Callum McCadden – 3411 words
…
Critically examine the claims that agroecological and organic systems of agricultural production can contribute to creating more ecologically sustainable food systems, as well as for achieving food security and supporting the livelihoods of small-holder farmers.
One area of human-environment interaction that has come under intense scrutiny is that of agriculture. In the media and politics this area has been blindsided by emissions and waste, but a raging debate has waged in grassroots political circles and academic lecture halls. This movement is backed by critical discourse that has long been analysing the faults of conventional agriculture. Two of these discourses are organic agriculture and agroecological methods. Both organics and agroecology claim to represent a better form of farming and are built on their criticism of conventional agriculture: that it is inherently unsustainable, and its negative outcomes outweigh its positives, now and/or later. This brief overview will seek to summarise and analyse the state of the debate between these three discourses. Agroecology and organics will be treated as similar but different discourses, and the arguments of one will be used to advance the other. Organics here is understood as a specific set of cultivation rules under the broader philosophy of agroecology which aims to understand the already present ecology and work with it. The paper firstly examines environmental impacts, highlighting the spectrum of methods employed within food production systems and their relative impact on the environment. Following this, the paper will examine food security in the context of distribution and demand, illustrating that questions of food security cannot be reduced to yield. The paper then touches on farmer livelihoods under the different systems.
Agroecology, and organics as a type of agroecology, attempt to approach farming from a more holistic perspective, in which an ecosystem is managed according to its own ebbs and flows but still directing energy towards to production of food for human consumption. In this way of farming the farm is seen as a system of cycles, as opposed to a linear machine of production. The definition of organics places it in contrast with conventional agriculture, ‘It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects.’ (IFOAM, 2005. Emphasis Added). Agroecology defines itself similarly, but one that also addresses economic, social and cultural sustainability of a production system (Rosset and Altieri, 1997). Organics can be seen as a set of strict rules under a more general philosophy that is agroecology. Currently just under 1% of the worlds farming area is farmed organically (Lee et al., 2015). Both systems define themselves in critique of conventional agriculture which is seen as ecologically unsustainable, perilously insecure and damaging to human livelihoods.
Primarily organics and agroecology argue that they offer a more environmentally friendly solution to farming. This has been attributed to the farming ‘crisis (Rosset and Altieri, 1997) created by conventional farming methods. The primary argument is that the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers used in conventional agriculture is both excessive and damaging. In the global context this a major problem, in Steffan et al’s (2015) planetary boundaries biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus are two of the top three most breached boundaries, the third being genetic biodiversity. In waterways the excess amount of minerals leads to ‘eutrophication’, the process whereby algae grow rapidly (‘bloom’) overtaking the waterway. The end result is an oxygen starvation of the waterway, devoiding it of life bar the algae. Both conventional and organic systems leach nitrogen and phosphorus but the eutrophication link has been made to excess chemical fertilisers used in conventional farming (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). This is contested however, with Clark & Tilman (2017) arguing the eutrophication potential of organic production is higher due to widespread application of manure. It is found that per unit area organics leach less of these minerals, but due to lower production organics creates more per product (Tuomisto et al., 2012). Finally, Rosset & Altieri (1997) argue an agroecological perspective that both of these perspectives (chemical nitrogen or nitrogen provided through manure) do not tackle the root problem of the system, and that a nitrogen rich soil is the outcome of a healthy biologically rich soil.
The broad application of synthetic pesticides is likewise condemned by organics and agroecology, both for its affects on the environment and its affect on humans. Pesticides have the affect of eliminating plants, fungi and animals that compete with the desired crop for resources. It is argued pesticides increase production (Wilson & Tisdell, 2001). Organics and agroecology don’t necessarily refute this but argue the drawbacks for soil health are not worth the gains. Organic farms have higher biodiversity with safe havens for predators, parasites, pollinators and soil fauna (Altieri and Nicholls, 2004; IPES, 2016), have been championed to reverse soil degradation (Gliessman, 2007; FAO, 2015) and perform better in drought years (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). Considering that 20 per cent of the Earth’s land is now degraded (UNCCD, 2012), these criticisms must be taken seriously.
