Agri-Culture

Reconnecting People,
nd Nature

Jules Pretty
 T h is is fo r G ill, Freya and T h e o

and fo r M u m and D a d fo r the pictures and advice

and tim e to o fo r a m en tio n fo r C h ris, D aw n, F ern , Joss,

T o m and W illia m ; A nn abel, M ik e , Jasp er and F elix;

P at and Joh n
 A g ri-C u ltu re

Reconnecting People; L a n d an d N atu re

Jules Pretty

raaigiifflH H aigi
Earthscan Publications Limited
London • Sterling, VA
First published in the U K and U SA in 2 0 0 2
by Earthscan Publications Ltd

Copyright © Jules Pretty, 2 0 0 2

All rights reserved

IS B N : I 8 5 3 8 3 9 2 5 6 paperback
I 8 5 3 8 3 9 2 0 5 hardback

Typesetting by JS Typesetting Ltd, W ellingborough, N o rthan ts

Printed and bound in the U K by Creative P rint and Design (W ales), Ebbw Vale
Cover design by Adrian Senior
Cover illustration by John R Pretty

F or a full list o f publications please contact:

Earthscan Publications Ltd

1 2 0 Pentonville Road, London, N I 9 JN , U K
Tel: + 4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 7 2 7 8 0 4 3 3
Fax: + 4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 7 2 7 8 1 1 4 2
Em ail: earth in fo @ earth scan .co.u k
W eb: w w w.carthscan.co.uk

2 2 8 8 3 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 2 0 1 6 6 - 2 0 1 2 , U SA

E arth scan is an ed itorially independent subsidiary o f Kogan Page Ltd and

publishes in association with W W F - U K and the In ternational Institute for
Environm ent and Developm ent

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library o f Congress C ataloging-in-Publication D ata

Pretty, Jules N .
A gri-culture : reconnecting people, land and nature / by Jules Pretty,
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
IS B N 1 - 8 5 3 8 3 - 9 2 5 - 6 (p b k .) - IS B N 1 - 8 5 3 8 3 - 9 2 0 - 5 (hardback)
I . Sustainable agriculture. 2. Agriculture—Social aspects.
3. Agricultural productivity. I. T itle.
S 4 9 4 .5 .S 8 6 P 7 3 2 0 0 2
3 3 3 . 7 6 T 6 —dc21
2002009735

T h is book is printed on elemental chlorine free paper

 Contents

Acknowledgements vi

Glossary o f Specialist Terms viii

Preface to a Revolution xi

1 Landscapes L ost and Found I

2 M onoscapes 27

3 Reality Cheques 52

4 Food for All 78

5 Only R econ nect 102

6 T h e G enetics Controversy 126

7 Ecological Literacy 146

8 Crossing the Internal Frontiers 170

Notes 18 9

References 221

Index 254
 A ck nowledgem ents

I am very grateful to the many people who provided invaluable critical

com m ent on earlier drafts o f this book and advice on related material. I
would like to make special m ention o f Ted Benton, James M orison and
N orm an U p h off, who went well beyond the call o f duty, together with
Curtis Absher, Jacqui Ashby, Richard Aylard, N eil Baker, Andy Ball, David
Beckingsale, Phil Bradley, Lynda Brown, Susanne and Sim on Cam pbell-
Jon es, R o b e r t C h am bers, N ig el C o op er, E d C ross, Jan D ean e, Joh n
Devavaram, Amadou D iop, T om D o bb s, David Favis-M ortlock, Bruce
Frank, Phil and Susie G rice, Julia Guivant, Jilly H all, John H all, Brian
Halweil, H al H am ilton, Justin Hardy, Sue Heisswolf, R achel H ine, Ian
Hutchcroft, J K Kiara, John Landers,Tim Lang, Howard Lee, David L ort-
P h illip s, Sim on Lyster, Joe M o rris , P h il M u llin eau x, E ri N ak ajim a,
H iltrud N ieberg, Kevin Niemever, David O rr, R oberto Peiretti, M ichel
P im b e rt.T im O ’R iordan, M ark R itch ie, C olin Sam son, Pedro Sanchez,
Sara Scherr, Dorothy and W alter Schwarz, Mardie Townsend, Hugh Ward,
Drennan W atson, Jane W eissman, M ark W in n e, andV o-Tong X u a n .T h e
views represented here are, o f course, all my own responsibility, as are the
mistakes.
As ever, I am grateful to Jonathan Sinclair W ilson, and to Akan Leander
and all at Earthscan, for valuable support and advice, and to M arie Chan
for administrative support.

T h e illustrations in this book, including the cover painting from northern

Nigeria, are all painted by John R Pretty who is a professional painter
specializing in marine and landscape w atercolours o f E ast Anglia and
France. H e is a member o f the East Anglian Group o f M arine Artists with
whom he exhibits at the M all Gallery in London, and he has been guest
o f honour at various Salons in France, being the recipient o f ten medals
for watercolour. H e has exhibited at the Royal Society o f M arine A rtists
and the N ational Society o f Painters, Sculptors and Printmakers, and, in
France, at the Gallerie du M usee, Les Baux-de-Provence, and the Salon
o f the Societe International des Beaux Arts Paris and in Salons at Parfav
 A ckn o w ledgem en ts v jj

Mosley, Le Poingonnet,Tinchebray, Argenton-sur-Creuse and M ongerm ont.

Annually, he exhibits at the Salon du Val d ’O r o f the A ssociation In ter­
nationale P lastica L atina, with the M erite A rtistique Europeen France,
at the Salon in S t Florent-sur-C her, where he is a m ember, and at the Salon
des A m is de M o ntem artre, Issoudun. H is work is also in collection s in
E urope, A m erica, N ew Z ealan d and So u th A frica, and can be seen at
w w w .johnrpretty.co.uk.
 Glossary o f Specialist Terms

T e rm s th a t appear in the glossary are italicized on th eir first m en tio n in each

ch a p ter o f the text.

Adat In d ig en o u s cu ltu ral know led ge and rules system o f

In d o n esia and M alay sia

A g ro e co lo g y E c o lo g ic a l relatio n sh ip s in ag ricu ltu ral system s

A n tim ic ro b ia l S u b sta n ce to x ic to m icro b es and ad m in istered to

(a lso a n tib io tic ) hu m ans and livestock

A p o m ixis T h e p ro d u ctio n o f exact clon es o f the m o th e r p lan t

th ro u g h asexual rep ro d u ctio n

A u to p o iesis S e lf-o rg a n iz in g and self-m ad e ch aracter o f living

system s

B io reg io n a lism In te g ra tio n o f hum an activities w ith in e co lo g ica l

lim its

B io te c h n o lo g y M o le c u la r changes to living o r n o n -liv in g th in g s,

involving the tran sfer o f D N A fro m one organism
to an o th er, allow in g the recip ien t to express new
ch a ra cteristics

C a rb o n C ap tu rin g o r lo ck in g up o f carb o n d ioxid e from

seq u estra tio n the atm o sp h ere in sin ks (eg so ils, trees)

CBD C o n v en tio n on B io lo g ic a l D iv ersity

C lo n in g T h e p ro d u ctio n o f individuals w ith an exact copy

o f the D N A o f an o th er organism

C o m m o n p ro p erty R e so u rces used in co m m o n by a d efined g ro u p o f

resou rce p eo p le, usually w ith lo cally developed ru les fo r th eir
use

C ry p to sp o rid iu m P a th o g en ic organism arisin g from d o m e stic livestock

and w ild an im als, and p o llu ta n t o f w ater
 G lo ssa ry o f S p e c ia l is t T erm s jx

CSA C o m m u n ity -su p p o rte d ag ricu ltu re farm

D F ID D e p a rtm e n t fo r In te r n a tio n a l D ev elo p m e n t ( U K )

D iverscap e A n eco lo g ically a n d / o r so cially diverse land scape

E n clo su re T h e ch anging o f large co m m o n ly m anaged open

(a ls o in clo su re ) field s in E u ro p e to p ro d u ce sm aller individually
ow ned field s en clo sed by hedges o r o th er
bo u n d aries

ESA E n v iro n m en tally sensitive area

E u tro p h ic a tio n N u tr ie n t en rich m en t o f w ater th a t leads to excessive

algal g ro w th , d isru p tio n o f w hole fo o d webs and, in
th e w orst cases, co m p lete e rad icatio n o f all life
th ro u g h deoxygen ation

E x te n sio n ist A g ricu ltu ral p ro fession al in regular c o n ta c t w ith

b o th farm ers and researchers

E x te rn a lity A ny a ctio n th a t a ffe cts the w elfare o f, or

o p p o rtu n itie s available to, an individual o r group
w ith o u t d irect p aym ent o r co m p en sa tio n , and may
be positive o r negative

I;A O F o o d and A g ricu ltu re O rg a n iz a tio n ( U N )

Fen G rasslan d by river, o c casio n ally flo o d ed

F o o d secu rity A ccess to su fficie n t fo o d o f ap p ro p riate diversity

fo r a healthy d iet

F o o d sh ed S e lf-re lia n t, locally o r reg ion ally based fo o d system s

co m p rised o f diversified farm s using su stainable
p ractices to w hich co n su m ers are linked by the
b o n d s o f co m m u n ity as well as e co n o m y

GM G en etica lly m od ified

H e cta re M easu re o f area equ ivalent to 2 .4 7 acres

H FS H a rtfo rd F o o d Sy stem ( U S )

IC IP E In te rn a tio n a l C en tre fo r In sect P h y sio lo g y and

E c o lo g y

IF P R I In te rn a tio n a l F o o d P o lic y R esearch In stitu te

In te g ra te d pest T h e use o f a variety o f m eth o d s and approach es

m anag em ent to m anage pests and diseases, usually m in im izin g o r
even e lim in atin g p esticid e use
x G lo s s a r y o f S p e c ia lis t T e r m s

M e g a jo u le ( M J ) M e a s u re o f en erg y , w ith o n e M J eq u al to 4 .2
k ilo c a lo rie s (k c a ls )

M ic r o fin a n c e S y ste m o f savin gs and c re d it ru n by lo c a l g ro u p s,

o fte n w ith so m e e x te rn a l m a tch e d fu n d s

M o d e r n is t S in g le -c o d e d , in fle x ib le and m o n o c u ltu r a l sy stem s

M o n o scap e A lan d scap e w ith o u t e c o lo g ic a l o r so cia l d iversity

M u ltif u n c tio n a l A g ric u ltu ra l sy stem s w ith m an y sid e e ffe c ts in

a d d itio n to fo o d p ro d u c tio n

N u tr it io n E f f e c t o f in crea sin g u r b a n iz a tio n o n p e o p le s

tra n s itio n a d o p tio n o f new d iets, re su ltin g , in p a rtic u la r, in
c o n s u m p tio n o f m o re m e a t an d few er tra d itio n a l
cereals

P u b lic g o o d s G o o d s o r serv ices w h ich w hen co n su m ed by a g ro u p

m e m b e r c a n n o t b e w ith h e ld fro m o th e r m e m b e rs o f
th e g ro u p , o r w hen c o n su m e d can still be co n su m ed
by o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e g ro u p

R h iz o b ia S o il m ic r o flo r a aid in g n itro g e n fix a tio n

S a lin iz a tio n P ro c e s s o f sa lt b u ild -u p in so ils, arisin g fro m ov er­

irrig a tio n in w etlan d s o r fro m rem oval o f v eg etatio n
in d ry lan d s

S a to c h i L a n d sca p e s in Jap an m ark ed by g rea t d iv ersity in th e

re la tio n s h ip s b etw een h u m a n s and n atu re

S e m io c h e m ic a l A ro m a tic ch e m ica ls given o f f by p la n ts th a t a ttr a c t

o r rep el in s e c t p ests, p re d a to rs o r p a ra sites

SR I S y ste m o f R ic e In te n s ific a tio n

S ta k e h o ld e r P erso n o r g ro u p w ith a p a rtic u la r stak e o r in te re st

in an a ctiv ity o r o rg a n iz a tio n

Subak Irr ig a tio n c o o p e ra tiv e s in Bali

T ra n sg e n e G e n e tra n s fe rre d fro m o n e o rg an ism to a n o th e r n o t

by c o n v e n tio n a l b reed in g

W a te rsh e d T o p o g r a p h ic area d ra in in g to a sin g le p o in t

W HO W o r ld H e a lth O rg a n iz a tio n

Z e r o -tilla g e F a rm in g w ith o u t in version p lo u g h in g in w hich seed s

are d ir e c t-d rille d and th e so il su rfa ce rem ain s
p e rm a n e n tly co vered
 Preface to a Revolution

