For years now, the most-asked question by detractors of the good food movement has been, "Can organic agriculture feed the world?" According to a new United Nations report, the answer is a big, fat yes.
The report, Agro-ecology and the Right to Food, released yesterday, reveals that small-scale sustainable farming would even double food production within five to 10 years in places where most hungry people on the planet live.
"We won't solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations," Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report, said in a press release. "The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers' knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development."
The report suggests moving away from the overuse of oil in farming, a problem that is magnified in the face of rising prices due to unrest in the Middle East. The focus is instead on agroecology, or eco-farming. "Agroecology seeks to improve the sustainability of agroecosystems by mimicking nature instead of industry," reads a section.
The report shows that these practices raise productivity significantly, reduce rural poverty, increase genetic diversity, improve nutrition in local populations, serve to build a resilient food system in the face of climate change, utilize fewer and more locally available resources, empower farmers and create jobs.
Of 57 impoverished countries surveyed, for example, yields had increased by an average of nearly 80 percent when farmers used methods such as placing weed-eating ducks in rice patties in Bangladesh or planting desmodium, which repels insects, in Kenyan cornfields. These practices were also cost effective, locally available and resulted from farmers working to pass on this knowledge to each other in their communities.
While the report admits that agroecology can be more labor-intensive because of the complexity of knowledge required, it shows that this is usually a short-term issue. The report underscores that agroecology creates more jobs over the long term answering critics who argue that creating more jobs in agriculture is counter-productive. "Creation of employment in rural areas in developing countries, where underemployment is currently massive, and demographic growth remains high," states the report, "may constitute an advantage rather than a liability and may slow down rural-urban migration."
Mark Bittman put it aptly in his column on the UN report at the New York Times, saying:
Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they're more in the form of labor, both intellectual--much research remains to be done--and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization.
This is not the first time such a report has declared more productive ways to feed the world other than leaving that important task to large corporations. In April 2008, the IAASTD report (the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development)-which was supported by the World Bank, the UN Food & Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, among others, with the participation of over 60 world governments and 400 experts-found that not only would industrial food production not be able to feed the world in the long term, but the practices being employed are actually increasing hunger, exhausting resources and exacerbating climate change. However, the U.S., under the Bush Administration, was one of the countries that decided not to endorse the findings.
Though agroecological farming has benefits for industrialized countries too, both reports focus largely on what to do in the least-developed nations on the globe. The status quo for U.S. foreign policy in agriculture up until now has been to leverage our political muscle to force countries to except our subsidized crops, even if it meant destroying local agricultural economies. (Former President Bill Clinton apologized for this policy last year, saying that it has "failed everywhere it's been tried," and "we should have continued to work to make sure [Haiti] was self-sufficient in agriculture.") Will the Obama Administration be more receptive to these findings and could there be a change in the way we work with other countries in our support for agriculture?
Looking back at this (proudly pro-business) administration's follies in hiring a pesticide lobbyist as our Agricultural Trade Representative, maintaining the USDA in the confusing role of promoting and regulating agriculture, and focusing on "improved seeds," which usually means funding for the development of genetically modified crops for poor countries and you might be discouraged.
But De Schutter argues that real change to improve the livelihoods of rural farmers requires governments to be on board. "States and donors have a key role to play here," he said. "Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don't open markets for chemical products or improved seeds." In other words, feeding the worlds hungry should not be left to the market alone.
The report makes these specific recommendations for governing bodies:
You can read the full report here [PDF]
Originally published on Civil Eats
Follow Paula Crossfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/civileater
Only four of the 11 are made pregnant each year; the others are expected to pull ploughs and turn a wheel.
But if any society can be judged by how it treats its old, then the Hare Krishna cows appear to live in the ultimate nanny state. The animals all retire at around 15 – about 60 in human years – after which they are only expected to leave urine and dung on the fields to enrich the soil. And when one dies it can expect flowers and a farewell ceremony.