It is logically plausible that conventional could reduce its usage of chemical inputs to a reasonable pollution level without going full agroecological. However, this is practically impossible due to seed and fertility dependence. Many of the crops used in conventional agriculture today are the result of the ‘green revolution’ (IPES, 2016). They are designed high yielding varieties that were selected for their high yields in the presence of these chemical inputs (IPES, 2016). Furthermore, overtime dependence has increased, this is evident from the increasing amount of nitrogen fertiliser used in order to produce the same yield (Rosset & Altieri, 1997). Finally, the high capital investment of conventional large-scale monocropping makes it financially difficult to change systems where farmers have loans to pay (Weibe, 2016).
The secondary arguments advanced by organic and agroecology criticisms relate to methods employed by conventional systems, namely: mass monocropping, crop rotation and the use of GMOs. The use of GMOs is beyond the scope of this paper, however mass monocropping and crop rotation (or lack thereof) are all used in agroecological and organic arguments to advance the idea that conventional agriculture is unsuitable for long term sustainability (Rosset & Altieri, 1997). The environmental impact of mass monocropping and lack of crop rotation is well documented to reduce soil fertility and increase erosion (IPES, 2016). However, the solutions proffered by organic and agroecological agriculture such as poly-cropping and crop rotation are not necessarily unique and can be employed in conventional systems. It is entirely possible that an agenda could be advanced for conventional agriculture to take on these agroecological practices without necessarily going the full way and adopting agroecological or organic farming.
It is important to acknowledge the rebuttal of conventional agriculture, that conventional methods are more environmental through land sparing. Land sparing is the concept that because conventional agriculture has higher yields, conversion to organic would necessarily bring currently unused land into production (Ramankutty & Rhemtulla, 2012; Phalan et al. 2011). The concept pivots on the idea that agriculture is inherently damaging, and we must maximise conservation of land untouched. The argument is that due to the lower yields of organic methods, conversion to organic farming would lead to a 16-33% increase in land under cultivation (Muller et al., 2017). This would likely increase current sites of expansion: fragile areas such as rainforests (Searchinger et al., 2018) would suffer with deforestation 8-15% higher under a scenario of full organic conversion (Muller et al., 2017 – variances reflect uncertainty regarding organic yield gaps). In order to convert fully to organic agriculture without increasing land use above the baseline scenario, significant changes within the food system would have to be made (Muller et al., 2017). Notably Muller et al., (2017) find that full conversion to organic agriculture would require significant reductions in meat consumption and food waste.
On the other hand, the argument of land sparing rests on three faulty assumptions. First the concept of land sparing considers that all land that would be expanded onto would be ‘pristine’ wilderness areas, in fact often land expanded on is ex-farmland or hinterland that is relatively ecologically unproductive (IPES, 2016). Secondly, and related, the concept of land sparing pivots on an idea of the ‘pristine wild’, a social construction blind to human-environmental interactions that have occurred on almost every inch of the globe throughout history (Cronon, 1996). The flipside of this assumption is that land-sharing with wildlife is denigrated to the point it is deemed to have no value, such as the high on-site biodiversity on organic farms (IPES, 2016). Finally, the concept of land-sparing is temporally fixed, blind to the idea that conventional agriculture may destroy the land it is operated on and then move onto to cultivating the only fertile land left: the conserved ‘pristine’ areas.
In sum it is evident from both meta-analysis, and exploration of the issues above that agroecological methods, including organics, have a demonstrated, although imperfect, track record of being more ecologically sustainable. The question in contention is how this is practically managed to produce the current level of food. As a result, it is unsurprising to note Muller et al., (2017) conclude that the practical solution to feed the world without increasing land use is a mixture of organics and conventional. With this noted the next section will explore the assumption of this conclusion: that we need to produce the same, if not more, food.
