current position as a sink for about a billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a year, into a CO2 source. “It would mean bye-bye Paris,” he says, referring to the 2015 Paris accord aimed at keeping global warming below 2 degrees. 

One researcher told me she believes that the switch has already happened. Her study is not yet completed, but it may produce some headline-grabbing findings next year.

For the Brazilian scientists fighting to save the Amazon, the tragedy is that they are seeing decades of work that established the rainforest’s importance for Brazil and the globe apparently undone in the months since Jair Bolsonaro took office as Brazil’s president in January. He has effectively given a green light for forest clearance. This has put into reverse a decline in deforestation of more than 75 percent since 2004, just after environmental activist Marina Silva became the country’s environment minister. She introduced a moratorium on the sale of beef or soy from recently deforested land and policing the Amazon with real-time satellite monitoring of forest destruction. 

Bolsonaro says Brazil cannot allow its economic development to be hampered by foreign-imposed restrictions on clearing forests for agriculture. Baloney, say most of his country’s scientists. Most deforestation is carried out illegally by speculators grabbing state-owned forest land. “They cut and burn the trees. Then they put in cattle, and wait for an amnesty to legalize their annexation, after which they can sell,” says Mountiho.

The Xingu indigenous reserve, one of the Mato Grosso region's few remaining largely intact areas of forest. COURTESY OF WHRC AND IPAM

This is not about economic development, Mountiho says. It is about condoning criminality. Genuine economic development would involve more intensive use of already deforested land. In fact, says Nobre, the country could increase beef and soy production while still giving land back for natural forest regeneration. “If you double up livestock intensity, which is entirely feasible, you could free up more than half a million square kilometers for forest restoration,” he told me.

Such progressive policies are now supported by many large agribusinesses, says Nobre. They fear that continued deforestation could bring international consumer boycotts of their beef, soy, and other products. But it remains unclear if the government will continue to back land speculators or listen to an emerging alliance of environmentalists and agribusiness. 

With a tipping point looming, the stakes are immensely high for the Amazon and the planet. The forests and much of their biodiversity could, with the right assistance, still recover. Even the huge soy fields at Tanguro are not as lifeless as might be expected. Tall flightless rhea birds wander around looking for seeds. Tapir tracks and droppings are everywhere. Armadillos burrow in the verges. And I even saw a jaguar saunter down a track just 20 meters from a field waiting to be planted with soy.

But on the road back to Canarana, just a few kilometers from the farm gate, Silvério and I encountered the blackened remains of a native forest. It had been engulfed in flame after a fire set to clear scrub on pasture just a week before spread across the road. Was it deliberate or accidental? Out here on Brazil’s wild frontier, nobody knew – or was saying.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/amazon-watch-what-happens-when-the-forest-disappears

A farmer examines a rye cover crop planted within a field of soybeans in Midburn, Iowa. TWILIGHT GREENAWAY/FERN/YALE E360

Breaking with the industrial model of growing corn and soybeans, a growing number of Iowa farmers are putting oats, rye, and other small grains into their crop rotation, a switch that is regenerating soils, cleaning up waters, and providing benefits to family farms.

To the untrained eye, Jeremy Gustafson’s 1,600-acre farm looks like all the others spread out across Iowa. Gazing at his conventional corn and soybean fields during a visit in June, I was hard-pressed to say where his neighbor’s tightly planted row crops ended and Gustafson’s began.

But what distinguished this vast farm in Boone, Iowa, was a thin, 16-acre strip of oats Gustafson had planted in a loop around the barn. At the time, the chest-high oats were at the “milk stage.” When Gustafson squeezed the grains embedded in the feathery grass between his thumb and forefinger, they released a tiny dollop of white liquid, a sign that they would be ready to harvest in about a month.

Oats and other “small grains” like rye and triticale stand out in Iowa — the nation’s number one producer of corn, a crop that covered more than 90 million U.S. acres in 2016 and was worth more than $51 billion. As is the case all over the Corn Belt, most Iowa corn is planted in rotation with another ubiquitous crop: soybeans. That Gustafson is willing to plant something other than corn and soy in Iowa makes him an outlier.

“I’m doing this for the soil,” says Gustafson, 40, and that’s a bigger deal than it may sound.

The majority of conventional farmers leave their soil barren for nearly half the year, exposing it to erosion in a state where some townships see as many as 64 tons of soil per acre run into waterways each year. Along with that soil come the remnants of fertilizer applications, in the form of nitrates and phosphorus, which foul drinking water, choke out aquatic life, and spur toxic algae blooms. Des Moines Water Works, the state’s largest water utility, spends an estimated $1.2 million per year to remove nitrates from drinking water to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency safety levels.

To begin to counter that tide, Gustafson and a growing number of farmers are working to keep small grains and other plants in the soil year-round. Many say they decided to take this approach after meeting Sarah Carlson, a 38-year-old, no-nonsense agronomist from rural Illinois, who has spent the last decade alternately challenging and supporting hundreds of farmers from a small office in Ames, Iowa, with her colleagues at Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI). Their goal is to help producers diversify, improve their soil, and maintain autonomy within a landscape dominated by a handful of powerful agribusinesses. 

Agronomist Sarah Carlson, of Practical Farmers of Iowa, which advocates for small grains.  BLAKE HENDRIX / THE WALTON FAMILY FOUNDATION

Carlson, who describes herself as “just hillbilly enough that farmers trust me,” envisions a kind of small-grain renaissance that could begin to drive a powerful wedge into the commodity corn and soybean system. Carlson and PFI have been instrumental in expanding cover crops in the state from around 10,000 acres in 2009 to around 600,000 acres in 2016 — a relative drop in the bucket at 2.6 percent of the total acreage planted, but a notable rise nonetheless.

Now, Carlson and PFI want to see a total of 1 million acres of small grains planted in Iowa in the next decade. The benefits would be substantial: Small grains are “cool season” crops that are planted in the spring and provide coverage for the soil in the wet months, reducing erosion and soaking up excess nutrients that might otherwise end up in waterways. And since they’re harvested in July, farmers can then plant warm-season cover crops in the summer that develop robust root systems. This helps the soil function as a vital living ecosystem that retains more water, stores more carbon, and requires less fertilizer to grow food.

In the context of Iowa’s rich farming history, growing small grains isn’t unusual. Until the 1950s, Iowa was the U.S. leader in oat production, harvesting more than 6 million acres for animal feed. Along with crops like alfalfa, those oats were fed to livestock on diverse family farms. But as concentrated livestock operations began to dominate the landscape and farms consolidated, small grains nearly disappeared. In 2016, Iowa grew a mere 120,000 acres of oats — a 98 percent decline from a half-century ago.

The Corn Belt’s biggest environmental challenges can be tied to the loss of oats and hay on the landscape.

Gusafson and his family held on longer than most. “When we ground all our own feed, we’d use the oats [we grew] in the ration,” he says. Now, Gustafson raises around 3,000 hogs at a time for a company that dictates the animals’ diets. The local grain elevator also stopped buying oats, meaning he would have had to transport them at least an hour — and the shipping costs just weren’t worth it.

The loss of oats and hay on the landscape was more than cosmetic. In fact, the Corn Belt’s biggest environmental challenges can be tied to that shift. “We have continuing problems with water quality, soil degradation and soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat,” says Matt Liebman, the H.A. Wallace Chair for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University in Ames. “Those are all things that extended crop rotations with small grains and forage crops like alfalfa can help address.”

Since 2001, Liebman has overseen a 22-acre field experiment at Iowa State that provides compelling evidence of the benefits of small grains. Results of the study, published in 2012 and 2015, compared a corn/soy rotation with three- and four-year rotations that included corn, soybeans, oats, alfalfa, and clover cover crops. While the four-crop rotation yielded slightly better results than the three-crop rotation, the most remarkable change could be seen between two and three crops.

Farmer Tom Frantzen talks at a Practical Farmers of Iowa field day about efforts to replace corn-based hog feed with rye, barley, and oats.TWILIGHT GREENAWAY / FERN / YALE E360

According to Liebman’s latest calculations, the three-crop rotation required 86 percent less mineral nitrogen fertilizer, which in turn led to fewer nitrous oxide emissions and 96 percent less herbicide use. The resulting soil also contained markedly more carbon matter — another benefit in an era of climate change — and reduced soil erosion by 25 percent. In addition, water that ran off the corn fields in the spring contained around half the nitrates, meaning less pollution flowing into streams and drinking water sources.

PFI’s members have also cut fertilizer use dramatically after adding small grains. “That’s an expense they can control, because every time corn prices go up, fertilizer prices go up,” Carlson says. “The system will squeeze the farmer however it can, so controlling costs on the farm is the only way to stay ahead of the game.”

PFI was founded during the farm crisis of the 1980s, when many families were driven off the land. “[PFI’s founders] realized farmers need to have more power, need to do their own on-farm research to be better decision-makers and informed consumers of fertilizers, pesticides, and seed,” says Carlson. She sees small grains as part of that movement.

A three-crop rotation required 86 percent less mineral nitrogen fertilizer and 96 percent less herbicide use.

At the same time, PFI views itself as a “big tent” with an apolitical stance that brings together more than 3,000 members — from organic vegetable farmers to large corn and soy growers. They conduct research and gather data to discuss and share with their peers,  and they travel, often hundreds of miles, to visit one another’s farms for field days throughout the summer. 

“I compare [PFI] to church,” says Gustafson. “You sit and listen to the sermon, then you talk for 20 minutes. The people at PFI events are more open than any farmers I’ve known.” This is especially remarkable at a time when “most farmers now keep information to themselves: If you’re my neighbor, you’re my competition.” 

When Carlson approached Gustafson about growing small grains in 2015, he was understandably cautious. Today’s commodity farm culture doesn’t allow for much deviation. Most corn and soy farmers plant their seeds when the soil hits a precise temperature, in rows that are calibrated by GPS-controlled tractors. They apply the same fertilizers, herbicides, and fungicides using data collected by the same sophisticated, expensive machines. Here, nearly every plant that doesn’t produce soybeans or corn is seen as a weed. And farmers can lose leases when neighbors complain about messy fields.

The founders of PFI wanted to provide an alternative to this dominant culture and stem the tide of people leaving rural America — a goal Carlson shares, having grown up with first-hand experience of that trend in rural Illinois. Following a stint in the Peace Corps, where she saw the impact of technology on farmers in Ecuador, Carlson studied sustainable agriculture at Iowa State and was introduced to PFI in 2007 while writing her master’s thesis. Since then, she has spent her career focused on how to reverse the thinning populations in the Midwest’s rural communities — and the accompanying isolation many of the remaining farmers experience.

