One Of These Days

"Agricultural activities and the subsequent processing, storage, transport and disposal of its products are directly or indirectly responsible for almost 40% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions". A third of the planet is reliant on agricultural-based activity, and as the largest sector a priority form of measuring sustainable development. Agroecology is increasingly regarded as a solution

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, known as the World Agriculture Report, was written by 400 experts over four years assessing how to reduce hunger and poverty, to improve rural livelihood and protect health. All within the context of a finite world and the issue of a carrying capacity. Historically we have made leaps and bounds in the planets carrying capacity with technological advancement, specifically in the agricultural sector, and the IAASTD intends to take this further to aid "equitable, socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable development". Without hastening into the debate of the oxymoron of sustainable-development, the IAASTDs aims are fascinatingly and radically different to historical technological solutions.

The report advocates the discipline of agroecology the science of sustainable agriculture, drawing on both natural and social sciences, to framework ecologically-sound and economically-resilient farming. The origins of agroecology date back to the late 1920s. Combining scientific observation of local ecological expertise - adapting farming to natural processes and systems (greater resilience even in extreme conditions), with techniques readily accessible to the smallest-scale farmers to promote equity with sustainable agricultural production.

In a world where half of what we produce is thrown away, yet 805 million people go hungry, the IAASTDs proposals sound miraculous. With a population set to reach 9bn by 2050, and climate change bringing enormous challenges, our agricultural production will determine if ecosystem functionality in the future can sustain carrying capacity. 

Agroecology brings us balance with the Earth once more.

Agroecology has become widely advocated (NGOs, IDOs, develop-ed/-ing governments, etc) as a future to sustainable food production and wider development aims. Laura Silici earlier this year wrote a report on agroecology's progress, a key highlight showing "a review of 40 initiatives employing different agroecological practices showed an average crop yield increase of 113%, in addition to environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration, reduction in pesticide use and soil restoration". However, despite its benefits (rural-livelihood promotion, ecosystem services, development etc), agroecology remains low-scale, unused or promoted by agricultural policy or research organisations (surprised?). Agribusinesses are disinterested in adopting a movement antithetical to their production, nor do they provide the private-sector funding agroecological research depends on.

Its success as a practise and a movement mean agroecology undeniably works. Challenges continue to impede the rise of agroecology at the project level, and much must be done to integrate the "islands" together and within our global production. 

What Do You Want From Me?

In just over 2.5 centuries the Earth's population has grown spectacularly quickly. From under a billion people on the planet, to over 7 billion by the early 21st C. Increased life expectancy, the expansion of technologies, urban-life, production scale to meet the demand have depleted the environment at an accelerating rate. Berck, Levy and Chowdhury (2012) argue that we can come to a steady state with our planet through a cyclic feedback of environmental deterioration leading to social concern pressuring policy of production.

They express how "we regard people as reacting to environmental degradation by decreasing their individual exploitation of the environment". Our actions degrade the environment, which increases our concern for it's well-being, and essentially our own. First looking at frameworks of growth helps us to understand processes at work. At the core of capitalist belief is that economic growth begets population growth begets further economic growth etc, thus assuming infinite resources. Malthusian framework realizes the finite limits of the planet, and argues that growth deteriorates natural resources, meaning per capita food output is reduced thus limits population growth, and further limits exploitation of the environment. 

The logic is as follows;

               "Changing carrying capacity and environmental concerns are likely to engender a cyclical environment–population course that converges to the steady state... excess carrying capacity is large and concerns for the environment are low. Hence, population grows rapidly and so also does its aggregate footprint. As the environment deteriorates the excess carrying capacity diminishes and, in turn, population growth decelerates. At the same time, concerns for the environment rise. Negative population growth and rising concerns moderate the aggregate footprint and, subsequently, the environment starts improving. As the environment gradually improves, carrying capacity is slightly increased. Population growth is resumed and is accompanied for a while by moderated concerns. Then, with a bit larger aggregate footprint the environment slightly deteriorates, population growth diminishes and concerns rise, and so on, with gradual convergence to steady state" but our concern is weakened by skepticism of changes in the state of the environment, particularly what is, and isn't, natural variability. It may be necessary for greater global-scientific consensus on what is of concern.

This moderating-feedback loop was simulated by Meadows et al. (1972) showing "that output growth would be impeded by lack of resources" given technology (to increase availability of food and goods) grows linearly, whilst population, non-renewable consumption & pollution grow exponentially. At the least, pollution would put enormous constraint on our ability to survive, requiring either a technological or socio-political revolution to counter the effects. 

There are counters to the simplifications of Malthus/Capitalist economic thinking; Galor and Weil (2000) provided strong evidence showing the opposite to the predicted trends - richer countries were seeing decline in population growth as economic development was reached. Poor and rich countries alike, over the past twenty years environmental concern has grown. The question is, can this be possible for all countries to achieve before we reach our planet's tipping points? After "rounds of international meetings have revealed the inability of nations to cooperate effectively on curbing environmental degradation", where can we turn to for a global scale approach? The market? People? Or abandon it all to fate and head into the stars? It all feels like the challenge is too enormous in scope for any individual to feel they can make a difference, an argument as older than this debate, and yet as always change starts with an individual decision on an individual level. With information, communication, and a desire to reconcile with the environment, policy can be influenced to change to achieve the steady-state Berck et al. discussed.