Tag Archives: agriculture

Non-toxic yesterday, but toxic today

In the 1940s a group of competent toxicologists led by William B. Deichmann conducted a number of thorough studies using state-of-the-art methods to conclude that the active ingredient dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, or DDT, could be safely released to the environment for its use as insecticide. DDT was one of the first wide spread synthetic pesticides, and its widespread use led to resistance in many insect species.

ddt-good-for-me  ddt-recommended ddt-uses

As can be seen in the pictures, DDT was promoted to be used as insect repellent directly on human skin, to treat food products, or to impregnate the wall paper of your children’s room, so they won’t be bothered by mosquitoes. Tender images, such as a mother feeding a baby were used in commercial campaigns to basically sell poison. (*)

In the early 1970s, a scientific article authored by Deichmann (1972) himself and other studies provided enough evidence for the US Environmental Protection Agency to finally forbid the use of DDT as it became known to be toxic to humans, persistent in the environment, travel long distances in the upper atmosphere, and accumulate in fatty tissues of living organisms.

deichman-et-al-1972

Rising evidence

What did actually happen between the 1940s and the 1970s? Why was DDT first considered innocuous or degradable and 30 years later banned and labelled as poisonous for humans, wildlife and the environment?There are several possible answers to these questions.

In the fist place, the ecotoxicity of certain chemicals when applied in small doses may only appear through cumulative effects (cf. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/node/872721). Time is needed for problems to arise, or to become evident.

Second, and most importantly, the capacity of science to detect the adverse effects of a certain molecule released to the environment can progress substantially in 30 years.Problems that were overlooked or remained undetected in the past could be later on well understood and documented. (And the amount of scientific evidence that needs to be accumulated to be able to bend the arm of the chemical industry in court cases is not a minor detail).

The most skeptical opinions, in the third place, would argue that DDT was banned once the patent for exclusive production expired, and /or when the industry was ready to release a new product on the market. But these are just speculations.

Take home!

What’s important to take home is that examples such as this one should teach us about the long-term risk (uncertainty) associated with the widespread release of toxins into the environment, either as synthetic molecules or through toxin-producing plants (e.g., Cheeke et al., 2012). Alarming ideas such as the commercial release of genetically engineered microorganisms for soil amendment have been underway for a while (e.g. Viebahn et al., 2009), with unknown consequences for soils and the environment.

When it comes to releasing new technologies for food and agricultural production, I’d say it makes sense to follow precautionary principles. Releasing toxins into the environment: another case of organised irresponsibility…

 

(*) I believe that, nowadays, the baby in the early campaigns of DDT has been replaced by the term ‘sustainability’, which is also used in commercials and websites that advertise poison or toxin-producing plants.

References

Cheeke, T.E., Todd N. Rosenstiel, and Mitchell B. Cruzan. 2012. Evidence of reduced arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization in multiple lines of Bt maize. American Journal of Botany 99, 700-707. DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1100529

Deichman, W.B., 1972. The debate on DDT. Arch. Toxikol. 29 (Springer), 1 – 27.

Viebahn, M., Smit, E., Glandorf, D.C.M., Wernars, K., Bakker, P.A.H.M., 2009. Effect of genetically modified bacteria on ecosystems and their potential benefits for bioremediation and biocontrol of plant diseases – a review. E. Lichtfouse (ed.) Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 2, Springer, p.45. doi 10.1007/978-90-481-2716-0_4.

Are there tipping points in pest management?

Tipping points are common in nature. When systems are disturbed beyond a certain point – a tipping point – they may undergo irreversible or hardly reversible changes that provoke shifts towards undesirable system states. It is often difficult to get systems back from this new ‘stable’ yet undesirable situation. Examples are many. A classical one comes from the work of Marten Scheffer in The Netherlands. He studied the dynamics of shallow lakes as they undergo phases of turbidity as influenced by nutrient loads or pollution. You can find out more about his work here.

Screen Shot 2016-09-05 at 10.02.21

 

How about agricultural systems subject to high pesticide pressure? 