Oats at the “milk stage” on Jeremy Gustafson's farm in Boone, Iowa.TWILIGHT GREENAWAY / FERN / YALE E360

When Carlson learned that Iowa State’s long-term study found that small grains require more labor and help spread that labor out beyond the compressed spring-fall schedule for corn and soy farming, it lit a spark in her. “That means more young people have a way to come back and find a space on a 2,000-acre corn/soy farm,” she said. 

As the average age of the American farmer — now nearing 60 — rises, farms will continue to consolidate, requiring fewer people. But small grains could be a viable way to keep the next generation engaged, and keep more farmers on the land. “We could avert a major consolidation of farms if businesses [buying grains] really got serious about diversity,” says Carlson. “Not just for sustainability goals, but to save rural Iowa.”

Earl Canfield’s experience underscores this sentiment. The Dunkerton, Iowa farmer grew corn and soybeans on 300 acres while working full-time as an engineer. Then, three years ago, he decided to diversify his operation and farm full-time. He and his wife Jane “went back to square one,” he says.

“We asked: What can we do to bring renewed health back into our soil,” says Canfield. “Because ultimately that is where healthy plants come from, and then healthy plants lead to healthy animals, which lead to healthier people.”

Incorporating oats, alfalfa, heirloom popcorn, and some livestock allowed the Canfields to bring their children into the operation in a new way. When I visited, Andrew, 14, and Matthew, 18, were grinding oats, soy, corn, and supplements for animal feed and preparing to ship it to farmers.

“Before, there were limited ways that the kids could get involved,” says Canfield. “Now, it’s a wonderful training ground for them.” 

Earl Canfield of the Canfield Family Farm in Dunkerton, Iowa hauls a bag of animal feed. His children, Hannah (16), Elija (11), Andrew (14), and Mathew (18), all contribute to the farm's day-to-day operations. TWILIGHT GREENAWAY / FERN / YALE E3

Despite the benefits to their farm, the Canfields, like Gustafson, are going out on a limb. The first year they raised oats, they planned to sell them to a local mill operated by Grain Millers Inc. in St. Ansgar, Iowa. But when harvest came, the mill was no longer buying. It had filled its orders in Canada.

The Canfields put the oats in storage and gradually began building a market for their crops as animal feed. It’s working — but slowly. When I visited the farm in June, they still had a sizable portion in storage. 

Small grains don’t command the high prices that corn and soy do. But Iowa State research has shown that diverse farms can be profitable — mainly because they invest significantly less on fertilizer, fuel, and herbicides in the year after they plant small grains. But the small-grain year itself can be tough on farmers’ cash flow and requires that those who do make the shift can find a consistent market for their small grains.

Grain Millers Inc. began buying more food-grade oats from Iowa after Carlson reached out five years ago, and the quantity they’re buying has increased steadily in recent years. But it’s still tiny compared to the Canadian market.

When Carlson isn’t fielding phone calls from farmers looking for advice or moral support—as many as 50 a week in the busy season — she’s often strategizing about how to get major food and beverage corporations to see the benefits of diverse rotations.

For the last several years, the Sustainable Food Lab (SFL) — a global network that includes some of the world’s largest food and beverage companies — has been working with PFI to involve public and private entities in the small grain initiative. Two groups created a small grains pilot program with farmers in Iowa and Minnesota during the 2016 growing season. And this summer, SFL brought dozens of executives from Unilever and other major food and beverage companies to Gustafson’s farm, among others, to get a first-hand lookat cover crops and small grains in farmers’ rotations.

“The thing that’s so completely elegant about improving the corn and soybean system by adding a small grain is that, if it’s successful, it’s a market-based solution,” says Elizabeth Reaves, a senior program director at SFL.

Companies need to think not just about the individual crops they buy, but about farming systems as a whole.

But it will only take off if some companies begin thinking about not just the individual crops they buy, but farming systems as a whole.

“We’re dealing with a highly productive, incredibly efficient system,” says Reaves. Even as corn and soy prices have dropped in recent years, “farmers can continue to do what they’re doing and still probably grow 200 bushels of corn each year for a long time. And then you have companies who are in a similar kind of brittle situation — they just buy corn or soybeans.” 

In the short term, Carlson is encouraging farmers to grow small grains as seed for cover crops. The state just began offering farmers who grow cover crops a $5-per-acre discount on crop insurance. An estimated 15 million acres of cover crops will be needed to clean up the water in the state — or a 20-fold increase from current levels. According to Carlson, it will take 400,000 acres of small grains to produce all that seed.

Whatever their reasons, farmers who do opt to grow small grains have a chance to break from the dominant agricultural system in other ways. David Weisberger, a recent graduate of Iowa State’s Sustainable Agriculture program, has spent the last few years visiting small grain farmers who have found themselves recalling landscapes of old, trying out new kinds of equipment, and welcoming rare birds and other wildlife back to their farms. After years of growing the same two crops, “[they] enjoy doing something different and exploring new ideas,” he says. “There’s a creativity that comes back into things.”

This article was produced in collaboration with the Food & Environment Reporting Network, a non-profit investigative journalism organization.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/where-corn-is-king-the-stirrings-of-a-small-grain-renaissance

t’s that time of the year; cover crops are on the minds of many as we start harvest and plan for next year. The biggest challenge is finding the right window to seed cover crops and the second is getting precipitation for establishment, says Ryan Haden, Ohio State University soil scientist.

Haden says while some success depends on your method of planting, it all comes back to the precipitation. Haden has studied cover crops success rate using both broadcast and interseeding. one species that has done pretty well with both is cereal ryegrass.

Seed before harvest

Using a drill after harvest provides greater certainty in an average year to build good covers across fields. However in a dry year, there is no foolproof plan to get results.

Another strategy that producers should consider is seeding before corn or soybeans are harvested. Flying on seed into cornfields as dry down is occurring helps catch early fall rains to improve establishment.

Highboy rigs are another method to incorporate cover crops in your system—simply by modifying the rig with an air seeder to combine seeding with foliar fungicides or nitrogen application in mid to late summer.

Species success

Haden says knowing what cover crop you need in your fields is key to achieving the goals you set for your use of cover crops. He recommends perennial ryegrass, low growing red clover or annual ryegrass to producers if erosion is what they are trying to repair in their fields. They can establish good ground cover and reduce the amount of soil lost. And if nitrogen fixation is the issue, take a look at legumes including clover, field peas or even hairy vetch.

For compaction, he says using radishes in your fields can help. By planting radishes directly into the soil, not broadcasting, it gives the plants a better chance to grow and spread across the field. In a dry year, the radishes may not make it to the growing stage.

Termination and cost factors

Another way to ensure success with cover crops is to understand the termination method. Learn if winter kill, herbicides or tillage will eliminate these beneficial covers. The other key is when to kill them.

Farmers must have realistic expectations, Haden says. This means not expecting a great return on the investment in one year of use. It’s a long-term investment and the benefits may take a while to see.

He recommends considering the entire cost of the cover crops including the seed, labor and termination. “None of these should be deal breakers as the benefits may not just be yield increases in the future,” says Haden.

http://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/cover-crops/cover-crop-tips-success

This is the first article in a two-part series on sustainable farming methods.

The recent unrest of farmers has prompted a lot of rethinking about alternative farming policies and strategies. However the search for genuine alternatives is still hindered and distorted by the longest prevailing myth in the context of agriculture – that ecologically-destructive methods may be detestable but still are necessary to increase farm production. It is by deliberately foisting this myth that agriculture was made heavily dependent on chemical fertilisers and pesticides in the first place.

At the time when traditional highly diverse, well-acclimatised varieties evolved by several generations of millions of farmers were replaced by exotic varieties with a narrow genetic base, (the so-called green revolution) it was stated that this was necessary to increase food production. But in fact, according to the government’s own data, the rate of increase of farm yields in the pre-green revolution years (growing traditional varieties) was higher than in post-green revolution years when exotic HYVs (high-yielding varieties) necessarily requiring high doses of chemical fertilisers and pesticides were spread over hundreds of thousands of hectares very quickly.

This is clearly brought out in the table given below, based entirely on official datapresented in the 12th plan document. It is clear from this table that the average annual growth rate in the pre-green revolution years was higher in the case of wheat, rice, jowar other coarse cereals (millets), pulses, oil seeds and cotton, although it was lower in the case of bajra and sugarcane.

Average annual growth rates in yields per hectare

Some of the reasons for this are also evident from the government’s own reports. In the case of the most important food crop – rice – when the green revolution introduced many problems, the government appointed a task force in 1979 comprising eminent farm experts to study the real situation. 

These experts met at the Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and prepared a report on the emerging problems of the green revolution. This report said, “Most of the HYVs are derivatives of T(N) 1 or IR 8 and, therefore, have the dwarfing gene of Dee-geo-woo-gen. This narrow genetic base has created alarming uniformity, causing vulnerability to diseases and pests. Most of the released varieties are not suitable for typical uplands and low lands which together constitute about 75% of the total rice area of the country. To meet these situations, we need to reorient our research programmes and strategies.” 

Referring to this problem of narrow genetic base at another place again the task force says, “A cursory look at the pedigree of the different rice varieties released in India reveals that a very narrow germplasm base is involved. It is also noticed that many times the same female parent is involved in the cross combination.”

This was the reality of the new exotic varieties. What about the hurriedly displaced traditional varieties?

There is increasing evidence that several of these traditional varieties actually provided high yields while using ecologically-protective methods. This is being rediscovered today by many organic farmers who value traditional seeds.

Bharat Dogra is a freelance journalist who has been involved with several movements and initiatives.

https://thewire.in/155970/sustainable-farming-high-yield-agriculture/#disqus_thread

Student debt could cost this Maine family the farm

Gabor Degre | BDN

Jackie Robinson has been looking into buying her parents farm, Leaves and Blooms Greenhouses in Dover-Foxcroft. Robinson has been running the farm for seven years, but she is unable to get a loan because of defaulting on her student loan payments. She is working on repaying her $20,000 student loan debt, but at this point she has very few options to keep the farm in the family. Buy Photo

The Regional Meeting on Agroecology in Asia in November of 2015 marked the culmination of four FAO meetings on Agroecology. These vibrant meetings confirmed a rising tide that we have written about previously: agroecology’s prominence is growing worldwide. The importance of its concepts, tools, knowledge and its emphasis on respect for and collaboration with producers have been borne out by the reception it has seen across FAO meetings on four continents.

More broadly, agroecology has been growing on national and international agendas, ranging from the 2012 decree on agroecology of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, to the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology, to the 2014 International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition held by the FAO and subsequent regional meetings. This growing prominence reflects the important roles of both science and civil society in addressing the challenges facing us and that extend across borders—including climate change, environmental degradation, and continued hunger and poverty. Agroecology is unique in its increasing incorporation of science, practices and movements, bringing together three vital parts of social and environmental change for the better.

