Re: Crystal Ball: Hope in the Face of Grim Prospects
Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr. (gwg2@cornell.edu)
Tue, 2 Jan 1996 11:09:01 -0500
Mr. Wilson (SANET post of 12/31/95) posed the question: "What do
you see happening in the field of sustainable agriculture between now and
the year 2000 (only 4years away)?" I see both reasons for pessimism and
optimism in assessing the prospects of "sustainable agriculture" in the next
4 years.
I believe that Bob Wilson is right in saying that agribusiness will
be increasingly aligned with the "sustainable agriculture" movement, but I
think it will be more with the symbolism of the movement rather than most of
its goals and its critiques of "conventional agriculture." Agribusiness
will continue to construct its version of "sustainable agriculture" on the
foundations of neoclassical economics, GIS, GPS, and biotechnologies that
will foster continued industrialization of agriculture and marginalization
of farmers while perhaps ameliorating some ecological problems from that
agriculture. This version of sustainable agriculture should be more
acceptible to the bankers and other lending agents who have been supporting
conventional agriculture. Because of this, I think that the term
"sustainable agriculture" has outlived its usefulness as a focal point for
work toward an agriculture that will maintain biodiversity, support human
populations, and promote social justice over the long haul. Some new term
will be needed soon.
Unfortunately, for several structural reasons I fear that the kind of
"sustainable agriculture" that has potential for maintaining biodiversity
and providing food security in the long-run will face very hard times in the
coming years. One reason is that the kinds consumer information
requirements and environmental, health, and safety regulations likely to
promote such an agriculture are illegal under World Trade Organization (WTO)
rules (or likely to be deemed so). Under GATT, national sovereignty and
this nation's ability to regulate health, safety, and environmental subjects
will be severely undermined. Another reason is that much of the research
needed for such an agriculture is not on topics that lead to results that
are commercially appropriable (e.g., specific herbicide tolerant crops) and,
thus, not likely to be done by commercial firms and will be decreasingly
likely to be done by land grant universities facing budget cuts. A third
reason is that the increasing social inequality in this country will make
paying the full cost of food (including environmental and social
externalities) financially impossible for growing segments of the U.S.
population. A fourth reason is increasing corporate domination of the mass
media seems to be associated with decreases in serious (beyond sound bites)
public debate on issues including how our food and fiber is produced and I
surmise that long-term sustainable agriculture is not likely to be among
the topics favored by such media.
Despite the massive challeges faced by those promoting long-term
sustainable agriculture, I also have reasons for a good bit of optimism
about this movement's future. One reason is the rise of the Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture and related organizations that spring from
grassroots bases and which have brought together farmers, consumers,
environmentalists, social justice advocates, and others for dialogue and
constructive action. Their effectiveness in the political processes
relating to the so called "1995 Farm Bill" has been substantial despite an
adverse political climate. Another reason is the rise of a variety of
alternative structures such as community supported agriculture, farmers'
markets, food coops, research institutes, etc. that are largely outside of
established, "mainstream," food system structures. These alternative
structures have considerable potential for evading WTO constraints and for
restoring rural communities. These alternatives are supported by grassroots
groups, foundations, and, to a limited extent, even the USDA and Land Grant
System. A third reason is the continued favorable attitudes of U.S.
citizens for the environment and human health and safety which potentiate
reactions to the current national and international trends if and when these
lead to deterioration in the environment, health, and safety.