In Business, Creating Sustainable Enterprises & Communities

RETURNING ORGANIC FARMING TO ITS ROOTS

In Business, January/February, 2004, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 13

Original pioneers in organic agriculture were mostly small, family farmers developing diverse enterprises for local markets. Can the movement regain those qualities of community life closely linked to the rhythms of nature?

Miguel A. Altieri and Clara I. Nicholls

ORGANIC FARMING is a production system whose objective is to sustain agricultural productivity by avoiding or largely excluding synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The original philosophy that guided organic farming emphasized the use of resources found on or near the farm. Original adherents to the movement were typical small and/or family farmers, growing diverse enterprises for the local markets, who saw farming as a way of community life closely linked to the rhythms of nature.
Thanks to the pioneering efforts of these farmers and the advocacy work of many organic agriculture promoters, organic farming is now widespread throughout the world and is growing rapidly. Today there are about 23 million hectares of land under organic management (1 hectare = 2.471 acres). More then 4 million hectares are under certified organic farming in Europe. In Italy alone, there are about 56,000 organic farms occupying 1.2 million hectares. In Germany alone, there are about 8,000 organic farms occupying about 2 percent of the total arable land. In Italy organic farms number around 18,000 and in Austria about 20,000 organic farms account for 10 percent of total agricultural output. In Latin America, organic farming accounts for 0.5 percent of the total agricultural land, about 4.7 million hectares. In North America, about 1.5 million hectares are certified organic (45,000 organic farms) occupying 0.25 percent of the total agricultural land. In the USA, organic acreage doubled between l992 and l997 and in 1999 the retail organic produce industry generated $6 billion in sales. In California, organic foods are one of the fastest-growing segments of the agricultural economy, with retail sales growing at 20-25 percent per year for the past six years. But are these new organic farmers and associated industry following the original precepts of the pioneers? Or is organic farming being incorporated into the systems of intensified production, finance, management and distribution typical of conventional agriculture? Is organic agriculture replicating the conventional model that it so fiercely opposed?
REALITIES WORKING AGAINST ORGANIC FARMING
There is no question that demand for organic food is increasing, but seems confined to the rich and especially to populations of the industrialized world. As Third World countries enter the organic market, production is mostly for export and thus contributing very little to the food security of poor nations. As organic products are increasingly traded as international commodities, their distribution is slowly being taken over by the same multinational corporations that dominate conventional agriculture. Locally owned natural food stores and organic brands are becoming consolidated into national/international chains.
It is possible that some of the above problems could have been minimized if the organic movement had not disregarded three important factors that now have come back to haunt it:
The size of farms to be certified: By not limiting the maximum amount of land that a particular farmer or company could certify as organic, it has allowed big corporations to displace small organic farmers. In California, over half the value of organic production was represented by two percent of the growers who grossed over US$ 500,000 each; growers grossing $10,000 or less comprised 75 percent of all growers and only five percent of the sales.
The consolidation of multiple farms, packing plants, and regional hubs under a single corporation requires the adoption of conventional big business practices. This system is excellent for consolidating wealth and power at the apex of a pyramid, but it is antithetical to the goals of community and local control that were part of the original inspiration of the organic movement.
Inappropriate certification standards: The movement was quick to develop rules that sought to standardize practices that inevitably vary by farm or region. The high variability of ecological processes and their interactions with heterogeneous social, cultural, political, and economic factors generate local organic systems that are unique. When the heterogeneity of these systems is considered, the inappropriateness of standardized technological recipes or blueprints becomes obvious. Many guidelines proved unworkable for some farmers for technical reasons. Some farmers were offended at being told to alter their on-site proven methods, especially when they saw only higher costs as a result. Such standardization process proved particularly culturally and economically inappropriate to small farmers in the developing world whose farming rationale is rooted in biodiversity and traditional knowledge. As a consequence, many farmers are opting out, and together with consumers, many are creating their own standards and certification procedures as well as more locally-centered marketing strategies.
Social standards: Most certification protocols did not include social criteria. For this reason, today in California, it is possible to buy organic produce that may be environmentally produced, but at the expense of the exploitation of farm-workers. There are no major differences in living conditions, labor practices or pay for a farm worker working in an organic versus a conventional farm operation. Might this be a reason why for example, in California, the United Farm workers have not wholeheartedly endorsed organic farming? There is no question that organic agriculture must be both ecologically and socially sustainable. For this to happen, organic techniques must be embedded in a social organization that furthers the underlying values of ecological sustainability. Ignoring the complex social issues surrounding commercial and export-oriented organic agriculture is to undermine the original agrarian vision of organic farming.
Structurally and functionally speaking, large-scale commercial organic farms do not differ from conventional farms. The most important difference is that organic farmers avoid the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in their farming operations, while conventional farmers may use them extensively. However, a large number of organic farmers do use modern machinery and commercial crop varieties and adopt monocultures. Due to their inherent low levels of functional biodiversity, these simplified systems lack natural regulatory mechanisms and therefore are highly dependent on external (organic/biological) inputs to subsidize functions of pest control and soil fertility. Adopting such practices and leaving the monoculture intact does little to move towards a more productive redesign of farming systems. Farmers following this regime are trapped in an input substitution process that keeps them dependent on suppliers (many of a corporate nature) of a variety of organic inputs, some of questionable effectiveness and environmental soundness. Clearly, as it stands today, “input substitution” has lost its “pro-sustainability” potential. It is precisely the heavy use of these inputs that has been the target of organic farming detractors (the Biotech industry) who accuse organic farmers of promoting insect resistance due to continual use of Bt sprays, of contaminating soil and water with copper sulphate and eliminating beneficial insects with rothenone and other nonselective botanical insecticides.
It is important to emphasize that only a minority of organic farmers follow the input substitution model, but these are the ones that control large tracts of land and amass much capital. Most small and medium size farmers still feature legume-based rotations, use of compost and a series of diversified cropping systems such as cover crops or strip cropping, including crop-livestock mixtures. Research shows that these systems exhibit acceptable yields, conserve energy, and protect the soil while inducing minimal environmental impact.
AGROECOLOGICAL CONVERSION
Using agroecological principles to improve farm performance can be implemented through various techniques and strategies. Each of these will have different effects on productivity, stability and resiliency within the farming system, depending on local opportunities, resource constraints, and, in most cases, on the market. The ultimate goal of agroecological design is to integrate components so that overall biological efficiency is improved, biodiversity is preserved, and agroecosystem productivity and its self-sustaining capacity are maintained.
The key challenge for the 21 st century organic farmers is to translate ecological principles into practical alternative systems to suit the specific needs of farming communities in different ecoregions of the world. There are already numerous examples, according to researchers at the University of Essex who examined 208 agroecological projects implemented in the developing world, about 9 million farming households covering about 29 million hectares have adopted sustainable agricultural systems. A major strategy followed by these farmers was to restore agricultural diversity by following key agroecological guidelines.
MOVING AHEAD
A key agroecological strategy to move farms beyond organic is to exploit the complementarity and synergy that result from the various combinations of crops, trees, and animals in agroecosystems that feature spatial and temporal arrangements such as polycultures, agroforestry systems and crop-livestock mixtures. In real situations, the exploitation of these interactions involves farming system design and management and requires an understanding of the numerous relationships among soils, microorganisms, plants, insect herbivores, and natural enemies. But such modifications are not enough to achieve sustainability as it is clear that the livelihood of farmers and the food security of communities is a much more complex problem determined by economic, social and political factors. How can organic farmers produce enough food in ecologically, environmentally and socially sustainable ways without adopting a specialized industrial model of production and distribution? How can advocates of organic farming promote an agriculture that is local, small-scale and family operated, biologically and culturally diverse, humane, and socially just? Is it possible to replace the industrial agriculture model with a new vision of farming deeply rooted in the original precepts of organic agriculture?
Surely, technological or environmental intentions are not enough to disseminate a more agroecologically-based agriculture. There are many factors that constrain the implementation of sustainable agriculture initiatives. Major changes must be made in policies, institutions, markets and research and development agendas to make sure that agroecological alternatives are adopted, made equitably and broadly accessible, and multiplied so that their full benefit for sustainable food security can be realized. It must be recognized that major constraints to the spread of truly sustainable form of farming are the powerful economic and institutional interests that are trying to derail and control the organic industry and its regulations.
The evidence shows that throughout the world, there are many organic agricultural systems that are economically, environmentally and socially viable, and contribute positively to local livelihoods. But without appropriate policy and consumers support, they are likely to remain localized in extent. Therefore, a major challenge for the future entails promoting institutional and policy changes to realize the full potential of a truly organic approach. Necessary changes include the following.
oIncrease public investments in agroecological research methods with active participation of organic farmers, thus replacing top-down transfer of standardized technology model with participatory technology development and farmer-centered research and extension, emphasizing principles rather than recipes or technological packages.
o Changes in policies to stop subsidies of conventional technologies and to provide support and incentives for agroecological approaches.
o Appropriate equitable market opportunities including fair market access and expand local farmers markets and CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture or subscription farming) with pricing systems accessible to all
o Create policies that intervene in the market by opening opportunities for local organic producers (i.e., ordinances that mandate all food served in school and university cafeterias should be organic)
o Democratize and provide flexibility to the certification process, encouraging emergence of no-cost locally adapted certification
o Include farm size and social-labor considerations in organic standards,
and limit certification for operations that leave a large ecological footprint.
In summary, major changes must be made in policies, institutions, markets and research to scale-up organic agriculture. Existing subsidies and policy incentives for conventional chemical approaches must be dismantled.
Corporate control over the food system, including the organic industry must also be challenged. The strengthening of local institutional capacity and widening access of farmers to support services that facilitate use of accessible technologies will be critical. Governments and international public organizations must encourage and support effective partnerships between NGOs, local universities, and farmer organizations in order to assist and empower organic farmers to achieve success. There is also need to increase rural incomes through local and equitable market opportunities emphasizing fair trade and other mechanisms that link farmers and consumers more directly. The ultimate challenge is to scale-up forms of organic agriculture that are socially equitable, economically viable and environmentally sound. For this to happen, the organic movement will have to engage in strategic alliances with peasant, consumer and labor groups around the world and with the antiglobalization movement. It also needs to secure political representation at local-regional and national levels so that the political will is present in municipal or state governments to implement and expand the goals of a truly sustainable organic agriculture.

Miguel Altieri is a Professor of Agroecology and Clara Nicholls is in the Division of Insect Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. This article is excerpted from a presentation by Dr. Altieri at the Organic Agriculture Symposium sponsored by the Agronomy, Soil and Crop Science Societies of America held in Denver, Colorado November 4-5, 2003.