As a science, agroecology draws together the disciplines of agronomy, horticulture and ecology, along with social sciences such as economics and sociology. The term dates back to at least 1928, around 50 years after the term “ecology” itself was coined. It can be thought of as the application of ecological science to inform agricultural practice, along with the use of social sciences to understand the dynamics the have led to current sets of agricultural practice, the evolution and context of functional traditional knowledge and practices, and the socioeconomic and political dynamics of producers’ efforts, livelihoods and contributions. The practice element of agroecology translates ecological knowledge into agricultural practice, as well as observing and learning the costs and benefits of current practices. Finally, agroecology as a movement is important because a system of agriculture which takes into account larger environmental costs and threats like climate change will require the re-organization of a number of social institutions. Social movements and civil society are undeniably an important element of such a re-organization, and hence can be said to be part of agroecology. Further, social movements offer a logical point of articulation for agroecology’s focus on acknowledging and supporting farmers’ leadership, knowledge and local contexts. Lastly, as a practical note, movements can be thought of as a vital part of agroecology, given that effective articulations between farmers and scientists will require a politics of inclusion and community empowerment. In these ways, agroecology’s three elements may also be described more accessibly as studying, doing and changing socioecological relations towards sustainable and socially just agricultural systems.

Discussion Points

As we wrote in our discussion document for the Africa Regional Meeting, there is strong support in the relevant literature for the most important factors in supporting food security, good farmer livelihoods, productivity and effective environmental management (e.g. for climate change mitigation and adaptation). Although no factor can guarantee success, the factors at the center of each of our key points are associated with higher probabilities of success. Further, these factors are either part of existing agroecology discourse, or are compatible with it, especially if agroecology is paired with the concept of food sovereignty: the rights and resources for each community to determine its own food system. In several places, we have adjusted and added some factors of particular note for the Asian context.

Key point 1: Securing rights and supporting equity across race, gender, class and ethnic affiliation are vital to reduce hunger, fight climate change and increase sustainability, according to established empirical and theoretical research.

Agroecology supports, and in turn is supported by, community well-being and the public goods inherent in these factors.

Extensive research and experience to date show that securing communities’ and individuals’ rights ranks the highest in terms of interventions in Asia that will reduce hunger and increase resilience and sustainability.1 As the IAASTD (2009) reported, “People are the wealth of ESAP [East & South Asia & the Pacific]. Since this region is home to three of the world’s most populous countries, investing in people will yield development dividends.”2

A significant part of the current conversations around food security and climate change has focused on production and productivity to meet present and future needs. While this can make important contributions to solving these problems, more and more scholars and community members are observing that it is not sufficient. As one recent peer-reviewed paper states, “there are a series of filters that determine the extent to which intensification is sustainable and contributes to greater food security… unless it meets the demands of both distributive and procedural justice, increased food production cannot be described as sustainable”.3

To this point, an important observation is the sizeable impact public goods make on improving food security and health measures (and these in turn support social capacity for mitigation and adaptation).4 To quote a broad-based and thorough expert analysis:

“For South Asia, while continued improvements in women’s education and food availabilities are needed, three of the determinants should be of particular focus: access to sanitation, dietary diversity of the food available in countries, and gender equality.… [N]ational food availability does not feature near the top of the priorities for accelerating undernutrition reductions in either South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa. This does not reduce the importance of maintaining adequate food supplies, including food production, but simply acknowledges that the scope for it to reduce stunting prevalences is lower than that of the priority underlying determinants we have identified.” [emphasis added].5

Securing rights, Particularly Women’s Equality and Education6

Gender has been repeatedly and strongly tied to food security and productive, nourishing agriculture. Around the world, women play a major role in accessing food for their family members and in preparing food for household-level consumption. Women’s access to safe water for domestic use is a necessary condition for ensuring household-level food security. However, this direct link between the right to water and the right to food is often overlooked in deliberations on defining the right to water and in defining obligations related to the right to water. For poor women, food preparation entails collecting firewood and water, an increasingly difficult task in degraded environments. Thus, realization of the right to water becomes a prerequisite for rural food security, especially in degraded environments.

Despite women’s role in ensuring food security at the household level, when it comes to consumption, they usually have the least access to food. Sociocultural-, gender- and age-based inequalities play a big role in each individual’s ability to meet their food security needs, even when there is household-level food security. Women-headed households tend to be more food insecure compared to male-headed households. This has given rise to the phrase, “the feminization of food insecurity.”7 In South Asia, the low nutritional, educational and social status of women was cited as one of the major factors that contribute to a Hunger Index in the region that characterizes the problems there as “serious.”8 Though, too, it is important to note that in Southern and Southeastern Asia, both of which have a lower proportion of hungry populations than much of Sub-Saharan Africa, the absolute size of the malnourished population is nearly 50 percent greater than the malnourished population on the entire African continent.9 Which is simply to say, the scope of the problems in Asia should not be underestimated.

In this light, agroecology’s strong and growing focus on women’s rights and gender equality10 takes on particular importance and potential. The focus on gender in agroecology is still being examined and expanded and is strengthened by the concept and commitments of food sovereignty11 and the related agroecology and food sovereignty movement.12 Issues of gender are, naturally, complex and locally-specific and may need different approaches even within the same small community. Therefore addressing gender is not well-suited to the use of automatic processes and is likely best served by adaptive, specific, locally-suited and participatory approaches.13 Also, although there are many probable benefits to women, men, children and agriculture when gender inequality is dealt with in an effective manner,14 careful consideration and deliberation is important so that an emphasis on fulfilling women’s potential does not lose sight of their rights or place additional disproportionate burdens on them to support and improve community development:

“While recognizing the power of women to lift their families and communities out of poverty, women are not simply instruments for hunger reduction. Women must be empowered and recognized as equal partners—valued for their contributions and knowledge—not because they deliver results but because they are equal with men.”15

Nevertheless, the needs—and benefits—are clear. Smith and Haddad (2015) note that gender equality in South Asia “is far below its desired level… it has such a uniquely strong impact on child stunting in the region. Continued improvement in this area would likely greatly accelerate reductions in stunting. According to our estimates, if this determinant alone were to reach its desired level, the stunting prevalence in South Asia would decline by 10 percentage points.”

Numerous accounts16 illustrate the inequalities and even violence still facing a large number of women in the region. Thus concerted action is clearly necessary to support and empower women using approaches that work with whole communities— women, men, boys, girls—to re-consider and restructure gender relationships, responsibilities and resource distribution, in order to secure both the basic elements of safety for all and also the full suite of rights to which all people are entitled. Equity in access to resources (e.g. water, secure land ownership, credit, education) and equity in representation and participation in governance at all levels are vital tasks in their own right but also have the potential to improve food security, resilience and sustainability for all.17

Overlap with agroecology

The methods of agroecology require a combination of farmer leadership and knowledge with modern ecological science, meaning that support for education and two-way communication between farming communities and supporting governments and NGOs has repeatedly been seen as a key element of successful agroecological projects. In turn, certain agroecological approaches can provide numerous benefits to communities through conservation and maintenance of ecosystem functions, many of which are under-valued and/or non-market functions.18 According to one recent review, examples of functions provided by more diverse agricultural systems include “greater carbon sequestration, greater retention of nutrients, and greater ability to resist and recover from various forms of stress, including herbivorous pests, diseases, droughts, and floods.” 19 Agroecological methods are thus particularly important and valuable in areas of water and weather stress—from droughts to monsoons—and women in numerous regions have embraced these methods for these reasons, among others.20 And although agroecological systems can be competitive in productivity and profit with conventional systems,21 especially over the long-term,22 it is also true that they produce significant non-market benefits that, until internalized socially or economically into production systems, essentially require sustainable, agroecological producers to be sacrificial volunteers to the tune of trillions of dollars in total.23

It will be important to closely consider and discuss how and which agroecological approaches may best provide different benefits, such as the potential to mitigate climate change24 and increase resilience.25 This should be considered alongside participatory evaluation of which practices are the most accessible or locally suitable according to community desires, preferences, and near-term capacity. Towards this end, we would note that (a) particularly in agroecological systems, best practices raise productivity significantly26 (which reinforces the potential and importance of participatory research and education); and that (b) rural education, particularly when it increases access and achievement by women, usually both reduces malnutrition27 and increases productivity.28 In fact, quoting economist Jayati Ghosh, “government expenditure on education had the largest impact on reducing both rural poverty and regional inequality, and a significant impact on boosting production.”

In sum, improvements in the priority areas aligned with securing and supporting basic rights—from secure rights to land, gender equity and equality, education and water access to representation in governance—would also be likely to increase community-level autonomy, capacity and sovereignty, as well as improve agricultural productivity. Pertinent to FAO’s regional meeting in Asia, each of these priority areas can also gain from, and contribute to, successful agroecological initiatives. one key challenge will be the possibility, mentioned above, that addressing some priority areas—for example, increasing productivity—will not be effective unless other priority areas are addressed simultaneously.29 This may add additional challenges and complexity to creating successful interventions.

Key point 2: Evidence implies that improving and maintaining food sovereignty, autonomy and political agency are important levers to support improvements in food security, resilience and sustainability.

True, collaborative political empowerment and mutual accountability between communities and regional and national governments are necessary to achieve the potential of agroecology.

A common but often under-emphasized observation is that food insecurity, low socioecological resilience and agrifood system unsustainability represent market failures. The presence of food security is a public good that will not be provided in sufficient amounts by markets without government intervention; long-term agrifood system resilience is not easily or customarily included in calculations of value; and contemporary agrifood systems generate numerous negative externalities such that “business efficiency is not the same as social efficiency.”30 In other words, it is likely that food security will be under-provided by free markets, as will socioecological resilience; and negative externalities will exact costs on society that are not reflected in prices and therefore will not be efficiently or effectively managed without public intervention designed by and with local communities and governments. (It practically goes without saying, but decades of research in environmental justice and political ecology have shown as well that unsustainability, vulnerability and food insecurity are likely to be exacerbated by inequality—marginalized and poorer communities will receive even less public goods and suffer from more negative externalities than is proportionate or just.)

