Are We on a Holistic Way of Achieving Sustainable Adequate Nutrition and Food Security?
The purpose of the present discussion seems to centre on ascertaining the possibility of achieving on a global scale a more sustainable and adequate nutrition and food security by using agro-ecology and other not clearly defined methods. In this context, it desires to identify some consequences of using those tools, problems associated with their wider adaptation, etc. It concludes with some questions about what is needed to (indicators and other data) to evaluate the impact of the proposed tools should they be taken into wider use.
While appreciating the spirit of this effort, one cannot overlook certain important questions it raises.
How successful even the ideal tool/method can be, unless its operating environment is felicitous for the purpose? True, this aspect of the issue has been noted as ‘enabling environment’, but it may be taken as a given that it would be really pragmatic to talk about how to deal with the current ‘disabling environment’ prevailing today. Some contributors have made direct or indirect remarks on this. ‘Liberal trade laws’ extending into food production, storage, preservation, etc., followed by selling have managed to devalue the value of food as a necessity for life by turning it into an item of commerce for profit. To add insult to injury, the ever-increasing number of intermediate steps between the real producer of food and the end-user are described as ‘value chain’. Do please note this is not ‘value to either the producer, or to the end-user. So, dealing with this disabling environment has logico-pragmatic priority over the suitability of the methods one proposes to use for very obvious reasons.
- ‘Good reasons of force give place to better’, but when Julius Caesar said this, his hand was on the hilt of his sword. The moral is that it is paramount to undertake immediate action to counter the ill-effects of the current disabling environment. It would be unrealistic to expect quick results, but a sustained beneficial change in that environment is essential. As it changes, one can introduce the ‘better methods’ gradually. Thus, it is in this holistic context one must examine and then apply the new methods. This tandem approach is sorely missed in the current debate.
- It would be a great mistake to base one’s reasoning on Kuhn’s putative paradigm shift. This notion of scientific progress has been rejected more than a half century ago as it has nothing to do with scientific practice. Recalling reader’s mind to Kuhn’s claim that ‘Newtonian paradigm’ was dropped by the ‘scientific revolution’ that introduced ‘Einsteinian paradigm’, nothing can be farther from reality, for ballistics, guidance of space vehicles, satellites, etc., are still governed by the laws of Newtonian ‘paradigm’. The reason is quite simple, what Physics is appropriate for a job, depends on the context. In Particle Physics, Newtonian approach is inadequate, so we use a different one. Neither is rejected as Kuhn claims, but he was not a scientist and was not familiar with the fundamentals of the practice.
- Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest that the formulators of the forthcoming report seriously consider its proposed format with a view to enhancing its relevance, practical usefulness (hunger and nutritional imbalance are serious and immediate problems), and not the least, its role as a guide to everybody whose contribution is essential to achieve our objective. This includes the powers that be at the top and the actual food producers and harvesters (fishermen etc.) at the most important level while all of us are end-users of food.
- Once this holistic view is adopted, it would be easy to see that each of us wittingly or unwittingly have contributed to creating the current disabling environment for sound methods of food production, storage, preservation, distribution and sale. True, the scope of the current discussion is limited to the merits or the demerits of methodology, but nevertheless, it makes a tangential reference to an ‘enabling environment’, which is well-taken, but it begs the question; how to create an enabling environment without clearly identifying the attributes of a disabling one?
- In conclusion, it would repay to opt for an evolutionary approach to achieve our goal wherein while attempting to identify a set of holistic and inclusive methods of attaining our objective, to recognize that those should include ways and means of making the current disabling environment more felicitous for the common good. It is not going to be an easy task, but it is timely to remember that one can devote great deal of time to design tools to reach an objective whose achievement is very urgent. Moreover, it will also repay to examine the hierarchy of power and responsibility distribution from the powers that be to field operatives (farmers, fishermen, etc.), each of whom will have to wield a tool/method/innovation best suited for the purpose he has to serve in order to achieve a common objective, viz., global FSN.
With best wishes,
Lal Manavado.
Lal Manavado