MIGUEL A. ALTIERI - University of California, Berkeley
An Agroecological Vision for a Socially Just Agriculture

In the past crop productivity in U.S. agricultural systems depended on internal resources, recycling of organic matter, built-in biological control mechanisms and rainfall patterns. Agricultural yields were modest, but stable. Production was safeguarded by growing more than one crop or variety in space and time in a field as insurance against pest outbreaks or severe weather. Inputs of nitrogen were gained by rotating major field crops with legumes. In turn rotations suppressed insects, weeds and diseases by effectively breaking the life cycles of these pests. A typical corn belt farmer grew corn rotated with several crops including soybeans, and small grain production was intrinsic to maintain livestock. Most of the labor was done by the family with occasional hired help and no specialized equipment or services were purchased from off-farm sources. In these type of farming systems the link between agriculture and ecology was quite strong and signs of environmental degradation were seldom evident.

But as agricultural modernization progressed, the ecology-farming linkage was often broken as ecological principles were ignored and/or overridden. Political and economic forces influenced the trend to devote large areas to monoculture, and in fact such systems are rewarded by economies of scale and contribute significantly to the ability of national agricultures to serve international markets. The agricultural structure became dominated by large corporations who took advantage of existing policies that promote the enhanced participation of the private sector in technology development and delivery, positioning themselves in a powerful position to scale up promotion and marketing of pesticides within a policy scenario that favored large farm size, specialized production, crop monocultures, mechanization and agrochemical dependency. The result has been the setting in motion of an economic devastation process with grave consequences for the nation’s family farmers and rural communities. The current dominant system does not provide farmers with an adequate income, does not ensure as much national and regional self-reliance as possible, production methods do not meet key environmental and animal welfare standards, do not produce healthy food, while marketing systems driven by a globalized agroexport oriented economy do not contribute to the renewal of rural communities. In fact the loss of self-reliance affects the poor in the rest of the world, as the excess U.S. production results in the subsidized dumping of surpluses in developing countries, with disastrous results for the livelihoods of poor farmers in the South.

Massive increases in production of major commodities (soybean, maize, cotton, etc) were achieved by increases in both the area planted and in the yield achieved per unit area.

Both strategies led to environmental degradation and negative impacts on biodiversity via massive loss of natural habitats and through agrochemical intensification of production methods. Moreover, the general homogenization of agricultural systems has increased the vulnerability of crops to insect pests and diseases, which can be devastating when infesting uniform crop, large scale monocultures. In order to deal with such pests and diseases, more than 500 million kg of active ingredient of pesticides are applied annually on the world’s agroecosystems. Based on the available data, the environmental (impacts on wildlife, pollinators, natural enemies, fisheries, etc) and social costs (human poisonings and illnesses) of pesticide use reach about $8 billion each year in the USA alone. Monocultures may have temporary economic advantages for farmers, but in the long term they do not represent an ecological optimum. Rather, the drastic narrowing of cultivated plant diversity has put the world’s food production in greater peril and at the same time is threatening biodiversity. Such trends confirm the fact that modern agriculture confronts an environmental crisis and there is reason to be concerned about the long-term sustainability of existing food production systems.

There is no doubt that we need an alternative agricultural development paradigm, one that encourages the diversification and revitalization of medium size and small farms and the reshaping of the entire agricultural policy and food system in ways that are economically viable to farmers and consumers. Throughout the world there are hundreds of movements that are pursuing a change toward ecologically sensitive and socially just farming systems from a variety of perspectives. Some emphasize the production of organic products, others land stewardship, while others the empowerment of peasant communities. In general, however, the goals are usually the same:

A shift in the role of subsidies away from supporting production, which results in food surpluses being dumped in poorer countries, towards paying instead for a transition to agroecological farming favouring local markets and fair prices to farmers.
The ability to prioritize national-regional-local food security above the production of exports and dependence on imports.
A shift away from hi-tech, intensive monoculture agriculture dependent on high levels of pesticide use, and transgenic crops.
The rebuilding of rural economies and infrastructure, decreasing wealth discrepancies within rural areas and between rural and urban areas.
Land reform and redistribution and/or enhanced access to land.
A move towards more ecologically, biodiverse and sustainable forms of agriculture, benefiting small and medium sized farmers.
The production of food that is safe for the consumer, in a way that is environmentally sensitive and prioritizes animal welfare and the conservation of wild biodiversity.
Promotion of subsidies (or incentives) paid to family farmers to keep them on the land and support vibrant rural economies, and subsidies that assist with soil conservation, the transition to sustainable farming practices, and direct marketing to local consumers.
A shift in the balance of power over the setting of food security priorities, away from Transnational Corporations (fostered by the trade rules of the WTO, NAFTA, etc), towards national control.

The main differences among groups advocating a shift towards sustainable agriculture resides on the strategies on how to get there. Many environmentalists and advocacy groups expect that the above goals will be met solely by a set of policy changes or ecologically benign technological innovations, an unrealistic position, because it negates the existence of scale in agriculture and ignores the political power of agribusiness corporations and current trends set forth by globalization.

Such "technological determinism" emphasizes the development and dissemination of low-input or appropriate technologies as if these technologies in themselves have the capability of initiating beneficial social changes. The organic farming school that emphasizes input substitution (i.e. a toxic chemical substituted by a biological insecticide) but leaving the monoculture structure untouched, epitomizes those groups that have a relatively benign view of capitalist agriculture. They ignore the fact that organic products are increasingly traded as international commodities and that their production and distribution is slowly being taken over by the same multinational corporations that dominate conventional agriculture. In fact ignoring the complex issues surrounding commercial and agroexport oriented organic agriculture is undermining the original agrarian vision of organic farming which envisioned a renaissance of a diversified and small scale agriculture which emphasized local production– consumption circles.