Som ething is wrong with our agricultural and food systems. D espite great
progress in increasing productivity during the last century, hundreds o f
m illions o f people remain hungry and m alnourished. F u rth er hundreds
o f m illions eat to o m uch, or the wrong so rts o f food , and it is m aking
them ill.T h e health o f the environm ent suffers too, as degradation seems
to accom pany many o f the agricultural system s we have evolved in recent
years. Can nothing be done, or is it tim e for the expansion o f another so rt
o f agriculture, founded m ore on ecological principles and in harm ony
with people, their societies and cultures? T h is is n o t a new idea, as many
have struggled in the past to com e up with bo th sustainable and productive
farm systems, and have had som e success. W h a t is novel, though, is that
these system s are now beginning to spread to many new places, and are
reaching a scale large enough to make a difference to the lives o f m illions
o f people.
M y intention in writing this bo ok is to help to popularize this com plex
and ra th e r hid d en area o f hum an endeavour. I live and w ork in the
p ictu resq u e lan d scap e o f the S u ffo lk and E ssex bo rd ers o f eastern
England, a region o f small fields, ancient hedgerows, lazy rivers and T ud or
w ool tow ns. I spent my early years grow ing up am ongst the sands and
savannahs o f the Sahara’s southern edge, landscapes dotted w ith baobab
and acacia, and teem ing w ith w ildlife. In m y tim e, I have had the fortune
to m eet and w ork w ith inspiring people in m any com m unities in bo th
developing and in d u strialized co u n tries. M o s t have been sw im m ing
against a prevailing tide o f opin ion, often exposing themselves to ridicule
or even op probrium . In w riting this b o o k , I want to tell som e o f their
stories, about how individuals and groups have chosen routes to trans­
form atio n, and how they have succeeded in changing both com m unities
and landscapes.
I also want to present evidence to support the contention that industr­
ialized agricultural systems as currently configured are flawed, despite their
great progress in increasing food productivity, and that alternative systems
can be efficient and equitable. M y intention is to bring these ideas to a
x jj P refa c e to a R e v o l u t io n

wider audience, because food m atters to us all. As consumers, we buy it

every week, even every day, and the choices we make send strong signals
about the systems o f agricultural production that we prefer. W e may not
realize that these messages are being sent, but they are. O u r daily co n ­
sumption o f food fundamentally affects the landscapes, communities and
environments from which it originates.
In the earliest surviving texts on European farm ing, agriculture was
interpreted as two connected things, agri and cultura, and food was seen
as a vital part o f the cultures and com m unities that produced it. Today,
however, our experience with industrial farming dominates, with food now
seen simply as a comm odity, and farm ing often organized along factory
lines. T h e questions I would like to ask are these. Can we put the culture
back into agri-culture without compromising the need to produce enough
food? Can we create sustainable systems o f farm ing that are efficient and
fair and founded on a detailed understanding o f the benefits o f agro­
ecology and peoples capacity to cooperate?
As we advance into the early years o f the 2 1 s t century, it seems to me
that we have some critical choices. H um ans have been farm ing for some
6 0 0 generations, and for most o f that time the production and consumption
o f food has been intim ately connected to cultural and social systems.
Foods have a special significance and meaning, as do the fields, grasslands,
forests, rivers and seas. Yet, over just the last two or three generations, we
have developed hugely successful agricultural systems based on industrial
principles. T h e y certainly produce more food per hectare and per worker
than ever before, but only loo k efficient i f we ignore the harm ful side
effects — the loss o f soils, the damage to biodiversity, the pollution o f
water, the harm to human health.
Over these 1 2 ,0 0 0 years o f agriculture, there have been long periods
o f stability, punctuated by sh ort bursts o f rapid change. T h ese resulted
in fundamental shifts in the way people thought and acted. I believe we
are at another such junction. A sustainable agriculture making the best o f
nature and people’s knowledge and collective capacities has been showing
increasingly good promise. But it has been a quiet revolution because many
accord it little credence. It is also silent because those in the vanguard are
often the poorest and marginalized, whose voices are rarely heard in the
grand scheme o f things. N o one can exactly say where this revolution might
lead us. N either do we know whether sustainable models o f production
would be appropriate for all farmers worldwide. But what I do know is
that the principles apply widely. O nce these come to be accepted, then it
will be the ingenuity o f local people that shapes these new m ethods o f
producing food to their own particular circumstances.
 P reface to a R e v o l u t io n x ;jj

W e know that m ost transitions involve trad e-o ffs. A gain in one area
is accom pan ied by a loss elsew here. A road bu ilt to increase access to
m arkets helps rem ote co m m u n ities, bu t also allow s illegal loggers to
remove valuable trees m ore easily. A farm that eschews the use o f pesticides
benefits biodiversity, but m ay produce less food . N ew ag ro ecolog ical
m ethods may mean m ore labour is required, putting an additional burden
on wom en. But these trad e-o ffs need n o t always be serious. I f we listen
carefully, and observe the improvem ents already being made by com m un­
ities across the world, we find that it is possible to produce m ore food
whilst protecting and improving nature. It is possible to have diversity in
both human and natural systems without undermining econom ic efficiency.
T h is bo ok draws on many stories o f successful transform ation. Sadly,
I cannot do them full justice; as a result, they are inevitably partial. N o r
is there the space to provide a careful consideration o f all possible draw­
backs o r co n trad iction s. I do n o t want to give the im pression that just
because som e com m unities and societies are designated as ‘trad ition al’ or
‘indigenous’ they are always somehow virtuous, both in their relations with
nature and with each other. T h e actions o f some com m unities have led
to ecological d estru ctio n .T h e norm s o f others have seen socially divisive
and inequitable relations persist for centuries. N onetheless, my intention
here is to show what is possible, on both the ecological and social fronts,
and n o t necessarily to imply that each and every case is perfect. T h is is
also n o t a b o o k where readers will find substantial evidence and analysis.
T h e re are no tables or figures in the m ain text, though the endnotes do
contain m uch prim ary data. I am convinced, however, that the stories are
based on sound m ethods and trustw orthy evidence, and that they represent
a significance beyond the specificities o f their own circum stances.
I anticipate criticism from those who disbelieve that such progress can
be made w ith agroecological approaches. I also do n o t want to reject all
recent achievements in agriculture by presenting a doctrinaire alternative.
R eal progress can only com e from a synthesis o f the best o f the past,
elim in atin g p ractices th a t cause dam age to en viron m en ts and hum an
health, and using the best o f knowledge and technologies available to us
today.
T h is sustainable agriculture revolution is now helping to bring fo rth
a new world. But it is n o t likely to happen easily. M any agricultural policies
are unhelpful. M any institutions do not listen to the voices o f local people,
particularly i f they are p o o r o r rem ote. M any com panies still think that
m axim izing p ro fit at a co st to the environm ent represents responsible
behaviour. However, changing national or local policies is only one step.
Governm ents may wish for certain things; but having the political will does
x ;v P reface to a R e v o l u t io n

n o t necessarily guarantee a desired ou tco m e. S tru ctu ral d isto rtio n s in

economies, self-interest, unequal trading relations, corruption, debt burdens,
profit-m axim ization, environmental degradation, and war and co n flict all
reduce the likelihood o f achieving the system ic change required to nurture
this em erging revolution.
But we m ust not let these deep problem s stop us from trying. T h in g s
change when enough people want them to. T h e tim e is surely right to speak
loudly and, with a collective will, seek any innovations that will help over­
com e these p ro b le m s.T h is b o o k aims to take readers on a sh ort journey
through som e o f the com m u n ities and farm s o f bo th developing and
industrialized countries where progress is being made. I hope you will
agree that these stories o f success deserve careful consideration and some
celebration.
Chapter I sets the scene by showing that landscapes, and their attendant
agricultural and food system s, are a co m m on heritage to us all. In the
p u rsu it o f im proved ag ricu ltu ral produ ctivity, we have, nevertheless,
allowed ourselves to becom e disconnected from nature, and so tend not
to n o tice when it is damaged or taken away. F o r all our hum an history,
we have been shaped by nature, while shaping it in return. B ut in our
industrial age, we are losing the stories, m em ories and language about land
and nature. T h e s e d isco n n ectio n s m atter, fo r the way we th in k about
nature and w ildernesses fundam entally affects w hat we do in our agri­
cultural and food systems.
C hapter 2 focuses on the darker side o f the landscape, showing how
the p oor and powerless are com m only excluded from the very resources
upon which they rely fo r their livelihoods. M o d ern dispossessions have
extended such actions bo th in the nam e o f eco no m ic growth and in the
name o f nature conservation. Strictly protected areas that are designed to
protect biodiversity sim ply d iscon nect us once again from the nature we
value and need. A t the same tim e, m odern agriculture has created m o n o ­
scapes in order to enhance efficiency, and the poorest have lost ou t again.
R e p o ss e ss io n and reg en eratio n o f diverse and cu ltu ra lly im p o rta n t
landscapes is an urgent task.
C hapter 3 takes a deliberately narrow econom ic perspective on the real
costs and benefits o f agricultural sy stem s.T h e real price o f food should
incorporate the substantial externalities, o r negative side effects, that m ust
be paid fo r in term s o f the harm to the environm ent and hum an health.
F o o d appears cheap because these co sts are d iffic u lt to id en tify and
measure. A llocating m onetary values to nature s goods and services is only
one part o f the picture; but it does tell us som eth in g o f the com parative
value o f sustainable and non-sustainable systems, as well as indicate the
kind o f d irections national policies should be taking. T o date, the fine
 P refa c e to a R e v o l u t io n xv

words o f governm ents have only very rarely been translated into coherent
and effective policies that support sustainable systems o f food production.
C h a p te r 4 show s how fo o d poverty can be elim in ated w ith m ore
sustainable agriculture. W e know that m odern technologies and fossil-fuel
derived inputs can increase agricultural productivity. However, anything
that costs m oney inevitably puts it ou t o f the reach o f the poorest house­
holds and countries. Sustainable agriculture seeks to make the best use
o f natures goods and services, o f the knowledge and skills o f farmers, and
o f people’s collective capacity to work together to solve com m on manage­
m ent problem s. Such system s relate to improving soil health, increasing
w ater e ffic ie n c y and red u cin g d ep en d en cy on p esticid es. W h e n put
together, the emergent systems are both diverse and productive.There are,
o f course, m any threats, w hich may com e to u nderm ine m uch o f the
rem arkable progress.
C h a p ter 5 focu ses on the need to re c o n n e ct w hole fo o d system s.
In d u stria liz e d co u n trie s have celeb rated th e ir a g ricu ltu ra l sy stem s’
production o f com m od ities; yet family farm s have disappeared as rapidly
as rural biodiversity. A t the same tim e, farm ers themselves have received
a progressively sm aller p ro p o rtio n o f what consum ers spend on food .
Putting sustainable systems o f production in touch with consumers within
b io re g io n s o r Joodsheds o ffe rs o p p o rtu n itie s to recreate so m e o f the
co n n ectio n s. F arm ers’ m arkets, co m m u n ity -su p p orted agriculture, box
sch em es and farm ers g ro u p s are all h elp in g to d em o n stra te w hat is
p o ssible. N o n e o f these alon e w ill provoke sy stem ic change, thou g h
regional policies and movements are helping to create the right conditions.
C hapter 6 addresses the genetic controversy. It is im possible to write
o f ag ricu ltu ral tra n sfo rm atio n w ith o u t also assessing biotechnology and
genetic m od ification. W h o produces agricultural technologies, how they
can be m ade available to the poor, and w hether they will have adverse
environmental effects, are all im portant questions we should ask regarding
the many different types o f genetic m odification and different generations
o f a p p lica tio n .T h e answers will tell us whether these new ideas can make
a difference. W e m ust, therefore, treat biotech nologies on a case-by-case
basis, carefully assessing the potential benefits as well as the environmental
and health risks. It is likely th at bio tech no log y will make som e co n trib ­
u tions to the sustainability o f agricultural system s; bu t developing the
research systems, institutions and policies to make them p ro -p o o r will be
m uch m ore d ifficu lt.
C h apter 7 centres on the need to develop social learning system s to
increase ecological literacy. O u r knowledge o f nature and the land usually
accrues slowly over tim e, and cannot easily be transferred. I f an agriculture
d epend ent upon detailed eco lo g ical understand ing is to em erge, then
xv; P refa c e to a R e v o l u t io n

social learning and p a rticip ato ry system s are a necessary prerequisite.

T h e se develop relations o f trust, reciprocal m echanism s, com m on rules
and norm s, and new form s o f connectedness institutionalized in social
groups. N ew com m ons are now being created fo r the collective m anage­
m ent o f watersheds, water, microfinance, forests and pests. T h e s e collective
system s, involving the em ergence o f som e 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 groups over ju st a
decade, can also provoke significant personal changes. N o advance towards
sustainability can occur w ithout us crossing the internal frontiers, too.
Chapter 8 focuses on a select num ber o f cases and individuals who have
crossed the internal frontiers and then caused large-scale external trans­
form ations. O u r old thinking has failed the rest o f nature, and is in danger
o f failing us again. Could we help to m ake a difference if we changed the
way we think and act? Can we, as A ldo L eop old suggested, think like the
m ountain and the w olf? H e ro ic change is possible, yet we also need to
expand from the p aro ch iality o f these cases. E veryone is in favour o f
sustainability, yet few seriously go beyond the fine words. T h e re really is
no alternative to the radical reform o f national agricultural, rural and food
policies, and institutions. T h e need is urgent, and this is n o t the tim e to
hesitate. T h e tim e has com e for this next agricultural revolution.

