You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

John Cavanagh and Robin Broad
Yes! Magazine / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 18 January 2012
Whether you’re worried about hunger, social crises, or climate change, the answer is the same: small-scale farmers are our only hope.

For Farmers Everywhere, Small is (Still) Beautiful

Article image

There is battle raging across the world over who can better feed its people: small-scale farmers practicing sustainable agriculture, or giant agribusinesses using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. 

It was small-scale organic farmers growing rice for themselves and local markets in the Philippines who first convinced us that they could feed both their communities and their country. Part of what convinced us was simple economics: These farmers demonstrated substantial immediate savings from eliminating chemical inputs while, within a few harvests—if not immediately—their yields were close to or above their previous harvests. From these farmers, we also learned of the health and environmental benefits from this shift.

Moving up from what we learned in the Philippines to examine other countries, we have concluded that small-scale farmers practicing different kinds of what is now called agroecology can feed the world. Agroecology extends the organic label to a broader category of ecosystem-friendly, locally adapted agricultural systems, including agro-forestry and techniques like crop rotation, topsoil management, and watershed restoration. (For more details on our research and conclusions, check out our “Can Danilo Atilano Feed the World?" in the current Earth Island Journal, the magazine of the California-based Earth Island Institute.)  

Eager to learn more and network with others from across the globe, Robin accepted an invitation from the Transnational Institute and the International Institute of Social Studies to speak about our Philippine research at a global conference in the Netherlands on alternative approaches to food and hunger.

She came away even more convinced that small-scale farmers are our only hope. She also came away excited to have met an impressive range of experts on the subject, including a bold champion for small-scale farmers: United Nations “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food” Olivier de Shutter. Modest and articulate, de Schutter looks more like the Belgian law professor he is than the outspoken proponent of small-scale agroecology he has become.  

A UN report may sound like dry reading but de Schutter’s is filled with zingers. Case in point: “Recent [agroecology] projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.” Indeed, de Schutter’s December 2010 report pulls together studies from all over the world that analyze small-scale farmers practicing agroecology.

The result is powerful stuff. As de Schutter concludes, “We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.” As he put it at the conference, “Each region must be able to feed itself.”

De Schutter’s work reinforces not just our findings, but what another conference’s speaker, U.S. food expert and firebrand Frances Moore Lappé, has been arguing for decades: We already grow more than enough food to feed the world’s people. The problem is not yields or production per se; it is that conventional plantation agriculture, combined with a development model that prioritizes cheap exports over food crops, have pushed millions off their fields. The nearly one billion people who are hungry are in that situation primarily because they no longer have land to grow their own food or because they are too poor to buy food.

The conference also featured Martha Robbins, an impressive young Canadian woman who, along with her parents and siblings, runs a family farm. Robbins spoke as a member of Via Campesina, which represents about 200 million small-scale farmers in 70 countries in a movement that promotes “food sovereignty,” by which they mean “defending small-scale farming, agroecology and local production.” Robbins focused many of her remarks on Via Campesina’s work with other young farmers: “We’re seeing a paradigm shift,” she emphasized, with “youth increasingly interested in farming.”

De Schutter made it clear that his UN report builds on such on-the-ground experiences as Robbins’ and also on the rich body of work on agroecology by scholar-practitioners.  Notable among these are other conference speakers such as Berkeley’s Miguel Altieri, Food First’s Eric Holt-Gimenez, who works with the Campesino-a-Campesino movement, and conference organizer and Philippine peasant expert Jun Borras—all champions of small-scale farmers and agroecology.

So, what is the take-away from all this? Well, as individuals and communities, we have a lot to do with influencing the future of farming. At a minimum, we need to “vote with our forks,” to use the phrase of the “slow food” movement. This means buying local, organic, and whole-grain products and limiting our consumption of meat, as Tony Weis stressed at the conference. But beyond that, we need to raise our voices and collective power to convince governments, international organizations, and philanthropists such as the Gates Foundation to stop supporting and subsidizing chemical agribusiness and global trade, and instead shift incentives to local farmers and domestic production. 