Synthetic pesticide applications are standard practice in conventional farming systems because they are simple to use, cheap, and usually effective in providing short-term reduction in pest densities. Yet, their effectiveness as a long-term sustainable pest management strategy is debated. This debate has been fuelled by the introduction of recent technologies, such as neonicotinoids seed coatings and herbicide tolerant GMO crops, with uncertain outcomes for biodiversity and resistance development.

Historic cases show that the use of pesticides can set off a positive feedback process whereby natural enemy populations are decimated and pesticides become the only pest management option left. The positive feedback between pesticide use and natural enemy mortality suggests the possibility of tipping point dynamics where the system can “tip” from a biocontrol dominated state to a pesticide dominated state. Tipping the system back from the pesticide dominated state to the biological control state could be challenging and require persistent efforts to allow a recovery process of natural enemy populations. Such transition may depend on landscape context and involve complex interactions between human actors and the agro-ecological environment.

The question remains: is there evidence for such tipping points? This will be the central question to be addressed during the debate that will bring Felix Bianchi, Dave Mortensen, Doug Landis and me together at a workshop organised by the PE&RC Graduate School of Wageningen University.

MORE INFORMATION: Poster-Tipping points in pest management

Green, sustainable, smart or ecological?

The increasing recognition that current agriculture is unsustainable, responsible for the loss of biodiversity and habitats, for the rapid exhaustion of non-renewable resources, and for serious impacts on the climate, the environment and people’s health, leads to the continuous emergence of neologisms to express the need for a new global agricultural model. Examples of these include:

  • Sustainable intensification
  • Ecological intensification
  • Agroecological intensification
  • Climate smart agriculture
  • Evergreen agriculture
  • Eco-efficient agriculture
  • Conservation agriculture
  • Biodiverse farming (Kremen et al)

These terms have many things in common, yet the nuances are not minor. Their definitions do share concepts, terms and intensions, but the political discourses and political actors (in science, development and business) associated with their use differ markedly.

Sustainable vs. ecological

In 2014 I published a paper where I reflected upon the uses of the terms sustainable versus ecological intensification. Who uses each term, in which context, and what for? Multinational seed and agrochemical companies, as well as the fertiliser industry or the biotechnology sector adopted sustainable intensification (and sustainability in general) as an umbrella term in their commercial campaigns. The same holds for the international development sector such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the World Economic Forum (Davos, 2012), the Montpellier Panel (2013) or the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN, 2013), and by national policies such as the ‘Feed the Future’ programme of the US Government.

Sustainability is a soft concept, as opposed to a hard one, and thus its definition depends on who defines it, when and in what context. In that paper I noted: (i) that as long as the term sustainability remains vague, ambiguous and poorly defined then any form of agricultural intensification may in principle be portrayed as ‘sustainable’; (ii) that ecological intensification was a better suited term, as it implies an intensive use of the natural functionalities that ecosystems offer, by promoting ecological processes through landscape design. Instead of opposing agriculture and nature, the idea is to integrate both in order to improve agricultural production. Ecological intensification would be then sustainable in its nature, as well as sustained by nature.

What is intensification?

In economics, intensification is a term used to refer to the replacement of one factor (or input) for another one in order to increase efficiency. I use the term ecological intensification to refer to the replacement of inputs by ecological processes in order to increase resource use efficiency. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes plays a major role at fostering such ecological processes. Ecological intensification describes a transition, a pathway, from current unsustainable agriculture to agroecological landscapes and sustainable food systems. This pathway may describe gradual changes or ruptures, depending on both the starting point and the final aim, as well as on the social-ecological context in which the agroecosystem operates.

How about agroecology?

During the last Latin American Congress on Agroecology organised by SOCLA, bringing together four thousand participants in La Plata, Argentina I was invited to debate with Miguel Altieri on agroecology vs. ecological intensification. The audience was surprised to discover that our respective presentations pointed in the same direction, did not contradict one another, and were complementary in terms of concepts and examples. This is not surprising because, after all, I am… an agroecologist!

afiche congreso

I see agroecology as the scientific discipline necessary to contribute to understand, evaluate and design ecologically intensive landscapes. Agroecology brings in the necessary knowledge and tools to support the above-referred transition, a transition that I call ecological intensification. Yet I understand Miguel’s and SOCLA’s derogatory position regarding the use of terms such as ecological or sustainable intensification. There is risk of creating confusion by using different terms to refer to the same ideas. After all, as Miguel often says, since the emergence of agroecology the term (and the movement!) has been first ignored, then attacked, and now is being co-opted.