Jules Pretty
U niversity o f Essex
D ecem ber 2 0 0 1
 C hapter I

Landscapes Lost and Found

T h i s C o m m o n H eritage

In a bend o f the river stands an ancient, open m eadow .T hese 3 0 hectares

o f the Fen, as it is known hereabouts, are a relic. F o r 6 0 0 years, the flint
church tow er has gazed th rou g h village trees u pon an ever-changing
agricultural landscape. T h is com m on , though, has survived intact. It is
parcelled into 1 8 0 ‘fennages’, or rights to graze cattle, and so is in com m on
ownership. W h e n the harsh easterly winds drive dowrn from Scandinavia,
the grass crunches underfoot, and the pasture hollow s are th ick with ice.
O n a su m m e rs day, you walk the sam e rou te past carp ets o f yellow
buttercups, or divert past an enclosed hay meadow dotted with purple bee
orchids. In autum n, after a few days o f rain, the river flood s and spills
upon the pastures, lighting the landscape with the colou r o f the sky. In
the long evenings, bats flit through clouds o f insects, and owls h o o t in
search o f scu rry in g prey. S p la sh es fro m th e river rem in d us o f th e
m ysterious lives o f o tters. T h is Fen is d ifferen t from the surrou nding
farm land, and it has been this way fo r centuries.
2 A g r i- C ulture

O th er things are im p o rtant about this com m on meadow. It links local

p eople w ith nature, and as it is used and valued as a co m m o n , so it
connects rights owners and users with one another. In recent years, though,
b o th o f these types o f c o n n e c tio n have been w idely n e g lected and
consequently eroded — to our loss, and to the loss o f nature at large. As
food has becom e a com m odity, m ost o f us no longer feel a link to the
place o f production and its associated culture. Yet agricultural and food
system s, w ith th eir a ssociated natu re and land scap es, are a co m m o n
heritage and thus, also, a form o f com m on p ro p erty .T h ey are shaped by
us all, and so in som e way are part o f us all, too. Landscapes across the
world have been created through our interactions w ith nature. T h e y have
em erged through h isto ry , and have becom e deeply em bed ded in ou r
cultures and consciousness. From the rural idylls o f England to the diverse
satocbi o f Japan, from the terraced rice fields and tree-vegetable gardens o f
Asia to the savannahs o f A frica and forests o f the Am azon, they have given
collective m eaning to w hole societies, im parting a sense o f perm anence
and stability. T h e y are places th at lo cal people know, where they feel
co m fortab le, where they belong.
W h e n we feel that we have ownership in som ething, even i f technically
and legally we do not, or that our livelihood depends upon it, then we care.
I f we care, we watch, we appreciate, we are vigilant against threats. But when
we know less, or have forgotten, we do n o t care. T h e n it is easier for the
powerful to appropriate these co m m on goods and so destroy them in
pursuit o f their own eco no m ic gain. F o r m ore than 1 0 0 centuries, cultiv­
ators have tamed the wilderness —controlling and managing nature, m ostly
w ith a sensitive touch. But all has changed in the last h a lf per cent o f that
tim e. T h e rapid m od ern izatio n o f landscapes in b o th developing and
industrialized countries has broken many o f our natural links w ith land
and food , and so underm ined a sense o f ownership, an inclination to care,
and a desire to take action for the collective good.
Som etim es the disconnection is in ten tio n al.T h e state has special term s
fo r p eo p le w ho use reso u rces w ith o u t p e rm issio n and fo r land n o t
co n form in g to the d om inant m odel. T h e y are wild settlers, poachers or
squatters, they are traditional or backward, and their lands are wastelands.
Landscapes are cleaned up o f their com plexity, and o f their natural and
social diversity. Hedgerows and ponds are removed, but so are troublesom e
tribes and the poorest groups. In these landscapes, b o th real and m eta­
phorical com m on s exist. M o st o f the 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 villages o f India have, or
had, com m ons —officially designated by nam e, bu t vital sources o f food,
fuel, fod der and m edicines fo r many local people. In n o rth ern Europe,
open-field o r co m m on farm ing sustained com m unities fo r m illennia; in
southern Europe, huge tracts o f uplands are still com m on ly grazed. In
 L an d scap es L o s t an d F o u n d 3

E ngland and W ales, there are still m ore than 8 0 0 0 com m on s, covering
0 .5 m illio n hectares, each em bodying perm anence in the landscape and
contin uity over generations. M o st are archaic rem inders o f another age
in an increasingly industrialized landscape.
R e cen t th in k in g and p o licy has sep arated food and farm in g from
nature, and then accelerated the disconnectedness. A t the same tim e as real
com m on s have been appropriated, by enclosures o r prairie expansion, the
m etaphorical food com m ons have also been stolen away. Food now largely
com es from dysfunctional produ ction system s that harm environm ents,
econom ies and societies; and yet we seem n o t to know, or even to care
ov erm u ch . T h e en v iro n m en tal and h ealth co sts o f lo sin g to u ch are
e n o rm o u s.T h e consequences o f food systems producing anonym ous and
hom ogeneous food are obesity and diet-related diseases for about one
tenth o f the world s people, and persistent poverty and hunger for another
seventh.
So , does sustainability thinking and practice have anything to offer?
C an it help to reverse the loss o f tru st so co m m on ly felt abo u t food
systems, and prevent the disappearance o f landscapes o f im portance and
beauty? Can it help to put nature and culture back into farm ing? C an it
help to produce safe and abundant fo o d ?T h ese are som e o f the questions
ad dressed in th is b o o k , w hich I believe co n ce rn a g ricu ltu re ’s m o st
significant revolution. Several themes will reoccur. O n e is that accumulated
and traditional knowledge o f landscapes and nature is intim ate, insightful
and g ro u n d ed in sp e cific circu m stan ces. C o m m u n itie s sh arin g such
know led ge and w ork in g to g e th e r are likely to engage in su stain able
practices that build local renewable assets. Yet, industrialized agriculture,
also called modernist in this b o o k because it is single coded, inflexible and
m onocultural, has destroyed m uch place-located knowledge. In treating
food sim ply as a com m odity, it threatens to extinguish associated co m ­
m u n ities and cu ltu res a lto g eth er by co n ceiv in g o f natu re as existin g
separately from hum ans. N atural landscapes and sustainable food p ro­
duction systems will only be recreated i f we can create new knowledge and
understanding, and develop better connections between people and nature.

T h e W orld Food Problem

But why should this idea o f putting nature and culture back into agri­
culture m atter? Surely we already know how to increase food production?
In d evelop ing co u n trie s, there have been sta rtlin g increases in fo o d
produ ction since the beginning o f the 1 9 6 0 s , a sh o rt way into the m ost
recent agricultural revolution in industrialized countries, and ju st prior
4 A g r i-C u ltu r e

to the G reen R evolution in developing countries. Sin ce then, total world

food production grew by 1 4 5 per cent. In A frica, it is up by 1 4 0 per cent,
in Latin A m erica by alm ost 2 0 0 per cent, and in Asia by a remarkable 2 8 0
per cen t. T h e greatest increases have been in C h in a — an extraordinary
fiv e fo ld in crease, m o stly o c cu rrin g in the 1 9 8 0 s and 1 9 9 0 s . In the
industrialized regions, produ ction started from a higher base. Yet in the
U S , it still doubled over 4 0 years, and in w estern Europe grew by 6 8 per
cen t.1
O ver the same period, world population has grown from 3 to 6 billion.2
Again, per capita agricultural production has outpaced population growth.
F o r each person today, there is an extra 2 5 per cent o f food compared with
people in 19 6 1 .T h e s e aggregate figures, though, hide im p o rtant differ­
en ces betw een re g io n s. In A sia and L a tin A m e rica, p er ca p ita food
production has stayed ahead, increasing by 7 6 and 2 8 per cent respectively.
A frica, however, has fared badly, w ith food produ ction per person 10 per
cent less today than in 1 9 6 1. C hina, again, perform s best, with a trebling
o f fo o d p ro d u ctio n per person over the sam e p erio d . In d u strialized
countries as a w hole show sim ilar patterns: roughly a 4 0 per cent increase
in food produ ction per person.
Yet, these advances in aggregate productivity have only brought limited
reductions in incidence o f hunger. A t the turn o f the 2 1 s t century, there
were nearly 8 0 0 m illion people who were hungry and who lacked adequate
access to food , an aston ishin g 18 per cen t o f all people in developing
countries. O n e third are in E ast and S o u th -E a st Asia, another third in
So u th Asia, a quarter in sub-Saharan A frica, and one tw entieth each in
Latin Am erica and the Caribbean, and in N o rth A frica and the N ear East.
N onetheless, there has been progress to celebrate. Incidences o f under­
n o u rish m en t sto o d at 9 6 0 m illio n in 1 9 7 0 , co m p risin g on e third o f
people in developing countries at the tim e. Sin ce then, average per capita
consu m p tion o f food has increased by 1 7 per cent to 2 7 6 0 kilocalories
per day —good as an average, but still hiding a great many people surviving
on less ( 3 3 countries, m ostly in sub-Saharan A frica, still have per capita
fo o d co n su m p tio n u n der 2 2 0 0 k ilo ca le rie s per d ay). T h e ch allen ge
rem ains huge.3
T h e re is also significant food poverty in industrialized countries. In
the U S , the largest producer and exporter o f food in the world, 11 m illion
people are food insecure and hungry, and a further 2 3 m illion are hovering
close to the edge o f hunger — their food supply is uncertain bu t they are
n o t perm anently hungry. O f these, 4 m illion children are hungry, and
another 1 0 m illion are hungry fo r at least one m onth each year. A further
sign that som ething is w rong is that one in seven people in industrialized
countries is now clinically obese, and that five o f the ten leading causes
 L an d scap es L o s t an d F o u n d 5

o f death are diet related — coronary heart disease, som e cancers, stroke,
diabetes m ellitus, and arteriosclerosis. Alarm ingly, the obese are increas­
ingly ou tnum bering the thin in som e developing countries, particularly
in Brazil, C hile, C o lo m b ia, C osta R ica , C uba, M exico, Peru and T unisia.4
So , despite great progress, things will probably get worse for m any
people before they get better. As total population continues to increase,
until at least the latter part o f the 2 1 s t century, so the absolute demand
for food will also increase. Increasing incom es will mean that people will
have m ore purchasing power, and this will increase demand for food . But
as ou r d iets change, so dem and fo r the types o f fo o d w ill also sh ift
radically. In particular, increasing urbanization m eans people are m ore
likely to ad opt new diets, particularly consum ing m ore m eat and fewer
traditional cereals and oth er food s — what Barry Popkin calls the nutrition
transition.5
O n e o f the m ost im portant changes in the world food system will com e
from an increase in the consum ption o f livestock products. M eat demand
is expected to double by 2 0 2 0 , and this will change farm ing system s.6
Livestock are im p o rtan t in m ixed p rodu ction system s, using food s and
by-products that would n o t have been consum ed by humans. But, increas­
ingly, farmers are finding it easier to raise animals intensively and feed them
with cheap cereals. Yet, this is very inefficien t: it takes 7 kilogram m es o f
cereal to produce I kilogram m e o f feedlot beef, 4 kilogram mes to produce
one o f pork, and 2 kilogram m es to produce one o f poultry. T h is is clearly
inefficien t, particularly as alternative and effective grass-feeding rearing
regim es do exist.7
T h e s e dietary changes will help to drive a total and per capita increase
in demand for cereals.T h e bad news is that food -consum ption disparities
between people in industrialized and developing countries are expected
to persist. Currently, annual food demand in industrialized countries is
5 5 0 kilogram m es o f cereal and 7 8 kilogram m es o f m eat per person. By
contrast, in developing countries, it is only 2 6 0 kilogram m es o f cereal and
3 0 kilogram m es o f m eat per person. T h e se gaps in consum ption ought
to be deeply w orrying to us all.

C om m ons and C onnections

F o r m ost o f our history, the daily lives o f hum ans have been played out
close to the land. S in ce ou r divergence fro m apes, hum ans have been
hunter-gatherers for 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 generations, then m ostly agriculturalists for
6 0 0 , industrialized in som e parts o f the w orld fo r 8 to 1 0 , and lately
dependent on industrialized agriculture for ju st 2 generations.8 W e still
6 A g r i- C ulture

have close c o n n e c tio n s to natu re. Y et, m any o f us in in d u strialized

countries do n o t have the tim e to realize it. In developing countries, many
are still closely connected, yet are tragically locked into poverty and hunger.
A connectedness to place is no kind o f desirable life i f it brings only a
single meal a day, o r children unable to attend school for lack o f food and
books, o r op tions for wage earning that are degrading and soul destroying.
F o r as long as people have managed natural resources, we have engaged
in form s o f collective action. Farm ing households have collaborated on
water m anagem ent, labour sharing and m arketing; pastoralists have c o ­
managed grasslands; fishing fam ilies and their com m unities have jointly
managed aquatic resources. Such collaboration has been institutionalized
in many local associations, through clan or kin groups, water users’ groups,
grazing m anagem ent so cieties, w om en’s self-h elp groups, youth clubs,
farm er exp erim en tation groups, church groups, tree associatio n s, and
labour-exchange societies.
T h ro u g h such groups, constru ctive resource m anagem ent rules and
n o rm s have been em bedded in m any cultures — from collective water
m anagem ent in E g y p t, M eso p o tam ia and In d o nesia to herders o f the
Andes and dryland A frica; from water harvesting in R om an N o rth A frica
and sou th-w est N o r th A m erica to sh iftin g agriculture system s o f the
forests o f Asia and A frica; and from co m m on fields o f E urope to the
iriaichi in Japan. It has been rare, p rio r to the last decade o r so, fo r the
im portance o f these local institutions to be recognized in agricultural and
rural development. In both developing and industrialized countries, policy
and practice have tended to be preoccupied w ith changing the behaviour
o f individuals rather than o f groups or com m unities — or, indeed, with
changing property regimes — because traditional com m on s m anagem ent
is seen as destructive. A t the same tim e, m od ern agriculture has had an
increasingly destructive effect on bo th the environm ent and rural co m ­
m unities.9
A search through the w ritings o f farm ers and co m m en tators, from
a n c ie n t to co n te m p o ra ry tim es, so o n reveals a very stro n g sen se o f
connectedness between people and the land. T h e R om an w riter M arcus
C ato, on the opening page o f his b o o k D iA gri Cultura, w ritten 2 2 0 0 years
ago, celebrated the high regard in which farm ers were held:

. . . when our ancestors . . . would praise a worthy man their praise took this form:
g‘ ood husbandman’, ‘good farm er’; one so praised was thought to have received the
greatest commendation.

H e also said: ‘a good piece o f land will please you more at each visit’. It is revealing
that R om an agricultural writers such as C ato, Varro and C olum ella spoke
 L an d scap es L o s t an d F o u n d 7

o f agriculture as two things: agri and cultura (th e fields and the culture).
It is only very recently that we have filleted ou t the culture and replaced
it with com m od ity .10
It is in China, though, that there is the greatest and m ost continuous
record o f agricultures fundam ental ties to com m unities and culture. Li
W enhua dates the earliest records o f integrated crop, tree, livestock and
fish farm ing to the Sh ang-W est Z h ou D ynasties o f 1 6 0 0 —8 0 0 B C . Later,
M ensius said in 4 0 0 B C :

I f afam ily owns a certain piece of land with mulberry trees around it, a housefo r
breeding silkworms, domesticated animals raised in its yard for meat, and cropfields
cultivated and managed properlyf o r cereals, it will be prosperous and will not suffer
starvation.

In one o f the earliest recognitions o f the need fo r the sustainable use o f

natural resources, he also said:

I f the forests are timelyfelled, then an abundant supply o f timber andfirewood is

ensured; i f the fishing net with relatively big holes is timely cast into the pond, then
there will be no shortage o ffish and turtle fo r use.

