<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Agriculture produces more than just crops—and it’s time for policy to reflect that]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Matthew Dillon http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Thu, 22 May 2008 06:59:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/1 Cultural Loss is Also Technical Loss

Excellent post Tom.
A few nights ago I gave a talk to a local food-farm group and made a similar case, but particularly focussed on the cultural dimension. The recent success of the local and organic farm movement has relied heavily on new producers migrating from cities, suburbs, and non-agricultural colleges. Many of whom know web site content management better than pasture management. Fine - better to have greenhorns farming than no one farming. But we can't afford to have intergenerational skills and knowledge leaving the farm to be replaced by a new infusion of green blood. It's not only the loss of cultural heritage but also the loss of technical skills - just as important as good soil, water, or seed. Farm policy must support farm succession, and encourage rural youth to stay in their communities to work in food and farm related industries.

- Matthew Dillon

]]> Cultural Loss is Also Technical Loss

Excellent post Tom.
A few nights ago I gave a talk to a local food-farm group and made a similar case, but particularly focussed on the cultural dimension. The recent success of the local and organic farm movement has relied heavily on new producers migrating from cities, suburbs, and non-agricultural colleges. Many of whom know web site content management better than pasture management. Fine - better to have greenhorns farming than no one farming. But we can't afford to have intergenerational skills and knowledge leaving the farm to be replaced by a new infusion of green blood. It's not only the loss of cultural heritage but also the loss of technical skills - just as important as good soil, water, or seed. Farm policy must support farm succession, and encourage rural youth to stay in their communities to work in food and farm related industries.

- Matthew Dillon

]]> Comment #2 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Thu, 22 May 2008 07:01:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/2 Better framing

To break the farm-block stranglehold on farm and food policy the next time around, we need a need a new vision of agriculture: on that recognizes that farmers produce more than just food, feed, fuel, and fiber. We also count on farmers to take care of vast swaths of critically important land. What we need, in short, is a "multifunctionality" vision of agriculture.

What we need is an agriculture devoted to fertility, food, fiber, feed, and fuel, in that order.  Animal feed before SUVs, but food and clothing for people before animal feed, and fertility of the soil before anything else (or all else is lost no matter what).

The 5% Project

]]> Better framing

To break the farm-block stranglehold on farm and food policy the next time around, we need a need a new vision of agriculture: on that recognizes that farmers produce more than just food, feed, fuel, and fiber. We also count on farmers to take care of vast swaths of critically important land. What we need, in short, is a "multifunctionality" vision of agriculture.

What we need is an agriculture devoted to fertility, food, fiber, feed, and fuel, in that order.  Animal feed before SUVs, but food and clothing for people before animal feed, and fertility of the soil before anything else (or all else is lost no matter what).

The 5% Project

]]> Comment #3 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Thu, 22 May 2008 09:49:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/3 Mmm, dubious

Isn't it a bit dubious to hear wealthy people living in monocultural landscapes the destruction of which made them wealthy, dictate the world's poor on how to value ecosystem services, landscapes and cultures - things for which there is no market?

What if these people want to do what we do, that is: have enough to eat, drive cars, and become wealthier through capitalism, just like we've done for over 200 years (a good part of which on their backs, as colonizers)?

Aren't the undertones of this report - a report that is clearly directed at nations that still have a lot of 'pristine' ecosystems left - a bit dubious?

"Poor people should do what wealthy people didn't succeed in doing, i.e. protect the environment and its ecosystem services.

What these poor people should especially not do is become wealthy monocultural farmers who can compete on a global market currently dominated by the US and Europe."

Sometimes discourses about "sustainable development" can become a new form of imperialism or simply economic protectionism.

This is the feeling I got when reading the BBC-debate about development versus conservation in the Amazon (I think you can still participate, here: Can the Amazon be exploited without being destroyed?). The Europeans taking part in this discussion were all projecting their feelings on Brazilians and were blaming them for not doing enough. The Brazilians of course responded by telling the Europeans that they have more than 80% of their original forest cover left, while Europe has less than 10% left.

Upon which they said: if you're so fond of "sustainable" development, the preservation of cultures and the protection of the Amazon, then pay for it or create a market for it. If you don't, we'll just do as you did: we will develop the routine way.

I understand the growing frustration of many people in the South. They are tired of being the eternal object on which Europeans can project their desires. They are tired of hearing they should especially not follow European lifestyles and economic models, but remain forever exotic cultures trapped in their beautiful, valuable landscapes which we Euros want to preserve.

