Sustainable Agriculture Meeting Food Security Needs, Addressing Climate Change Challenges.doc

TWN Third World NetworkEmail: twnetpo.jaring.my Website: twnside.org.sgAddress: 131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, MALAYSIATel: 60-4-2266728/2266159 Fax: 60-4-22645051Briefing PaperUN Climate Change Talks -7th session of the AWG-KP and 5th session of the AWG-LCA29 March - 8 April 2021, Bonn Sustainable Agriculture: Meeting Food Security Needs, Addressing Climate Change ChallengesBy Lim Li Ching, Third World NetworkAn earlier version of this paper was presented as the keynote address at the National Conference on “Sustainable Agriculture: Moving from grassroots initiatives to mainstream policies, organised by the Consumers Association of Penang and held in Petaling Jaya on 24 July 2021.IntroductionThe challenges facing agriculture today are immense. Of immediate concern is the global increase in food prices, starkly brought home by reports of food riots and food shortages in many countries around the world. During the first three months of 2021, international nominal prices of all major food commodities reached their highest levels in nearly 50 years while prices in real terms were the highest in nearly 30 years (FAO, 2021). While the FAO food price index The FAO food price index is a trade-weighted Laspeyres index of international quotations expressed in US dollar prices for 55 food commodities. rose, on average, 8 percent in 2006 compared with the previous year, it increased by 24 percent in 2007 compared to 2006. The increase in the average of the index for the first three months of 2021 compared to the same three months in 2007 was 53 percent. The continuing surge in prices is led by vegetable oils, which on average increased by more than 97 percent during the same period, followed by grains with 87 percent, dairy products with 58 percent and rice with 46 percent. The FAO estimates that the number of hungry people increased by about 50 million in 2007 as a result of soaring food prices.In addition, the challenges of climate change are increasingly urgent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes it clear that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal, as observations of increases in air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and sea level rise have made evident (IPCC, 2007). Agriculture will therefore have to cope with increased climate variability and more extreme weather events.Climate change, coincident with increasing demand for food, feed, fibre and fuel, has the potential to irreversibly damage the natural resource base on which agriculture depends, with significant consequences for food insecurity (IAASTD, 2021). The relationship between climate change and agriculture is two-way; agriculture contributes to climate change in several major ways and climate change in general adversely affects agriculture.Agriculture is thus at a crossroads. It has to find ways to feed the world while being environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. Yet, it is increasingly clear that the path that agriculture has been on is not sustainable nor can it feed the world without destroying the planet (IAASTD, 2021). With the spotlight once more on agriculture, and with many critical issues that need resolving, finding the answer to the question of the nature of agricultural development required has never been more pressing. “Business-as-usual is no longer an optionThe International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) sought to examine this question. This is the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment of agriculture to date. Co-sponsored by the World Bank, FAO, UNEP, UNDP, WHO, UNESCO and GEF, its report clearly concluded that a radical change is needed in agricultural policy and practice, in order to address hunger and poverty, social inequities and environmental sustainability (IAASTD, 2021). The reports central message is that the business-as-usual scenario of industrial farming, input and energy intensiveness, collateral damage to the environment and marginalization of small-scale farmers is no longer tenable. While past emphasis on production and yields had brought benefits, such as afforded under the Green Revolution, this was at tremendous cost to the environment and social equity.The Green Revolution drove widespread shifts in the agricultural sector from subsistence and low external input agriculture to monocropping with high yielding varieties (HYVs). This agricultural paradigm required the adoption of a package of inputs, including irrigation, chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and hybrid seeds bred for disease resistance and high yield. Participating farmers often had access to credit and agro-processing facilities, transport and roads, machinery, marketing infrastructure and government price supports. By the 1970s, Green Revolution-style farming had replaced the traditional farming practices of millions of developing country farmers. By the 1990s, almost 75% of Asian rice areas were sown with these new varieties. Overall, it is estimated that 40% of all farmers in developing countries were using Green Revolution seeds by this time, with the greatest use found in Asia, followed by Latin America (Rosset et al., 2000; Shiva, 1991).The rapid spread of Green Revolution agriculture throughout most countries of the South was accompanied by a rapid rise in pesticide use (Rosset et al., 2000). This was because the HYVs were more susceptible to pest outbreaks. Promising increases of yield were thus offset by rising costs associated with increased use of chemical inputs. In the Central Plains of Thailand, yields went up only 6.5%, while fertiliser use rose 24% and pesticides jumped by 53%. In West Java, profits associated with a 23% yield increase were virtually cancelled by 65% and 69% increases in fertilisers and pesticides respectively (Rosset et.al., 2000). Synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides are made from non-renewable raw materials such as mineral oil and natural gas or from minerals that are depleting such as phosphate and potassium. As the price of petroleum increases, so does the cost of external inputs and machinery, forcing small farmers who are dependent on these inputs into debt. The production of agrochemicals is also an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In particular, fertiliser production is energy intensive, accounting for 0.6-1.2% of the worlds total GHGs (Bellarby et al., 2021). Industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture has also degraded soils and destroyed resources that are critical to storing carbon, such as forests and other vegetation. The rise in use of chemical inputs has also had adverse environmental and health impacts on farmworkers and consumers. A substantial portion of pesticide residues ends up in the environment, causing pollution and biodiversity decline (Znaor et al. 2005). The extensive use of pesticides has also resulted in pesticide resistance in pests and adverse effects to beneficial natural predators and parasites (Pimentel, 2005). The Green Revolution also brought about a shift from diversity to monocultures. When farmers opted to plant Green Revolution crop varieties and raise new breeds of livestock, many traditional, local varieties were abandoned and became extinct. And yet, maintaining agricultural