A Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272307886 Productive Landscapes: a Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture Article in Landscapes · June 2014 DOI: 10.1179/1466203514Z.00000000024 CITATIONS READS 7 296 1 author: Erika Guttmann-Bond 34 PUBLICATIONS 321 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Rediscovering Sustainability: How archaeology can save the planet View project Identification of intensive early agriculture (plaggen soils) using PIXE analysis View project All content following this page was uploaded by Erika Guttmann-Bond on 01 September 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. landscapes, Vol. 15 No. 1, June, 2014, 59–76 Productive Landscapes: a Global Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture Erika Guttmann-Bond University of Wales, Trinity Saint David The connections between agriculture and landscape are well established in western perceptions. Agricultural landscapes in the Western world have, however, become increasingly industrialised and low in biodiversity, and the standard practice in developed countries is to grow large fields of single crops sprayed with pesticides and herbicides. Many leading agronomists believe that such industrial methods are the only way we will succeed in feeding a growing global population. However, many opposing agronomists argue that agroecology is a more productive and efficient use of land. This paper is a review of archaeological, environmental and ethnographic evidence for sustainable agricultural land management, as it has been practiced in the past, and as it is practiced today in countries that use traditional, pre-industrial methods. A range of evidence demonstrates that small, biodiverse farms are more productive per hectare than agribusinesses that practice monocropping. I also suggest that there can be compromise, and that substantial environment benefits accrue where agroecological methods are introduced into industrialised agricultural systems. A key point is that traditional varieties of crops are important adaptations to marginal environments; it is essential to our food security that we do not lose these resources, which were developed over thousands of years but which are now vanishing at an alarming rate. keywords Sustainable Agriculture, Traditional Agriculture, Biodiversity, Polycropping, Intercropping Introduction Cultural landscapes are defined as landscapes that have been modified by humans, but the degree of human impact is variable. It could be argued that all landscapes are now to some degree ‘cultural’, given that humans have altered the chemical make-up of the atmosphere, but it is perhaps more useful to look at cultural landscapes in terms of their biodiversity. Agriculture can be regarded as a reversal or interruption in the natural vegetation succession, but there are widely varying degrees of biodiversity in the ß Oxbow Books Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1466203514Z.00000000024 60 ERIKA GUTTMANN-BOND agricultural landscapes we create. At one extreme are the agroforestry systems of South America, in which useful perennial crops grow in un-natural abundance along paths, in old campsites and other open areas in the woods (Denevan 2001, 46, 126). It is not immediately apparent that the fruit trees, tubers and medicinal plants in some parts of the forest are growing at much greater density than would occur naturally, but anthropological studies have shown that the abundance is a largely intentional manipulation of forest resources (ibid). At the other extreme are the highly industrialised monocropping landscapes of much of the developed world, for example the vast fields of maize in the American Midwest. The equally industrialised and species-poor Dutch polders have been described by one homesick Welshman as having ‘less biodiversity than a 100m stretch of the roadside anywhere in Wales’. Biodiversity is a key aspect of what makes a landscape appear ‘natural’, and is probably a more significant factor than the regularity of the field boundaries. So how do we introduce biodiversity into the agricultural landscape? In the UK, one approach has been to replace the field boundaries that were torn out in the 1970s, and another has been to subsidise farmers to set aside land or to cultivate it in less intensive ways. This introduces further problems, however: can such agriculture ever be profitable? Can we preserve our traditional landscape but still produce enough food to support a growing population while competing in a global market? Hunger, Poverty and Unsustainable Agriculture As the global population rises, there is general agreement that we need more efficient agricultural systems, but there is disagreement about how we should go about creating them. In 2009 The Royal Society argued that developing new genetically modified products will be essential if we are to feed an expected global population of nine billion people by 2050 (Royal Society 2009). The former US Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, put the argument more bluntly when he stated that ‘Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million American we are going to let starve or go hungry’ (Lockeretz 2007). Support for industrialised agriculture is based on the assumption that large-scale farming is more cost efficient, yet many experiments have demonstrated that traditional, sustainable agriculture can produce higher crop yields than industrialised farming (Erickson 1988; Pretty 1998, 84–90; Pearce 2001; 2002; Parrott and Marsden 2002). The agricultural systems that produce the highest yields per hectare are not large industrial agribusinesses, but small farms on which different crops are grown together in inter- or multi-cropping systems (FAO 1980; Francis 1986; Altieri 2002). These higher yields are produced despite the fact that small farms are often located on marginal land with poor soils. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reports that the most productive farms in Syria are just half a hectare, in Mexico they are three hectares, in India less than one hectare and in Nepal less than two hectares (FAO 1980). PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPES 61 When farm size increases, production per hectare actually falls (FAO 1980; Goldsmith 2003). Smallholders feed a third of the global population, providing 80 per cent of the food in the developing world (IFAD 2012). Such farms are predominantly organic, following traditional, pre-industrial practices such as intercropping (polyculture), companion planting, water harvesting, mulching and other practices that we now regard as forming the basis of the modern science of agroecology. Many farmers are turning away from the industrial techniques introduced through the ‘Green Revolution’ of the 1960s–1970s, having found that their yields dropped as soil quality diminished, and the hybrids that were introduced into their ecosystem were not as dependable as traditional varieties. Artificial fertilisers are expensive and cannot replace organic manures, and pests proliferated as beneficial insects were killed along with the crop pests. Is Sustainable the Same as Organic? Sustainable agriculture is farming that conserves the natural resources available on a farm and does not pollute the environment; it maximises ‘natural capital’ without diminishing it. In a sustainable system, the farmer imports little or no material from off the farm. This means conserving soil by protecting it from erosion, and conserving and enhancing the soil nutrients through the addition of organic waste produced on the farm, or by planting nitrogen-fixing crops such as legumes. The insects that eat crop pests are encouraged, and the habitats that these helpful predators depend on (such as hedgerows) are maintained. Sustainable agriculture mimics natural ecosystems, which is why it is also known as ‘agroecology’. Pre-industrial farms maintained both animals and crops, because crops could not be grown very successfully without the nutrients and organic matter from animal manure. Organic material retains water, which is especially important in sandy soils, which drain too quickly, and it adds nutrients to the soil. It provides food for earthworms, which are essential to soil health: they aerate the soil, increase aggregate stability and enhance the availability of plant nutrients. Organic-rich topsoil also contains beneficial micro-organisms that help fight crop pests and diseases (Altieri 2002). Using chemical fertilisers but no compost or manure will lead to depletion of the soil organic matter, making the soil less cohesive, less biologically active and more readily eroded. Without the organic matter and the microbes and worms that depend on it, soil becomes compacted and can simply turn to dust. There are degrees of sustainability, and many would argue that the only way to produce sustainable crops is to go completely organic. Others argue that inorganic products can be part of a sustainable ecosystem if they are used sparingly. The proponents of chemical fertiliser argue that if any fertiliser – organic or inorganic – is applied in excessive quantities, the surplus will leach out of the soil and pollute the groundwater. A number of studies demonstrate that fertilisers can be applied a lot more rationally, saving money and reducing pollution (MacKerron et al. 1999; New Scientist 2002). Soils can be tested and fertilisers applied to the parts of the 62 ERIKA GUTTMANN-BOND figure

Load more