]]> Mmm, dubious

Isn't it a bit dubious to hear wealthy people living in monocultural landscapes the destruction of which made them wealthy, dictate the world's poor on how to value ecosystem services, landscapes and cultures - things for which there is no market?

What if these people want to do what we do, that is: have enough to eat, drive cars, and become wealthier through capitalism, just like we've done for over 200 years (a good part of which on their backs, as colonizers)?

Aren't the undertones of this report - a report that is clearly directed at nations that still have a lot of 'pristine' ecosystems left - a bit dubious?

"Poor people should do what wealthy people didn't succeed in doing, i.e. protect the environment and its ecosystem services.

What these poor people should especially not do is become wealthy monocultural farmers who can compete on a global market currently dominated by the US and Europe."

Sometimes discourses about "sustainable development" can become a new form of imperialism or simply economic protectionism.

This is the feeling I got when reading the BBC-debate about development versus conservation in the Amazon (I think you can still participate, here: Can the Amazon be exploited without being destroyed?). The Europeans taking part in this discussion were all projecting their feelings on Brazilians and were blaming them for not doing enough. The Brazilians of course responded by telling the Europeans that they have more than 80% of their original forest cover left, while Europe has less than 10% left.

Upon which they said: if you're so fond of "sustainable" development, the preservation of cultures and the protection of the Amazon, then pay for it or create a market for it. If you don't, we'll just do as you did: we will develop the routine way.

I understand the growing frustration of many people in the South. They are tired of being the eternal object on which Europeans can project their desires. They are tired of hearing they should especially not follow European lifestyles and economic models, but remain forever exotic cultures trapped in their beautiful, valuable landscapes which we Euros want to preserve.

]]> Comment #4 by Thomas Dobbs http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Fri, 23 May 2008 09:39:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/4 Response to comment on the IAASTD study

I was not part of the IAASTD study, but I do not read the Synthesis report and process as the 'North' telling the 'South' what to do. I read it as being more empowering, as admitting that the agricultural path taken in recent decades by both North and South was (in hindsight) not necessarily the best one. 'Multifunctionality' does not dictate what weights different countries or societies should place on each funtion. What it does is explicitly recognize that a range of agricultural functions--not just production of commodity crops--have a legitimate place in the policy process. A multifunctionality vision also tends to imply that environmental and social functions may be more compatible with long-term food production goals than has commonly been assumed in the past.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> Response to comment on the IAASTD study

I was not part of the IAASTD study, but I do not read the Synthesis report and process as the 'North' telling the 'South' what to do. I read it as being more empowering, as admitting that the agricultural path taken in recent decades by both North and South was (in hindsight) not necessarily the best one. 'Multifunctionality' does not dictate what weights different countries or societies should place on each funtion. What it does is explicitly recognize that a range of agricultural functions--not just production of commodity crops--have a legitimate place in the policy process. A multifunctionality vision also tends to imply that environmental and social functions may be more compatible with long-term food production goals than has commonly been assumed in the past.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> Comment #5 by Thomas Dobbs http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Fri, 23 May 2008 09:53:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/5 Response to comment on agricultural priorities

Certainly, soil quality is fundamental to all else in agriculure. But I don't agree that we should necessarily put animal feed, fuel, and fiber at the top of the list (just behind food) in all situations. The emphasis on biofuels, in particular--at least the way policies are being carried out at present in the U.S.--is sacrificing both soil and environmental quality. 'Multifunctionality' calls for critical examination of function priorities in each time and place, not blind obedience to some predetermined order.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> Response to comment on agricultural priorities

Certainly, soil quality is fundamental to all else in agriculure. But I don't agree that we should necessarily put animal feed, fuel, and fiber at the top of the list (just behind food) in all situations. The emphasis on biofuels, in particular--at least the way policies are being carried out at present in the U.S.--is sacrificing both soil and environmental quality. 'Multifunctionality' calls for critical examination of function priorities in each time and place, not blind obedience to some predetermined order.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> Comment #6 by Linda Margaret http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/ Sat, 24 May 2008 22:06:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/farm-and-function/6 EU CAP

The European agricultural standards have been undergoing reform, it's true, but at the same time the policies and standards regarding food definitions in the EU are becoming increasingly complex, to the point where it becomes increasingly difficult for viable external producers to compete in the European market simply because they are not European.  

]]> EU CAP

The European agricultural standards have been undergoing reform, it's true, but at the same time the policies and standards regarding food definitions in the EU are becoming increasingly complex, to the point where it becomes increasingly difficult for viable external producers to compete in the European market simply because they are not European.  

]]>