The Hindu Business Line : Eco-friendly farming

The recently released ‘International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development’ (IAASTD) report has been rejected by the US, Canada and Australia as “anti-science”. The IAASTD is “unique in the history of agricultural science assessments” concludes the executive summary, “in that it assesses both formal science and technology and local and traditional knowledge”.

The release marks the end of a process that began in August 2002, when the World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), announced a global consultative process to determine whether an international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology was needed.

Dilemma of corporate business

Understandably, corporate business engaged in agriculture has rejected the report. Medard Schoenmaeckers, Head of Media Relations, Syngenta, which is the second largest stakeholder in corporate agribusiness globally next to Monsanto, has gone on record to say: “We do not believe that the current report adequately reflects the role of modern science and technology, and in particular our industry’s technologies, have played in supporting agriculture”.

However, the other view is: “Governments and their corporate friends simply do not like the IAASTD’s criticism of the dominant industrial farming model, the caution over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), both animal and plant types, and its call for a radical change of direction in food and agricultural research. Business has too much to lose”, remarked Mr Michel Pimbert, Programme Director of Sustainable Agriculture, Bio Diversity and Livelihoods Programme at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

However, a critical assessment of what has gone on during the past almost a century is worth examination. .

The Bonn report

The ‘Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ report, released in Bonn on May 29, 2008, clearly emphasises the importance of the ecosystems in supporting human, plant and animal life:

Human well-being is completely dependent on the smooth flow of ecosystem services, such as, food, fibre, clean water, healthy soil and carbon capture. They are public goods, but with no market and no prices and, hence, are rarely detected by the economic compass of our times, the GDP.

The world has achieved economic progress. But over the past 50 years, its ecosystems have degraded by about 60 per cent.

Under current practices, meeting the food needs of growing population will further threaten biodiversity and ecosystem services. Based on population projections alone, 50 per cent more food than currently produced will be required to feed the global population by 2050.

The distribution challenges of this biodiversity loss are particularly nerve-wracking because, those who have largely caused the problem — the rich countries — are not going to suffer much, at least not in the short term

What lessons have we learnt and where do we go from here?

After four decades of “high input technology”, euphemistically called the “Green Revolution”, it is time to introspect.

It is obvious that it is the mindless exploitation of the ecosystem that has to be checked. Excessive use of either chemical fertilisers, agro chemicals or water have been the bane of Indian agriculture. The soil is a repository of important plant nutrients, but they have to be maintained at an optimum through external supply. Chemical fertilisers have a role to play here, but they have to be used in moderation.

(The author is an agricultural scientist.)

More Stories on : Agriculture | Insight | Environment

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Food for thought

Eco-friendly farming

Carbon emissions market: A bubble in the boom?

Is financial inclusion the recipe for poverty alleviation?

Impact of transaction tax on financial markets

Develop or perish

Economy and statistics