Sustainable Intensification strikes back

Recently, the South American regional consortium of agricultural ministries known as PROCISUR adopted Sustainable Intensification (SI) as one of its strategic pillars to contribute to regional development. Guess what? In my new position, I was invited as focal point to represent Argentina at the regional round table on SI. Just when I thought the debate was over, I was confronted again with the discussion on what is sustainable and what not, what is intensification, and whether intensification can ever be considered sustainable, etc. etc. This time, however, and given the fact that the mandate came from our ministries, not just from my own country but also from neighbouring countries where I have little chance to influence ministerial policies, I decided to take a more pragmatic approach.

We already know what intensification means and, in the eye of a minister of agriculture, if it brings about added value and employment generation in rural areas then it is most welcome. But if we are going to talk about sustainable intensification, let us first define what we mean by sustainability. One way to start is to consider the planetary boundaries (see Figure). For any agricultural model to be considered sustainable it must allow us to stay within a safe operating space in our earth system, considering these nine global indicators, and propend towards social equity while safeguarding cultural diversity and values. Unfortunately that’s not the case at the moment. We’ve already crossed some critical boundaries, and agriculture is largely responsible for that.

Planetary boundaries

To transition towards sustainability, our agricultural research for development efforts should contribute to:

1. Reduce the dependence of agriculture on non-renewable resources
2. Reduce its impacts on the environment and nature (soil, water, air, organisms, genomes)
3. Restore the productive capacity of degraded soils
4. Reduce the current expansion of the agricultural frontier onto marginal and/or biodiversity rich areas
5. Maximise resource use efficiency through the optimisation of ecological processes
6. Adapt to and contribute to mitigate climate change
7. Promote the necessary technological and organisational innovations
8. Design compatible value chains and guarantee systems
9. Offer opportunities for farming families to remain in rural areas
10. Align the agricultural agenda with the UN Sustainable Development Goals

If we can agree on this Decalogue as a minimum set of goals to achieve sustainable intensification – or, by the same token, climate smart or ecoefficient agriculture – then we can move away from pompous terms and endless debates about multiple possible paradigms. Then, irrespective of the term chosen, we will be able to generate new narratives and political messages to foster the much-needed change. But once again, I hope I do not upset anyone by saying that it is hard to imagine how such transition could be accomplished, how these ten goals could be achieved, without the insights from and the practice of agroecology.

Agriculture, nature and the yellow press

In my current job coordinating a natural resources and environment program in Argentina I often come across complex issues labelled as ‘conflict’ between agriculture and nature conservation. The presumed damaged caused by wild animals to agriculture and livestock is a particularly tough one. From wild herbivores such as guanacos or deer competing for grass against sheep and cattle, to grain-eating birds shopping through mature grain crops, or pumas and foxes dining on tender lambs or chicks, such cases make it repeatedly to the national and local press and cause agitation amongst farmers. This has been the case of, for example, the poor mourning dove.

Slide1 The mourning dove became a new ‘plague’ to the sunflower crop. And how does our cultural wisdom deal with plagues? Control them! Poison them! Shoot them! Part-time hunters are always ready to jump at any opportunity to justify their shooting (and their polluting the place with lead and noise); much better still when this can be done in the name of ‘nature management’. This is exactly what happened with the poor mourning dove.

Slide2

Granted, mourning doves are perhaps not your favourite wild bird, they are not what you may call emblematic biodiversity, but they do have their ecological function, their place in nature. Other bird species, such as local parrots or the migratory cauquén, experienced a similar fate. (The cauquén, which lands on agricultural fields in big flocks, was even accused of generating soil compaction! Later on research showed that this was total nonsense).

Who eats what… and how much?