There are many proposals on how to best deal with the problems embodied by these externalities and inequalities. one very strong vein of research and practice towards this end has focused on empowerment and collaboration with local communities—decentralization along with a significant degree of devolution of resources and decision-making authority. Economics Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom used both theory and field research to validate the proposition that greater autonomy for local communities improves the likelihood that they will create and maintain governance institutions that can sustainably govern scarce resources over prolonged periods.31 Numerous scientists have similarly written on the importance, track record and potential of strong, well-supported and empowering local governance32 and polycentricity and subsidiarity (strong local governance backed by governance structures at other scales).33 Beyond the cases presented by these researchers, others have made similar observations specifically in regards to decentralization and local empowerment in successful agricultural extension,34 nutrition,35 and conservation of protected areas.36

In fact, a common roadblock seen in successful implementation of agroecology projects is very much in line with one of the observed challenges to better conservation outcomes in community forestry: insufficient support and empowerment of local communities and too much privilege and control afforded to “expert” voices.37 And of course, focused empowerment and involvement of women and girls has been shown to improve multiple outcomes in terms of improving individual and community well-being, both ecologically38 and socially.39

A common element of successful projects is effective effort towards truly open and transparent participation by local populations40—which, when the local population is a historically marginalized one, is likely to require substantial public investment and collaboratively-tailored support, particularly from regional and national governments, in order to create and maintain the capacity to participate in the first place.41 Although support from other actors (such as donors and international NGOs) can lend additional help, accountability has been empirically observed to be important as a feedback mechanism and way to increase the likelihood of success, underlining the importance of responsive and adaptive governmental support. In particular, an important observation for consideration is that of Karnani (2010),42 who argues that “Corporate Social Responsibility” is conceptually and empirically ill-suited for providing public goods and cannot replace government action. This should be a careful part of the evaluation of the possible impact and viability, for example, of Private-Public Partnerships (PPP), which may have limited potential to improve food security, production and sustainability for marginalized communities.

It is worth noting that in addition to the empirical research cited previously, and theory-building by Ostrom and others, Farrell and Shalizi43 have recently synthesized research across economics, psychology, political science and network theory to propose that problem-solving is greatly aided by a significant degree of substantive equality among actors, the ability of dissenting minority voices to be heard and for their points to be given serious consideration. While providing the space for this in the context of the significant levels of inequality experienced by marginalized communities is a difficult challenge, deeply participatory models have shown promise and a number of successes.44

Food sovereignty

Given the above points, food sovereignty is an important framework to consider in the design and implementation of interventions to improve food security, resilience and sustainability. The concept of food sovereignty can be thought of, on the one hand, as an ｅxpression of the human right to self-determination and additionally, on a more functional level, to be an empirically-backed concept that may improve the realization of the right to food alongside sustainability objectives. That is, the elements of participation, autonomy and empowerment at the level of local communities are strong enabling factors and align with the normative principles and movement elements of agroecology, which has often been closely identified with food sovereignty.45 Food sovereignty in fact includes priorities of local-scale empowerment and collaboration and originated 20 years ago in part to address the need for rights-, equity-, and policy-based approaches to food production and consumption. Akram-Lodhi has described its basic pillars as: (1) a focus on food for people; (2) the valuing of food providers; (3) localization of food systems; (4) the [broad-based] building of skills; and (5) working with nature [ecosystems and ecological knowledge].46 Civil society groups recently reaffirmed these points, and added others, building on the 2007 Nyeleni Declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty with the 2015 Nyeleni Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology. Thus, although many challenges and questions remain, it can be said that the theoretical and empirical evidence and support “from the bottom up” for the importance and potential of food sovereignty, paired with agroecology, is large, growing and strong.

Key point 3: From healthy, empowered people to healthy, sustainable, resilient environments.

Though connections between sociocultural factors and empowerment on the one hand and environmental health and climate change mitigation on the other can be difficult to understand, they are increasingly well-documented.

In an example from Africa, the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC) project in Malawi has worked with over 4000 farmers in a participatory project where farmers use agroecological methods in a deeply collaborative process, which has seen improvements in soil fertility, food security and nutrition.47

Looking at Asia, in The Philippines, a philosophically parallel approach has led to very impressive initial results. The approach of MASIPAG (the Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Agricultural Development) is based on the following elements:

• “Bottom-up approach. Decision-making, planning and implementation within the organization come from the membership. This is coordinated through farmer groups and a decentralised organizational structure.
• Farmer-scientist-NGO partnership. The organization is run as a process of mutual, ongoing learning between farmers, scientists and NGOs.
• Farmer-led research. Research, including breeding of new rice varieties, is designed and conducted by farmer-members for farmer-members.
• Farmer-to-farmer mode of diffusion. Training in the network is largely conducted by farmer-trainers, using a wide range of techniques including trial farms, exchange days and cultural activities.
• Opposition to technological fixes. Change needs to be understood in a holistic way, including attention to farmer empowerment and farmer knowledge.
• Advancing farmers’ rights. MASIPAG works within a broader commitment to farmers’ rights. These include rights relating to land, seeds and genetic resources, production, biodiversity, politics and decision-making, culture and knowledge, information and research, and socio-political factors.”48

The results reported thus far include:

• Better food security: 88 percent of organic farmers found their food security better than in 2000, compared to only 44 percent of conventional farmers.
• More diverse and nutritious diet: Organic farmers ate 68% more vegetables, 56 percent more fruit, 55 percent more protein-rich staples and 40 percent more meat than in 2000. The increase in consumption for organic farmers were double those for conventional farmers for vegetables, 2.7 times higher for fruit, 3.7 times higher for protein rich staples and 2.5 times higher for meat.
• Higher diversity of crops: Organic farmers were growing 50 percent more crop types.
• [Reductions in] Chemical fertilizer and pesticide use: Organic farmers had eliminated these chemical inputs altogether but they were still being used by 85 percent of conventional farmers. 97 percent of the organic farmers used alternative pest management techniques such as redesigning the agroecosystem…
• Better health outcomes: 85 percent of the organic farmers rated their health better than in 2000. In the reference group, only 32 percent rated it positively…
• Lower costs: Production costs for organic farmers were half those of conventional farmers.
• Higher net incomes: Net incomes were higher for the organic farmers than the conventional ones, and had increased since 2000 in contrast to stagnant or falling incomes for the reference group…
• Greater overall farm productivity: Rice yields for organic farmers were on a par with those of conventional farmers. But the organic yields were increasing over time in contrast to declining yields of the conventional farms…
• Improved soil fertility: 84 percent of organic farmers, but just three percent of conventional farmers, reported increases in soil fertility.
• Less erosion: 59 percent of organic farmers, but just six percent of conventional farmers, reported a reduction in 
  soil erosion.
• Increased tolerance of crops to pests and diseases: 81 percent of organic farmers reported increased tolerance to pests and diseases; but 41 percent of conventional farmers saw tolerance to pests worsening.
• Greater climate change adaption: Crop diversification, agroforestry, windbreaks, salt-tolerant MASIPAG-bred rice varieties, more root crops… community cooperation [and other techniques] all help farmers adapt to climate change.49

These results are impressive, and re-emphasize the vast potential of agroecological methods—particularly with regards to the substantial diversity of diets seen in the experiences above.As noted by Smith and Haddad (2015), dietary diversity is one of the strongest potential contributors to decreasing food insecurity in South Asia.

While this is just one case (albeit a large-scale one), 50 similar results have been reported for the indigenous Karen communities of Thailand and Myanmar, where a very high degree of carbon storage appears to occur alongside a very high degree of dietary diversity (including 100 kinds of vegetables and 28 kinds of meat)51, as well as from reports and work from the Asian Farmers’ Association52, the Korean Peasant Women’s Association53, and projects in China and India54. Many of these cases showcase the importance and potential of Farmer Field Schools55 and the System of Rice Intensification—the latter of which has been estimated to provide reductions in external costs in terms of soil, air and water pollutants of up to 97 percent, 78 percent and 16 percent respectively, as well as increased yield and margins. 56

In sum, agroecological practices paired with empowering communities with the rights and resources to govern their local environment are likely to lead to improvements in well-being, sustainability, climate mitigation, and climate resilience57, and participatory analyses and approaches appear to practically be a prerequisite to successful agroecological interventions for small-scale farmers.58 Further, in terms of protected area use and human well-being, recent research shows that “positive conservation and socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to occur when PAs adopted co-management regimes, empowered local people, reduced economic inequalities, and maintained cultural and livelihood benefits. Whereas the strictest regimes of PA management attempted to exclude anthropogenic influences to achieve biological conservation objectives, PAs that explicitly integrated local people as stakeholders tended to be more effective at achieving joint biological conservation and socioeconomic development outcomes,” (emphasis added).59 This further supports the proposition that multiple healthy ecosystem functions are improved in well-managed diversified agroecosystems60, which go hand-in hand with well-supported, empowered communities able to exercise autonomy and engage in deliberative decision-making and knowledge co-creation.

Key Point 4: The Right to Not Have to Migrate

At a recent agroecology meeting in Mexico City61, a powerful statement was made about the vision of peasant farmers and their supporters: one of the most under-recognized and under-appreciated rights of farmers is the right to not have to migrate. There have been many statements about the worldwide trend of urbanization, and (former) farmers and laborers’ continuing exit of rural areas. Yet the vision of many farmers is clearly neither to leave their farms, nor to continue to in conditions of marginality. Rather, the vision is one of maintaining, remaking, and supporting countrysides such that farmers, farm laborers, and all rural residents can have decent, secure livelihoods. This is the clear implication of food sovereignty62, and clear in the demands of the International Peasants’ Movement La Via Campesina (which has 35 member organizations in 15 countries in Asia), as well as the many other signatories of the 2007 and 2015 Nyéléni Declarations.

Further, when we consider the concomitant benefits that can be seen from improved economic margins for farmers and—the evidence increasingly indicates—higher food prices, the possibilities and importance of rural livelihoods become both more apparent and more socio-politically possible. That is: recent studies show that higher food prices, when they contribute to increased farmer incomes, likely contribute to reducing both rural and urban poverty, although “safety nets” to maintain the food security of food-insecure populations are necessary in the (typically one to five years) adjustment period.63

The reality, necessity, and possibility of supporting improved, dignified, and food sovereign livelihoods for all food and agricultural producers is further fortified when we consider the immense, but currently un- or under-compensated externalities in the agricultural system. Estimates of these externalities range into the trillions of U.S. dollars in agriculture alone, and a recent report by the FAO concluded that natural capital costs of crop and livestock systems may reach 130 to 170 percent of their total production value64. The nature of externalities is that they are real costs borne by society, and without addressing them through internalization or other regulation, the costs are not reflected in prices and markets do not produce proper or efficient results. The fact that we are indirectly, but assuredly, paying costs that may reach nearly twice the production value of our agriculture and food products means that there ought to be ample potential to boost income and support sustainable livelihoods for farmers, farm laborers, pastoralists, and fisherfolk by properly compensating agroecological practices (and eventually penalizing less-sustainable practices). It is important to note that this aligns with the research: the 2015 FAO report on natural capital found improvements in climate change mitigation, reduced land-use change and water consumption, air and water pollution from holistic grazing, SRI and organic farming, which is additionally in line with recent results by Sandhu et al. (2015).