biodiversity is vital to long-term food security as it is vital insurance against crop and livestock disease outbreaks and improves the long-term resilience of rural livelihoods to adverse trends or shocks (Pimbert, 1999).Other costs of the Green Revolution, often underestimated, included the financial costs of building huge dams for irrigation, the financial costs of the energy required in the construction and operation of such projects, the health costs of a steadily affected population due to chemical contamination of food, the costs involved in soil losses from increasingly degraded soils, genetic erosion and the draining of groundwater aquifers (Alvares, 1996). Green Revolution farming systems also required substantial irrigation, putting further strain on the worlds limited water resources.Traditionally, local farming communities were close knit as seed exchange and farming knowledge were shared freely. The Green Revolution seeds however were hybrids, for which seed saving is undesirable, as the seed from the first generation of hybrid plants does not reliably produce true copies. Therefore, new seed must be purchased for each planting and this meant that farmers were no longer preserving and storing seeds for the next planting season. This trend not only incurs extra costs for the farmers but has an impact on social cohesiveness too (Sangaralingam, 2006).Productivity declines: Rice as a case studyIn recent years, the biggest claims of success of the Green Revolution model, its productivity gains, have not been easy to sustain, and in some cases, have become exhausted. This is best illustrated by the yield trends from long-term trials conducted on experiment stations, such as the long-term continuous cropping experiment conducted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). The objective is to monitor maximum yields obtained over time, holding input levels and crop management practices constant. The trends indicate that, even with the best available cultivars and scientific management, rice yields, holding input levels constant, decline over the long term (Pingali et al., 1997; FAO, 2001).At the farm level, declining yield trends are usually not observed since input levels are not held constant over time. However, in areas where intensive rice monoculture has been practiced over the past two to three decades, stagnant yields and/or declining trends in partial factor productivities, especially for fertilisers, and declining trends in total factor productivities, have been observed. Moreover, the rate of deceleration in yields is higher for countries with higher cropping intensities (Pingali et al., 1997).Farm-level evidence from the rice bowls of Asia thus indicates that intensive rice monoculture systems lead, over the long term, to declining productivities of inputs (Pingali et al., 1997). Over time, farmers have been found to use increasing amounts of inputs to sustain the yield gains made during the Green Revolution years. Intensive rice monoculture on the lowlands results in the following changes: (i) rice paddies flooded for most of the year without an adequate drying period; (ii) increased reliance on inorganic fertilisers; (iii) asymmetry of planting schedules; and (iv) greater uniformity of cultivars. Over the long term, the above changes impose significant ecological costs due to negative biophysical impacts (Pingali et al., 1997). Adverse biophysical consequences that have reduced productivity have been: the buildup of salinity and waterlogging: declining soil nutrient status; increased incidence of soil toxicities; and pest buildup and reduced resilience of the ecosystem to pest attacks. Pingali et al. (1997) conclude that the practice of intensive rice monoculture itself thus contributes to the degradation of the paddy resource base and hence declining productivities.Sustainable agriculture as an optionIt is thus clear that agriculture needs to undergo a radical overhaul to become more sustainable. This is not just because it is important to take care of the environment, but also because sustainability is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the productivity of the agroecosystem. Threats to the environmental sustainability of agriculture threaten agriculture itself. The IAASTD report (2021) makes this clear by saying that greater emphasis is needed on safeguarding natural resources and agroecological practices, as well as on tapping the wide range of traditional knowledge held by local communities and farmers, which can work in partnership with formal science and technology. It stresses that sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity-based, including agroecology and organic farming, is resilient, productive, beneficial to poor farmers, and will allow adaptation to climate change. Sustainable agricultural approaches can be in many forms, such as agroecology, organic agriculture, ecological agriculture, biological agriculture, etc. Sustainable agriculture should (Pretty and Hine, 2001):· Make best use of natures goods and services by integrating natural, regenerative processes e.g. nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies of pests.· Minimise non-renewable inputs (pesticides and fertilisers) that damage the environment or harm human health.· Rely on the knowledge and skills of farmers, improving their self-reliance.· Promote and protect social capital - peoples capacities to work together to solve problems.· Depend on locally-adapted practices to innovate in the face of uncertainty.· Be multifunctional and contribute to public goods, such as clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flood protection and landscape quality.Sustainable agricultural practices include:· Crop rotations that mitigate weed, disease, and insect problems; increase available soil nitrogen and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers; and in conjunction with conservation tillage practices, reduce soil erosion.· Integrated pest management (IPM), which reduces the need for pesticides by crop rotations, scouting, timing of planting, biological pest controls.· Management systems to improve plant health and crops abilities to resist pests and disease.· Soil conserving tillage.· Water conservation and water harvesting practices.· Planting of leguminous crops and use of organic fertiliser or compost to improve soil fertility.Despite adequate global food production, many still go hungry because increased food supply does not automatically mean increased food security. What is important is who produces the food, who has access to the technology and knowledge to produce it, and who has the purchasing power to acquire it (Pretty and Hine, 2001). Sustainable agricultural approaches thus allow farmers to improve local food production with low-cost, readily available technologies and inputs, without causing environmental damage. Sustainable agriculture is productiveOne criticism of sustainable agriculture, especially organic agriculture, is that it cannot meet the worlds food demands, primarily because of low yields and insufficient organic fertiliser. However, there is ample evidence to refute this argument. In general, organic yields can be broadly comparable to conventional yields in developed countries. In developing countries, organic practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input.A recent study has found that organic methods could produce enough food