S till later, oth er treatises such as the collectively w ritten Li Shi Chun Qiu
( 2 3 9 B C ) and the Q i Min Yao Shu by Jia Sixia (A D 6 0 0 ) celebrated the
fundam ental value o f agriculture to com m un ities and econom ies, and
docum ented the best approaches fo r sustaining food production w ithout
damage to the environm ent. T h ese included rotation m ethods and green
m anures fo r soil fertility, the rules and norm s fo r collective m anagem ent
o f resources, the raising o f fish in rice fields, and the use o f m anures. As
Li W enhua says: ‘these present a picture o f a prosperous, diversified rural economy and
a vivid sketch o f pastoral peace’."
B ut it was to be C artesian reductionism and the enlightenm ent that
changed things many centuries later, largely casting aside th e assum ed
folk lo re and su perstitions o f age-old thinking. A revolution in science
occu rred during the late 1 6 th and 1 7 th cen tu ries, largely due to the
observations, theories and experim ents o f Francis Bacon, G alileo G alilei,
R ene D esca rte s and Isaac N ew to n , w hich brou g h t fo rth m ech an istic
reductionism, experimental inquiry and positivist science.12T h ese m ethods
brought great progress, and continue to be enorm ously im p o rtant. But
an unfortunate side effect has been a sadly enduring split, in at least some
o f our m inds, between hum ans and the rest o f nature.
As I discuss later, wilderness writers, landscape painters, ecologists and
farm ers o f the 1 9 th and 2 0 th cen tu ries so u g h t to reverse, o r at least
8 A g r i- C u lture

tem per, the d om in ance o f the new th in k in g . B ut it has been a Sisyphean

struggle, until perhaps recently when the m ou n tain -to p has at least becom e
m ore visible. It is, th o u g h , in the ind igen ou s gro u p s o f the w orld that
we fin d rem nants o f nature—people conn ectivity. O n e o f the m o st co m ­
p reh en siv e c o lle c tio n s o n th e d iv ersity o f hu m an cu ltu re s and th e ir
co n n e cte d n e ss w ith n atu re and th e lan d is D a r r e ll P o s e y s 7 0 0 -p a g e
volum e, Cultural and SpiritualValues o f Biodiversity. C o n tain in g co n trib u tio n s
from nearly 3 0 0 auth ors from across the w orld, these h ig h lig h t ‘the central
importance o f cultural and spiritual values in an appreciation and preservation o f all
life’. T h e s e v o ices o f th e e a rth d e m o n stra te th e w id esp read in tim a te
co n n ectiv ity th a t people have w ith nature, and th eir m utual respect and
u n d erstand ing .13
In A ustralia, H e n rietta F o u rm ile o f the P olid in g i T rib e says:

Not only is it the land and soil thatform s our connections with the earth hut also
our entire life cycle touches most o f our surroundings. The fact that our people hunt
and gather these particu lar species on the land means emphasis is placed on
maintaining their presence in thefuture. . . What is sometimes called ‘wildlife’ in
Australia isn’t wild; rather; it’s something that we have always maintained and will
continue gathering.

Pera o f the Bakalaharil trib e in Botsw ana p o in ts to their attitud es in using

and su staining w ild resources:

Some o f our fo o d isfrom the wild, likefru its and some o f our meat. . . We are happy
to conserve, hut some conservationists come and say that preservation means that
we cannot use the animals at all. To us, preservation means to use, hut with love,
so that you can use again tomorrow and thefollowing year. 14

Jo h a n M a th is T u ri o f th e Saam i re fle cts o n th e m u tu al sh ap in g in the

N o rw eg ian A rctic:

The reindeer is the centre o f nature as a whole and I fe e l I hunt whatever nature
gives. O ur lives have remained around the reindeer and this is how we have managed
the new times so well. It is difficultf o r me to pick out specific details or particular
incidences as explanationsf o r what has happened because my daily life, my nature,
is so comprehensive. It includes everything. We say ‘lotw antua’, which means
everything is included.

A sim ila r p e rsp e ctiv e is p u t by G a m a illie K ilu k is h a h , an In u it fro m

n o rth ern C anada w ho, in tran slation by M ee k a M ik e , says:
 L an d scap es L o s t an d F o u n d 9

You must be in constant contact with the land and the animals and the plants. . .
When Gamaillie was growing up, he was taught to respect animals in such a way
as to survive from them. At the same time, he was taught to treat them as kindly
as you would another fellow person.

T h i s In u it p ersp ectiv e is co m m o n acro ss th e A rc tic . F ik r e t B erkes

docum ents the careful m anagem ent by the Cree o f the Canadian eastern
su b-A rctic populations o f beaver, caribou and fish. N o n e o f the species
used by the Cree has becom e locally extinct since the glaciers departed the
region som e 4 0 0 0 —5 0 0 0 years ago. Berkes says: ‘hunters are experts on the
natural history o f a number o f species, and onfo o d chain and habitat relationships’. T h e
m anagem ent o f beaver is particularly clever. Cree com m unities appoint
stewards, o r beaver bosses, who oversee the codes and rules for hunting
and are also a ch ie f source o f knowledge about past hunting patterns and
current beaver abundance. T h e trick is to manage in balance. I f there are
to o m any beavers, and the willow and aspen decrease until a threshold is
passed, beaver num bers crash, and the w hole system takes many years to
recover. C ree m anag em ent involves h u n tin g o n ce every fo u r years to
prevent such an ecosystem flip. Berkes indicates the subtle way the Cree
see this balance: ‘these adjustments are articulated in terms o f the principle that it is
the animals (and not the hunter) who are in control o f the hunt’. T h u s , there is
reciprocity between animal and hunter, and these connections echo similar
rules fo r social relations. F o r the Cree, there is no fundam ental difference
between people and anim als.'5
So m e believe th at the ruin o f co m m on resources is inevitable — an
unavoidable tragedy, as G arrett H ardin put it m ore than 3 0 years ago.16
Each person feels com pelled to put another cow on the com m on, because
each derives all the benefit from the additional anim al; but the costs are
distributed am ongst all o f the oth er com m on users. In the contem porary
context, each polluter continues to add greenhouse gases to the atm o s­
phere, while reaping the im m ediate benefit o f n o t having to pay the cost
o f abating the pollution, or o f adopting clean p ractices.T h e costs, though,
are spread am ongst us all — including future generations who will have to
pay fo r clim ate change. O th e r th eo rists have been equally pessim istic.
M an su r O lso n was convinced that unless there is coercion or individual
inducem ents, then ‘rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their
common or group interest’. 1' T h i s in d icates a pro blem w ith free rid ers —
individuals who take the benefit, but do not invest anything in retu rn .T h e
tem ptation, som e would say, is always to free rid e .T h e logic has been so
com pelling that the state has stepped in, developing policies directly or
indirectly to privatize com m on property systems. A lthough this has been
going on for centuries, it has accelerated during the late 2 0 th centu ry’s
JO A g r i-C ulture

experim ent with m odernism . Yet, productive com m on s persist in many

parts o f the world.
In some places, the loss o f local institutions has led to further natural
resource degradation. In India, m anagem ent system s for common property
resources have been un derm in ed, a critical fa cto r in the increased over­
exploitation, poor upkeep, and physical degradation observed over the past
h a lf century. As local institutions have disappeared, so the state has felt
obliged to take responsibility fo r natural resources, largely because o f a
m istaken assum ption that resources are m ismanaged by local p eo p le.T h is
solution is rarely beneficial fo r environm ents o r for p o or people. A key
question, therefore, centres on how can we avoid this double tragedy o f
the com m ons, in which bo th nature and com m unity are damaged. It is
in precisely this area that there have been so many heroic transform ations,
and why there is increasing hope now for a new future for agricultural and
food system s.18

O n Shaping and Being Shaped

Som e m ay feel there is little value in connecting us to the land and nature.
Is it n o t ju st som eth in g fo r indigenous people o r rem ote tribes? W h a t
possible m eaning o r value can com e from an abstract idea such as conn ect­
edness to nature? Firstly, even in our m odern tim es, we as predom inantly
urban-based societies never seem to get enough o f nature. People in cities
and towns are w istful about lost rural idylls. T h e y visit the countryside
on Sunday afternoons, or for occasional weekends, but on returning home,
often feel that they should have stayed. M em bersh ip o f environm ental
org anizatio ns in ind ustrialized co u ntries has never been higher and is
growing. In many developing countries, city people do n o t just go to rural
areas for the experience —they return to their hom e farms. I f you ask urban
dwellers in cities from N a iro b i to D ak ar: ‘where do you live?’, they likely
as n o t will give the nam e o f their rural village or settlem en t rather than
the c ity .T h e ir family still farm s; they earn in the city to invest in the farm
and its com m unity. H ere the connectedness is tangible.
Yet, an intim ate co n n ectio n to nature is bo th a basic right and a basic
need. W h e n it is taken away, we deny it was ever im p o rtan t, o r sim ply
substitute occasional visits and personal experiences. B ut it is still there,
and it is valuable. Is it any wonder to discover that the gentle opportunities
afforded by urban com m unity gardens have brought m eaning and peace
to many people w ith m ental health problems? F o r all o f our tim e, we have
shaped nature, and it has shaped us, and we are an em ergent property o f
 Landscapes L o s t a n d F o u n d j \

this relation sh ip . W e ca n n o t suddenly act as i f we are separate. I f we do

so, we sim ply recreate the w asteland inside o f ourselves.
T h e world we see, th rou gh o u r window, o r from space above, is shaped
by us. F ro m a d istan ce, it is, o f cou rse, larger th an any obviou s shaping.
B u t th is is n o t o u r scale. O u r scale is m ore lo cal, th ou gh the effects are
o fte n greater. W h a t we see around us has been shaped by us. A g ricu ltu ral
lan d scap es are o b v io u sly created , w h eth er rice terra ces u p o n an A sian
h ills id e , o r p ra irie fa rm s in th e N o r t h A m e ric a n p la in s , o r r o llin g
E u ro p ean p atch w ork fields. B u t even m o st ‘n atu ral’ o r ‘w ild ’ landscapes
are a lso c r e a tio n s o f th is in te r a c tio n . F ew fo r e s ts are tru ly p r is tin e
w ild ern esses. M o s t arise fro m so m e hum an shap ing , even the A m azo n
rainforests and the n o rth ern tundra. Strangely, m o st con tem p orary debates
o n h u m an —nature in tera ctio n s fo cu s on how nature has been shaped by
us, w ith o u t fully accep tin g the seco n d p a rt o f the eq u atio n : th at we, to o ,
m u st be shaped by th is co n n e c tio n , by nature itself.
W e are also shaped by o u r system s o f fo o d p ro d u ctio n , as they, in turn,
shape nature, and rely u p on its resources fo r success. W e are affected by
w hat we know a b o u t these system s — w h eth er we approve o r disapprove,
w h eth er th e fo o d system is lo c a l o r d is ta n t. W e are, o f co u rse , fu n d ­
am entally shaped by the fo o d itself. W ith o u t fo o d , we are clearly n oth in g.
I t is n o t a lifestyle ad d -o n o r a fash io n statem en t. T h e ch o ices we m ake
a b o u t fo o d a ffe ct b o th us, intrinsically, and nature, extrinsically. W e m ake
o n e se t o f c h o ic e s , an d we en d up w ith a d ie t-r e la te d d isea se an d a
dam aged en v iro n m en t. W e m ake a n o th e r set, and we eat h ealthily, and
su stain nature th rou g h sustainab le system s o f fo o d p ro d u ctio n . In tru th ,
it is n o t such a sim ple d ich o to m y as th is. B u t o n ce we a cc e p t th e idea o f
th e fu n d am en tal nature o f th is co n n e c tio n , th en we s ta rt to see o p tio n s
fo r p erso n al, co llectiv e and g lo b al recovery.
T h e co n n e ctio n is p h ilo so p h ical, sp iritu al and physical. W e are buying
a system o f p ro d u ctio n w hen we purchase its fo o d . In e ffe ct, we eat the
view and co n su m e th e landscape. Clearly, th e m ore we co n su m e o f one
th ing, the m ore it is likely to be produced. B u t i f the system o f p rod u ction
has negative side effe cts, and cares n o t a b o u t th e resources u p on w hich it
relies, th en we have taken a p ath leading, ultim ately, to disaster. O n the
o th e r h a n d , i f o u r c h o ic e s m ean m o re fo o d c o m e s fro m sy ste m s o f
agricu ltu ral p ro d u ctio n th a t increase th e sto ck o f nature, th at im prove the
en v iro n m en t w hile at th e sam e tim e p ro d u cin g th e fo o d , th en th is is a
d ifferen t path — a path towards sustainability. W e m ust now shape th is new
p ath . W e w ill, by w alking it, also change ourselves. W e w ill ad a p t and
evolve, and new co n n e c tio n s w ill be established.
N a tu re is am ended and reshaped th rou g h our co n n e c tio n s — b o th fo r
th e bad and fo r th e g o o d . B u t I am w o rried , to o , as th e w o rst k in d o f
12 A g r i-C u ltu r e

reshaping occurs when nature is destroyed, or ignored, and then recreated

in a ‘them ed’ context. D o n o t w orry about the losses, we m ight be saying,
we can m ake it b e tte r than the o rig in al. W h e n nature is them ed , the
outcom e is grim : plants and trees are made from plastic, sand is laid down
by the m illions o f tonnes to create new beaches, and rocks are sprayed with
cem ent to loo k m ore ‘natural’.1'’ But this should n o t dim inish the value
o f nature as an escape, ultim ately a mystery, and an ‘oth erness’ from life
in the city. It is an imagined world, as well as a real world full o f great
m eaning and significance.