What’s the best way to deal with this kind of conflict? Let’s recur to science, to knowledge, to information, I would say. Or, as Julieta von Thungen, responsible for this line of work in our program puts it: “we should do what we know best; and we do know how to count”. And counting they did. Jaime Bernardos, Sonia Canavelli and their teams monitored mourning doves, their temporal and spatial dynamics during the cropping season, their presence, distribution and feeding patterns in sunflower fields and the level of damage they caused, expressed as a percentage of the harvest that was lost to the birds. And what did they find? See for yourself:

Slide3In short, lots of fields with insignificant damage, with less than 1% of the harvest lost, and a few fields with about 30% harvest losses. Does this justify going out to shoot mourning doves or poison them, creating risks for other species as well?

Such a pattern in the reaction of farmers and the civil society is common to most agriculture-nature conflicts and it is largely driven by perceptions. Once an animal species is perceived to be a plague there is no way of stopping this type of behaviour.

Science to the rescue?

Here again science has a crucial role to play by providing hard evidence, knowledge and information. Not just about leves of economic damage; there is also evidence that choosing the right species of trees to plant around fields, such as deciduous species that grow less than 15 m tall, can reduce the population of potentially damaging birds such as doves and parrots. By contrast, it seems that evergreen species like Eucalyptus and Pines are very attractive for their nesting.

Unfortunately the funding necessary for the type of field work necessary to monitor presence, incidence and damage – which in the case of mourning doves involves just a field car, fuel and man-hours, whereas for the puma it would involve installing a large number of sensor infrared cameras, and a lot of patience – comes only after the problem started, often too late to prevent it.

Moreover, such basic research may also be discouraged through insufficient academic reward, as the results are not always attractive to the editors of high impact journals due to lack of scientific novelty. And, as we scientist know all too well, poor publication records translate into even less funding. Who should be doing this kind of less-rewarding, basic, but extremely useful research?

I have no immediate answer to this. But one possibility is to establish what is known as ‘observatories’ of sustainability, similar to those used to monitor the impact of tourism. Imagine a portion of a landscape or territory under human use in which all the basic environmental and biodiversity monitoring research is done over sufficiently long periods of time, generating the necessary data to inform discussions and decisions. Some examples of this already exist. Let me investigate a bit more and come to that in another post.

Meanwhile, when it comes to agriculture-nature conflicts, let us please stay away from the yellow press.

Running on empty

Will there be enough oil to sustain future food production? Why is current agriculture so dependent on fossil energy? To explore these questions it is perhaps a good idea to examine our ecological footprint from the very beginning of our history on earth.  Our planet originated 4,500 million years ago. Photosynthesis exists for about 3,500 million years but vertebrate land animals and plants only appeared about 400 million years ago. Dinosaurs were there between 230 and 65 million years ago. We humans have been on earth for merely 2 million years, and for most of that time we’ve been marauding around, hunting, gathering fruits and roots, and looking quite different than we do today.

humans

Settling down

Between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago – on the last second of our existence you may say – we decided to set camp, became sedentary and started farming, in a period in which the climate became milder, warmer. Agriculture was a ‘successful’ strategy for our species, starting almost simultaneously in different parts of the world that were not connected by then, and leading to the first population boom. The expansion of our species, half-farming, half-hunting and gathering, led to profound modification of the previous ecosystems around the world. This period coincided approximately with the massive extinction of other species of megafauna (other than human) that took place during the Quaternary.

This moment of our history is seen by some scientists as a key period to study earth living system’s resilience, given that two important processes took place at the same time. Namely, human population growth and climate change – do these sound familiar? A couple of papers published by Barnosky a few years back tried to put some figures behind the dynamics of human and other megafauna populations over the last hundreds of thousands of years. Human expansion, according to Barnosky, is one of the major drivers of extinction of hundreds of megafauna species around the world.

Replacement and addition

If, as Barnosky explains, instead of the total number of individuals we consider the total biomass of humans and of all the extinct megafauna species, then we see a sort of ‘replacement’ of such species by humans. That is, the total biomass that went extinct coincides approximately with that of all humans. The sum of total megafauna biomass – human and non – represents the carrying capacity of Earth, as determined by the incoming solar radiation through plant photosynthesis. In other words, this is the capacity of the Earth to sustain the life of megafauna populations with plant biomass.