Key Point 5: Recognizing and reinforcing existing voices

Many of the observations and recommendations we present here have also been supported and demanded by civil society around the world. In particular, the 2007 Nyéléni Declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty, and the 2015 Nyéléni Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology united hundreds of delegates of groups of small-scale food producers and consumers, including peasants, indigenous peoples, communities, hunters and gatherers, family farmers, rural workers, herders and pastoralists, fisherfolk and urban people, from countries around the world, to support the autonomy, rights, sovereignty, gender equality, and sustainable livelihoods of all food and agricultural producers, as well as eaters. Along with rights-based principles of responsible agricultural investment and the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, the Nyéléni Declarations’ documentation of the needs, struggles, and demands of these broad constituencies are invaluable and should be at the heart of continued conversations about agroecology, climate change, sustainability, food security and resilience.

Concluding Point

In sum, food and agricultural producers are demanding the ability to make a living using sustainable agroecological practices, and all the evidence indicates that supporting them in doing so through autonomy, sovereignty, appropriate prices, research and peer-to-peer dissemination of new and traditional ecological practices, will benefit all of society.

Based on the above key points, we have the following recommendations.

Recommendation 1. Interventions to improve food security, productivity and sustainability should recognize the importance of communities’ basic rights, including food sovereignty, and thus must truly and directly involve them in participatory decision-making on the types of and approaches to appropriate interventions.

Recommendation 2. Correspondingly, interventions to improve food security, productivity, and sustainability will often require the improving and maintaining basic public goods (especially clean water, sanitation, and education) in the context of participatory processes with local communities.

• Specific case: Recognize that knowledge and innovation are public goods, and thus intellectual property must be handled in careful, locally-tailored ways that recognize and support the existence and sharing of traditional knowledge; contemporary and mainstream “one size fits all” approaches may in fact do more harm than good.65

Recommendation 3. Fostering social equality—particularly, but not exclusively, along the lines of gender—is a vital element to properly implementing agroecological approaches, and will powerfully support the effectiveness of any effort. But, as with all other elements, this must be done with collaboration and methods appropriate to the local context.

Recommendation 4. Experts specifically (e.g., policymakers, administrators, and researchers) will need to use approaches that increase the effective voice of communities, and support increased equality between and among actors, in order to achieve the best results. These approaches should be based on established and innovative participatory methodologies (such as Farmer Field Schools) that can be found throughout peer-reviewed literature and “gray literature” reports.

Recommendation 5. Private-Public Partnerships (and related approaches) should be evaluated very carefully, given that provision of public goods is by definition an area where government action cannot be replaced and will not be sufficiently provided by private interests. This type of approach may not be well-suited to appropriate interventions for food security and sustainability, where significant (positive and negative) externalities are likely to be present and of significant size.

• Specific case 1: Land tenure is a complicated, but vital, issue requiring careful coordination between governments, civil society, and private interests. Multiple forms of land tenure should be supported towards providing land, water, and food security, and must be appropriately suited to the community, culture, and ecosystem at hand. Where land redistribution/reform takes place, to be effective it must be truly pro-poor and substantively redistributive: “compensation to landlords at below market price and payment by peasants and workers at below actual acquisition cost... linked to the principle that land is not a simple economic factor of production [but] multidimensional”, with political, economic, social and cultural dimensions not reducible to strictly monetary terms.66
• Specific case 2: Carbon markets are often not well-suited to addressing the climate challenges we are facing, and are particularly unsuitable for agriculture. IATP has previously recommended research into how loss and damage can inform corporate climate risk exposure and the design of both private and public sector projects within the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions.67

Recommendation 6. A socio-ecological approach must be taken, involving local community members as well as social and natural scientists (keeping the Point 4 in mind), in order to best implement agroecological practices to improve food security, sustainability, and resilience.

Recommendation 7. Use direct deliberation between experts/government officials and community members in order to generate mutual accountability. That is, those giving resource support for the intervention need to respect the deliberation of the community and support modes based on procedural justice. In turn, effective and empowering community participation is more likely to generate mutual accountability between supporters and community members.

Recommendation 8. Successfully implementing agroecology and food sovereignty-focused approaches are highly likely to require removing existing policy barriers and implementing appropriate policy supports—for example, improving the accounting and internalization of negative externalities, and improving the knowledge of and support for positive externalities. Further, multiple avenues to improved social well-being should be considered, including consideration of the variety of markets agricultural producers may produce for, including local and regional markets, as well as effective increases in income through increased self-provisioning. The diversity of production and markets that can support improvements in food security, resilience, and sustainability is not necessarily well-served by a prioritization of international markets or commodity crops.

Recommendation 9. Finally, we reiterate our recommendation that future conversations draw from and embrace the conclusions, recommendations, and demands of existing civil society documents and declarations, including but not limited to the 2007 Nyéléni Declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty, and the 2015 Nyéléni Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology; and building on and substantively supporting spaces such as the Civil Society Mechanism of the Committee on World Food Security.

Endnotes

1. Loos, J., Abson, D. J., Chappell, M. J., et al. (2014). Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(6), 356-361; Smith, L. C., & Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era. World Development, 68(0), 180-204; Ribot, J. (2014). Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(5), 667-705; Duryog Nivaran. (2014). Towards Post-2015 Agenda for DRR (HFA2): Women as a force in resilience building, gender equality in DRR: Report of the consultations in Asia Pacific.

2. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads: International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development, Volume 3: East & South Asia & the Pacific. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Although we agree with the claim, we note here that the financializing and potentially dehumanizing rhetoric of “investing” and “yielding dividends” is problematic and not adequate to the nuances of empowering people towards food sovereignty, food security, resilience and sustainability.

3. Loos et al. 2014.

4. Ribot (2014).

5. Smith and Haddad (2015).

6. This section contains excerpts from the IATP report, Varghese, S. (2011). Women at the Center of Climate-friendly Approaches to Agriculture and Water Use. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.iatp.org/files/451_2_107914.pdf.

7. IAASTD (2009).

8. von Grebmer, K., Bernstein, J., de Waal, A., Prasai, N., Yin, S., & Yohannes, Y. (2015). Global hunger index: Armed conflict and the challenge of hunger. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896299641.

9. According to the FAO’s State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015, Africa has a total of 232 million malnourished people (220 of whom are in Sub-Saharan Africa); Southern Asia has 281 million and South-eastern Asia has 60 million, for a total of approximately 341 million malnourished people.

10. Fitzpatrick, I. (2015). From the roots up: How agroecology can feed Africa. London: Global Justice Now.

11. Chappell, M. J. (2013). Global Movements for Food Justice. In R. J. Herring (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

12. Desmarais, A. A. (2007). La Vía Campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. London: Pluto Press; La Via Campesina. (2015a). Annual Report 2014 of La Via Campesina, The International Peasants’ Movement. Harare: La Via Campesina.

13. E.g., Bezner-Kerr, R. (2008). Gender and agrarian inequality at the local scale. In S. S. Snapp & B. Pound (Eds.), Agricultural systems: Agroecology and rural innovation for development (pp. 281-308). Burlington: Elsevier.

14. Rawe, T., Deering, K., Echols, W. et al. (2015). Cultivating equality: Delivering just and sustainable food systems in a changing climate. Atlanta: CARE.

15. Ibid.

16. E.g. Varghese (2011), especially the section “The Tamilnadu Women’s Collective’s Focus on violence against women”; La Via Campesina (2015b); Aboud, G., Ballara, M., Brody, A., & Dand, S. (2015). Gender and Food Security In Brief. Brighton: IDS.

17. Numerous case studies and examples can be found in the peer-reviewed and gray literature, including FAO (2011). The State of Food and Agriculture: Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. Rome: FAO; Behrman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Quisumbing, A. (2012). The gender implications of large-scale land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1), 49-79; Meinzen-Dick, R., Johnson, N., Quisumbing, A. et al. (2011). Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programs: A Conceptual Framework (CAPRi Working Paper No. 99). Washington, D.C.: CAPRi; Agarwal, B. (1997). Gender, environment, and poverty interlinks: Regional variations and temporal shifts in rural India, 1971-91. World Development, 25(1), 23; Agarwal, B. (2009). Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68(11), 2785-2799; Agarwal, B. (2015). Food Security, Productivity, and Gender Inequality. In R. J. Herring (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; Rawe et al. 2015; Varghese 2011; Global Donor Platform for Rural Development. (2015). Gender equity and youth. Retrieved from https://www.donorplatform.org/gender-equity-and-youth/key-publications; Skinner, E., Brody, A., & Aboud, G. (2011). Gender and Development In Brief: Gender and Climate Change. Retrieved from Brighton: IDS; Aboud et al. 2015.

18. Sandhu, H., Wratten, S., Costanza et al. (2015). Significance and value of non-traded ecosystem services on farmland. PeerJ, e762.

19. Increased diversity is one of the key elements of many agroecological approaches—examples can be seen in Liebman, M., & Schulte, L. A. (2015). Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 3, 000041; Snapp, S. S., Blackie, M. J., Gilbert et al. (2010). Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(48), 20840-20845; and Kremen, C., & Miles, A. F. (2012). Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 40.

20. Varghese 2011; Skinner et al. 2011; Aboud et al. 2015.

21. E.g., Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., & Huirne, R. (2003). Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 95(1), 273-288.; Liebman and Schulte-Moore 2015.

22. E.g. Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573-582; Forster, D., Andres, C., Verma, R., Zundel, C., Messmer, M. M., & Mäder, P. (2013). Yield and Economic Performance of Organic and Conventional Cotton-Based Farming Systems – Results from a Field Trial in India. PLoS onE, 8(12), e81039; Di Falco, S., & Chavas, J.-P. (2006). Crop genetic diversity, farm productivity and the management of environmental risk in rainfed agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33(3), 289-314.

23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2015). Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture: Supporting Better Business Decision-Making. Retrieved from Rome: FAO; see also Sandhu et al. 2015.

24. Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller et al. (2014). Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management — A global meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 468–469, 553-563; Kremen and Miles (2012).

25. Snapp et al. (2010); Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2013). The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Climatic Change, 1-13.

26. Ponisio, L. C., Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C. et al. (2014). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799).

27. Smith and Haddad (2015).

28. Ghosh, J. (2010 ). Poverty reduction in China and India: Policy implications of recent trends? DESA Working Paper No. 92. New York: United Nations; Agarwal (2015).

29. Loos et al. (2014).

30. Rocha (2007). Food insecurity as market failure: a contribution from economics. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(4), 5-22.

31. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press; Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

32. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso; Herbick, M., & Isham, J. (2010). The promise of deliberative democracy. Solutions, 1(5), 25-27; Prugh, T., Costanza, R., & Daly, H. E. (2000). The local politics of global sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

33. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641

34. Harwood, J. (2013). Has the Green Revolution been a Cumulative Learning Process? Third World Quarterly, 34(3), 397-404.

35. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). Key recommendations for improving nutrition through agriculture and food systems. Rome: FAO.

36. Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R. et al. (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology And Management, 268, 6-17; Lund, J. F., Burgess, N. D., Chamshama, S. A. O. et al. (2015). Mixed method approaches to evaluate conservation impact: evidence from decentralized forest management in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation, 42(02), 162-170; Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. (in press). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology.

37. Scheba, A., & Mustalahti, I. (In press). Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest management in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics.

38. Agarwal (2009).

39. Smith and Haddad (2015).

40. Ostrom (1990); Poteete et al. (2010); Borras, S. M. (2007). Pro-poor land reform: a critique. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

41. Ribot (2014).

42. Karnani, A. (2010). The case against corporate social responsibility. Wall Street Journal, 23, 1-5; see also Karnani, A. (2011). “Doing Well by Doing Good”: The Grand Illusion. California Management Review, 53(2), 69-86.

43. Farrell, H., & Shalizi, C. R. (2015). Pursuing Cognitive Democracy. In D. Allen & J. Light (Eds.), From Voice to Influence: Understanding citizenship in a digital age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

44. Carlson, J., & Chappell, M. J. (2015). Deepening food democracy. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and trade Policy; Fung and Wright (2003); Herbick and Isham 2010.

45. Chappell (2013); Chappell, M. J., Wittman, H. K., Bacon, C. M. et al. (2013). Food sovereignty for poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/23s]. F1000Research, 2(235).

46. Akram-Lodhi, A. H. (2015). Accelerating towards food sovereignty. Third World Quarterly, 36(3), 563-583.

47. http://soilandfood.org/approach-organization/. See also the excellent TedMed talk by Raj Patel: http://tedmed.com/talks/show?id=529961.

48. Quoted from Watts, M., & Williamson, S. (2015). Replacing Chemicals with Biology: Phasing out highly hazardous pesticides with agroecology. Penang: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific.

49. Ibid.

50. MASIPAG’s network extends to 35,000 farmers, with MASIPAG conducting work in 62 of the country’s 79 provinces; 40 regular staff; cooperation with 60 NGOs and 15 scientists from various universities (Watts and Williamson 2015).

51. Nakashima, D., & Roue, M. (2002). Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice. In P. Timmerman (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Volume 5: Social and economic dimensions of global environmental change (pp. 314–324). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; Northern Development Foundation (NDF) and the Huay Hin Lad community. (n.d.). Climate Change, Trees and Livelihood: A Case Study on the Carbon Footprint of a Karen Community in Northern Thailand. Retrieved from Chiang Mai: AIPP. http://ccmin.aippnet.org/attachments/article/350/English.pdf; Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research. (2009). Coping with Climate Change: The Use of Agrobiodiversity by Indigenous and Rural Communities. Retrieved from Rome: PAR. http://www.agrobiodiversityplatform.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PAR_briefing_final.pdf.

52. http://asianfarmers.org/afaresearches0876dlsj/2011-10-14-agroecology.pdf

53. Yoon, B.-S., Song, W.-K., & Lee, H.-j. (2013). The Struggle for food sovereignty in South Korea. Monthly Review, 65(1), 56.

54. Watts and Williamson (2015); see also note 17.

55. See also overviews in IAASTD (2009), and National Academy of Science [USA]. (2010). Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

56. In addition to previously mentioned sources, see the broad review and specific case study of India in FAO (2015).

57. A further example of these principles can be seen in the case of Australian farmers: Marshall, G. R. (2009). Polycentricity, reciprocity, and farmer adoption of conservation practices under community-based governance. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1507-1520.

58. Pretty, J. N., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9, 5-24.

59. Oldekop et al. 2015.

60. Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Isbell, F. et al. (2015). Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Communications, 6(6936); Lundgren, J. G., & Fausti, S. W. (2015). Trading biodiversity for pest problems. Science Advances, 1(6).

61. Peasant Economies and Agroecology: Social Movements, Knowledge Exchange, and Public Policies: Conference and Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Mexican National Association of Producers’ Enterprises—information and final statements available at http://www.iatp.org/blog/201509/globalizing-resistance-resilience-and-hope-through-agroecology.

62. Chappell 2013.

63. Ivanic, M., & Martin, W. (2014). Short-and long-run impacts of food price changes on poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper(7011); Headey, D. (2014). Food prices and poverty reduction in the long run (1331). Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/128056.

64. FAO 2015.

65. Forsyth, M., & Farran, S. (2013). Intellectual Property and Food Security in Least Developed Countries. Third World Quarterly, 34(3), 516-533; Stiglitz, J. E. (2014). Intellectual property rights, the pool of knowledge, and innovation. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

66. Quoted from Borras (2009).

67. Suppan, S. (2012). Submission in response to the request for comments by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC/AWLCA/2011/L.4). Retrieved from Minneapolis: The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/smsn/ngo/167.pdf

http://www.iatp.org/documents/contribution-to-asia-regional-meeting-on-agroecology#sthash.qSBctmO5.dpuf

메릴랜드 뉴버그의 유기농 생산자 Heinz Thomet 씨가 마른땅에서 벼를 수확하고 있다. (Logan Mock-Bunting/For The Washington Post)

유기농업의 요점은 토양이다. 그러한 방식의 농장은 토양을 건강하게 유지하여 —풍부한 유기물과 영양분, 미생물의 활동— 관행농업에서 사용하는 합성 비료와 농약 없이도 작물을 재배할 수 있다.

유기농 농부는 토양을 개선하기 위해 많은 기술을 활용한다. 그들은 퇴비와 똥거름을 사용하고, 작물을 돌려짓기하며 다양한 종류의 식물을 재배한다. 그들은 농약을 사용하더라도 특정한 종류(주로 천연물질과 승인을 받은 몇몇 합성물질)를 쓰며, 해충 조절법이 실패했을 때에만 그렇게 한다. 

그러나 많은 관행농 농민들 역시 그러한 것을 많이 한다. 당신이 유기농산물을 구입하느라 추가의 돈을 지불할 때, 당신은 환경에 혜택이 된다는 것을 지지하고 있는가? 나는 알고 싶다. 이는 내가 이 글에서 대답하고자 하는 가장 어려운 질문의 하나일 것이다.

모든 유기농과 관행농을 포괄적으로 평가하고 하나의 유형이나 다른 것이 더 낫다고 이야기할 수 있는 토양의 건강이나 환경오염(토양침식, 영양분 유실이나 온실가스의 형태로)에 대한 자료는 없지만, 전국의 과학자들이 비교하는 작업을 하고 있기에 우린 무언가를 계속 해나갈 수 있다. 

계속해서, 당신이 발견하듯이, 그렇다, 유기농업은 몇 가지 중요한 환경 혜택이 있다. —이 논의의 목적을 위하여 유기농업은 미국 농무부에서 정의하는 엄격한 기준을 지킴으로써 인증을 받은 것으로 하자.

그 비교 작업을 하고 있는 과학자의 한 명인 미국 농무부의 Michel Cavigelli 씨가 있다. 그는 토양학이라는 극히 일부의 사람들만 이해하는 세계에 관하여 이야기하지 않는다면, 내가 유기농 대 관행농의 대결이라 부르곤 하는 일을 행하고 있다. 그건 장기간의 대결로, 1993년에 시작되었다.  메릴랜드 Beltsville에 있는 미국 농무부의 농장에서는 다섯 가지 종류의 농업을 시험한다. 그것은 두 가지 관행농업과 세 가지 유기농업이다. (차이점은 돌려짓기와 경운의 종류에 있다.)

캘리포니아의 유기농 농장에서 근대를 수확하는 노동자들. 유기농은 관행농법에서 종종 사용되는 높은 수준의 농약에 농업노동자들이 노출되지 않기 때문에 더 낫다. (Sam Hodgson/Bloomberg)

어느 것이 나은가?

그래, 좋다. 농사는 복잡하여 그에 관하여 이야기하면 딱 부러지게 대답하기 어렵다. Cavigelli 씨가 나에게 가장 먼저 이야기한 건 “모든 관행농업이 똑같지 않고, 모든 유기농업이 똑같지 않다”는 말이다. 그러고 나서 그는 악마와 세부사항에 관하여 말을 이어갔다.  

그럼에도 불구하고, 그 다섯 가지 체계에서 몇 가지 중요한 차이가 지난 23년에 걸쳐 나타났다. 

미국 농무부의 시험에서 유기농 체계는:

●토양이 더 비옥해지고,

●적은 비료를 쓰고 훨씬 적은 제초제를 쓰며,

●에너지를 덜 쓰고,

●토양에 더 많은 탄소를 가두고,

●농민에게 수익성이 더 좋다.

관행농 체계는:

●수확량이 더 많고,

●침식을 줄이는 데 최고이다(무경운을 활용하면).

두 체계 사이의 차이점을 연구하는 몇몇 과학자들과 이야기한 뒤, 그리고 그 주제에 대한 수많은 논문을 읽은 뒤, 나는 결과에는 분명 차이가 있지만 그 목록이 각 체계의 장점에 대한 합리적 설명이라는 결론을 내리는 것이 합리적이라고 생각했다. (만약 당신이 유기농업에 대한 다른 중요한, 전면적인 주장을 발견한다면, 출처를 확인하라. 많은 유기농 단체들이 그러한 주장을 한다. 유기농업을 지지하는 단체가 유기농업이 최고라는 연구에 초점을 맞추는 것이 완벽하게 합리적인 것처럼, 관행농업 단체가 효율성과 유전자변형 작물의 이점에 초점을 맞추는 것은 같다. 하지만 난 자료에 초점을 맞추고자 노력했다.)

나는 그 과정에서 몇몇 흥미로운 점을 배웠다. 먼저, 나는 무경운 농법(토양을 경운하지 않고 작물을 재배)이 토양에 탄소를 가둘 수 있다(기후변화에 기여하는 것을 환경에 영향을 주지 않도록)는 많은 주장을 들었지만,  몇몇 자료에서는 격리된 탄소가 토양의 상층에서만 발견된다는 것을 나에게 이야기했다. 더 깊이 파면 아무것도 발견하지 못한다. 이와 대조적으로, Cavigelli 씨의 유기농 체계는 훨씬 깊은 곳에까지 탄소를 격리시킨다.

그러나 유기농 체계의 탄소 격리에 관한 주장을 고려할 때, 우리는 전체 그림을 봐야 한다. 미시간 주립대학의 저명한 교수 Phil Robertson 씨는 그런 탄소의 대부분이 거름의 형태로 토양에 추가된다고 지적한다. 그것은 당신이 어디에서 거름을 줄여 적게 있더라도, 특정한 토양에 더 많은 탄소가 있다는 것을 의미한다. “그건 돌려막기 같은 것이다”라고 그는 말한다. 