T h is D isconnected D ualism

Is nature p art o f us, and we a part o f a grander schem e? O r are we, as

hu m ans, som eh ow separate? T h e s e are q u estio n s th at have exercised
philosophers, scientists and theologists through the ages, and particularly
since the Enlightenm ent, when N ew ton s m echanics and D escartes’ ‘nature
as m achine’ helped to set out a new way o f thinking for Europeans. T h e
result has been the gradual ero sion o f co n n ectio n s to nature and the
emergence, in many people s m inds, o f two separate entities — people and
nature.
D u rin g recen t years, w ith grow ing co n cern s fo r su stainability , the
en v iron m en t, and b io d iversity , m any d iffe re n t ty p o lo g ies have been
developed to categorize shades o f deep- to shallow -green thinking. A rne
N a ess sees shallow eco lo g y , fo r exam ple, as an approach cen tred on
efficiency o f resource use, whereas deep ecology transcends conservation
in favour o f biocentric values. O th er typologies include D onald W orster’s
im perial and A rcadian ecology, and the resource and h o listic schools o f
co n se rv a tio n . F o r so m e, there is an even m ore fu n d am en tal sch ism :
whether nature exists independently o f us, o r whether it is characterized
as p o st-m o d e rn o r as p a rt o f a p o st-m o d e rn c o n d itio n . N a tu re to
scien tific ecologists exists.T o p ost-m od ern ists, though, it is all a cultural
co n stru ctio n . T h e tru th is, surely, th a t nature does exist, bu t th at we
socially constru ct its m eaning to us. Such meanings and values change over
tim e, and betw een different groups o f people.20
T h ere are many dangers in the persistent dualism that separates humans
from nature. It appears to suggest th at we can be objective and indep­
endent observers, rather than part o f the system and inevitably bound up
in it. Everything we know about the world, we know because we interact
with it, o r it with u s.T h u s, i f each o f our views is unique, we should listen
to the accou n ts o f others and observe carefully th eir actions. A noth er
problem is that nature is seen as having boundaries — the edges o f parks
 L and scap es L o s t an d F o u n d i 3

o r protected areas. A t the landscape level, this creates d ifficu lties because
the whole is always m ore im p o rtan t than each part, and diversity is an
im portant o u tc o m e .'1
T h is leads inevitably to the idea o f enclaves — social enclaves such as
reservations, barrios or Chinatow ns, and natural enclaves such as national
parks, wildernesses, sites o f special scien tific interest, protected areas or
z oos. Enclave thinking leads us away from accepting the connectivity o f
nature and people. It appears to suggest that biodiversity and conservation
can be in one place, and productive agricultural activities in another.22 So,
is it acceptable to cause damage in m ost social and natural landscapes,
provided you leave a few tasty m orsels at the edges? Surely n o t. T h e s e
enclaves will always be under threat at the borders, or sim ply be to o small
to be ecologically or socially viable. T h e y also act as a sop to those with
a conscience — we can ju stify the wider d estruction i f we fashion a small
space in which natural history can persist.
By continuing to separate hum ans and nature, the dualism also appears
to suggest that we can invent sim ple technologies that intervene to reverse
the damage caused by this very d u alism .T h e greater vision, and the m ore
d ifficu lt to define, involves lo o k in go at the w hole and seeking C? ways
/ to
redesign it. T h e Cartesian ‘e ith e r /o r ’ between hum ans and nature remains
a strange co n cep t to many hum an cultures. It is only m od ernist thinking
that has separated hum ans from nature in the first place, putting us up
as distant controllers. M o st peoples do n o t externalize nature in this way.
From the Asheninha o f Peru to the forest dwellers o f form er Zaire, people
see them selves as just one part o f a larger whole. T h e ir relationships with
nature are dialectical and holistic, based on ‘b o th /w ith ’ rather than ‘eith er/
o r’.23
F o r the A rakm but o f the Peruvian rainforest, Andrew G ray says: ‘no
species is isolated; each is part o f a living collectivity binding human, animal and spirit’.
M ythologies and rituals express and embed these inter-relationships, both
at the practical level, such as through the num ber o f anim als a hu nter
may kill and how the m eat should be shared, and at the spiritual level, in
which ‘the distinction between animal, human and spirit becomes blurred’. O n e o f the
best known o f these visible and invisible co n n ectio n s is the Australian
A b o rig in a l p e o p le s’ D rea m tim es. A b o rig in a l p eo p le have in h ab ited
Australia for 3 0 ,0 0 0 years or m ore, during which tim e som e 2 5 0 different
language groups developed intim ate relations w ith their own landscapes.
David B enn ett says:

Aboriginal peoples hold that there is a direct connection between themselves and their
ancestral beings, and because they hold that their country and their ancestral beings
are inseparable, they hold that there is a direct connection between themselves and
their country.24
J4 A g r i- C ulture

T h ese connections are woven into the Dream tim e, or the Dream ing, which
in turn shapes the norm s, values and ideals o f people within the landscape.
Bach A boriginal group has its own stories about the creation o f their
land by their ancestors, and these stories connect people with todays land.
Such land is non-transferable. It is n o t a com m od ity; therefore, it cannot
be traded. Events to o k place here, and people invested their lives and built
enduring co nn ectio ns — so no one owns it; or, rather, everyone does. As
B en n ett also savs: ‘those who use the land have a collective responsibility to protect;
sustainably manage and maintain their “country”'. H ow sad that those who came
later showed so little o f this responsibility and little collective desire to
p ro tect what was already present.

W ilderness Ideas

T h e idea o f the w ilderness struck a chord during the m id 1 9 th century,

w ith the influential writers H enry D av id T h o reau and Joh n M u ir setting
ou t a new philosophy for our relations w ith nature. T h is grew out o f a
recognition o f the value o f w ildlands fo r p eo p les w ell-being. W ith o u t
them , we are nothing; with them , we have life .T h o re a u fam ously said in
1 8 5 1 : ‘in wildness is the preservation o f the world’. M u ir, in turn, indicated that:
‘wildness is a necessity; and mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as
fountains o f timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains o f life’. But, as R oderick
N ash, M a x Oelschlaeger, S im o n Scham a and many oth er com m entators
have pointed out, these concerns for wilderness represented m uch m ore
than a defence o f unencroached lands.25 T h e y involved the constru ction
o f a deeper idea — an im agination o f som ething that never really existed,
bu t w hich proved to be hugely su ccessfu l in reaw akening, in N o r th
A m erican and European consciences, the fundam ental value o f nature.
D eb ates have since raged over w hether ‘discovered’ landscapes were
‘virgin’ lands or ‘widowed’ ones, left behind after the death o f indigenous
peoples. D id wildernesses exist, o r did we create them? D o n ald W orster,
environmental historian, points out for N o rth Am erica that ‘neither adjective
will quite do, f o r the continent was f a r too big and diverse to be so simply gendered and
personalized’.lh In o th er w ords, ju st because they co n stru cte d th is idea
does n o t mean to say it was an error. N o n eth eless, they were wrong to
imply that the wildernesses in, say, Yosem ite were untouched by the human
hand; these landscapes and h ab itats were d elib erately co n stru cted by
A hw ah neech ee and o th e r N ativ e A m e rican s and th e ir m an ag em en t
practices in order to enhance valued fauna and flora.
H enry D a v id T h o rea u developed his idea o f people and their cultures
as bein g intricately em bed ded in nature as a fu n d am ental critiq u e o f
 L and scap es L o s t an d F o u n d i 5

m echanical ideas that had separated nature from its observers. H is was
an organic view o f the conn ections between people and nature.27 In his
Natural History, T h o rea u celebrates learning by ‘direct intercourse and sympathy’,
and ad vocates a s c ie n tific w isdom th a t arises from lo ca l know ledge
accumulated from experience, com bined with the science o f induction and
d e d u ctio n . H ow ever, he still invokes th e core idea o f w ild ern ess as
untouched by hum ans, even though his hom e state o f M assachusetts had
been colonized just two centuries earlier and had a long history o f ‘tam ing’
b o th nature and local N ative Am ericans.
N ature is som ething to which we can escape as individuals. T h o reau
celebrates the rhythm s o f walking and careful observation. H e:

. . .looked with awe at the ground. . . H ere was no m an’s gardens, hut the
unhandselled globe. It was not lawn, nor pasture, not mead, nor woodland, not lea,
nor arable, not wasteland. It was the fresh and natural surface o f the planet Earth,
as it was madeforever and ever.

T h e im portant thing to note here is that the elegiac narrative o f conn ect­
ions and intrinsic value had a huge influence on readers; and perhaps it
is a small price to pay that T h o reau focused on the ‘unhandselled globe’
and the ‘fresh and natural’ to the exclusion o f oth er constru cted natures.
F o r these woods were, o f course, shaped in some way by previous peoples
— they are an o u tco m e o f b o th p eo p le and natu re, n o t a rem nan t o f
prim ary w ilderness until he happened along.2*
T h e question ‘is a landscape wild, or is it managed’ is perhaps the wrong
one to ask, as it encourages unnecessary and lengthy argument. W h a t is
m ore im portant is the no tio n o f human intervention in a nature o f which
we are part. So m etim es such intervention m eans doing nothing at all —
leaving a w hole land scape in a ‘w ild’ state — o r perhaps it m eans ju st
p ro te c tin g the la st rem ain in g tree in an u rban n e ig h b o u rh o o d o r a
hedgerow on a field boundary. P referably, in terv en tio n sh ou ld m ean
sensitive management, with a light touch on the landscape. O r it may mean
heavy reshaping o f the land, for the good o r the bad.
So , it does n o t m atter w hether untouched and pristine wildernesses
actually exist. N ature exists w ithout us; w ith us it is shaped and reshaped.
M o st o f what exists today does so because it has been influenced explicitly
or im plicitly by the hands o f humans, mainly because our reach has spread
as our num bers have grown, and because our consu m p tion patterns have
com pounded the effect. B u t there are still places th at seem truly wild,
and these exist at very d ifferen t scales and tou ch us in d ifferen t ways.
Som e are on a contin ental scale, such as the A ntarctic. O th ers are entirely
J 6 A g r i-C u ltu r e

local: a woodland am idst farm ed fields, a salt marsh along an estuary, a

m ysterious urban garden —all touched w ith private and special m eanings.
T h is suggests that wild nature and wilderness can exist on a personal
scale. I f we find a m o m e n ts peace on an hour’s walk across a meadow by
the river, does it m atter that this is a shaped nature, and not a wild one?
W ild ern ess is an idea, and it is a deep and appealing one. Som e shaping
o f landscape can be so subtle that we hardly notice. N igel C o o p er asks
how natural is a nature reserve, and identifies a range o f places where
co n cep tio n s o f nature are located in the B ritish land scape, inclu ding
biodiversity reserves, wilderness areas, historic countryside parks, and what
he calls ‘com panion places’. In our alm ost entirely farmed landscape, where
nature is as m uch a product o f agriculture as it is an input, the effo rts to
recognize and conserve biodiversity and wilderness are varied. A ll o f these
are as much treasured by the people who make or experience them as those
who gaze upon the wildest forests, savannahs or m ountains.29
In all o f these situations, we are a part, connected; we affect nature and
land, and are affected by it. T h is is a d ifferen t p o sitio n to on e which
suggests that w ilderness is untouched, pristine, and so som ehow better
because it is separated from hum ans — who, irony o f ironies, prom ptly
want to go there in large num bers precisely because it appears separate.
B ut an histo rical understanding o f what has happened to produce the
landscape o r nature we see before us m atters enorm ously when we use an
idea to form a vision that clashes with the truth. O n e idea may be that a
place is wild, and so local people should be removed from it. A noth er idea
is that a place is ripe fo r developm ent, and so a group o f people should
be dispossessed. T h e term w ilderness has com e to m ean m any things,
usually im plying an absence o f people and the presence o f wild anim als;
but it also contains som ething to do with the feelings and em otions that
are provoked in people. R od erick N ash takes a particularly E u ro centric
perspective in saying ‘any place in which a person feels stripped o f guidance, lost and
perplexed may be called a wilderness’, though this definition may also be true
o f som e harsh urban landscapes.30 T h e im p o rtant thing is n o t defining
what it really is, bu t w hat we th in k it is, and then telling stories about it.

S tories and M em ories o f the W ild

T h e landscape is full o f stories and meanings that we have made o f stones

o r trees, o f plants and rivers, m em ories that we have woven together with
beginnings and e n d s.T h is creativity gives extra life to nature and how we
react to it, and how we are shaped by it. B ut how good are we at still telling
these stories? Ben O k ri, in his Joys o f Story Telling, says o f A frica:
 L an dscapes L o st and Found j 7

Everything is a story, everything a repository o f stories, spiders•, the wind, a leaf, a

tree, the moon, silence, a glance, a mysterious old man, an owl at midnight, a sign,
a white stone on a branch, a single yellow bird o f omen, an inexplicable death,
unprompted laughter; an egg by the river; are all impregnated with stories. In Africa,
things are stories, they store stories, and they yield stories at the right moment of
dreaming, when we are open to the secret side o f objects and m oods*1

I have my own A frican stories, also having been bo rn in N igeria, and then
spending my form ative childhood years th ere.T h in k in g about that tim e,
I realize that many o f my m ost vivid early m em ories are o f encounters
with anim als. Perhaps it is th at way with all children, or perhaps it was
the place. I recall m eeting a snake in the bath room , chancing on a lion
while walking in the bush, being chased by a sco rp io n in a long-em pty
swim m ing p ool. I rem em ber huge rats downed with a shot gun, and tail
to jaw as long as I was tall, and a ferocious serval cat prowling on the r o o f
u n til it, to o, was sh o t. T h e re were songbirds in the aviary, large dogs,
m onkeys as pets, itinerant donkeys, and great silen t fru it bats at dusk.
Som e o f these m em ories could be no m ore than childhood constructions,
though flickering reels o f super-8 film still testify to many truths.
W h e th e r A frica has m ore stories than another place, o r even to o many,
as O k ri hints, m atters less than the fact that industrialized landscapes have
lo st many o f their stories. W e no longer see the deep significance; we no
lo n g e r know th e old ways. M an y o f th ese are dark and well w o rth
forgetting. But the stories we have written on the industrialized landscape
in recent decades have been bad, perhaps m uch worse. T h e re is m eaning
in the landscape, and as O liver R ackh am has put it: 7 am especially concerned
with the loss o f memory. The landscape is a record o f our roots and the growth o f
civilisation\32
M any writers have suggested th at we are in between ages, on the point
o f discovery or rediscovery. W e have fo rg otten so m uch abou t hum an
linkages with the rest o f nature, and about our fundam ental dependencies.
D avid Suzuki says:

Wefeel ourselves to have escaped the limits o f nature. . . Food is often highly processed
and comes in packages, revealing little o f its origins in the soil or tell-tale signs of
blemishes, blood, feathers or scales. Weforget the source o f our water and energy,
the destination o f our garbage or our sewage. We forget.