Total megafauna biomass declined rapidly during the massive extinctions of the Quaternary and it took about 10,000 years to reach again the level that corresponds to Earth’s carrying capacity. This level was achieved once again around the time of the industrial revolution, as can be seen in the figure below.

megafaunaWhat is most striking in this figure put up by Barnosky (2008) is that the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the world human population starts becoming increasingly urban, marks also the beginning of the expansion in numbers of another category of megafauna: domestic livestock. When we now add up humans, wild animals and livestock, the result is that we are currently keeping about ten times more megafauna biomass than the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth! How is this possible?

Eating fossil fuels

Earth’s carrying capacity, as mentioned above, is determined by the rate of plant photosynthesis. That is, by the ability of plants to turn solar energy into feed energy. Nowadays, to be able to sustain such numbers of animals and humans on Earth we are consuming not only the photosynthetic energy that is capture every year, but also all of that that was captured over hundreds of millions of years. All that energy is stored in fossil fuels: oil, charcoal, gas, tar, etc. These fossil fuels represent a net subsidy to our energy balance on Earth. For example, it is calculated that about 70% of the energy contained in a cereal grain produced using the methods of industrial agriculture comes from fossil fuels (check out this book that appeared already about a decade ago: Eating Fossil Fuels).

About 1500 oil equivalents per year are necessary to feed a person in the developed world. That represents about 6 barrels per person per year. At peak oil production, back in 1979, the maximum oil extraction rate was about 5.5 barrels per person per year, not even half of what is needed in the developed world. All predictions towards the future, both from the public and private sector, point to a reduction in the annual rates of extraction, even when new sources and methods of extraction are considered (e.g. shale gas/fracking). And we know that, as a resource becomes increasingly scarce, its price tends to go up (or so they said in the courses of Economics I ever took).

In conclusion, we are running on empty. And what’s worse, many of the recommendations made to ‘sustain’ agricultural production in the poorest areas of the world, may actually lead to an increased dependence of smallholder farmers on fossil fuels. An example of this is the recommendation to use synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which requires large amounts of fossil energy to be produced. Do we want to make smallholder farmers dependent on a resource that is becoming increasingly scarce? What would this mean for future (and current!) global food security? We ought to come up with alternatives.

Who’s producing our food?

There is quite some noise around the global figures on food production and consumption. The reality is that most of such figures are estimates, and estimates always rest on assumptions. For example, a question that always puzzles me is: what is the proportion of the food we consume that is produced by smallholder family farmers? A somewhat classical estimate points to 70%, as shown in the figure below, developed by the ECT group in 2009:

Peasants foodClick to enlarge

FAO’s State of Food and Agriculture 2014 Report (SOFA 2014) confirms, based on an analysis of 30 countries, that family farmers produce 80% of the world’s food. It is also often stated that this production takes place in only 20% of the agricultural land, and generally in less productive, marginal environments. Is this all true? Because if it is, then the implication is that smallholder family farming is highly efficient, producing most of the food humans eat in barely 20% of the surface, while other forms of farming use 80% of the land to produce the rest. Can we find enough evidence to back all this up?

(Just in case: I’m not questioning the importance of smallholder family farming in terms of global food security. I’m convinced that the only way to achieve food security is through increasing the productivity, sustainability and economic viability of smallholder farms. I’m aware that hunger is not a problem of production but of poverty and inequality, and that only 20% of the hungry live in cities.)

A smallholder farm is most likely a family farm (the opposite is not true)

According to IFAD, there are 500,000,000 farms in the world that are smaller than 2 ha. Unless this figure includes also intensive glasshouse production and/or irrigated orchards with high value crops, we could quite safely assume that most of these farms are smallholders, and that most of them are family farms. In China, for example, the average area of a family farm is 0.3 ha. In the East African highlands, where I worked for a number of years, an average rural household farms about one acre (or 0.42 ha) of land.