Food Security
Agroecology and organics have advanced criticism regarding the state of food security offered by conventional farming, as well tying in on debates regarding the term itself. Food security will be discussed here in its classical definition as people’s access rights to sufficient and acceptable food (FAO, 2009). A core belief in conventional farming wisdom is that organics and agroecology cannot meet the challenge of food security as it is unable to produce enough to feed the current population, never mind a growing population. Primarily this is borne out in the debate regarding the yield gap: that agroecology and organics produce less food. Several meta-analyses have found that on average organics produce less of the same crop across the same amount of land (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). Studies vary, but generally organic systems produce between 8 and 25% less (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). With this said, organic polycultures (true to the holistic ethos of agroecology and organics) produce only 9% (+-4%) less than conventional monocultures (typical of industrial farming) (Ponisio et al., 2015). Organics and agroecology look less impressive when conventional farming uses polycultures (21+- 6% yield gap) or when the philosophy of organics is diluted, and organic crops are planted as monocultures (17+-3%). Similar statistics are found for crop rotations (Ponisio et al., 2015). It is evident that conventional farming can adopt agroecological practices such as polyculture and maintain higher yields over organics. However, it is not evident that conventional farming has done so, with 80% of arable land being managed as monocultures (Altieri et al., 2015). Regardless, the conventional agricultural system can be defended simply: why in a world of 800 million to 2.5 billion hungry people (Holt-Giménez, 2018) would we risk producing less food?
The counter-argument brought forth by agroecological and organic discourses is that the yield gap is mute as we actually already produce more than enough food for the world’s population. The current output of global agriculture is enough to feed a world of 10 billion people (Holt- Giménez et al., 2012). A full conversion to organic agriculture without increased land use, would lead to less food produced, however this wouldn’t necessarily lead to people going hungry as it is currently the ability to acquire or purchase food, not the absolute amount produced, that leaves people hungry (Sen, 1982). Likewise, a further argument is advanced by agroecological discourse that the multiple-output nature of agroecological small-scale farming increases dietary diversity (Holt-Gimenez et al., 2012). Finally, it is argued that the adoption of industrial agriculture has not only not led to less hungry people, but a marked increase in both undernourishment and obesity/ overnourishment where the overproduction of staples like grains and sugar has led to the mass-availability of reconstructed processed foods (Mahoney, 2015; Rocha, 2018)
Secondly in the debate around food security it is critical to analyse the comparative metric we are using: yield. Yield is useful as a quick metric for comparing systems, but like any quick metric carries assumptions and flaws. Primarily yield works to compare the output of a single crop across farming systems. This means a mono-cropped industrial field of wheat is compared to a small-hold agroecological farm intercropping wheat with other crops. The yield is higher in the monocrop, but the output of the intercropped plants is negated. At quick glance it seems the industrial monocrop is more productive, even if the small-hold agroecological set up is producing more nutritional energy across its multiple crops (Altieri, 2009). Using yield also masks the quality of the crops produced as the nutritional quality of the crop is presumed the same. The current consensus is that organic produce has a higher nutritional content as often advanced by advocates, but the consensus is out on whether this is utilised by the human body (Reganold & Wachter, 2016).
The access to a varied and healthy diet is essential to food security. The conventional paradigm is for farmers to specialise and produce at maximum capacity one type of product, the economies of scale making individual items cheaper (Carolan, 2018). The conventional paradigm would argue this allows consumers to put together a healthier diet in the marketplace, as healthy choices fall in price. Advocates of agroecology such as Altieri (2009) would argue instead that food security can only be achieved by supporting small-scale agroecological farms which allow people a local and more secure connection to food produced. A result of this conventional model is that the dietary diversity of richer countries has increased as they have gained access to a wider degree of food items, whilst traditional diets in poorer countries have declined as their agricultural systems move from diversity to export-orientated homogeneity (IPES, 2016).
Agroecology and organics lodge a further criticism of the conventional production paradigm by highlighting its vulnerability to collapse, particularly in reference to climate change. Agroecology argues here that the lack of genetic diversity in the industrial farming system creates vulnerability (Altieri et al., 2015). Throughout history dependence on few species has created or exacerbated food crises, thus the considerable dependence today is risky (Altieri et al., 2015). Agroecology argues that adoption of at least some its methods will be necessary to ensure food security in a world of weather extremes (Lin et al., 2008; Altieri et al., 2015). It has been observed that organic crops perform better in drought conditions than non-organic due to relationships with soil fungi (Tesvetkov et al., 2018) as well as in flood conditions (Lotter, 2003). It should be noted that the dependence on chemical fertility should be considered a vulnerability in of itself. Should these inputs become scarce, they are created from oil, it could a significant period of time to rebuild biological soil fertility – a precarious notion for food provision. A final influencing factor in the vulnerability of farming systems is their management, it is argued by agroecological advocate Altieri (2009) that small agroecological farms use their resources better. Human agency is thus paramount, and the agents themselves must also be considered as below.