H ere is som ething vital. W h en we forget these truths, we com e easily to

believe another story — that we have the Earth under our con trol. Suzuki
says: cwe mustfin d a new T h is has been T h o m a s B erry s m ission, too.
H e says: ‘It’s all a question o f story. We are in trouble just now because we do not have
j 8 A g r i- C ulture

a good story. We are in between stories. The old story, the account o f how wef i t into it, is
no longer effective. Yet we have not learned the new story!*4 In E ast Anglia, hom e to
one o f the two giants o f w orking horses, the S u ffo lk Punch, horsem en
looked upon the landscape and saw it full o f wild plants w ith vital uses.
Today, the horses have gone, replaced by tractors and com bines, and the
useful plants are merely weeds. W e have forgotten. Perhaps this is progress?
O r perhaps we have to find new ways o f valuing, using and constru ctin g
the nature around us?
I t is sad that so much knowledge o f nature, its uses and significance,
has slipped away; such stories take tim e to build. T h e y arise from the
experiences o f the many, from the insights o f a few, and from the sharing
o f such significance. W h e n we no longer find the need or desire to tell
stories about nature, then the thread is broken. T h a t, o f course, plays into
the hands o f those who would cut down the tree, o r pollute the water, or
allow the so ils to slid e in to th e river. B u t where there are co llectiv e
co n n e ctio n s, through farm ers w orking together, o r consum ers linked
directly to a farm , or walkers strolling together across a landscape, then
it is possible to create new stories. Perhaps it is possible even to rediscover
som e o f those stories assumed now to be lo s t.T h e problem is that there,
strangely, still persists am ongst m any o f us a dislocation between trad­
itional knowledge o f land and nature and what we m ight term m odern
scien tific knowledge. W e com m only hold apparently co n flictin g know ­
ledge side by side w ith ou t feeling particularly harm ed — often , in fact,
w ithin the sam e scien tific discipline.
A decade ago, on a training course in Kenya for governm ent officers,
I asked p articip ants to list exam ples o f their trad ition al know ledge o f
nature. O u r in ten tion was to encourage highly trained professionals to
reflect on the value o f the knowledge and insights o f local people — not
to say that it was b etter knowledge; ju st th at it was w orth listening to and
incorporatin g with other, m ore scien tific, sources. A rem ote com m unity
can n o t know the detailed m echanism s by which legum es interact w ith
rh izobia in the soil to fix atm ospheric nitrogen; nor will they know the
properties o f a chem ical that pollutes a well. W h a t they know will have
been built up from accumulated individual and collective experiences, fixed
in tim e through story-telling. In this one session, baking beneath the hard
equatorial sun, we listed m ore than 4 0 w ell-accepted idiom s, ideas and
stories. M any were to do w ith trees. In som e places, the bark o f Acacia is
used to treat m alaria, and its ash to cure m ilk and give it good taste. Ash
from oth er trees is sprinkled on crops to co n trol various pests and weeds.
O n e tree, Croton, is n o t perm itted to grow near houses because o f the b elief
that som eone will die i f roots enter the house. Elsewhere, the w ood from
certa in trees is never used fo r beds, as it is believed to m ake w om en
 L and scap es L o s t an d F o u n d j 9

in fertile.T h e Erythrina tree is accorded magical properties in curing mumps

in children. It is true that some o f these ideas are just superstitions —stories
w ithout a sound em pirical base. But drawing the line between what may
only be an unfounded superstition and som ething with m ore than a degree
o f truth is n o t easy.
In B ritain , m o st fo lk lo re abo u t plants and anim als has its ro o ts in
C eltic, R om an, A nglo-Saxon and N o rse traditions that date from 1 0 0 0
to 2 0 0 0 years ago. So m e trees are associated w ith m agic, such as the oak,
and others with repelling w itches, such as the holly (o r iron tree), which
is also a p ro te cto r against lig h tn in g and fires. O th e r im p o rta n t trees
include elder (a sacred tree in C eltic religion), ash (well known for curing
illnesses), birch (fo r protection against w itches), haw thorn (fo r good m ilk
yields and lightning pro tectio n), and yew (w ith its associations with death
as a graveyard plant).
In his Flora Britannica, R ich a rd M a b ey su g gests th a t at least 5 0 0
churchyards in E ngland and W ales, ou t o f 1 2 ,0 0 0 surviving churches,
contain yew trees that are at least as old as the church its e lf/5 Such ancient
trees, living fo r up to 1 0 0 0 years, are associated with the accum ulation
o f m any m em ories and custom s. T h e oak, o f course, has special signif­
icance: the shanty 'h eart o f oak are our ships, heart o f oak are our m en’
has been part o f national folklore for over two centuries. O ak leaves garland
and disguise carvings o f the pagan ‘green man’, still seen in many churches.
Som e uses o f plants are tied to collective and family custom s, particularly
g atherin g bilberry , also know n as w h o rtleb erry and w hinberrv, w ith
families from Devon, Som erset, Shropshire, Surrey, the Isle of M an and the
Pennines travelling up to the m oors in August to gather berries fo r hom e
use. People engaged in these activities take great care. O n e west country
w om an says: ‘we gathered it carefully, not haphazardly, remembering there was a
tomorrow’.
W ild plants may no longer have livelihood relevance; w ithout them ,
m ost Britons would n o t suffer hunger, o r lack for m edicines. But they still
retain an encouragingly deep cultural significance. W e may buy plastic-
wrapped fru it and microwave meals, where food is n o t m uch m ore than
a co m m od ity ; bu t m any wild plants still have a w ider significance. As
M ab ey puts it:

Plants have had symbolic significance as well as utilitarian meanings since the
beginnings o f civilization. They have been tokens o f birth, death, harvest, and
celebration, and omens o f good (and bad) luck. They are powerful emblems o f place
and identity, too, not just o f nations, but o f villages, neighbourhoods, even personal
retreats.
20 A g r i- C ulture

H o lly and m istletoe carry m agical m eanings, and are associated with both
pagan and Christian festivals. M ay blossom brings bad luck when brought
into the house; daisies are fashioned into chains by children; algae and pine
cones are used for weather forecasting; weld and woad for yellow and blue
dyes; sam phire for glass-m aking; silverweed for aching feet; junipers and
sloes fo r flavouring gin; hellebores fo r treating w orm s, and nettles for
arthritis; and holly w ood is valued for its power over horses. L o o k hard,
and it is possible to find traditions associated with m ost plants and animals
—some strange and m ythical, others with m ore obvious em pirical truths.36
T h e knowledge we have about plants and animals is extraordinary.They
are a co n n ectio n betw een us and place, betw een m em ory and identity,
betw een m yth and m ean in g . N o t all are tra d itio n a l o r o ld . R e c e n t
years have, for exam ple, seen the widespread use o f young crack willow
to make living seats and cribs, and red poppies are worn to rem em ber war
casualties, orig in ating from W o rld W ar I. T h e im p o rtan t thing is that
plants and animals play roles in culture beyond those o f obvious econom ic
purpose. But when the plant is lost forever, the tree is cut down or the weed
removed, then the culture associated w ith it goes, too . Equally, when the
cultural knowledge disappears, or is replaced with som ething else, then
another reason for preserving biological diversity is lost. It is sad that so
many rural custom s and festivals no longer carry any significance in our
m odern world. A t one tim e, they were a central part o f com m unity life.37
B ut such diversity o f knowledge and m eaning can only arise when the
landscape is its e lf diverse. A monoscape o f highly controlled and large-scale
farm ing has no room for wild foods or their cultural significance. It neither
wants them nor needs them . S o what is lost when they go is not just a weed
or two. It is som ething o f a culture — a conn ection between people and
land lost forever, save fo r a few lingering m em ories in dusty books.

Language and M em ory on the F ro n tier

M any stories about nature and our E arth are embedded in local languages.
Language and land are part o f p eo p les id en tities, and both are under
threat. T h e re are 5 0 0 0 —7 0 0 0 oral languages spoken today, only about a
h a lf o f which have m ore than 1 0 ,0 0 0 speakers each.38 T h e rest, about
3 4 0 0 languages, are spoken by only 8 m illion people, about one tenth o f
I per cen t o f the w orld s p o p u la tio n .T h e top ten spoken languages now
com prise about h a lf o f the world s population. A great deal o f linguistic
diversity is thus m aintained by a large num ber o f sm all and dw indling
com m unities. T h ey , like their local ecologies and cultural traditions, are
under threat. H ere, there is a vicious circle. As languages com e under
 L a n d sc a pes L o s t and F ound 2 1

threat, so do the stories that people tell about their environm ents. Local
knowledge does not easily translate into m ajority languages, and moreover,
as Luisa M a ffi states: ‘along with the dominant language usually comes a dominant
culturalfram ework which begins to take over’.39
T h u s , we increasingly lack the cap acity to d escribe changes to the
environm ent and nature, even i f we are able to observe them . Slowly, it
all slips away. G ary N abhan and colleagues describe how the children o f
the T o h o n o O ’odham (fo rm erly known as the P apago) o f the So no ran
D esert in the south-w est U S are losing bo th a conn ection with the desert
and w ith their language and culture. Even though they hear the language
spoken at hom e, they are n o t exposed to traditional story-tellin g, and are
no longer able to name com m on plants and animals in O ’odham —though
they could easily name large animals o f the A frican savanna seen on tele­
vision. N abhan called this process o f erosion th e ‘extinction o f experience’.40
T h ese losses, too, are hastened by land degradation or removal for other
purposes. A lso in the So no ran D esert, Felipe M o lin a found that his own
people, the Yaqui o rY o em e, were unable to perform trad ition al rituals
because o f the disappearance o f m any local plants. Land is being settled
by non-Y oem e and converted to o th er uses.41 Biodiversity slips away, and
only the local indigenous people no tice. B ut they are powerless in the
global scheme o f th in g s.T h eir intim ate spiritual and physical conn ection
w ith nature is under threat; yet, we on the outside m ay never n o tice it
disappear.

Yaquis have always believed that a close communication exists among all the
inhabitants o f the Sonoran Desert world in which they live: plants, animals, birds,
fishes, even rocks and springs. All o f these come together as part o f one living
community which Ya<\uis call the huya ania, the wilderness world.42

T h e se problem s are all connected . Luisa M a ffi adds:

The Yoeme elders’ inability to correctly perform rituals due to environmental

degradation thus contributes to precipitating language and knowledge loss and creates
a vicious circle that in turn affects the local ecosystem 43

T h e co n cep t o f the fron tier suggests to me a place where people test out
existing ideas on a new environm ent. As a result, bo th change. W illiam
C ronon and fellow historians indicate that self-shaping occurs rapidly on
the fron tier.T h e different identities o f groups arriving from distant places,
and those o f people already present, clash and blend, merge and stand
apart. O f the Am erican frontier, they say: ‘Self-shaping was a part o f the very
earliestfrontier encounters and continues as a central challenge o f regional life right down
22 A g r i- C ulture

to the present.’ People on the W estern frontier, as they pushed into what they
saw as a ‘wilderness’ a n d ‘free-land’, had ‘borrowed most o f their cultural values. . .
from Europe and older settlements back east [ T h e y reshaped nature and themselves.
T h e y also, o f course, im posed a new landscape on the old. T h ro u g h
conquest, the original owners were removed and corralled. N ew stories
and m ythologies emerged to give greater ju stification to these acts. O n e
set o f ideas about a landscape was replaced by another.44
T h e pioneering fron tier historian, Frederick Jackson Turner, though
p ro m o tin g m any ideas and views lon g sin ce show n to be w rong and
even dow nright racist, rightly indicated that the fron tier repeated itself.45
T h e frontier, where shaping o f nature and self-shaping o f societies are
co m b in ed w ith a d e stru ctio n o f existin g rela tio n sh ip s and cu ltu res,
expands today at a pace beyond the appreciation o f the m ajority. M o st
shaping does n o t bring benefits to us all, as the interwoven rug o f nature
and people is steadily pulled from beneath our feet. I am n o t concerned
here with defining exactly what is a fron tier or, indeed, where frontiers
exist. Its use as an idea lies in the no tio n that one set o f values about a
land com es rapidly to be im posed upon another. In m od ern tim es, the
fron tier is characterized both by the expansion o f m odern industrialized
agriculture, o r by the loss o f local associations and connectivity to the
la n d .T h e problem is that those pushing out the fron tier see it as progress;
those exposed to the invasion see m ainly d estruction and loss. O f course,
this applies, too, to the contem porary expansion o f sustainable agriculture.
W h e n W illiam Bradford stepped o f f the Mayflower, he saw a 'hideous and
desolate wilderness’.^ T h e pioneers at the fron tier were n o t only carving out
new lives, but battling it out with the wild country for survival. As Nash
pur it:

Countless diaries, addresses and memorials o f the fron tier period represented
wilderness as an ‘enemy’which had to be ‘conquered’, ‘subdued’an d ‘vanquished’by
a ‘pioneer arm y’. The same phraseology persisted into the present century.*7

In practice, o f course, there is always m ingling at the frontier, and what

we see is a fu n ctio n o f bo th sides’ capacity to shape and reshape. T h o s e
com ing along to the fron tier bring co nn ectio ns to old cultures, but also
new ideas about how to make im provem ents. R ecip ien ts at the fron tier
find new o p p o rtu n ities to trade, interact and learn. O u t o f these new
conn ections can com e new form s o f cross-cultural dialogue. In the early
no rth -east U S , for example, where the received story is one o f m isunder­
standing and conquest, the British and French learnt Iroqu ois languages,
p ro toco ls and m etaphors in order to aid trust and trading.48 B ut it is also
true that, in the end, there are clear winners and losers. As land beyond
 L a n d sc a pes L o s t and F ound 23

the frontier is seen as ‘free’, so it is taken, and this inevitably means co n flict
and violence. C ronon and colleagues say:

Sometimes, it was perpetrated by individuals, and sometimes by the military power

o f the state. Always, it drew dark lines on a landscape whose newly created borders
were defeated with bullets, blades and blood.49

Today, such fron tier experiences are played out in the rainforests, swamps,
hills and m ountains o f Latin A m erica, A lrica and Asia, and in the land­
scapes overwhelmed by m odern agricultural technologies and narratives.
W h a t is gained is one thing —m ore food. W h a t is lost has been to o often
invisible. Yet what is equally im p ortant are the cognitive frontiers inside
o f ourselves. W e each have a journey to travel i f we are to find new ways o f
protecting our world, while at the same tim e producing the food we need.

I t D oes M a tter W h o Tells the Story

W h o gets to tell the sto rie s m a tters greatly. E very p iece o f land or
landscape contains as many meanings and constructions as the people who
have interacted with it. A m odern industrialized landscape, let’s call it a
m onoscape, has few m eanings. By contrast, a diverscape has many. T h u s, a
single story o f the land is n o t the only story, though many would have
us believe it to be true. W h e n the Europeans first brought their visions
to the Pacific and Australasia, they saw the landscape and m et the people.
But they did n o t give them great value — th at is, beyond cu riosity and
m useum value. T h e y sought to save them , convert them , enslave them .
T h e y im posed their stories on the landscape — even though A boriginal
peoples in A ustralia had walked the land fo r at least 1 5 0 0 generations,
and had a ccu m u la ted ex trao rd in ary know led ge, u n d erstan d in g and
co m p ellin g sto rie s over tim e scales beyond any p ersistin g E u ro p ean
culture.50 As Paul C arter describes, C aptain C o o k and the ‘first arrivers’
and narrators saw an empty space that could be settled and civilized.51 T h e
Australian landscape was awaiting history, and new stories could be created
and im posed upon others. T h e y named all that they saw —in four m onths
over 1 0 0 bays, capes and isles. C arter says ‘for Cook, knowing and naming were
identical’. O n ce these discovered places had been nam ed fo r the first tim e,
so they were known. T h e landscape begins its process o f being reshaped.
C o o k sees, on deep black so ils, ‘as fine a meadow as ever was seen’. Su ch
meadows were rather like those o f hom e, and echoed Joh n M u ir’s observ­
ation o f ‘wild’ meadows in Yosem ite that were actually created by controlled
fires set by N ative Am ericans.
2 4 A g r i- C ulture

T h e nam ing o f the new, which was actually old, w ith the old from
elsewhere continued apace for decades, as explorers forced their way into
the interior, aim ing, as C arter put it, to ‘dignify even hints o f the habitable with
significant names. . . Possession o f the country depended. . . to some extent, on civilizing
the landscape, bringing it into orderly being’. T h e new story is told and w ritten,
and the old slips away w ithout notice. A t the tim e, few bothered to find
out about the local stories o f landscape, o f the song lines stretching across
bo th thousands o f years and thousands o f kilom etres. So ng lines wrap
nature and the landscape inextricably in to cu lture, id en tity and co m ­
munity. Take one away, and the w hole falls apart.
Today, 2 2 9 years after C o o k ’s landfall, I am standing with Phil and
Suzie G rice on their W estern Australian w ool and cereal farm . T h e y have
an e co lo g ic a lly lite ra te view o f th e lan d scap e. T h e y had seen w hat
happened through m odern farm ing, and where it had led their family and
neighbours. In a b r ie f two centuries, m od ern farm ing and land m anage­
m ent m ethods brought substantial econom ic benefit, but great harm , too,
to the environm ent and land. P hil says: ‘For two generations, the previous owner
and hisfather pushed back the frontier, removing nature and replacing it withfields. Now,
I ’m replanting native vegetation as fast as I can and afford’. T h e farm is in Lower
Balgarup catchm ent, 2 6 0 kilom etres south-w est o f Perth, set in a land­
scape o f ancient and deeply weathered soils. But in the blink o f an eye,
it has changed. In the 4 0 years to 1 9 9 0 , 8 5 per cen t o f all the natural
vegetation in the catchm ent was removed, with a profound im pact on both
hydrology and local biodiversity. So ils and water have becom e salinized,
and farm in g its e lf threaten ed. T h e co st o f expan sion o f the farm in g
fron tier has been d estruction o f the very resource upon which farm ers
relied.52
Eighteen farm ers set up the Lower Balgarup catchm ent group in 1 9 9 0 ,
covering an area o f som e 1 4 ,0 0 0 hectares. It is one o f 4 0 0 Land care
groups in W estern Australia. O n e o f the first actions o f the group was
to survey the area o f land d egradation because no one quite knew the
extent o f the p ro b lem .T h ey were shocked to find m ore than 6 0 0 hectares
o f land affected by dryland salinity and waterlogging. Since then, Phil and
his neighbours have planted 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 trees, constru cted 1 0 0 kilom etres
o f new fencing to protect creeks, and another 7 0 kilom etres o f drains and
banks, and put down land to perennial g rasses.T h e trees and grasses help
to pump groundw ater by evapotranspiration, so reducing salinity. B ut the
task for the whole landscape is still massive. T h ere are 19 m illion hectares
o f wheat and wool co u ntry in W estern A ustralia, and already nearly 2
m illion hectares have been lost to dryland salinity. By 2 0 1 0 , another 3
m illion hectares are expected to have been lost and 4 0 rural tow ns in the
wheat belt will have becom e vu ln erable.T h is ancient landscape, where the
 L a n d sc a pes L o s t and F ound 25

rocks o f the Yildirim block underlying the catchm ent are 2 .5 billion years
old, needs thorough redesigning. C an these farm ers, w ith their changed
ways o f thinking, now co n stru ct a new story?
O f course, what C o o k saw, and later M u ir in the Sierra Nevada, was
cond ition ed by what they knew. I f you believe in wildernesses, then you
will see one and nam e it so. I f you know a m eadow as part o f a pastoral
scene, so you will see one m ore readily. I f you see native vegetation simply
taking up space where fields could be, then you remove it. However, it is
a m istake to believe that the effect o f rewriting the landscape is only a one­
way process. As Bernard Sm ith indicates with regard to the ‘discovery’ o f
P a cific peoples during the 1 8 th century, th eir im p act on E u ro p e was
perhaps as great as the im pact o f European culture and diseases on the
P acific.53 W h e n th e T a h itia n , O m an i, arrived in England in 1 7 7 4 with
Captain Furneaux, according to Sm ith he ‘created a sensation. . . H e mingled in
fashionable circles with a natural grace and became a lion o f London society’. M o re
importantly, his presence provoked new dom estic criticism o f Em pire and
its ‘pilfered w ealth’, and even o f the sh ortcom in gs o f English society. A
decade later, the son o f the ch ie f o f one the Palau Islands accom panied
H enry W ilson back to England, again to much public acclaim and self-
criticism .
N onetheless, there persisted a subtle m isrepresentation o f the story
through landscape painting that, according to Sm ith , sought to ‘evoke in
new settlers an emotional engagement with the land that they had alienatedfrom its aboriginal
occupants’. T h e noble P acific islander, in trad ition al dress, o r engaged in
traditional cerem ony or dance, or the bo at full o f arriving heroes sensit­
ively stepping o n to the beach, hides the real story. Landings were m ore
o fte n a cco m p a n ied by guns and vio len ce, and lo n g -te rm dam age to
societies and nature. Such system atic disenfranchisem ent has clearly been
m ore com m on than sensitive interaction. G eorge M iles sim ilarly draws
attention to the lack o f voice given to Native Americans by incom ers. Even
though they had told their stories fo r centuries, suddenly they were silent,
nobly silent to som e, but m ore often — sadly even to the likes o f M ark
Tw ain — they were ‘silent, sneaking, treacherous looking’.*4
P art o f the problem was that m ost N ative Am ericans had a predom in­
antly verbal cu ltu re, w ith o u t alp h ab ets. T h e C h ero k ee alp h ab et, fo r
example, was only constructed by a young Cherokee, Sequoyah, in the early
I9 t h century. It led to the printing o f the first Native American newspaper
in 1 8 2 8 , which was so successful in telling its story that the authorities
o f G eorgia arrested its editors and confiscated the press six years later. It
then reappeared as the Cherokee Advocate in 1 8 4 3 , from th e C h ero k ee
national capital o f Talhequah, lasted until 1 8 5 4 , was closed down again,
reappeared again in the mid 1 8 7 0 s , and then endured until 1 9 0 6 , when
26 A g r i- C ulture

its 8 0 0 to 1 0 0 0 C h ero kee-o nly readers finally lost th eir only national
language paper. D u ring the 18th and 19th centuries, according to M iles,
nearly every Native American com m unity embraced opportunities to write
and read their own languages: ‘from the Micmacs o f Newfoundland to the Sioux
o f the plains, from the Apaches, Navajos and Yacjuis o f south-west and the Luisenos o f
California to the Aleuts and Eskimos o f the Atlantic’.
It is, o f course, easier to lose, in ten tio n ally o r by accid en t, stories
handed down by word o f m outh. O n ce they have gone, there is no one
to oppose those who d om inate with their own narrative. T h e n we forget
why one thing is present in a landscape, why it used to be valuable, and
what reasons we may have for loo kin g after it.

C oncluding C om m ents

In th is ch a p ter, m y aim has been to set the scen e fo r a su stain ab le

agricultural revolution by indicating that agricultural and food systems,
and the landscapes they shape, are a com m on heritage to us all. F o r all
our hum an history, we have been shaped by nature, while shaping it in
return. In recent tim es, that shaping has been destructive, with food seen
as a c o m m o d ity and no lo n g er p a rt o f cu ltu re. In ou r m o d ern and
industrial age, we are losing our languages, m em ories and stories about
land and natu re. T h e s e d isco n n e ctio n s m a tte r because they serve to
prom ote a persistent dualism — that nature is separate from people, that
nature can be conserved in wildernesses, and that econom ies can succeed
w ith out regard to the fundam ental significance o f agricultural and food
systems.
 Chapter 2

Mono scapes

T h e D arker Side o f the Landscape

T h e term ‘landscape’ first entered the English language from the N ether­
lands in the 1 6 th century, at the tim e when the D u tch were actively
m anipulating and redesigning their lands with new engineering m ethods
for drainage. Lanischap, like the Germ an landschajt, meant both a place where
people lived, as well as a pleasing object. Landscapes have inspired painters
and poets in all cultures, and their designs have made many a view famous,
even iconic. Great movements have emerged, and we celebrate beauty and
perfection. O ften the representations themselves have gained worldwide
recognition, and so have entered cultures and becom e as im portant as the
real landscape itself.
It is all too easy, though, to forget that landscapes themselves are also
social constructions, with many different meanings bound up in them. A
grassy hillock catches the eye and sets o f f the distant w oods.To another
viewer, though, the hill is a burial mound with ancient significance, or,
worse, it hides the bodies o f a recent war crime. A field o f golden wheat
28 A g r i- C ultu re

stretches to a European horizon, and could yield 12 to 15 tonnes on every

hectare in a good year. Yet, people still go hungry. T h e m odern agricultural
revolution o f the second h a lf o f the 2 0 th century transformed landscapes
worldwide, and brought unprecedented levels o f food production. W orld
food production grew by 1 4 5 per cent during the 4 0 years to the year
2 0 0 0 , and even per person by 2 5 per cent, despite considerable population
grow th.1 But as we all should know, this extraordinary ‘success’ still masks
the persistent hunger o f 8 0 0 m illion people.
Landscapes hide many ills, acts o f unkindness and savagery perpetrated
by people on other people. W e look upon old landscapes with pleasure,
and yet they can hide so much. O ften they em body som ething deeply
im p o rtan t to a whole culture: the dark, m ysterious forests o f central
Europe, or the wide prairies and steppes o f N o rth America or Central
Asia, or the spectacular rice terraces o f Asian hillsides. Stephen Daniels
and Denis Cosgrove say: ‘a landscape is a cultural image’, which implies both
observation and separation, som ething with many codes and levels o f
understanding.2
T h e art historian John Barrell details som e o f the am bivalences in
landscapes in The Dark Side of the Landscape.3T h e English pastoral landscape
projects images o f harm ony with nature and o f continuity; this was a
foundation for R om antic notions o f landscape. Yet, look closely, and the
work o f many painters raises questions about the relations between the
land and people, and between people and people, particularly between the
rich and poor. T h ese questions apply widely. D uring the 18th and 19th
centuries, many painters were directly com m issioned by the wealthy, so
it is hardly surprising that they should tend to present a partial construction
o f the landscape. Few painters depicted the country house and gentleman
landowner in the same territory as the poor cottager. It is either the house
in the landscape, or it is the labourer, hard at work, and somehow happy
to be there. T h e labourers work continuously, and i f they stop working,
you suspect the vision m ight fade. As Barrell put it: ‘it is not just that the rich
have the power to he benevolent. . . but that the act of benevolence is an act o f repression.’
In these landscapes, there is paradox and tension. W e are looking at
cultural landscapes that are deeply rooted and persistent, or that at least
come to embody timelessness. But the social aspects can imply a persistence
of deeply rooted inequality and povertv.This is a good reason for believing
that the conservation o f a landscape w ithout social change is only h alf
o f the picture. As we shall see later, all the recent significant progress with
sustainable agriculture involves both social and natural transform ations.
D uring this period, however, the idea o f creating a harm onious and
w ell-organized so ciety was founded on co n tin u o u s hard w ork, and
labourers who, according to Barrell, ‘do not step between us and the landscape —
 M o n o scapbs 29

they keep their place’. T h e y are also obliged to feign a ‘cheerfulness in adversity’.
O f course, there are clearly d ifferen t in terp retation s. So m e would say
people are depicted as one with nature, while others p o in t out that the
people depicted do nothing but work, and would be disciplined i f they
stop p ed to gaze upon the view. T h e problem is th at the p astoral and
R om antic notions ol landscape com prise a ‘vision of rural life whereby thefruits
o f nature are easily come by more or less without effort’, and this is clearlv untrue.
A ccording to Barrell, great artists such as G ainsborough, whether by
accident or design, ‘naturalize the extreme poverty o f the poor — he presents it as a
fix tu re in a changeless world which is the best o f all worlds’. N onetheless, there is
another im p o rtan t truth in these landscapes. A rtists only worked with
diversity, such as the big house, ruined abbey, o r church fram ed with trees;
the landowner and shadowed worker; the woodlands, meadows, cornfields
and ploughed lands, pastures and m eadows. Land scape art is no th in g
w ithout diversity. It is the loss o f natural diversity in the landscape that
is one o f the tragedies o f m od ern industrialized agriculture.4