This narrow acceptance of the present structure of agriculture as a given condition restricts the real possibility of implementing alternatives that challenge such a structure. Merely introducing alternative agricultural technologies will do little to change the underlying forces that led to monoculture production, farm size expansion, and mechanization in the first place. A more radical transformation of agriculture is needed, one guided by the notion that ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political, cultural and economic arenas that also conform agriculture.

It is imperative to realize that out-of-control trade liberalization is the key mechanism driving farmers off their land and the principal obstacle to local economic development and food sovereignty. It is also crucial to understand that a key enemy of farmers is low prices. And farm gate prices continue to drop even while consumer prices rise. This is because the main force dictating low prices to farmers is the same one that dictates high prices to consumers: the monopoly control that corporations like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Dreyfuss, Bunge, Nestlé, and others exert over the food system. That means that breaking up these monopolies by enforcing antitrust laws nationally and globally is a key step toward ensuring that farmers can earn a living on the land and consumers can have access to affordable, nutritious food.

There is no doubt that an alliance between farmers and consumers is of strategic importance. Consumers need to realize that their quality of life is intractably associated with the type of agriculture practiced in the urban green belts, not only because of the quality of the food produced, but also because agriculture is multifunctional producing a series of environmental services such as water quality and biodiversity conservation. But this multifunctionality can only emerge if agricultural landscapes are dotted by small, diversified farms which as studies show they can produce from 2 to 10 times more per unit area than do larger, corporate farmers. In the USA the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers, which are mostly small-medium size, exhibit higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment. Small farms are ‘multi-functional’– more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms. Communities surrounded by populous small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated large, monoculture, mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity. Thus it should be obvious to city dwellers that eating is both an ecological and political act; that buying food at local farmers market will support a very different model of agriculture if buying food in a local farmers market, they supports small farmers who are better stewards of natural resources, safeguarding the future sustainability of agricultural production.

Moving towards a more socially just, economically viable, and environmentally sound agriculture will be the result of the coordinated action of social movements in the rural sector in alliance with urban organizations. Concerted action is needed so that multinational companies and government officials feel the impact of environmental, farm labor, animal rights and consumer lobbies, pressuring them to ensure that all countries retain the right to achieve food sovereignty by developing their own domestic farm and food policies that respond to the true needs of their farmers and all consumers, especially the poor.

Given the urgency of the problems affecting agriculture, coalitions that can rapidly foster sustainable agriculture among farmers, civil society organizations as well as relevant and committed research organizations are needed. The expectation is that with the active participation of farmers and members of civil society, policy makers will be in a better position to develop and launch a new approach in agricultural development to secure food self-sufficiency, to preserve the natural resource base, and to ensure social equity and economic viability.

This approach should seek the revitalization of small family farms and the reshaping of the entire agricultural policy and food systems in ways that are economically viable, socially just and environmentally sound. The new research agenda will require institutional realignments and, if it is to be relevant to the small and medium, it must be influenced by agroecology with its emphasis on complex farming systems, labor demanding techniques, and use of organic and local resources. This means that technological solutions will have to be location specific and much more information intensive rather than capital intensive. In turn this will imply using more farmer knowledge but also providing support to farmers to increase their management skills.

Evidence emerging from dozens of studies is conclusive: new approaches and technologies spearheaded by farmers, local governments, and NGOs around the world are already making a sufficient contribution to food security at the household, national, and regional levels. A variety of agroecological and participatory approaches in many countries show very positive outcomes even under adverse conditions. Potentials include: raising cereal yields from 50 to 200 percent, increasing stability of production through diversification and soil/water management, improving diets and income with appropriate support and spread of these approaches, and contributing to national food security and to exports. Importantly, the agroecological process requires participation and enhancement of the farmer’s ecological literacy about their farms and resources, laying the foundation for empowerment and continuous innovation by rural communities.

Whether the potential and spread of these thousands of local agroecological innovations is realized depends on investments, policies, and attitude changes on the part of researchers and policymakers. Major changes must be made in institutions, research and development, and policies to make sure that agroecological alternatives are adopted, made equitably and broadly accessible, and multiplied so that their full benefit for sustainable food security can be realized. Existing subsidies and policy incentives for conventional chemical approaches must be dismantled. Corporate control over the food system must also be challenged. Governments and international public organizations must encourage and support effective partnerships between NGOs, local universities, and farmer organizations in order to assist and empower poor farmers to achieve food security, income generation, and natural resource conservation.

Equitable market opportunities must also be developed, emphasizing local commercialization and distribution schemes, fair prices and other mechanisms that link farmers and consumers more directly and in more solidarious ways. The ultimate challenge is to increase investment and research in agroecology and scale up projects that have already proven successful to thousands of other farmers. This will generate a meaningful impact on the income, food security, and environmental well being of all the population, especially small farmers who have been adversely impacted by conventional modern agricultural policy and technology. n

Miguel A. Altieri is Professor in the Environmental Science, Policy and Management Department at the University of California, Berkeley. Visit www.cnr.berkeley.edu.


National Catholic Rural Life Conference
4625 Beaver Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50310-2199
(515) 270-2634
email address: ncrlc@mchsi.com
website: www.ncrlc.com

This article was published in the Winter 2005 issue of Catholic Rural Life©. No portion of this article may be reproduced without written permission from The National Catholic Rural Life Conference. To purchase the Winter 2005 issue of Catholic Rural Life, please contact The National Catholic Rural Life Conference office at 4625 Beaver Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50310-2199, call (515) 270-2634, or e-mail ncrlc@mchsi.com. The cost is $2.50 an issue plus postage and handling.