TL: ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE PROPOSALS FOR AGENDA 21 SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: March 3, 1992 Keywords: greenpeace factsheets agriculture organic agrichemicals alternatives pesticides gp unced conferences un terrec / Prepared for the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 2 March - 3 April 1992 New York, USA Greenpeace International (GP) ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE PROPOSALS FOR AGENDA 21 INTRODUCTION In a previous paper (Greenpeace International, 1991), Greenpeace addressed the causes of environmentally and socially destructive food and fibre production and recommended measures necessary to promote environmentally sound, socially just and economically viable agriculture. This paper will focus on the activities that Greenpeace believes are essential to achieving sustainable solutions to agricultural problems but which are not addressed in the draft proposals for Agenda 21 ("Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development", Section 11, Chapter 6). AGENDA 21 - PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Eleven "programme areas" (listed A-K) have been identified in the draft Agenda 21 to promote sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD). These programmes represent a much needed comprehensive approach to sustainable production and rural development. But Greenpeace remains concerned that some of the programmes lack fundamental measures necessary to ensure long term environmentally sound and socially just agricultural production. Our specific concerns and recommendations are as follows: PROGRAMME A: "SECTOR POLICY REVIEW, PLANNING AND PROGRAMME WITH EMPHASIS ON FOOD SECURITY" (a) Food Production vs. Food Distribution One of the principal emphases in this programme is on increased food production as a solution to global food security. Paragraph 6 states that: "The major thrust of food security in this case is to bring a substantial improvement in agricultural production....". It is widely recognised that insufficient food production per se is neither the principal problem nor the only limiting factor to enhancing food security. Nor do current official figures on food availability accurately reflect actual production. Rather they underestimate it considerably since food grown for household consumption, which does not reach the market, is not effectively incorporated into the statistics. Indeed, the consensus at the last session of the FAO Conference (November, 1991) was that better indicators of food production and stocks are needed. Food security goals will never be achieved as long as policy and programmes continue to focus on farm productivity while the critical issues of social equity, sustainability and distribution of regional food systems are largely ignored (Conway and Barbier, 1990). For example, the food output per head in India, despite the Green Revolution, is still lower than in many sub-Saharan countries that have experienced substantial famines in recent years. Yet there has been no famine in India since 1943. Economists have shown that India's success in famine prevention is "related much less to the production side of the story than to the distributional side" (Sen, 1987). In addition to the social aspects of distribution, the physical processes of harvesting, storage, food processing and distribution, must be improved. While sufficient food is often grown, enormous quantities are wasted once it leaves the fields. Very significant increases in the overall food supply could be achieved by reducing post-harvest wastage. For example, in 1989, Poland was dependent on western food aid. In 1991, after introducing reform measures which affected food distribution, Poland became a net exporter of the main agricultural commodities, with the same production volume as in 1989 (Kuba, 1992). Equally striking, it was found that even during the severe locust and grasshopper infestations in West Africa and the Sudan in 1987, losses to farmers due to inadequate marketing and storage facilities were greater than those caused by insects. (Congress of the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment, 1990). RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA 21 An objective of programme A should be: þ Direct resources to the research and development of technologies and systems to improve the harvesting, storage, processing and distribution of food products in an environmentally sound and equitable manner. þ Develop operational sectoral plans and programmes to achieve these. National Governments should: þ Introduce policies and programmes to reduce post-harvest wastage in the food system by improving the harvesting, storage, processing and distribution of food products in an environmentally sound and equitable manner. þ Introduce policies and programmes which ensure equitable access to the food system and supply, especially for vulnerable populations. (b) Unsustainable Overproduction in Industrialised Countries Agenda 21 focuses almost entirely on sustainability problems in developing countries. It omits to address the severe problems of overproduction in other parts of the world, which contribute to the generation of surpluses, rural unemployment, impoverishment and waste, and cause pollution and other forms of natural resource degradation and environment deterioration, both directly and indirectly on a global scale, as identified in the Den Bosch Declaration (1991). It is essential that policies and programmes are established in many OECD countries to prevent over-production, rather than to encourage production increases. