|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Sustainability of Agriculture: the West goes East or Wisdom at last dawns on the West.Sudath GunasekaraStan Cox writing to the Sri Lanka Guardian on the 14th of July 2008 under the caption 'Fixing a Broken Agriculture' has made a stunning revelation on the present state of American Agriculture. While doing so he also has warned the entire world on the ecological destruction in progress all around that arise out of ' the human economy's unvarying tendency to over produce what is profitable while at the same time under producing what is needed'. He also goes on to say that there is no better example of that than American agriculture, quoting his latest work Broken Agriculture 2008. For bringing agriculture, what he calls 'into line with ecological reality' he presents two prescriptions, namely a short term and long term one. The first he says includes some efforts that can be started today that will help to get humanity through mid-century and the second, (which also must be accelerated and soon- in his own words)'will take longer to complete but will be necessary to sustain agriculture to the end of the century and beyond' This introduction I think is both a revelation on the present state of world agriculture and also a stunning prediction on the future facing sustainability and perhaps a grim warning on our survival on this planet earth. Among other things he highlights the following as the salient points in American agriculture. 1 The American agriculture is not a food system. It generates food
only as a by-product where the by-product is wealth to support companies
that produce seed, machinery, fertilizer, pesticides, diesel fuel and
other inputs that feed on the food leaving the farm. This process he sees as a major threat to sustainability in agriculture and human survival. To overcome this danger he prescribes two causes of action; one a short term and another a long term one as he has said His list of short term recommendations is given below. 1An end to the feed lot and animal confinement and a reduction in meat
consumption Long term recommendation His long term recommendation is a return to diverse perennial vegetation. Under this he 'entails the replacement of annual grain monocultures, with polycultures of perennial grains and oil seeds etc'. (how they are going to replace a crop like paddy one has to wait and see-although he says that attempts are already being made to develop a variety of perennial upland rice by a group of Chinese scientists of the Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences from crosses between standard Asia rice (Oryza sativa) and two wild perennial species (O, longistaminata and O. rufipongon). However it may be pointed out that such a possibility cannot be completely ruled out. What does all this mean? As I understand it what Cox argues for is that we should give priority to agriculture which he considers as the root of all economies (doesn't this display the acceptance of the Buddhist concept of Sabbe Satta Aharatthika- all beings subsist on food), replace greed with need (Doesn't this agree with what Mahatmaganadhhi said and what Schumacher reproduced as Buddhist Economics in his Small is Beautiful 1974 P.51), go back to nature that will protect the natural ecology ( what Rachel Carlson argued for in 1962 in her Silent Spring and Richard Thornton Smith so eloquently argued in 2001), preserve the watersheds, reforest denuded land and go back to experience and tradition that is closer to nature and that will preserve energy and thereby reduce cost of agricultural products (what I advanced as my own thesis for the PhD on Sustainability of Peasant Agriculture in Sri Lanka 2006). Richard Thornton Smith (2001) makes the following observations on indigenous
knowledge systems (IKS). Cox appears to reject large scale agriculture as it is presently practiced
in the USA and many other countries that destroys the ecology, the use
of chemical throughputs to agriculture that again destroys the entire
eco system including bio diversity, genetic diversity and the natural
process of nitrogen fixation and high cost marketing processes like
packaging, transport and advertising etc that increase the cost of food
items. Since all these items comprise the hallmark of modern agriculture,
doesn't this also mean a total rejection of modernization of agriculture
as it is conceived by the west and also marks a clarion call for endogenity
and eco friendly approaches as the basis of sustainable agriculture?
Doesn't this also dispel the so-called globalization myth, at least
in the field of agriculture? Those who advocate the blanket approach
in applying western knowledge and technology to agriculture the world
over should at least now try to re-asses their stand and open their
eyes to see the stark reality. It is true that the world is one. But
one must realize that the countries are different and the regions and
localities are still different. They have their own and distinctive
geographical characteristics like soil, climate, physiography and socio-cultural
and even religious ethos that more or less determine the nature of their
agricultural systems. Isn't universality in this context a big humbug?
I think what Cox has high lighted is an eye opener for all our agricultural scientists, both in the universities and allied institutes, and policy makers who just blindly follow the western knowledge corpus as the panacea for our problems in the agricultural sector without making any effort to look inside and try to understand how our people sustained their agriculture over a period of two millennia in this Island and also without discarding our knowledge base as inefficient, unproductive, primitive, backward and outdated. The widely accepted notion among many of them that all what is western is modern and universal, I think should be rejected at least now. No knowledge base more particularly on agriculture is universal for that matter. It varies with time and space and all indigenous knowledge is specific to a given place and time. It is generated from within making regular adjustments appropriate to a given climate, soil and even cultural practices and ethos. Sri Lanka has been a unique example which has considered the protection of watersheds, the ecological balance and socio-cultural ethos for many thousands of years as crucial ingredients to maintain sustainability in agriculture and that has developed a unique irrigation and land use technology to meet these requirements. It is perhaps the only country where the concept of protecting the total environment not only for humans but also for the benefit of all living beings on earth alike was accepted and the Ruler was designated as the guardian and protector of the forest and the land for the benefit of all beings. Not only these norms were legalized by royal decree but they were also accepted and practiced by the people under both social acceptance and ethical compulsion.
|
||||||||||||
|
Disclaimer: The comments contained
within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents
of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the
views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual
authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any
loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which
you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or
reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
Copyright
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |