Participatory Learning for Integrated Farming:-1

Increasing human population will require substantial increases in food production, which is well understood. However, it is less appreciated that to deliver such increases is not only a matter of availability of physical resources as inputs in the process of production, but - as important - of conducive schools of thought in science and approaches to learning. The paper is based on the assumption that agricultural development will have to be sustainable (in the terms defined in the paper) and provides recent evidence of impact achieved. Experience demonstrates participation by people is a critical condition for success in sustainable agricultural development and interest in application of participatory approaches is growing. Assuming the meaning of sustainability encompasses activities spread beyond a project in space and time, participation requires collective analyses by interdisciplinary and intersectoral teams, and even a researcher working alone must cooperate closely with local people. The paper goes on to discuss conditions for scaling-up of sustainable agriculture. Principal among these are farmers' capacity to innovate and it is the process, which sustains this capacity which is important and much less specific technologies. A new professional able to select methodologies according to needs and work in multidisciplinary teams and not afraid of interaction with non-scientific people will facilitate spread of sustainable agriculture and so will an institutionalisation of these approaches.

Challenges for agricultural development

Agricultural development now faces some unprecedented challenges. By the year 2020, the world will have 2.5 billion more people than today. Even though enough food is produced in aggregate to feed everyone, and that world prices have been falling in recent years, some 700-800 million people still do not have access to sufficient food. This includes 180 million children underweight and suffering from malnutrition.

It is now widely accepted that over the next quarter to half century food production will have to increase substantially.

But the views on how to proceed vary hugely. Some are optimistic, even complacent; others are darkly pessimistic. Some indicate that not much needs to change; others argue for fundamental reforms to agricultural and food systems. Some indicate that a significant growth in food production will only occur if new lands are taken under the plough; others suggest that there are feasible social and technical solutions for increasing yields on existing farmland.

There are five distinct schools of thought over these future options in agricultural development.

Schools of thought

There are "optimists", who say supply will always meet increasing demand, and so recent growth in aggregate food production will continue alongside reductions in population growth (Rosegrant and Agcaolli, 1994; Mitchell and Ingco, 1993; FAO, 1993). As food prices are falling (down 50% in the past decade for most commodities), this indicates that there is no current crunch over demand. Food production is expected to grow for two reasons: i) the fruits of biotechnology research will soon ripen, so boosting plant and animal productivity; ii) the area under cultivation will expand, probably by some 20-40% by 2020 (by an extra 79 million ha in Sub-Saharan Africa alone). It is also expected that developing countries will substantially increase food imports from industrialised countries (perhaps by as much as 5 fold by 2050).

There are "environmental pessimists", who suggest that ecological limits to growth are being approached); are soon to be passed; or have already been reached (Harris, 1995; Brown, 1994; CGIAR, 1995; Kendall and Pimentel, 1994; Brown and Kane, 1994; Ehrlich, 1968). It is said that populations are too great; yield growth has slowed, and will slow more, stop or even fall; no new technological breakthroughs are likely; and that environments have been too thoroughly degraded for recovery. Solving these problems means putting population control as the first priority

The "industrialised world to the rescue" group believes that Third World countries will never be able to feed themselves, for all sorts of ecological, institutional and infrastructural reasons, and so the looming food gap will have to be filled by modernized agriculture in the North (Avery, 1995; Wirth, 1995; DowElanco, 1994; Carruthers, 1993; Knutson et al, 1990). Increasing production in large, mechanised operations will allow smaller and more ‘marginal' farmers to go out of business, so taking the pressure off natural resources, which can then be conserved in protected areas and wildernesses. These large producers will then be able to trade their food with those who need it, or have it distributed by famine relief or food aid. It is also vigorously argued that any adverse health and environmental consequences of modern agricultural systems are minor in comparison with those wrought by the expansion of agriculture into new lands.

One group, what we might call the `new modernists', argues that biological yield increases are possible on existing lands, and that this food growth can only come from high-external input farming (Borlaug, 1992, 1994a, b; Sasakawa Global 2000, 1993, 1994; World Bank, 1993; Paarlberg and Breth, 1994; Winrock International, 1994; Crosson and Anderson, 1995). The target is both the existing Green Revolution lands, and the ‘high-potential' lands that have been missed by the past 30 years of agricultural development. This group argues that farmers simply use too few fertilizers and pesticides, which are said to be the only way to improve yields and so keep the pressure off natural habitats. This repeat of the green revolution model is called ‘science-based' agriculture, the objective being to increase farmers' use of fertilizers and pesticides. It is also argued that high-input agriculture is more environmentally sustainable than low-input, as low-input agriculture can only ever be low output.

The case is also being made for the benefits of `sustainable intensification', on the grounds that substantial growth is possible in currently unimproved or degraded areas whilst at the same time protecting or even regenerating natural resources (Pretty, 1995a, b; Hazell, 1995; McCalla, 1994, 1995; Scoones and Thompson, 1994; NAF, 1994; Hewitt and Smith, 1995; Röling and Wagemakers, 1996).

It is argued that empirical evidence now indicates that regenerative and low-input (but not necessarily zero-input) agriculture can be highly productive, provided farmers participate fully in all stages of technology development and extension. This evidence also suggests that agricultural and pastoral lands productivity is as much a function of human capacity and ingenuity as it is of biological and physical processes. Sustainable agriculture seeks the integrated use of a wide range of pest, nutrient, soil and water management technologies.

What is and what is not sustainable agriculture

A great deal of effort has gone into trying to define sustainability in absolute terms. Since the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development in 1987, there have been at least 100 more definitions constructed, each emphasising different values, priorities and goals. But precise and absolute definitions of sustainability, and therefore of sustainable agriculture, are impossible. Sustainability itself is a complex and contested concept. To some it implies persistence and the capacity of something to continue for a long time. To others, it implies not damaging or degrading natural resources.

In any discussion of sustainability, it is important to clarify what is being sustained, for how long, for whose benefit and at whose cost, over what area and measured by what criteria. Answering these questions is difficult, as it means assessing and trading off values and beliefs.

     (...... Continue....)

 Bismark Bangali

BSC  in Agrotechnology
  Khulna University.