|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Sustainable Agriculture |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Seven Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture by Nicanor Perlas |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost everybody talks about sustainable agriculture as an alternative to the outworn “green revolution” agriculture. However, the term has quickly become an empty phrase meaning almost anything including such oxymoron terms as “safe pesticides” and “environmentally friendly” biotechnology. Even WTO advocates use sustainable agriculture to justify corporate control of the food chain. It is important for civil society, which originated the idea, to concretely articulate what it understands by the term “sustainable agriculture.”
In 1983, the author and two other friends coined the
term, “sustainable agriculture.” Together they co-founded the
International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (IISA), which
spearheaded a global discussion on a widened view of “sustainability.”
In recent years, by viewing sustainability from the perspective of the
farming family, the author has articulated seven dimensions of
sustainability in agriculture, which have been receiving national and
international acceptance. Because sustainability immediately brings into
focus a temporal consideration, these dimensions have to be understood
also as including intergenerational concerns. (For details, see Perlas, N.
(1993) The Seven Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture, Manila:
CADI) At the household level, farmers, by the very nature
of their profession, have a direct relationship with Nature. (I avoid the
term “natural resources” because the term immediately prescribes a
limited, narrow, and utilitarian view of and relationship with Nature.) To
be sustainable at this level, the relationship with Nature has to be
ecologically sound. Concretely this means the following: a) Instead of
pesticides we use ecological pest management; b) instead of chemical
fertilizers, integrated soil fertility management; c) instead of
monocultures, the harnessing of biodiversity to create polycultures; d)
instead of creating chemically addicted seeds, alternative breeding
strategies which produce species adopted to ecologically sound practices;
e) instead of erosion and water depletion, soil and water conservation; f)
instead of mass production or factory farming of animals, “humane”
animal raising methods; and, g) instead of a fixation on genes and
chemical substances, we work in partnership with the living formative
energies of Nature through, for instance, the use of bio-dynamic preparations and other
bio-dynamic practices.
Environmentally sound technology is not enough to
ensure SA (even
if most technocrats have a fatal attraction for technological fixes).
Farmers do not exist in a vacuum. Economic, political, and cultural
developments, even if far removed from the farm and village level, either nurture
or oppress the life of farmers and the farming community. (See Figure
above.) In the age of globalization and often mindless industrialization,
subsistence farming today is fast becoming a thing of the past. Interaction of farmers with the local, national and
global economy produces the widespread phenomenon of poverty. Both
socialist and capitalist economies have become engines of poverty
creation. To be sustainable, agriculture has to move beyond these limited
economic ideologies and seek creative solutions to the questions of fair
pricing, cost internalization, food security, the right to an adequate
livelihood, and the multifunctional role of agriculture. One such approach
is associative economics. This will be a potent antidote for the
WTO machine and for incipient commercialism in the organic farming movement. Policies promulgated far away in imperial Manila and
other cities often do very little to support farmer initiatives at the
community level. Poverty can only worsen if farmers are not protected by a
proper policy environment that insulates them from destructive
technologies, abusive creditors, exploitative traders, usurious land tenure
arrangements, gender bias, and disempowerment. Sustainable agriculture
advocates therefore have to ensure that social justice and equity prevail
all the way to the farm household level. Can farming be sustainable when indigenous knowledge
and values are dominated and marginalized? The rural youth are voting with
their feet, and the answer is a resounding, NO! The young are migrating
away in droves from rural settlements. They leave behind the old who have
no choice except to farm. They also say goodbye to the children who have
no capability for an independent choice. Modernization has created a
social “black hole,” mindlessly destroying anything that smacks of
rural culture. To be sustainable, agriculture has to be culturally
sensitive and empowering and should nurture the cultural renaissance of
the countryside.
Science is often portrayed as our salvation from
backwardness especially in agriculture. There is an element of truth in
this. But the issue is not whether we should have science or not. Rather
the key question is: What Science? We have seen the damage that “green
revolution” agriculture has forced upon farmers. No one can defend as
“progress” a P6700 health bill imposed on farmers every 6 months by
the science of pesticides. Despite good intentions, conventional science
is far too reductionist. The wholeness of living Nature disappears as
scientists focus on mere parts, often at the molecular level. The
salvation for sustainable agriculture lies in the pursuit of holistic
science. Technology development is another favorite activity
of larger society that seems far removed from the realities at the
household level. But since fundamentally the farmer's relationship with
Nature is directly mediated by technology, it is clear that appropriate
technology has to be one of the dimensions of sustainability in
agriculture. Agricultural biotechnology is particularly
alarming. The
concerns for the potential adverse effects of genetic engineering have
already been the subject of dozens of workshops sponsored by government
agencies and scientific associations, and of published journal articles
involving hundreds of scientists. From the many years of research and
analyses conducted by the scientific community, there has emerged a
growing consensus on the ecological, health and socio-economic risks
associated with genetic engineering, as well as the neglect of adequate
safety measures and policies, not to mention the moral and ethical
questions. Ecological problems, economic challenges, oppressive
policies, cultural degeneration, reductionist science, double-edged
technology—all these are clarion calls to awaken, to redefine the meaning of human existence, and move away from the
disempowering illusion of daily routines. To
awaken, however, means that all of us who advocate for sustainability in
agriculture must develop our individual and universal human potentials and
capacities to the fullest. The problem here can be defined as one of deep
sustainability. Transformation at the different levels of sustainability
requires being able to enter our inner sanctum, our “sacra,” our inner
source of creativity, dedication, and courage.
Well-meaning efforts that balk at a serious consideration of these dimensions of agricultural sustainability and their strategic challenges are ultimately doomed to failure. (See Table below.) And millions of lives and the bounty of Nature will continue to be wasted, all in the name of progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Links of Interest: The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture Institute for Food and Development Policy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| © CADI, 2000-2002 | |||||||||||||||||||
In
the picture at right, rice farmers preparing biodynamic compost.
In
the picture at right, rice farmers display pesticide-induced lesions on
the feet during the CADI advocacy to ban hazardous pesticide formulations.
In
the picture at right, visitors examine Ikapati Farm, the first and largest
commercial operation to produce biodynamic and organic vegetables through
sustainable agricultural practices. CADI established the farm to
demonstrate the viability of alternatives to conventional and chemically
intensive vegetable production.