The recent report of the International Panel on Climate Change warns that Co2 emissions must be cut immediately, and proposes Agroecology as a solution in the area of food production [one of the most polluting] but it still has detractors and has to be proven viable. Let us address this issue.
Hello dear friends of ecotrain I hope you are very well. When we hear about terms like natural medicine, composting or agroecology we usually associate these with isolated practices that can not solve the problems of humanity such as viruses or hunger, things of hyppies would say the most critical. But it turns out that in ancient times people could not go to a pharmacy to buy antibiotics, nor could they count on a load of hydrogenated fertilizers to overcome a difficult time on their farm, in ancient times natural medicine was used, and agroecology both in primitive forms, but still....
The point is that mankind used these methods to thrive and multiply in hard times, and now hard times are returning, climate change threatens all levels of society worldwide, and perhaps a return to agroecology is a way to avoid catastrophe. Admittedly, it has its challenges, and the transition period will not be easy, but today we will address a bit of this question, what is agroecology, whether or not it is viable, and why it is not yet applied on a large scale.
Eventually, I will create a post on agroecology in ancient times since this in itself, is an extensive topic.
What is agroecology.
First it is important to clarify that the term agroecology refers to a discipline that studies the interactions between agriculture, environment, society and economy. Initially the term was not associated with a specific system of agricultural practices.
But today the term agroecology is more associated with agricultural practices that are more environmentally conscious, have less negative impact on the environment and are sustainable in the long term. Basically replacing large monocultures dependent on expensive fertilizers and aggressive pesticides by mixed crops with corridors and areas where pollinating insects can move and nest and where different plant species form a sustainable ecosystem allowing a stable biodiversity within the cultivation area.
An example of functional agroecology would be the initiative of the valleys of Andhra Pradesh in India where using local seeds, biological material as a stimulant, integration of different crops, the integration of farm animals and fish farming to the agricultural cycle, the use of plants and natural extracts as pesticides and no use of pesticides or synthetic fertilizers achieved a system of agricultural production that gives good results in productivity, with lower costs and greater resistance to the onslaught of climate change. https://apcnf.in/
All these practices and many others are part of agroecology, there is also agroforestry, which involves the integration of crops with trees and wildlife.
The benefits of these farming methods are many, better water utilization, lower production costs due to less reliance on commercial fertilizers and pesticides, a greater variety of production capable of better integrating with the farming and ranching or animal husbandry community in general.
But if the case for agroecology is good, why has it not yet been adopted on a large scale?
Is Agroecology Profitable?
We live in a world where the center of all activities is to produce money, that reality is undeniable, we can not close our eyes to it and pretend that people protect the planet for the love in his heart, you can not propose a form of cultivation that would give less profit to a sector that struggles to remain profitable, especially when it comes to families or small farms. Large corporations like Monsanto are another animal that we will discuss later.
In order to promote the case for agroecology, its profitability must be demonstrated. And while until a couple of years ago this was under discussion, today it is not. Let me explain.
For agroecology to be viable, it must be able to compete with traditional mass agriculture, that is, compete with the large extensions of monocultures with mechanized sowing and harvesting. This is no easy task, since for decades and decades this has been the primary system for feeding the world. It is perfected for the highest production at the lowest cost in the most efficient way... or at least we believe so.
Recent studies show that traditional agriculture is not as profitable as we are led to believe, in fact, the agricultural sector in developed nations with high levels of production such as the United States and Europe is a highly subsidized sector, and the most aggressive forms of monocultures have lower profits, that is, there is a point of efficiency that is not that of maximum production. This model of maximum production is maintained precisely because they are supported by subsidies and tax exemptions and therefore generate a higher cash flow, but not in a 'totally honest' way because as you know, if a company needs government aid to survive then it is not a profitable company.
[I recommend reviewing the source of the graph to confirm that it is not BS, it is part of a serious study by experts from several South American countries on the subject].
If we follow this logic, we can see why agriculture has become a risky business in our times, currently not everyone who has land can engage in agriculture, usually become a producer involves going through a series of bureaucratic filters, corruption and the hand of monopolies to become profitable. And many farmers go bankrupt every year, https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-extinction/.