Colleagues at FAO are currently making a very serious attempt to quantify how many family farms are there, how much land they use, and how much they produce, based on the analysis of census data from 105 countries (Benjamin Graub and Barbara Herren, pers. Comm.). They estimated that family farms represent 98% of all farms in the world, and that they work on 53% of the agricultural land. They obviously produce most of the food in the world…

But this figure includes ‘family’ farms in places like the US or Europe, as defined by their respective survey authorities. The US census of 2007, for example, considers that 88% of their farms are family farms (i.e., those that are owned by the main operator). A value of 97% is estimated for Europe. The proportion of the total agricultural land held by family farms in these two regions is estimated at 68 and 69%, respectively. In South America, the proportion of family farms was estimated at 88%, but they hold only 18% of the agricultural land. The rest of the land is held by other actors of the agribusiness sector.

Confusion thus arises around the definitions of family and smallholder farms. These terms should not be used interchangeably. Each county has its own definition for these terms and this makes global calculations a hard task. The FAO, in the International Year of Family Farming (2014), defined family farming as:

“a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production which is managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labour, including both women’s and men’s. The family and the farm are linked, co-evolve and combine economic, environmental, social and cultural functions.”

Does size matter?

A cut-off value of <2 ha has been often used to define smallholder farms in global studies by e.g. the World Bank in its Rural Development Strategy (2003). According to IFAD, these farms support about 2 billion people. But individual countries have proposed variable cut-off values in their surveys. For example: Ecuador, <66ha; Nicaragua, < 50ha; Peru, < 50ha; Guatemala, < 45ha; Haiti, < 10ha; Vanuatu, < 5ha; Sub-Saharan Africa, < 10ha. The latter is also a commonly used threshold.

Graub and Herren (pers. Comm.) further calculated that if we take the example of Ireland, where 99% of the farms are considered to be family farms, and use a cut-off value of 10 ha, then only 18% of the farms would classify as such (farming on only 3.9% of the area). The family livestock farmers we work with in Uruguay, for instance, own an average of 80 ha of natural grassland per household, while those with whom we work in eastern Amazonia own up to 100 ha of land (including crops, pasture and forest).

urug

Visiting  a ‘ smallholder’ family farmer in Uruguay

Perhaps the most telling part of FAO’s definition of farming families is then that they co-evolve with the land, combining economic, environmental, social and cultural functions. Size does matter, but not much. Alternatively, the MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) use a multiple criteria definition of family farming (REAF Mercosur).

The High Level Panel of Experts on World Food Security (HLPE) defined family farming as:

“practised by families (including one or more households) using only or mostly family labour and deriving from that work a large but variable share of their income, in kind or in cash. Agriculture includes crop raising, animal husbandry, forestry and artisanal fisheries. The holdings are run by family groups, a large proportion of which are headed by women, and women play important roles in production, processing and marketing activities.” (HLPE, 2013, p. 10)

You are not the only one…

If you felt overwhelmed by the lack of certainty around global food production and consumption, and thought that you were just poorly informed, I hope these lines made you realize that you’re not alone! Such global estimates are uncertain even for specialists, due to the various reasons explained above. It was not my primary intention to come up with clear-cut figures. All I wanted to show here is that smallholder family farms are sort of ‘moving targets’, and that there is much that we still don’t know about them.

Moreover, in calculating global food balances a further distinction should be made between food production and food consumption. In areas dominated by smallholder family farms often most of the production is consumed at home and/or locally. I’ll come back to this in a next post. Yet, how many smallholder family farms are there, and how much food they contribute, remains elusive.

What we do know is that about 50% of the malnourished people on the planet belongs to smallholder farming households, another 20% to landless rural households, and 10% are pastoralists, fisher folks or forest users. About 580 million of them live in the Asia & Pacific region, 240 million in Sub-Saharan Africa, 50 million in Latin America and the Caribbean and about 40 million in the Near East and North Africa (Oxfam, Growing a better future, London, 2011). Any doubt on which our primary targets to achieve global food security should be?

OK, at least we know that.

More than just higher yields

(a commentary on a WLE blog post by Deborah Bossio, CIAT)

Can poor farmers afford to invest in restoring degraded soils?