Robertson 씨는 또한 유기농 농부들이 이용할 수 없는 환경 피해를 완화시키는 어떤 도구를 이야기했다. 그 가운데 하나는 유전자변형 작물이다. 비록 합리적인 사람들이 그 작물의 장점과 단점이 어떠한지에 대한 의견에 서로 호각을 이루고 있지만, 여러 과학자와 농민들과 함께 Robertson 씨는 두 가지 주요한 유형의 유전자변형 작물 —글리포세이트 제초제 저항성과 유기적 살충제를 내장한 종류— 이 농약 사용을 줄이는 데 도움이 된다고 이야기한다. 

또, 유기농 농부는 무경운을 적용하기가 어렵다. 제초제 없이 최고의 김매는 도구는 경운이고, 그것은 침식과 영양분 유실, 유기농 농부가 육성하려고 열심히 노력하는 미생물 군집의 붕괴로 이어질 수 있다.  일으킬 수 있다.

그러나 대체로 유기농 체계가 관행농 체계에 대하여 일반적으로 더 건강한 토양을 갖고, 환경에 이롭다는 건 꽤 명확하다. 

2005년, Safeway는 더 많은 유기농, 자연농 식품을 제공하는 “lifestyle”이란 상점을 열었다. 일반적으로 식품 구매자들은 유기농 제품에 더 많은 돈을 지불하고, 그래서 유기농 농민들은 그들이 판매하는 것에 대해 더 높은 수익을 올릴 수 있다 이윤이 더 높다. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

그러나 문제가 있다. 환경에 대한 이점은 일반적으로 소비자들이 유기농 제품에 추가로 돈을 지불하려는 이유가 되지 않는다. Organic Trade Association(과 다른 단체들)에 의하면, 소비자들은 주로 그 제품이 자신의 건강에 더 낫다는 믿음 때문에 유기농을 구매한다. 또는 더 영양가 있다거나 안전하다는 이유에서 말이다. 그래서 유기농 식품업자와 지지자들이 그 제품이 더 영양가가 많다거나 안전하다고 홍보하는 것은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 그 주장은 증거에 의해 지지를 받지는 못하지만 말이다.

Organic advocacy groups market safety and nutrition, as with the Organic Center’s “Comprehensive guide for identifying safe and nutritious food,” or the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Child initiative, touting “more scientific evidence that organic food is more nutritious.” Labels for some organic products use the word “toxic” to describe the pesticides they’re not using, despite the fact that some toxic pesticides (pyrethrin, for example) are allowed in organic agriculture. Although organic farming certainly does use fewer pesticides, and that’s an environmental benefit, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that trace amounts of pesticides in food are not dangerous to human health. (Higher levels of exposure, such as those experienced by farmworkers, are a different story.)

Unfortunately, you can’t believe organic food is more nutritious and safe without believing conventional food is less nutritious and safe, and that infuriates advocates of conventional food. Sometimes that fury takes on a distasteful edge — I’ve noticed some schadenfreude at food-borne illness outbreaks pegged to organic foods — but I understand where it’s coming from. Conventional food is as safe and nutritious as its organic counterparts, and if consumers are told otherwise, they’re being deceived, and conventional producers are being harmed.

And misinformation does nothing to improve the quality of the public debate. on farms, in academic institutions and in regulatory agencies, I’ve found that nearly everyone thinks there is value in having farmers employ and improve all kinds of practices. Feeding our growing population is a big job, and there are many constructive ways — organic and conventional, large-scale and small, urban and rural — in which farmers are tackling it. We need all of them.

According to the Organic Trade Association, grocery shoppers don’t buy organic foods because they’re better for the environment; they buy them because they think the products are safer or more nutritious. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sometimes it seems as if every column I write has the same conclusion, but it’s an important one. If we’re going to make progress on food, we need a whole lot less of us vs. them. The USDA’s certified-organic program — from its inception a marketing program, not an environmental initiative — has given organic farmers a way to make a living (and farmers do have to make a living) by connecting with like-minded consumers willing to pay a premium for a product that is grown in a way that is often labor-intensive and lower-yielding, and produces some bona fide environmental benefits.

It has also given consumers a choice. For those with concerns about the way most food is grown in this country, organic is a way to vote no. But if organic’s undeniable positives are overshadowed by the negative of organic-vs.-conventional polarization that prevents progress, we all lose.

food@washpost.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-organic-agriculture-really-better-for-the-environment/2016/05/14/e9996dce-17be-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?postshare=2001463410030260&tid=ss_tw

Noah Berger/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The National Academy of Sciences — probably the country's most prestigious scientific group — has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

The report marks an anniversary. Twenty years ago, farmers started growing soybeans that had been genetically modified to tolerate the popular weedkiller known as Roundup and corn that contains a protein, extracted from bacteria, that kills some insect pests.

In the years since, arguments about these crops have grown so contentious that the National Academy can't be sure that people will believe whatever it has to say on the topic.

Even before this report came out, an anti-GMO group called Food & Water Watch attacked it. The group accused some members of the committee that prepared the report of receiving research funding from biotech companies, or having other ties to the industry.

"The makeup of the panel is pretty clear. People are coming in with a perspective that is pro-genetically engineered crop," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

The preemptive attack frustrates Fred Gould, the North Carolina State University scientist who chaired the committee. Gould has been known in the past as a GMO critic. He has pushed for restrictions on the planting of some GMO crops. "I have not been a darling of the industry. As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments," he says.

Gould says that over the two years that he and the other members of this committee worked on this report, they had one important rule: "If you had an opinion, you had to back it up with data. If you didn't have the data, it didn't go into the report."

The report tries to answer a long list of questions about GMOs, involving nutrition, environmental effects, effects on the farm economy and monopoly control over seeds.

The most basic conclusion: There's no evidence that GMOs are risky to eat.

The committee also found that GMOs, as promised, have allowed farmers of some crops to spray less insecticide to protect their crops — although there's a risk that the GMO crops may not work as well in the future, because insects could develop resistance to them. Also, there's no evidence that GMOs have reduced the amount of wild plant and insect life on farms.

And the report found that some claims about the benefits of GMOs have been exaggerated.

For instance, the productivity of crops has been increasing for a century, and that didn't change when GMOs came along. "The expectation from some of the [GMO] proponents was that we need genetic engineering to feed the world, and we're going to use genetic engineering to make that increase in yield go up faster. We saw no evidence of that," Gould says.

The report urges federal agencies to change the way they regulate GMOs. Up to now, companies have introduced just a small number of different kinds of genetically modified crops. That could change very soon, because there's new technology, called gene editing, that isn't exactly genetic engineering, but it's not traditional plant breeding, either.

The report urges regulators to look at all new crops, no matter how they're created, if they "have novelty and the possibility of some kind of risk associated with them," Gould says.

Many scientists who got their first look at the report Tuesday praised it. Some called it the most comprehensive review of GMOs that anyone, so far, has carried out.

But longtime critics of GMOs were less impressed.

Patty Lovera, from Food & Water Watch, the group that attacked the National Academy's committee for being too closely linked to industry, took a quick look at the report and didn't see much that seemed new. "It's not the final word" on GMOs, she says.

The National Academy of Sciences is trying to make this report more easily accessible to the public. It has set up a website where people can read the report and also look up the sections that address specific comments that were submitted by the public.

Morocco is a geographically diverse country that encompasses the Atlas and Rif mountains, the Sahara desert and the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy, with over half the active labour force working in farming. However, Morocco faces some significant challenges, particularly with drought and soil degradation. There is also a striking dichotomy between large and small farms that raises the question of how the two distinctly different models of farming can work together and move forward to a sustainable future.

Divided agriculture

Moroccan agriculture is divided between a modern industrial sector that primarily produces food for export, and smallholdings that produce food mainly for local markets and farmers’ own subsistence.

More than 70% of farmers work fewer than five hectares, but this accounts for only a quarter of the total land under cultivation: the large farms dominate the fertile areas. Inevitably, the large farms have a more substantial income, earning approximately nine times more than the average family farm. Many small farms face problems that make it difficult to increase their earnings, including ambiguous land ownership, a lack of infrastructure or access to credit, and poor technical and marketing support. Without registered land, small farmers cannot benefit from government programmes, and even with registered land, many programmes favour larger farms.

The geographical diversity of Morocco results in varied agriculture, with crops ranging from cereals and vegetables to fruits and nuts. Citrus, almonds, argan and olives are major products in the country. Fish are also a significant industry, representing 55% of food exports. This diversity must be celebrated as one of Morocco’s greatest assets; it contributes significantly towards the country’s agricultural sustainability and food security.

Livestock are another major sector of Moroccan agriculture, contributing to the income of more than 80% of the rural population. Animals act as a financial reserve for farmers and as security against the impact of drought. Large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats and dromedaries (Arabian camels) graze 53 million hectares of extensive rangelands.

Drought and soil erosion

A major problem facing Morocco is the impact of climate change and the increased prevalence of drought. Morocco has suffered a drought every three years over the past few decades, with temperatures predicted to rise by three degrees by 2050 and rainfall to decline by 10%. In this same period, demand for water is projected to increase by six times. With most farmland located in areas that receive less than 400mm of rainfall each year, this has serious implications. The government faces a huge challenge in mitigating the impact of climate change, and has even been attempting to desalinate seawater for agricultural use.

These prolonged droughts are increasing soil degradation, with desertification threatening 80% of land, and soil erosion affecting nearly half of it. A rising population is leading to increased pressure on resources and the removal of natural vegetation as more land is converted to cultivation. The erosion rate in the Rif Mountains, for example, is one of the most severe in the world. This problem is also causing water pollution through rising siltation levels in reservoirs and oceans, and is leading to conflict in regions where land is collectively owned and grazed.

What is the solution to such a large-scale problem? The government is attempting to tackle these issues by increasing irrigation infrastructure and encouraging drought-resistant crops. But modern practices, such as intensive cropping under irrigation and heavy tillage, is leading to loss of soil organic matter. Perhaps part of the solution lies with more traditional practices. Mixed farming seems to be an important aspect of Moroccan agriculture, and using livestock manure to build soil fertility is highly valuable. 

Food security and socio-economic issues

Morocco’s rural areas have poor socio-economic infrastructure, low levels of education and an ageing farmer population. Small farmers are economically vulnerable, particularly to instability in global markets and the impact of large farmers flooding local markets with produce when they fail to sell it abroad. one report says farmers are “not equipped to face the challenges of an economy that is opening up to free market competition”, yet this seems to be where Moroccan agriculture is heading – there is a greater emphasis on cash crops and a “progressive transition towards liberalisation”.