Livelihoods of small-holder farmers
A considerable amount of the debate regarding agroecology and conventional farming is how each system affects the livelihoods of farmers, particularly small-scale farmers. Considering that 60 per cent of the world’s food production is from small-hold farms, their livelihoods hold up the system (IPES, 2016). Foremost conventional agriculture has been criticised for pushing small-scale farmers out of production, the ‘get big or get out’ philosophy (Carolan, 2011; IPES, 2016). The bulk of this criticism is been observing the ‘cost-price squeeze’ exerted on farmers in the conventional model, where the costs of inputs such as chemicals and seeds has increased whilst the amount offered for the produce by fewer and fewer buyers has become less over time (Carolan, 2011; Weibe, 2016). The result is increasing dependence on fewer, more strained farmers.
Agroecology through organics has been defended through the organic ‘premium’ that farmers can get at market through farming this way. This premium has allowed organic farmers to enjoy better incomes whilst incomes from conventional farmers reduce (Lotter , 2003; Weis & Weis, 2007; Weibe, 2016). Over the last 50 years farmer income has reduced as conventional agriculture has allowed the upward consolidation of ownership (Carolan, 2018). This has borne out in its extreme to the point farmers in certain industries do not even own their operations but are paid workers on minimum wages to complete the task of farming (Domina & Taylor, 2010). An example of this would be contract poultry farming, popular in many countries both in the Global North and Global South (Domina & Taylor, 2010; Begum, 2005; Delforge, 2007). In this system the farmers (referred to as ‘growers’) own their land but not the chickens they grow, nor the feed or fuel (Carolan, 2011). The result is they are indebted and lack agency or power (Friedrich & Wilson, 2015). This decline in livelihoods and financial precarity is an obvious criticism of the conventional model. At the same time it is also evident that through the organic premium agroecological/organic farmers enjoy higher financial stability through increased profits (Crowder & Reganold, 2015). It is vitally important to note that the organic premium at market does not solely represent an increased cost in organic production (Crowder & Reganold, 2015). Although labour costs are higher in organic production, there are less inputs purchased (Crowder & Reganold, 2015). Thus, Crowder & Reganold (2015) found that despite a 29-32% organic premium, only a 5-7% premium would be needed to cover the extra cost of organic production to match the profits of conventional production (which is predominantly caused by the yield gap). Importantly, as established, the squeezed profits and upward flowing profit system of conventional agriculture is no benchmark but there does appear to be room for organics to expand. This however may not be a good thing, as strong competition in the organics market could drive down this premium all the way down to 5-7% and make organic production no better for farmer livelihoods than conventional farming, economically at least.
The second important factor for determining which system is better for small-holder farmer livelihoods is the health of workers operating these systems. It is particularly noted in the literature that workers on conventional farms are repeatedly exposed to pesticides, endangering their health and causing a broad range of negative health outcomes such as birth defects to Alzeheimers (IPES, 2016). It is further noted that communities in the vicinity of sprayed fields have a marked increase in health problems, attributed to the farming (IPES, 2016). As a result, working in the absence of synthetic pesticides would reduce this risk, as on agroecological and organic farms. However, a study by Cross et al. (2008) could not establish a difference in health between conventional and organic seasonal farm workers in the United Kingdom. Cross et al. (2008) did establish that workers on organic farmers were happier than their conventional counterparts. Any indications that one system is healthier for the farmers must be taken seriously, as it is paramount to the overall sustainability of the system.
In conclusion there are many aspects and intricacies in the debate between agroecological, organic and conventional farming methods. Each system, or school of thought, comes out of a place of trying to achieve a goal. Conventional farming, stemming from the Green Revolution, has focussed on producing lots of food to feed many people. Agroecology and organic farming have stemmed from a long-running critique not necessarily of this goal, but rather of the ecological and human impact of the methods employed by conventional agriculture. It appears that organic farming in itself, as a strict set of rules, may not be a perfect antidote for the environmental woes it has with conventional farming but conventional farming itself has been running for too long on borrowed time and must desperately start adopting practices from agroecology and organic farming to avoid ecological disaster. This itself plays into the food security debate borne out between them and defendants of conventional farming must realise it has already achieved its goal: human society already produces enough food. Finally, the better livelihoods enjoyed by organic farmers and their workers should be treated as a goal for our agriculture system, as opposed to the financial precarity and stress we’ve allowed our conventional system to push our farmers to in the past few decades.