This is a rhetorical question. When posed in this way, the answer should be a big NO.

The state of urgency in which poor smallholders live in many parts of rural Africa prevents investments in anything that will not yield immediate benefits. It prevents investments, full stop, especially where land tenure is not secured.

When farmers can make an investment, they prioritise the education of their children as a long-term strategy to move away from agriculture. Most smallholders in rural Africa are not farming by choice, and many of them considered themselves to be ‘unemployed’ rather than farmers.

But what if we are able to offer options to restore soils and ecosystems while ensuring short-term benefits and support farmers, even financially, during such a transition? What if farmers can get other rewards from restoring their landscapes, not only economic but also social, and even spiritual, through engaging in collective action within their communities? Utopia? Just see an example from Brazil’s agroecology movements on this video:

A short video with the testimony of a farmer from the agroecological movement of Minas Gerais, Brazil, shot in 2013 by Simone de Hek.
A short video with the testimony of a farmer from the agroecological movement of Minas Gerais, Brazil, shot in 2013 by Simone de Hek (click here to watch)

Assuming that smallholder farmers are unbiased utility maximizers that make decisions led exclusively by a short-term cost-benefit rationale is a big mistake. Incentives to restore degraded land may arise too from a sense of belonging, from social recognition, from concerns about a family’s future, or from sheer pride. It takes much more than just the mere promise of higher yields to motivate farmers to restore their soils.

(And, finally, why are we so ready to consider fertiliser subsidies but not prepared to think of smart subsidy mechanisms to foster diversification? For example, subsidies that can absorb the transaction and transition costs of implementing knowledge-intensive agroecological practices that were repeatedly shown to work on African soils…)

Produce more in western countries?

In the debate around agricultural production models necessary to achieve global food security it is often assumed that agricultural production has to increase everywhere in the world in order to meet current and future food demands.  Environmental damage and pollution, the destruction of habitats and the loss of biodiversity, the use of chemical and biological inputs that are harmful for humans, etc., etc… almost anything can be  justified in the name of “feeding the world”. As if these negative externalities from agriculture were  just unavoidable tradeoffs that humanity must internalise to be able to feed itself.

This is particularly the case in the most productive areas of the world, such as North America or Western Europe, and particularly in export-oriented countries like The Netherlands, where I participate very actively of this debate. I got tired of hearing people use the “feeding the world” argument to justify the need for irrational models of intensification per unit land or animal in already highly producing regions, which are both technical and economically inefficient. Since I noticed that such arguments were poorly informed by hard data, I came up with the figure below that appears in a paper we are about to publish(*):

Slide1click to enlarge

Do it yourself

You can build this figure at home. Just go to the FAOStat Database and download the necessary data, which in this case are: the average yield per country and the total production per country. No need for passwords or membership. As in the figure above, you can start by looking at cereals (maize, wheat, rice, etc.), which are the major staple crops for humanity. You can download and use the latest data, or use the last 10 or 20 years of data and compute averages. The figure above is built with the latest data available (2012, 2013). Sum up the cereal production of all the countries to obtain total world production, and calculate the relative production per country (%) by dividing country production by total world production, multiplied by 100. Finally, order the data series by increasing average yields and compute the cumulative frequency of the relative contribution of each country, from the least to the most productive one.

How to read this graph

As with any cumulative distribution graph you can ready it as a two-entry plot. For example, if you start from the vertical (y) axis, you can enter at the level 50% (i.e., half of the total world production) and move to the right until you hit the yellow line representing the cumulative frequency. From that point you can move downwards on a straight line until you reach the horizontal (x) axis. You’ll hit the x axis at the value 3.1 t/ha/year. This is the ‘median’ yield per country. This means that 50% of the total world cereal production comes from countries where cereal yields are smaller than 3.1 t/ha/year, whereas the other 50% comes from countries where the average yields are above that value.

