Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Making a Place at the Table for Farmers in the Future of Sustainable Agriculture
Interest in how our food is grown has been rekindled in recent years, with particular focus on sustainable agriculture. But what exactly is sustainable agriculture? Recently, everyone from certifiers like the Food Alliance, to resource groups like the National Center for Appropriate Technology, to producer groups like the California Farm Bureau Federation, to multi-stakeholder efforts like the Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture have been clamoring for authority on the matter, framing up widely varying definitions and criteria to steer the national dialogue.
Last week, the National Research Council (NRC) upped the ante with the publication of Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems for the 21st Century. The report will surely be an important milestone on the path toward agricultural sustainability. This 570-page tome, an update of the 1989 NRC report Alternative Agriculture, set out to investigate the sustainability of various agricultural production systems. It aims to distill principles of practice that can underlie agricultural production across geographies and scales, with a particular focus on applying practices-drawn from the U.S. experience-in less developed countries, specifically sub-Saharan Africa. The report also illustrates sustainable practices by showcasing a range of case study farms, many of them a review of studies conducted for the 1989 report.
The NRC report sidesteps the debate about what sustainable agriculture is by arguing that the "pursuit of sustainability is not a matter of defining sustainable or unsustainable agriculture, but rather is about assessing whether choices of farming practices and systems would lead to a more or less sustainable system as measured by the four goals." It argues the "inherently subjective" nature of characterizing sustainable agriculture and underscores the degree to which different groups emphasize different goals of sustainable agricultural systems, which the NRC frames as:
- Satisfying human food, fiber, and feed requirements, and contributing to biofuels needs;
- Enhancing environmental quality and the resource base;
- Maintaining the economic viability of agriculture; and
- Improving the quality of life for farmers, farm workers, and society as a whole.
The bottom line conclusion of the study? In order to meet society's long-term needs for food, fiber, and fuel, and minimize externalities, "agricultural production will have to substantially accelerate progress towards the four sustainability goals" outlined above.
The authors stress the need to pursue two approaches simultaneously: incremental and transformative change. In other words, we should support positive baby steps toward one or more of the goals across all farming types and scales, while at the same time striving to re-envision a model farm landscape, as well as a policy framework that will facilitate its realization.
Where do farmers fit?
So just what will it take for our production systems to make this shift? The NRC strongly emphasizes that scientific knowledge is the necessary foundation to progress toward sustainability, stating that "[s]cience generates the knowledge needed to predict the likely outcomes of different management systems and expands the range of alternatives that can be considered by farmers, policy makers, and consumers." Science is undeniably important to the development and refinement of sustainability practices and policies. But where do farmers fit?
The NRC report makes surprisingly little reference to farmers' knowledge in the American context, but it does recommend that the USDA and other research support agencies "encourage researchers to include farmer-participatory research or farmer-managed trials as a component of their research." But is this kind of partnership really about placing farmers' knowledge on a level playing field with that of scientists? The stated objective of this farmer involvement is to "enhance information exchange and enhance farmers' adoption of new practices and approaches," a formulation that emphasizes a flow of information from scientists to farmers, not the other way around.
Farmers can not only offer new innovations and advances in farming practices, but importantly, an understanding of what approaches have worked and not worked over decades and even generations of diligent trial-and-error on a given piece of land. Yet many farmers are not inclined or encouraged to document their experience in formal academic format that has come to be the respected standard for knowledge among decision-makers.
Many analyses, including the bulk of the NRC report, take a literature-based approach, which typically (and often inadvertently) ignore or downplay farmers' experience and knowledge. One byproduct is that decision-makers in our society tend to overlook farmers as experts, and they get subjugated in broader decision-making processes. It may be that sustainability cannot be achieved until farmers are understood as agricultural experts in their own right and broader solutions truly integrate practitioners and their knowledge systems.
The NRC report correctly acknowledges that the loss of local agricultural knowledge is a key barrier to sustainability in farming systems. True sustainability will require a recognition and acceptance of a diversity of agricultural knowledge systems. As core actors in any kind of agriculture, farmers must be placed at the center of proposed change models, in coalition with representatives from throughout the model supply chains and food systems that foster healthy food systems more broadly.
As Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems for the 21st Century indicates, different people-agricultural producers included-emphasize different aspects of sustainability. True sustainability requires all four goals to be met. It is to farmers like the ones profiled in the report, especially those who have scored high on all four sustainability goals, that we should look to in order to move U.S. farming to greater sustainability. Not only do farmers like these offer up valuable practices, but they hold important value systems and worldviews that are essential underpinnings for agricultural policy, as well as society as a whole.
What would it look like to truly place farmers like these at the center of agricultural policy and production systems for the 21st Century? How can we build collaborative decision-making models that better integrate farmers and communities into policy decision-making?
- Posted in

16 Comments so far
Show AllI like the emphasis on including a wide range of opinions in an attempt to move in a better direction with both big and little steps. Even if everyone took but little steps forward, the cumulative effect would be significant.
Gardeners should also get a place at the table along with farmers. We need both farmers and gardeners.
Good God, has it only taken two or so generations for us to stray this far from the land, the soil and the wisdom therein? We wait for scientists, studies and research to do what our grandmothers and great-grandmothers could do blindfolded, backwards and in high-heels (ok, muck boots)?
Just sow it, grow it, cook it, eat it and sell the rest to your neighbors. And get some chickens pecking in your backyard if possible. If you don't know how to do that, there are small family farms everywhere, books, workshops etc. springing up all over to learn from. Here's food sustainability in a nutshell: small, local, organic, animal and human powered.
To everybody everywhere on this earth who isn't already doing this: remember your agrarian roots, re-skill yourself and get planting. You will get so much more than food from this sacred endeavor, I tell you truly.
And if you can't grow it yourself, be the neighbor who buys the surplus from the local ones who do. I guarantee the more your diet becomes local food, the healthier you will get. Ha! There's solves another problem: your healthcare issues.
Food sovereignty is a human right. Exercise that right, and if you grow your food, you exercise your body too. Ha again! Solved another problem -- your fitness issues.
Wendell Berry calls it "solving for pattern". Pursuing one wise solution to solve a primary problem that ends up solving many more problems.
Cluck-cluck. Cluck-cluck. Moo-ooo-ooo.
While I like much here, I disagree that biofuels should play any role but that of a cautionary tale in our future.
I agree. Interesting how "biofuels needs" got slipped in there with food, fiber and feed. There are all kinds of things to read between the lines with the "NRC report".
Except for a handful of still-existing hunter-gatherer tribes, every single person on this planet has ancestors who farmed/grew their own food (or fished), so the wisdom is in our blood and our collective consciousness. And the millions of people who are currently growing their own food -- we can re-skill and re-learn with their help.
And those scientists and researchers? Put down the clipboard/laptop and help me wrangle a herd of semi-feral highland cattle in 100 degree heat. Or do a lamb-check at 3am when it's forty below. Or plant a bed of 2,000 onions on hands and knees. And I'd love to see them learn how to ENJOY doing all that, to feel the satisfaction and peace that come from knowing you are part of the creation of food, nourishment and health for your self, your family and your community.
We have lost so much. We have so much to re-gain.
Yes, we need farmers involved in any future planning for the needs of agriculture and the responsibilities of everyone in keeping our land and food supply sustainable. I am pretty sure we have city fathers included in planning for the sustainability of our cities, which could be an even greater problem than our farming businesses.
Something about a garden of eating might be a good metaphor.
Look up land grant college and the county extension agent.
The one item missing in this discussion is EROEI. Our current system is upside down about 10 to 1.
How about this definition of sustainable agriculture, to start with:
-economically viable
-ecologically sound/environmentally sensitive
-socially responsible
-politically feasible
Thanks, Junebug, for saying it well. Biofuels are about money, and that has no place in a discussion of how to feed ourselves. Nor does "economic viability." We're talking about what should be done, not how to make money.
First off, we need to get rid of manmade pesticides. As an organic grower I've never needed them. Organic gardening/farming is the intelligent way, because one must keep watching for problems and then solve them by working WITH nature, not trying to kill nature, as the industrial growers (I won't call them farmers) do.
