Save and grow

The present paradigm of intensive crop production cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium, says a new report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In its "policymaker's guide" for developing-world agriculture called "Save and Grow" FAO begins thus: The Green Revolution in agriculture, which swept much of the developing world during the 1960s, saved an estimated one billion people from famine. Thanks to high-yielding crop varieties, irrigation, agrochemicals and modern management techniques, farmers in developing countries increased food production from 800 million tonnes to more than 2.2 billion tonnes between 1961 and 2000. Intensive crop production helped to reduce the number of undernourished, drive rural development and prevent the destruction of natural ecosystems to make way for extensive farming.

Those achievements came at a cost. In many countries, decades of intensive cropping have degraded fertile land and depleted groundwater, provoked pest upsurges, eroded biodiversity, and polluted air, soil and water. As the world population rises to a projected 9.2 billion in 2050, we have no option but to further intensify crop production.

But the yield growth rate of major cereals is declining, and farmers face a series of unprecedented, intersecting challenges: increasing competition for land and water, rising fuel and fertilizer prices, and the impact of climate change.

So what must farmers do? They must preserve the natural resources at their disposal in order to increase their productivity. Reduced tillage to save soil, crop rotations to save nutrients, and improved seeds to save water. And all this by traditional methods!

In opposition is the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI, a coalition of biotech and agribusiness companies that intends to fight against the agro-ecological techniques recommended by the FAO; it seems to think the FAO's approach is anti-technological. GHI believes the answers we need are beyond the knowledge of today's farmers and scientists.

Given the degradation wrought by industrial agriculture which saw use of chemicals and lavish irrigation, it perhaps seems a wise choice to save what little is left in our soils and groundwater. Sometimes, technology can have adverse effects. Can we afford to try another experiment on our soild and diversity? Not necessary a return to the cattle and plough but a minimum use of external inputs may be the answer.