Another way of reading this graph is to start from a point on the x axis, from a certain average yield per country. For example, the total production of all countries in which the average cereal yield is greater than 6 t/ha/year (most of western Europe and North America) represents barely 12.5% of the total world cereal production, as indicated by the blue dotted line. If we take the top 5 countries in terms of average yields, The Netherlands therein, all their production pulled together represents 0.02% of the total world production (second blue doted line). Most of the poorest countries in the world produce average yields of less than 2 t/ha/year, or around 1.3 t/ha/year on average, and contribute 15% to total world cereal production.

What does this mean?

The analysis suggest that further increasing yields in developed countries to be able to feed the word is not justified, or not a priority, as even doubling production in these countries will still contribute a relatively small fraction of the world demand (25% at most).  Since yield gains in response to input intensification follow the law of diminishing returns (i.e., the higher the productivity level the smaller the response to new inputs and their efficiency), increasing average yields by e.g. 1 t/ha/year in countries and regions where yields are already high requires larger investments (and potentially greater environmental damage) than in regions where yields fluctuate around 1.3 t/ha/year. Doubling current cereal yield in the least productive countries, from an average of 1.3 to 2.6 t/ha/year will have a greater impact on global food production and far less impact on the environment.

This means that, on a global scale, yields must increase but not everywhere, and not in any way or at any cost. Production must increase in places where people are hungry, and where their livelihoods as well as the national economies depend largely on agriculture. Twice as much land is used for agriculture in the poor cereal yield countries than in the high yielding ones, and many more people live from and depend on agricultural production in the former. But producing in these regions, under their specific social and ecological conditions, requires locally adaptive production models and technologies. This is where agroecology can play a major role.

The Netherlands

The argument that yields have to increase further in The Netherlands to be able to feed the world crumbles down very quickly when you put some data on the table. Why are our agricultural “experts” unaware of this? In my opinion, The Netherlands has a different role to play in the global food security quest: to deliver the necessary knowledge to produce food without inputs of fossil fuels, less dependence on pesticide or toxin-producing plants, and with less environmental externalities. As non-renewable resources used in agriculture are becoming scarcer, and as the impact of intensive agriculture on nature and society is increasingly irreversible, it is my opinion that The Netherlands should become the first fully ‘organic’ country. This will go at the expense of some productivity at the beginning. But with time productivity gaps will disappear and the knowledge generated during this transition will be invaluable for the design of new agricultural models to feed a future  world in a truly sustainable way.

(*) Pablo Tittonell, Laurens Klerkx, Frederic Baudron, Georges F. Félix, Andrea Ruggia, Dirk van Apeldoorn, Santiago Dogliotti, Paul Mapfumo, Walter A.H. Rossing2015. Ecological intensification: local innovation to address global challenges. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, in press.

 

 

Enough food for everyone?

When it comes to discussing global food security the first argument that is put forward is that we need to increase production (by 70%? doubling yields?) in order to meet the demands of a growing and wealthier world population towards 2050. There is a number of weak assumptions around these estimates that I’m not going to address in this post but perhaps in a following one. Here, I would like to place emphasis not on quantity but on quality. While on a global scale we are producing enough calories to feed everyone (2720 Kcal per person per year produced, against 1800 to 2100 needed, according to the World Health Organisation of the UN), we know that we humans need more than just calories to stay alive and live a functional life.

At the same time we learn from medical doctors and nutritionists that diet is becoming the number one cause of death among humans – diets kill more people than wars or road accidents! This is why specialists at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of Washington University came up with a proposal for a balanced global diet – accounting for physiological and cultural diversity in food habits – designed not just to lose weight but to reduce the risk of diet related death. The major items in such a diet are indicated in the figure below, depicting in relative terms their current availability (yellow bars) and the level necessary to meet current human needs on a global scale (blue vertical line).

Slide2

click to enlarge

Surprising?

While the current production of vegetables, nuts, fruits, milk and edible seeds are insufficient to meet world demands, the production of whole grains and fish are about 50% higher than human requirements, while the production of red meat is 568% higher than required for a healthy diet. This suggests that the generalised assumption that food production must increase is only true for certain food items (e.g., vegetables by 11%, seeds and nuts by 58%, fruits by 34%, etc.). Nuts, seeds and fruits, in particular, are for the most part tree crops. Does this mean that to meet future global food demands we will have to plant more trees or practice agroforestry?