Reference List:
Altieri, M.A., 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly review, 61(3), pp.102-113.
Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., Henao, A. and Lana, M.A., 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for sustainable development, 35(3), pp.869-890.
Begum, I. 2005. An assessment of vertically integrated contract chicken farming: A case study in Bangladesh, International Journal of Chicken Science, vol 4, no 3, pp167-176
Carolan, M., 2018. The real cost of cheap food. Routledge.
Clark, M. and Tilman, D., 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), p.064016.
Cronon, W., 1996. The Trouble with Wilderness; or. Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.
Cross, P., Edwards, R.T., Hounsome, B. and Edwards-Jones, G., 2008. Comparative assessment of migrant farm worker health in conventional and organic horticultural systems in the United Kingdom. Science of the Total Environment, 391(1), pp.55-65.
Crowder, D.W. and Reganold, J.P., 2015. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), pp.7611-7616.
Delforge, I. 2007. Occasional Papers 2: Contract Farming in Thailand – A View from the Farm, Report for Focus on the Global South, May, Bangkok, Thailand.
Domina, D. and Taylor, C.R., 2010. The debilitating effects of concentration markets affecting agriculture, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, vol 15, no 1, pp61-108.
FAO, 2009. State of food insecurity 2010 Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations. Rome
Friedrich, B. and Wilson, S., 2015. Coming home to roost: How the chicken industry hurts chickens, humans, and the environment. Animal Law, 22, p.103.
Holt-Giménez, E., 2018. Can we feed the world without destroying it?. John Wiley & Sons.
IFOAM, 2005. Definition of Organic Agriculture. Available: https://www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-landmarks/definition-organic-agriculture [accessed 29/05/2019]
Lin, B.B., Perfecto, I. and Vandermeer, J., 2008. Synergies between agricultural intensification and climate change could create surprising vulnerabilities for crops. Bioscience, 58(9), pp.847-854.
Lee, K. S., Choe, Y. C. & Park, S. H. Measuring the environmental effects of organic farming: a meta-analysis of structural variables in empirical research. J. Environ. Manage. 162, 263–274 (2015)
Lotter, D.W., 2003. Organic agriculture. Journal of sustainable agriculture, 21(4), pp.59-128.
Mahoney, C., 2015. Health, food and social inequality: Critical perspectives on the supply and marketing of food. Routledge.
Muller, A., Schader, C., Scialabba, N.E.H., Brüggemann, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.H., Smith, P., Klocke, P., Leiber, F., Stolze, M. and Niggli, U., 2017. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nature communications, 8(1), p.1290.
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E., 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333(6047), pp.1289-1291.
Ramankutty, N. and Rhemtulla, J., 2012. Can intensive farming save nature?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9), pp.455-455.
Reganold, J.P. and Wachter, J.M., 2016. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature plants, 2(2), p.15221.
Rocha, C., 2018. Framing the nutrition problem: the political-economic obstacles to healthier diets. UNSCN News, (43), pp.25-32.
Searchinger, T.D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T. and Dumas, P., 2018. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 564(7735), p.249.
Sen, A., 1982. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford university press
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A. and Folke, C., 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), p.1259855.
Tsvetkov, I., Atanassov, A., Vlahova, M., Carlier, L., Christov, N., Lefort, F., Rusanov, K., Badjakov, I., Dincheva, I., Tchamitchian, M. and Rakleova, G., 2018. Plant organic farming research–current status and opportunities for future development. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 32(2), pp.241-260.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P. and Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of environmental management, 112, pp.309-320
Weibe, N. 2016 ‘Crisis in the Food System’ in Koç, M., Sumner, J. and Winson, A. (eds), 2016. Critical perspectives in food studies (No. Ed. 2). Oxford University Press.
Weis, A.J. and Weis, T., 2007. The global food economy: The battle for the future of farming. Zed Books.
Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C., 2001. Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecological economics, 39(3), pp.449-462.