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO AGENDA 21 National governments in industrialised countries should: þ Develop and implement policies and programmes to extensify production through alternative, ecological and sustainable methods of arable farming and livestock management. (c) Agricultural Policy In Programme A of the Agenda 21 text, national governments are recommended to: "Formulate, introduce and monitor policies, laws and regulations leading to sustainable agricultural and rural development and improved food security; and the development and transfer of appropriate farm technologies, including where appropriate low-input sustainable agricultural (LISA) systems." (paragraph 12 e.) This is an important recommendation. But it needs to be explicitly stated that the objective of agricultural policies and technologies should be a shift to environmentally sound agriculture, including ecological or organic agriculture and not merely to "low input sustainable agriculture (LISA) where appropriate". In both industrialised and developing countries, current agricultural policies and subsidies tend to favour environmentally damaging farming practices. While these policies and subsidies remain, farmers will have little incentive to change to environmentally sound and sustainable production systems. At the same time, agricultural research, development and extension are primarily devoted to input intensive arable farming and intensive animal production systems. There is a need to explicitly recommend that these policies and subsidies are removed and that resources are redirected to research, development and extension in environmentally sound and sustainable agriculture practices. Agenda 21 also needs to recognise that in practice, the initial reduction in a farmers' income that may accompany a change to environmentally sound production systems means that the farmer may face a production/income penalty and increased risks during the conversion period. This presents a very real obstacle to farmers changing their farming practices to ecologically sound systems. Farmers, therefore, need support during this conversion period. In trade, environmentally produced products are at a competitive disadvantage to conventionally produced products which do not include "externalities" such as damage to people's health and pollution of the environment in their price. These external costs are paid and suffered by society and should be regarded as "hidden subsidies". Both agricultural and trade policies, (as mentioned in paragraph 14. b.), therefore need to account for these hidden subsidies and ensure preferential market access to environmentally produced commodities. Finally, farmers will have more incentive to grow ecologically if they can exploit markets for these products. Likewise consumers will more readily buy ecologically grown products if they can be sure of the authenticity of such products. Internationally agreed standards for environmentally sound products therefore need to be established, recognised and promoted. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA 21 National governments should: þ End the current subsidy and price support systems that encourage environmentally damaging systems of production and distribution, and cause social and economic disparity; þ Formulate, introduce and monitor policies, laws, and regulations leading to sustainable agriculture and rural development and improved food security; þ Introduce support programmes, incentives and economic measures to encourage and enable farmers to convert to ecological production; þ Redirect substantial resources to national and international research, development, and extension programmes in ecological agriculture. þ Give preferential market access and develop a system of trade advantages for agricultural products produced by ecologically sound methods; and give these systems recognised status through international agreements. þ Develop international standards for ecologically produced products in cooperation with the organic agriculture movement, consumers, and environmental NGOS. PROGRAMME B: "ENSURING PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION AND PROMOTING HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT" In general, the programmes to promote SARD in Agenda 21 still underemphasise the role that NGOs, farmers groups and farming households can play in shifting agriculture to ecologically sound and productive systems. The existing emphasis in Agenda 21 too often appears to view these groups as implementors of government policy and programmes, rather than equal partners in development. For example, paragraph 16 recommends that "National governments and appropriate international organisations and NGOs should assist farming households and communities to APPLY technologies....". (emphasis added). The implication of this recommendations is of a top-down approach - the choice of technologies and farming systems being determined outside the farming community. It needs to be explicitly recommended that governments and international organisations ensure that farmers, NGOs and other citizen groups are an integral part of planning, decision and policy making at all levels; and that all research and development is farmer-based. Greater attention must be given to both identifying farmers, farming communities, NGOs and research institutions which have demonstrated a commitment and expertise in ecological agriculture, and to working closely with these groups. For example, Programme B recognises that NGOs are important actors, (eg. in paragraph 25) but gives them no effective support. The recommendations call for governments to work more closely with NGOs, but do not ensure that NGOs can work effectively with governments, research institutes and international agencies to promote ecological agriculture. A new institutional framework is needed to enable farmers, farming organisations, NGOs, and researchers who have demonstrated expertise in ecological agriculture to participate in finding and implementing solutions to agriculture. An International Network for Ecological Agriculture, coordinated by an independent secretariat, is required. Its primary function will be to speed the development and implementation of ecological agricultural practices into the conventional agricultural development processes. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA 21 Establish an International Ecological Agriculture Network to undertake, amongst other tasks, the following: þ Create the mechanisms, procedures and channels for farmers, citizens and NGOs to participate in the search for ecological solutions and decisions on modes of implementation. þ Redirect resources to research, training and extension services which value and build on appropriate local knowledge in developing ecological agriculture. þ Develop effective communication channels between farmers, extension staff and researchers to ensure that farmers, (including women) become key actors in the planning and development of practical on-farm, farmer-based research. þ Maintain inventories of successful ecological agricultural practices, including those identified and implemented by farmers groups and NGOs and disseminate this information in a form that is appropriate and readily accessible. þ Maintain inventories of organisations which are researching, developing and disseminating information on ecological agriculture, recognising NGOs and farmer organisations as key resource groups. PROGRAMME I: "INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE" This programme focuses on minimising pesticide use. However, it limits SARD to "integrated pest management" (IPM) which relies, to differing degrees, on pesticide inputs. Sustainability objectives require going beyond pesticide use to ecological alternatives. The objective of SARD in general, and Programme I specifically, must be to minimise and ultimately to phase out pesticide use. Any use of chemical pesticides carries with it risks to health and the environment through their use, production, trade or ultimate disposal. Recent research indicates that 25 million farmers are experiencing poisoning incidences each year (Jeyaratnam, 1990). The total environmental and public health costs of pesticide use are estimated at $100-200 billion per year - equivalent to $5-10 in externality costs for every dollar of pesticides sold (IFPRI 1990). Pesticide use has increased around the world as a direct result of the introduction of inappropriate soil and plant management techniques characteristic of intensive, industrial-style crop cultivation. These techniques encourage pest populations, disease and weed pests and create new pest problems such as secondary pest outbreaks, pest resistance, and the elimination of pest natural enemies. In the U.S., crop losses due to insect pests almost doubled from 7% to 13% between the 1940s and late 1970s despite the fact that pesticide use increased 11 times during the same period (Pimental et al, 1978). Pest attacks and diseases are most effectively reduced through good husbandry techniques such as crop rotation, intercropping, biological control, use of appropriate varieties etc.. These are all techniques employed by ecological farmers who do not use pesticides. The objective of these techniques is to prevent pests from building up to damaging levels. Indeed, studies show that most ecological farmers have good yields and do not suffer major pest problems (Altieri and Hecht (eds.) 1990; Lampkin, 1990). Ecological farming methods are the best option for the future. They form the basis of a precautionary approach to the health and environmental impact of pesticides use and should be the objective of Programme I. Integrated Pest Management (IPM ) reflects an incomplete approach to the problem and is not a solution to the environmental and health problems of pesticides. IPM is therefore not sufficient as a objective of SARD and Agenda 21. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA 21 National Governments should: þ Adopt the precautionary principle to pesticide inputs. þ Implement policies and programmes to put ecological farming practices within the reach of farmers, through farmer networks, extension services and research institutions, with the goal of ultimately phasing out pesticide use. þ By 2000, phase out the use of all chemical pesticides that are toxic, persistent or bioaccumulative. Summaries of this paper are available in English, French and Spanish. REFERENCES þ Altieri, M.A. and Hecht, S.B. (eds.) 1990. Agroecology and Small Farm Development. Boston, CRC Press. þ Congress of the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment, 1990. "A Plague of Locusts - Special Report", OTA-F-450, Washington D.C. þ Conway, G.R. and Barbier, E.B. 1990. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development. Earthscan Publications, London. 205 pp. þ Den Bosch Declaration and Agenda for Action on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, 1991. FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the Environment, 's-Hertogenbosch, NL. þ Greenpeace International, 1991. "Global Ecological Agriculture, Submission to the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the UNCED", Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. þ IFPRI, 1990. Facts and Figures: International Agricultural Research. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, 67 pp. þ Jeyaratnam, J., 1990. "Acute Pesticide Poisoning: a Major Global Health Problem" in World Health Statistics Quarterly, Vol.43, No.3 þ Kuba, F., 1992. "Restructuring Soviet Agriculture", The OECD Observer, No. 174 þ Lampkin, N., 1990. "Organic Farming", Farming Press Books, Ipswich. þ Pimentel, D. et al., 1978. Benefits and costs of pesticide use in U.S. food production. BioScience 28:772, 778-784. þ Sen, A., 1987, "Africa and India: What do we have to learn from each other?". Wider Working Papers, World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, Helsinki.