But let us not be naïve: The fight against giant agribusiness and chemical firms is a major one. Indeed, a key immediate battle where we need to raise our collective voices, outrage, and action is over Monsanto’s incursion into Nepal. Even as we write, the U.S. government is working with Monsanto to push farmers there to adopt chemical agriculture using imported Monsanto seeds. 

Whether one is worried about hunger and global social crises, or climate change and other ecological crises, the answer is the same: small-scale organic farmers. Their future is central to whether the battle to end hunger can be won.

John Cavanagh and Robin Broad wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. 

Robin is a Professor of International Development at American University in Washington, D.C. and has worked as an international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Congress. John is director of the Institute for Policy Studies, and is co-chair (with David Korten) of the New Economy Working Group. They are co-authors of three books and numerous articles on the global economy, and have been traveling the country and the world for their project Local Dreams: Finding Rootedness in the Age of Vulnerability

Photo by ilovebutter



John Browne's picture

The USDA study of comparative

The USDA study of comparative efficiency of American and Chinese agriculture that took place under Sec. Bergland in 1979-80 was eye-opening... to ME, anyhow. American ag had 7+ calories of input to get an output of 1 (one) calorie. American agriculture has specialized in practicing "economies of scale"... where some component of a process is VASTLY under-priced, in order to achieve a high volume outcome. In agriculture, that component has been petroleum products.

Chinese agriculture (at that time) was producing 1.15 calories for each calorie of input. That was because farms were small, and a lot of 'traditional' practices were in place... such as manure fertilizers instead of natural gas-derived ones, animal-drawn plows rather than tractors, and far less processing between the harvest & the meal.

The banker-preferred (& USDA-supported) philosophy of "get big or get out" (buy out your neighbors & get bigger equipment), especially in a world where living in the country & being able to subsist contrasts nicely with moving to an urban area where factory jobs are disappearing, just makes no sense. There are going to be MORE people in the world with FEWER things to do for a living, as technology continues to be used to replace human labor. Why not support a system where people can be responsible for much of their own food, and grow crops that can be sold close to home... or closer than California, Chile or China?

The old adage "A garden's best fertilizer is the gardener's shadow" has more salience than its romantic overtones might suggest. HERE is the place where the Nation needs "boots on the ground"! ^..^

Sadly among the intellectuals

Sadly among the intellectuals of the greatest countries of the modern world, it take a tiny nation of dedicated people, uncorrupted of piracy and greed, to show the world how stupid we have become.

'From seeds to shinning seeds' impregnated with un natural chemicals made by scientists around the world developed for the purpose of (fill in the blanks your self) and merely for the regulation of the production of food itself.

Does anyone ever wonder why we pay ourselves to contaminate the very foods we eat with money printed out of thin air? And then pay ourselves (money printed out of thin air) to STOP growing food for our own nation? And once again turn right around and pay our selves (money we print out of thin air) to foreclose on our own neighbors farms, and houses and businesses? And right after all of the havoc we create we then pay ourselves (the same money we print out of thin air) to house these same people we evicted? And when all of that fails and people go to jail for having one too many at a party, we pay our selves yet once again, with money we print out of thin air, to keep people in jail.

Can you say STUPID?

Are we really THAT stupid?

Are the heads of the citizens so full of "thin air" that we actually fall for this?

Good God wake up people.. It isn't the government.. it is US who are the idiots. Do we not have the resources already to do what needs to be done? Do we not support the government with their extravagant lifestyles to regulate who does what, how and when? We have the natural right AND power to do it in the first place.

No wonder the 'Powers That Be' just laugh at us for seemingly no reason... they have the absolute right (and I don't blame them) to laugh at our own foolishness.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Author pic
ABOUT Robin Broad
Dr. Robin Broad is Professor of International Development at the School of International Service at American University. She teaches courses on economic globalization & development as well as environment & development, with a focus on social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...