Addendum to my comments on the Draft Scope of Agro-Ecology etc.
Other things being equal, one needs to be clearly understood if one wants satisfactory results from the methods one has proposed to achieve a definite result. Our objective here is to come as near as possible to achieving sustainable adequate nutrition and food security globally. This goal is our yardstick in ascertaining the suitability of the methods (including agro-ecology) we intend/recommend the others to use in real life in the fields, on the sea or on grazing grounds.
According to the available data, 70% of food produced in the world comes from the people who work small holdings. How many of those people would be able to understand our comments (including mine)? At the same time, some suggest that selection and recommendation of methods should be based on their input (bottom-up approach) in order to make the forthcoming document holistic. Is this really tenable?
With the greatest respect for the food cultures of the world, let me underline their applicability is strictly local, insofar as they were developed to suit local climatic, geographic and soil conditions when food trade had not turned itself into a legitimate method of enrichment for a host of intermediaries yielding food producer and the end-user with less real value in the respective exchanges in which they engage.
Even in the least economically developed country today, neither the food producer nor the end-user can escape the grip of commerce which seems to tighten around them as it develops. Even a very well-informed citizen of an affluent country finds it hard to identify various ramifications of trade that is progressively making inroads into every aspect of his life, not the least into how he meets his six fundamental needs, viz., nutrition, health, education, security, procreation and the set of non-material needs.
Under these circumstances, while praising the environmentally sound local methods of food production, it would be unsuitable to recommend them for localities of different food culture. Furthermore, such a praiseworthy method should not be recommended for use in another comparable locality unless the food cultures are identical in both places, and most important, the trade element had been made fair and equitable to food producers and end-users of both. This is at the core of a holistic approach. How many field workers may be justifiably expected to have such an overview?
The reality is that the world’s people are organized into nation states whether they like it or not (even today, there are a few nomadic groups who cross national frontiers in parts of Central Asia, Eastern Turkey, etc., as they have done for generations). For better or for worse, they have become dependent for somethings on their national governments. Even when they are not supported in any noticeable way by a government, they are subject to direct or indirect adverse effects on some aspect of their food production and its disposal. For instance, national policy may determine one food item to be exported for cash leading to malnutrition as it has actually happened when pea nuts were turned into a ‘cash crop’.
So, I think even with the best will to be open minded, the empirical evidence is just too strong to support the view that bottom-up approach leads to holistic solutions. Had the space at my disposal been greater, it would not have been difficult to furnish epistemological proofs to support that bottom-up approach has been the ‘darling’ of every reductive method since our search for easier ways to do things began. Please consider the yield per dollar criterion still in use when evaluating methods used in agriculture as noted in my previous comments.
To illustrate my point, consider now the case of a sensible small holder who uses the traditional methods of agriculture. His point of departure would be to obtain the best possible yield from crops he intends to plant there. To achieve this aim, he would carefully examine his piece of land and mark out the areas according to what crop is best suited for each. Even in a small farm, there may be some areas more moist than the others. A sensible farmer might select some leaf vegetable suited for moist areas for planting there, while reserving the drier plots for something that would thrive there. This is plain common sense and cannot be recommended highly enough even according to scientific principles. But please note the point of departure in reference to which those planting decisions were made. And this is exactly an example of top-down approach in use, admittedly on a humble scale. This is exemplified by the sequential top-down approach mentioned in my previous comment.
Hence, the methods we need to choose and recommend for field use must be suitable qua tools, but will be of little use even if put into their optimal use unless their use and output cannot be fitted into a fair and equitable food and agriculture policy at two higher levels, viz., global and regional in the senses as described in my previous comment. There are two important reasons for this.
First, those who can be fully self-sufficient in food are extremely rare. Vast majority of the people depend on food purchases to varying degrees. One way open to them is to sell their surplus in order to purchase the food items they cannot produce themselves.
More importantly, even in the least developed country, satisfaction of our other fundamental needs requires some expenditure of money (clothing and housing to secure us against the inclemencies of the weather). Here, those who engage in agricultural pursuits have to earn a decent income to be able to achieve those goals. Whatever means they use to earn an income and procuring what is needed to meet those needs, is governed by the actions and regulations of their national and regional governments. Obviously nobody can engage in food production unless one is healthy enough, have sufficient know-how and material resources needed, is secure enough, etc.
Thus, we need not only good methods of food production, but also an inclusively enabling environment if they are to come to fruition. This is the true holistic perspective, and it requires a rhetoric and jargon free open exchange among the authorities, farmers, fishermen, etc. Its ground rules are that our actions are benign to the environment and food producer and the end-user should have a fair an equitable deal lest we devote time, energy and resources gaining an immense reductive knowledge about each tree, shrub and bush while overlooking the forest that is perishing in places by hunger and getting bloated in others.
Best wishes!
Lal Manavado.
Lal Manavado