Growing diverse crops locally without pesticides--whether in good-sized gardens or small farms--would go a long way towards solving global warming since there wouldn't be the oil used in transport, huge machines trundling across the land squashing what's left of life out of the soil, and - importantly - oil used in making pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
We do not need scientists doing studies to grow our own food. Really, where do they fit in? I read magazines where actual farmers and gardeners write in with their own tips they've learned on how to deal with this or that problem - for example, "Countryside & Small Stock Journal," "Small Farmers Journal," "Backyard Poultry," "Mother Earth News" (much better than used to be), and "Organic Gardening," plus books by people actually doing the work.
Universities get lots of money from chemical companies to do "research" on various crops with various of chemicals - they want us to depend on these "scientists" for advice - not me. I do very well, thank you, although not in the money realm, but there's enough and that's what counts.
Quote: "First off, we need to get rid of manmade pesticides. As an organic grower I've never needed them. Organic gardening/farming is the intelligent way, because one must keep watching for problems and then solve them by working WITH nature, not trying to kill nature, as the industrial growers (I won't call them farmers) do."
This is never going to happen. Man-made pesticides are what make it possible to feed billions. Not that it will continual indefinitely, mind you.
The organic farm where I work MUST use pesticides--Pyganic--or the potatoes and eggplants would be decimated by Colorado potato beetle.
The idea that you "work with nature" is a myth. Farming, by definition, is the usurpation of natural acreage for human ends. The plants farmers grow are not native nor adapted to the areas they are grown in but have been modified genetically through centuries of artificial selection.
"Industrial growers," as you call them, will become extinct once die-back of the human race ensues. Organic farming is no messiah, either. It's a delusion.
This just goes to show you that you do not know what you are talking about. Organic farmers do not use pesticides. Tee hee!
I'm afraid you're wrong:
http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Permitted_Chemicals_List_for_Organic_Farming
The mythology around the word "organic" is just phenomenal.
First, there is really no such thing as "organic farming" in terms of actually feeding a significant number of people. It is incorrect to suppose that there are two competing methods. Organic does not work and is not being done. It is all marketing hype.
Organic uses sprays and uses poisons. They are "natural" poisons - a meaningless term that mostly just makes people feel good. "Oh, it is natural."
Corporations have completely co-opted the whole thing, with the organic brand names all being controlled by corporate food giants, and with most of the produce that is labeled "organic" being imported from countries where there is no serious food inspection at all, let alone any standards that are superior or safer.
Organic presupposes some idyllic past that only exists in the imaginations of people far removed from farming who are abysmally ignorant and easily misled.
Ask the average person what organic means and they will repeat a marketing slogan as though they were grade school children reciting by rote a lesson that they were assigned: "organic means that no pesticides or fertilizers are used, so it is safer and better for the earth." It is not an independent thought based on knowledge and research - or even common sense - it is an implanted marketing slogan.
Good comments!
Now for my 2 cents.
There is good news. Even if governments are slow or non-existent in the Ag discussion, the people - grass roots- are growing. I farm and am part of a sustainable movement (www.sustainablereddeer.com ) and we are not alone. Google 'Transition towns' find your local and join in all across north america. These organization join gardeners, farms and urban dwellers dragging in town councils often with much success.
AcresUSA, the voice of eco-agriculture has been my monthly reading for 15 years. Ask for a sample copy on the web site.
Its a good article except for the biofuels bit that was slipped in.
Quote: "The NRC report sidesteps the debate about what sustainable agriculture is by arguing that the "pursuit of sustainability is not a matter of defining sustainable or unsustainable agriculture"
What a sham!
Sustainable means able to be sustained indefinitely without harming the environment or depleting resources.
Clearly all farming is unsustainable. Farmers grow populations, and growth cannot continue indefinitely.
Farming consists of drawdown of resources and takeover of acreage. There is no other way of doing it. "Organic" or not, you're usurping land and using up materials.
As Jared Diamond noted, agriculture is the worst mistake in human history.
Those who add fancy adjectives before the word "farming"--"organic," "natural," "permaculture," whatever--with the pretense that these are sustainable are fooling themselves, and the public.