"It's the best a cow can get," says Shyamasundara. "They are part of our community. They give us their lifeblood in the form of milk and we care for them all their life. Of all the animals in the world the cow is the most important to humans. The cow replaces the role of the mother. You wouldn't bump your mum off if she stopped giving milk."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/13/milk-cows-dairy-farming
I'm Vegan, But this is "Better than Death" any time !
I have yet to read Professor de Schutter’s report the UN Human Rights Council. I plan to study it very shortly.
From Ms. Crossfield’s excellent article, it seems that the report to the UN tells us that traditional farming methods are fundamentally correct and are entirely suitable for many economies in the world. This will be good news to the many millions of small farmers who are so looked-down upon by the political and economic ‘expertsâ€
Traditional “inefficient†farmers are often more effective because:-
- they function in small communities; they can more readily adapt to the real economic or social needs of their customers. This means their crops are market driven, - not driven by subsidies or other government policies which may have little bearing on reality.
- they tend to be well diversified and therefore automatically practice crop –rotation; this helps preserve the integrity of the soil and eliminates the need for artificial fertilisers.
- they tend to practice traditional farming methods which eliminate the needs for pesticides to keep pests at bay.
- they produce food that is free of artificial hormones and other dubious additives.
- they do not use artificial fertilisers, thereby reducing demand for energy in their manufacture).
By contrast the “efficient’ farming methods are often functioning in markets distorted by farm subsidies and quotas. The drive to produce more food cheaper has led us on a path towards unhealthy factory farming and massive use of artificial fertilisers.
Derek Lantin. http://dereklantin.booksabuzz.com
Their enlightenment is powered with a 3 watt bulb. lol
The world’s biggest owner of genetically engineered crops – Monsanto – recently bought a 20 per cent stake in one of Australia’s largest wheat breeding companies, Intergrain. Monsanto already has existing links to over three quarters of Australia’s wheat handling industry through companies like CBH, Cargill and Agrium. This recent strategic buyout signals a leap in the corporate domination of Australia’s food supply.
Alarm bells should be ringing, as we blindly entrust our food security to a handful of global companies that have a long history of profiteering from toxic chemicals such as PCBs and Agent Orange.
The bid to control Australian wheat
This year, Monsanto re-launched its global strategy to develop genetically engineered (GE) wheat. A foothold in the Australian wheat market is a key stepping stone in its global plans. Australia is one of the biggest wheat producers in the world, and unlike the EU, Russia and Canada, Monsanto has found our political system to be receptive to being a GE wheat-testing ground.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/spliced-bread-australia-battles-gmos/
USDA okays rice modified with human gene to be grown on 3,000 Kansas acres, March 11, 2011
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/usda-okays-rice-modified-with-human-gene-to-be-grown-on-3000-kansas-acres/
GMO risks for bees and beekeeping March 11, 2011
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/gmo-risks-for-bees-and-beekeeping/
As far as farmers on here looking at different methods. They all share one thing in common, experience. And this experience leads to worthwhile posts and comments so they should keep it up. As for those that comment without knowing a thing about farming, those are the target of my snarky comments
I just want to add, and to make it clear, that without the integration and use of animals and their byproducts in agriculture, 'eco-farming' cannot feed the world. From comments below, it seems that there is a misconception that plants are 'magically fertilized'.
Sustainable & 'Eco' requires the use of animals.
Please pay attention to your terminology. Not understanding what you are talking about makes you look unprofessional as a writer and blogger, and undermines your credibility.
They advocate against external inputs and petrochemicals while still allowing for the possible need.
☮
Another interesting aspect of farm land turning into gross real estate developments that are abandoned
then torn down and returned to wonderful farm land. I like it.
Where did you get your info? Care to share?
Big Agri is not amused.
http://getskinnygovegan.blogspot.com
Also, keep in mind that the Dervaes operation is run by four adult family members who do not work at other jobs but devote full time to their enterprise. Yes, what they've done is interesting, but others have been producing substantial amounts of their own food, including eggs and goats milk, in urban and suburban home gardens for a long time, and many people are doing it in a climate that's much less favorable than the benign climate of Pasadena.
Never have missed the lawn.
☮