Morocco is highly dependent on imports, consuming three times the amount of imported cereal than the world average. But current policy encourages farmers to produce cash crops for export rather than food for their own population. The government has also leased land to foreign investors – such as the 700,000 hectares leased to an investment firm from Abu Dhabi. “The investors can keep 100% of the produce and export it, all we are asking is for them to invest in our sector and create employment for our people,” one official said.

This shows the degree to which raising income is a priority over producing food for domestic consumption. But what are the long-term costs of such an approach? Will Morocco’s vibrant and diverse local food economy be lost? There is already a loss of farmers, as people from rural areas migrate to cities for work – urbanisation is now at 50%.

The Green Morocco Plan

The government’s attempt to deal with its agricultural problems is embodied in The Green Morocco Plan, which began in 2008. This plan has two pillars, one addressing the large intensive farms, and the other addressing the small subsistence farms. It aims to double the value of agricultural production, increase productivity and improve food security. on the one hand it is progressing towards liberalisation and modernisation, but on the other it claims to maintain the ‘social character’ of Moroccan agriculture.

The plan is comprised of 1,500 programmes requiring more than $10 billion to implement. It includes the construction of dams, the expansion of irrigation and the conversion to crops better suited to the climate. one component of it involves planting fruit and olive trees in former grain fields.

While many of these programmes are beneficial, some believe the Plan gives priority to large intensive farming. There is concern that the government, urged along by international development organisations and commercial seed and chemical corporations, is pushing further a model of intensive agriculture that is dependent on the global market and free trade. Simon Gray, World Bank Maghreb Country Director, prioritises Morocco’s integration into the global economy, and developing a liberalised market environment. But will this really improve Morocco’s long-term economic sustainability and food security?

Hafez Ghanem, at the Brookings Institute, speaks for many when he writes that the government needs to put more emphasis on the Plan’s second pillar. Ghanem argues that increasing food reserves, improving links to markets and supporting the development of independent producer organisations should be the priority of government policy. This would strengthen the resilience of smallholders and enable them to contribute meaningfully to a sustainable food supply for Morocco. 

Co-operatives, organic farming and community supported agriculture

One way to support small farmers is through cooperatives and community supported agriculture (CSA). Cooperatives can share the costs of machinery and packaging, as well as provide training and support. Community-managed tree nurseries are providing trees at a fraction of the cost of large commercial nurseries. Working together can help small farmers fare better in the global economy. Pooling produce allows them to compete with larger farms.

Many farmers are passionate about becoming more sustainable. A cooperative in a village near Taounate has a field school where farmers are experimenting with more sustainable farming practices. This is allowing farmers to do their own research and develop solutions for themselves.

Organic farming is also becoming popular in Morocco. one CSA association, Sala Almoustaqbal, began producing organic food that it sells directly to the consumer. Support for the project is growing, with a waiting list of over 100 families.

Another farmer, Abdellah Boudhira, has transitioned from modern intensive farming, using patented hybrid seeds, back to traditional organic practices using only heritage seeds, which he believes taste better and have much higher nutritional value. He has also decided to sell directly to customers, as dependence on middlemen to access the market results in such low prices for producers and high costs for consumers. Boudhira’s farm has garnered a following on social media as he attempts to raise his profile and encourage sustainable organic agriculture. He says that more people in Morocco are becoming interested in healthy organic food, and that, “Healthy food can be affordable for everybody if we farm wisely, and don’t rely on chemical corporations.”

Boudhira’s success shows that farmers can be willing to change the way they farm and to become more sustainable. But they need support to do so – through financial assistance, training and improved infrastructure. Government policy should give meaningful help to these small-scale farmers, and not simply facilitate the growth of intensive agriculture.

What next for Morocco?

Morocco faces multiple problems of climate change, drought and soil degradation. The divide between rich and poor, between large and small farms, requires an imaginative and diverse approach to improving agriculture. But with smallholders comprising such a major part of the sector, there is real opportunity to improve people’s livelihoods and food security, as well as to prevent further environmental degradation. Government policy needs to recognise the integral importance of smallholders, not simply for their ‘social character’, but for the real value they add to Moroccan food systems. These hard-working people will hold the key to Morocco’s future.

You can read more about Abdellah in the premiere issue of Rodale’s Organic Life, on stands next week, find out more at www.rodalesorganiclife.com

그래도 10년 전에는 닭이 돈이 되는 때였다고 Mike Weaver 씨는 말한다. 그는 2001년 미국 야생동식물보호국 법률 집행관에서 퇴직한 뒤 웨스트버지니아 포트 세이버트에 사들인 자신의 농장에서 여전히 닭을 사육한다. 그런데 돈은? 갈수록 시원찮아지고 있다.

Keeping the lights on and the heaters running in his gigantic chicken houses seems to cost more every year (“house” is the industry term for a chicken barn; each of Weaver’s is more than two football fields long and can hold about 46,000 chickens). Everything about farming, as a matter of fact, is getting pretty expensive these days. Guess how much the silver dollar-sized plastic cap that he needed the other day to repair a hydraulic clutch on his tractor cost? $33. An outrage.

Then there’s the fact that Weaver says he and other West Virginia “growers” – the industry term for chicken farmers – haven’t received a pay increase for 10 years and are earning just a fraction more in absolute, non-inflation-adjusted dollars than they did three decades ago. All told, it’s been enough to get Weaver seriously fired up. (A spokesman for Pilgrim’s, the company with which Weaver contracts to grow chickens, responds that it pays its West Virginia growers at competitive industry rates).

Nearly all the chicken raised in the United States is grown by farmers who contract with “vertically integrated” companies that own the chickens as well as the entire supply chain, from hatcheries to feed mills to processing and packaging plants. Growers like Weaver are simply paid to raise newly hatched chicks to market weight – a process that, thanks to constant genetic improvement, now takes just about five weeks.

The companies deliver chicks and feed and return later to collect the full-grown chickens for slaughter and processing, while the growers construct, maintain, upgrade and pay for utilities and labor in their poultry houses.

“In general, it’s been an extremely effective and efficient system that’s been able to produce low-cost, high-quality protein for consumers around the world,” says Mike Lacy, head of the poultry science department at the University of Georgia – the country’s biggest chicken-producing state. “The contract system has served consumers well [and] … it’s contributed to the success of a lot of family farmers.”

Bill Roenigk, an economist with the National Chicken Council, says vertical integration offers poultry farmers stable income and manageable risk, and has benefitted both growers and poultry companies for decades. The industry also points out that vertical integration protects growers from the market volatility. When feed is expensive or chicken prices are low (or both), the company, rather than the growers, suffers.

Lacy and others, however, acknowledge that Weaver’s fundamental complaint – stagnating income and rapidly increasing expense – holds true for growers across the country.

“The growers’ plight has been getting worse and worse starting in the early to mid-90s, and really accelerated in the last five years,” says Bob Taylor, a professor and researcher at Auburn University’s College of Agriculture.

(In this 2010 paper, Taylor reports after a full accounting of all associated expenses and income, the average Alabama grower lost money on a poultry operation in 10 of the 15 years between 1995 and 2009.)

After a fuel price spike in 2007 and 2008 hit growers hard, Weaver founded the Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias to advocate for improved conditions and better pay for contract growers. Today the group works on projects to improve individual growers’ bottom lines – e.g., looking at heaters that burn chicken litter rather than propane – and fights to reform aspects of the contract system that many growers feel are unfair.

At the heart of much criticism against the industry is the fact that getting into the poultry business isn’t cheap, and indebted farmers are often in poor position to advocate for themselves. After buying his farm, Weaver spent about $200,000 to convert its two existing turkey houses for chicken production. Building a farm like his from scratch today would cost around $1 million, he estimates. And when “you’re in debt up to his ass” like this, Weaver says, you can’t just quit, even if you’re losing money on your flocks.

Reforming the way growers are paid, and increasing the amount, is another of Weaver’s goals. Growers like him earn a base rate of between 5¢ and 5.5¢ per pound (depending on the specifications of a grower’s houses) of live weight the company hauls off when the flock is grown. Every week, the company ranks all the finished flocks it’s collected from first to worst based on how efficiently each grower’s flocks convert feed to weight. The growers at the top get bonuses for good performance, subsidized by penalties subtracted from the base pay of growers at the bottom of the list.

The industry says this creates an incentive-based system that rewards dedicated, skilled growers. Critics, however, sometimes take a more cynical view, as the major variables that can mean the difference between a bonus-earning flock and a penalty-earning flock are in the company’s hands. If the company doesn’t like Grower X – perhaps because he’s begun to agitate for better conditions – it could send him a flock of chicks hatched from hens at the ends of their breeding lives, which, on average, won’t grow as quickly as others. Or it could cut back on the amount of corn in the feed it sends him. With bad chicks or bad feed, a grower is virtually guaranteed to be penalized for poor performance, Weaver says.

Furthermore, says Taylor, growers have no way to verify the data used to calculate their pay or dispute a performance penalty when they receive their settlement checks.

The mere possibility of this happening is powerful. Fear of economic punishment for upsetting the company is pervasive among growers. Even worse is the prospect of being “cut off,” or dropped altogether by a company, which generally can terminate a grower’s contract at will with 90 days’ notice – potentially devastating to a grower with mortgage payments to make on his poultry houses.

As a result, very few growers are as willing to be as outspoken as Weaver about difficult circumstances they may be facing (“one of the real travesties” of all this, he says). As a case in point, Weaver says he used to regularly earn production bonuses by topping the weekly pool of growers. He says it hasn’t happened once in the past three years.

The degree to which any of this actually occurs, however, is impossible to quantify.

“I can’t say that there’s never been abuse, but I would say that it is rare,” says Lacy of the University of Georgia. “It’s never in the company’s best interests for a grower to fail, and they will bend over backwards to try to solve whatever problem there is.”

He points out that banks’ willingness to lend to a company’s growers provides something of a check and balance to bad behavior that could put growers out of business. If a particular company’s growers have a track record of loan defaults, banks won’t lend to them as freely and the company could face production problems.

Regardless, Weaver says the challenges facing him, his association’s membership and growers in general are as difficult as ever right now. He hopes things will get better, but it’s hard to feel too optimistic these days. If the companies give his growers a two-cent base pay increase they’ve been asking for for several years – that’s close to a 40 percent raise – he may still be doing this in five years, he says. If not, he’ll close his doors, sooner rather than later.

But he won’t do it quietly.

“I have to sleep well at night,” Weaver says. “If somebody’s doing something wrong and needs to be told about it, I’ll tell ‘em. I hate to shut it down, but I’m not going to be abused, either.”

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/02/chicken-farming-discontents/?utm_source=hootsuite