If we compare these vulnerabilities of the current system of agriculture, with the benefits that agroecology can bring [better use of water, less pesticides and fertilizers, less dependence on transgenic seeds, more production per square meter in a more diverse way, integration and resistance to climate change] we can see that the benefits of agroecology solve many of the problems that affect the profitability of traditional agriculture. I am going with graphs.
Times are changing.
The case for agroecology as a profitable solution is proven, there are examples of successful agroecological models around the world, especially in poor regions such as Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, where taxes and lack of subsidies make any undertaking much more difficult and potentially less profitable. But perhaps the main benefit of agroecological methods is Resilience, that is something that agroecology has, since the crops that use their methods are more resistant to drought, temperature changes or pollutants. Something very important in these times as the effects of climate change are felt more and more every day, and we are facing unpredictable and extreme climate changes around the world that traditional agriculture cannot withstand. Check https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/climate-change-threatens-future-of
Recently Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions has put a strain on the world's agriculture that is highly dependent on fertilizers, much of which comes from Russia and Belarus. Agroecology can help cushion the negative impact of this.
Monoculture agriculture is not sustainable over time, the use of hydrogenated pesticides and fertilizers, together with the consumption of all the nutrients in the soil without replenishing them means that the land can only be used for a finite time, so continuing with a method that will eventually fail and lead the world to famine is not viable.
Finally, more and more people are becoming conscious about the planet, and are favoring products that come from more environmentally conscious initiatives, this opens up many business opportunities for agroecology and the companies associated with it.
So why has it not been adopted on a large scale?
Agroecology has only been successfully applied on small scale, family or communal farms, which represent only 30% of the world's agricultural production, of that 30% only a fraction uses agroecological methods, which means that only about 5% of agriculture in European and North American countries is agroecological.
The challenges are many and varied, but they are not a solution. On the one hand, agriculture today depends heavily on mechanization, and simply the machinery has not yet been designed to work with mixed crops and also to respect the life of pollinating insects and small animals such as lizards that control pests.
There is also a delay in the development of techniques to help avoid competition between different crops for water and nutrients. This can lead to support crops that are not as profitable as the main crop, consuming the resources of those that will make the initiative viable.
The first point can be solved, as advances in artificial intelligence, 3D printing, nanotechnology make it possible to manufacture modern machinery to overcome these challenges, you just need the investment, current agricultural technology is not much more advanced or different than 20 years ago, and your smart phone has the computing power to plan and carry out the administrative operations of a farm.
The second also requires research funding, as there are many precedents in ancient times of successful use of agroecology, Mayans, Romans, Incas, Scandinavians etc. All used techniques that today we would consider agroecology. Only the right combination of soils, species and climates must be investigated.
A really difficult hurdle would be the transition. The period between taking traditional monocultures out of circulation and the start of agroecological crop production is a dangerous drop in world food production. This point requires a very fine planning and help from international organizations.
Currently only 15% of agricultural aid in the world is destined to agroecological projects, this disparity, coupled with the lobby of large agricultural corporations such as Monsanto on world governments, are one of the main factors in the delay of agroecology, the industry that sells seeds of 1 single use, that sells fertilizers that only work with their seeds and that has all the government contracts and their products are the object of subsidies will not allow an alternative to their business model to emerge in the market that they monopolize and that gives them millions in profits annually, they will do anything to maintain their monopoly, even if that means the death of millions in the coming years due to hunger and natural disasters brought by climate change.
Conclusion.
When the IPCC proposes agroecology as an urgent and viable measure to combat climate change and hunger in the world, it does so from the study and good offices of experts from around the world in the field that even so are subject to defend the food security of their own countries, to doubt the viability of it is simply foolishness at this point, if I myself could check it, anyone can. Now it remains to put pressure, and fight the monopolies that prevent agroecology to emerge, that is everyone's job.
Thanks for reading my friends. If you liked the post please support me with your vote and share the information to spread the information that helps us to protect the planet. Have a good night.
Recommended Bibliographic Reference
[1] FROM TRADITIONAL PRACTICE TO TOP CLIMATE SOLUTION AGROECOLOGY GETS GROWING ATTENTION
[2] AGROECOLOGY