Exclusions from the English C om m ons

T h e landscape itse lf is a type o f com m on property. It can be enjoyed and

appreciated if, o f course, you are allowed to see it. T h e idea o f com m ons
im plies co n n ectio n , so m eth in g people can enjoy eith er collectively or
individually and from which they derive value. O ver the centuries, two
types o f co m m o n m an ag em en t em erged in E u ro p e. T h e s e were the
com m on or op en-field system s o f cropland, which persisted for 1 0 0 0
years, and th e co m m o n m an ag em en t o f w ild resou rces, w ood land s,
pastures, wastes, rivers and coasts. In these systems, local people held rights
for grazing, cutting peat for fuel (tu rbaries), cu tting tim ber for housing
(estovers), grazing acorns and beech m ast (pannage), and fishing (piscary).
O ver the years, however, both types o f com m on cam e to be steadily
enclosed and privatized, m ostly as a result o f the actions o f landowners
and the state, who were feverishly driven by the prevailing view that the
com m ons were in efficien t.T h e result was an extraordinary transform ation
o f the landscape, particularly during the 1 8 th and early 1 9 th centuries.
L ocal enclosure had occurred in the 17th century and earlier; but the process
acce lera ted w ith th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e p a rliam en tary en clo su re
acts, d ating from th e early 1 8 th century, w hich w itnessed 2 7 5 0 acts
until 1 8 4 5 — the date o f the last general enclosure act. A t the sam e tim e,
‘wastes’, heaths, m oors and com m on s were enclosed through 1 8 0 0 acts
between 1 7 6 0 and the 1 8 4 0 s .5 Com m issioners with extensive powers were
appointed to redesign the landscape in m ore than 3 0 0 0 parishes. As a
3 0 A g r i- C u lture

result, 2 .7 5 m illion hectares o f co m m o n land were enclosed , co m p risin g

1 .8 2 m illio n hectares o f o p en -field arable, and 0 .9 3 m illio n hectares o f
‘w astes’.T o put this in perspective, there are ab o u t 1 8 m illion hectares o f
agricultural land in the U K , o f w hich ju st 4 m illio n are cu rren tly under
arable farm in g , and a b o u t 0 .5 m illion still under co m m o n land .6
H isto ria n s have lon g d ocu m en ted the p o litica l and e co n o m ic forces
driving these enclosures, the powerful rh etoric used to su p p o rt the claim s
fo r n ation al progress, and the conseq uen ces fo r the wealthy and the poor.
A t the tim e, agricultural w riters were unanim ou s ab o u t the agricultural
benefits th at derived from individual, as op posed to co m m o n , o ccu p ation
o f land. M o s t ignored the social losses caused by enclosures, and m agn if­
ied the e c o n o m ic w aste o f the co m m o n use o f land — b o th arable and
‘w astes’. In his fam ous b o o k English Farming, L ord E rn ie records the views
o f d ozens o f no tab le w riters o f the 1 6 th and 1 7 th cen tu ries, inclu ding
F itz h erb e rt, H a rtlib , H o u g h to n , L ee, M o o re , N o rd en ,T a y lo r and T usser,
all o f w hom considered enclosure ‘law ful’ and ‘laudable’, and the co m m on s
w retched and w asteful.7
T h e narrative o f the tim e was u n com prom isin g. Silv an o u sT ay lo r said:
‘this poverty is due to G od’s displeasure at the idleness o j the commoners’. F ro m the
p u lp it, th e R everen d Jo sep h L ee op in ed th a t the co m m o n e rs fostered
laziness, and A dam M o o re said th at the co m m o n s were overstocked, and
were ‘pest houses o j diseasef o r cattle. Hither come the poor; the blitide, lame, tired, scabbed,
mangie, rotten, murrainous’. Jo h n N o rd en was equally on e-sid ed , saying th at
those w ho lived on wastes and co m m on s were 'peoplegiven to little or no labour,
living very hardly with oaten brew and sour whey. . . as ignorant o f any civil source o f
life as the very savages among the infidels, in a manner which is lamentable and f i t to be
reformed’. D esp ite these d om in an t views, it seem s extraord in ary th at one
sh o rt piece o f fo lk lo re verse sh ou ld have persisted to this day, as it seem s
to suggest a deeper tru th : ‘The law locks up the man or woman, Who steals the goose
from o ff the common, But leaves the greater villain loose, Who steals the common fro m the
goose!
S o m e w riters did co n ced e ‘economicgain might involve social and moral loss’ *
A few activists even defended the rights o f co m m on ers, and m ovem ents
fo r w ider change arose, inclu ding tho se seeking to claim tracts o f land fo r
the pu blic at large. Jerrard W in stan le y and friend s tried to establish a new
co m m o n so ciety in 1 6 4 9 by settlin g on lands near W a lto n -o n -T h a m e s .
T h e y interpreted the d efeat o f C harles I in the C ivil W ar as im plying new
rights fo r people to ow n th eir own land, and to use co m m o n resources.
B u t they were m istaken, and L ord F airfax’s soldiers bu rned th eir huts and
threw them o ff. M u ch later, W illiam C o b b ett, w riting during his Rural Rides
o f the 1 8 2 0 s , noted so m eth in g im p o rta n t ab o u t poverty, landscape and
access to resources. O f the monoscape arable lands, he said:
 M on o scap bs 31

There were no hedges, no ditches; no commons, no grassy lines. . . and the wretched
labourer has not a stick o f wood, and has not a placef o r a pig or cow to graze. What
a difference there is between thefaces you see here, and the round, red faces you see
in the wealds and forests.9

D u ring the late 1 7 th , 1 8th and early 1 9th centuries, there was, o f course,
a period o f extraordinary innovation in agriculture in E urope — so much
so that this is now know n as the A gricultural R evolution, as i f it were the
only one, rather than ju st the latest before our m od ern period. O ver a
period o f abo u t 1 5 0 years, crop and livestock p ro d u ctio n in the U K
increased three to fourfold, as innovative technologies, such as the seed
d rill, novel crops such as tu rn ip s and legum es, fe rtiliz a tio n m eth od s,
ro tation patterns, selective livestock breeding, drainage, and irrigation,
were developed by farm ers and spread to others through tours, open-days,
farm er groups, and publications, and then adapted to local cond ition s by
rigorous experim entation.10 However, throughout this tim e, the ‘wastes’
were never m ore than a sym bol o f backw ardness. A rth u r Young, great
innovator, reform er and w riter, was moved to call those who opposed
enclosure ‘goths and vandals’, and as assistant tith e co m m ission er, he
indicated th at the heaths o f S u ffo lk were ‘mere sand encumbered with furze
(gorse) andf i t f o r nothing but rabbits and sheepwalk’. A fter enclosures, poor farmers
had to sell their anim als, as they had lost rights to fodder beyond their
farm s; many, given sm aller plots in lieu o f grazing rights, sold their land
and, according to Jane H um phries, 'the money was drunk in the ale house’."
T h e poet John Clare was an exception when he wrote with feeling about
what had been lost. M o st contem p orary com m entators focused on the
eco n o m ic gains from enclosure. H e, by co n trast, m ourned the loss o f
m em o ries a ccu m u la ted over th e ages, th e op en field system having
persisted fo r 7 0 0 years by this tim e. In his jou rnal, Clare w rote in 1 8 2 4
about what had been lost:

Took a walk in thefields and saw an old wood stile taken away from a favourite
spot which it had occupied all my life. . . it hurt me to see it was gonefo r my affections
claim a friendship with such things, but nothing is lasting in this world. Last year,
Langley bush was destroyed, an old whitethorn that had stood f o r more than a
century, fu ll o f fam e. The gypsies, shepherds and herdsmen all had their tales o f its
history, and it will be long ere its memory isforgotten.'2

N o t only arc both the stile and the old named tree lost, but the m em ories,
to o .T h e y persist for a while, perhaps for generations; but w ithout renewal,
thev eventually die. T h e enclosures disenfranchized sm all farm ers and
co m m on ers, and forced m any to move to urban cen tres fo r w ork. S o
32 A g r i- C ulture

sta rte d the large-scale d isco n n ectio n betw een p eople and the land, a
process that continues today.

W in n ers and Losers in the W etlands and Forests

T h e story o f the drainage o f the low -lying/w s o f E ast Anglia illustrates

how quickly som e people becam e w inners and oth ers losers. T h e first
m ajo r drainage o f m arshes for agricultural improvement occurred during
the reigns o f H en ry V I I I and E lizabeth I; but it was n o t until the 17th
century that serious attem pts were made on the G reat Level o f the Fens,
a vast wetland o f 2 8 0 ,0 0 0 hectares ranging across six counties o f eastern
England. L ocal people were hunters and gatherers, ‘travelling in punts, walking
on stilts, and living mainly by fishing, cutting willows, keeping geese, and wildfowling’.
But the o fficial narrative of the tim e was that these areas com prised ‘water
putrid and muddy,full o f loathsome vermine, the Earth spuing, unfast and boggie’, and
that these unproductive wetlands were conveniently ‘overmuch harbour to a
rude and almost barbarous sort o f lazy and beggarly people’.xi
In the early 1 7 th century, com m issioners were appointed by govern­
m ent and backed by new legislation to speed the process o f drainage.
C ornelius Verm uyden, popularly accredited with bringing drainage know ­
how from the N etherland s to England, was appointed with the E arl o f
Bedford to lead the undertaking. D espite decades o f technical and social
setbacks, by 1 6 4 9 a new system o f drains, raised riverbeds, outfalls, sluices
and dams was com plete. Vermuyden reported that on this newly privatized
land, ‘wheat and othergrains, besides innumerable quantities of sheep, cattle and other stock
were raised, where never had any before’. B u t it was n o t so sim p le, as these
im provem ents provoked com m on ers and fen m en to h a lf a century o f
uprisings. T h e y broke em bankm ents, fired mills and filled drains. In some
cases, they secured concessions. E rn ie indicates that it was n o t until 1 7 14
that the riots caused by the reclam ations ceased. Yet, these protests were
to no avail, as the fens stayed drained and in private hands.
S o o n after th is p erio d , there follow ed one o f th e m o st n o to rio u s
examples o f state d isenfranchisem ent o f people relying on the resources
o f the com m on s. T h is was the passing, in M ay 1 7 2 3 , o f the W altham
Black A ct, or just ‘Black A ct’, by the English parliam ent. In his com pelling
account, the historian E P T h o m p so n describes how those in power too k
to new extrem es their ju stification for wresting co n trol o f forests.14 T h e
act described the ‘B lack s’ as ‘wicked and evil-disposed men going in disguise’ to
pillage the royal forests o f deer and do battle with forest officers. Critically,
the Black A ct created 5 0 new capital offences, which were then extended
by successive legal judgements. Anyone found with their face ‘black’, or who
 M o n o scapbs 33

m ight ‘appear in any forest, close, park, or in any warren, or on any high road, heath,
common or dow n’, was now likely to be charged w ith a cap ital o ffe n ce .
T h o m p so n quotes S ir Leon R ad zino w iczs m id 20th -cen tu ry judgem ent:
‘It is very doubtful whether any other country possessed a criminal code with anything like
so many capital provisions as there were in this single statute.’
T h e narrative o i the tim e was, again, that com m oners were destroying
w oods, coppices and heaths, and deliberately stealing the resources o f
o th ers, p articu larly deer, gam e and fish. T h is m ade them , o f course,
poachers, smugglers and crim inals, rather than sim ply rural people trying
to make a living. W h a t do the records tell us about these people who were
caught and put to death?T hey were labourers, servants, millers, innkeepers,
yeom an farm ers, blacksm iths, butchers, carp enters, gardeners, ostlers,
tailors, shoemakers and w heelw rights.They were ‘again and again. . . men with
smallfrechold or copyholdfarm s, sometimes scattered in several parcels in more than one
parish, adjoining the heath andforest with their valued grazing and common rights’.15 N o t
surprisingly, none were gentlem en farm ers o r squires. E P T h o m p s o n
describes the act as ‘savage’ and ‘atrociou s’. F o r m ost o f the 1 8 th century,
though, it directed and strengthened the m ajority o f people’s attitudes not
only to com m on resources, but also to the people who relied upon them
for their livelihoods. It also, because o f B ritain’s rapidly growing empire,
helped to shape lands and thinking in many oth er parts o f the world.

C om m ons and Exclusions in India

E n clo su re s o f co m m o n pastu res, swam ps and g razin g g ro u n d s have

provoked exclusion and co n flict in many oth er parts o f the w orld.16 Even
though these are well docum ented by historians, today we are still doing
m ore o f the same, som etim es in the name o f conservation, m ore often
in the nam e o f creating m ore productive farm ing. Very o ften, new social
co n flicts have com e to threaten the success o f the new system.
M adhav Gadgil and Ram achandra G uha’s perceptive analysis o f Indian
ecological history, This Fissured Land, highlights the essential interdepend­
en ce o f e co lo g ica l and so cia l change. T h is is im p o rta n t because few
h isto ries have focu sed upon this vital co n n ectio n betw een nature and
people. As the authors indicate o f India:

A whole range o f resources, regulated and utilised in many different ways, is under
great stress. There are veryfew deer and antelope left to huntfo r hunter-gatberers. . .
A majority o f shepherds in peninsular India have given up keeping sheepf o r want
o f pasture to graze them. The shifting cultivators o f north-east India have drastically
34 A g r i-C u ltu r e

shortened theirfallow periods. . . All over; peasants have beenforced to burn dung
in their hearthsf o r want offuelw ood, while there is insufficient manure infields.
Groundwater levels are rapidly going down.17

In recent decades, common property resources have been in steep decline in

India, even though they form a significant part o f rural p eople’s liveli­
h o o d s. As elsew here, th ey have been n e g lected , o v er-ex p lo ited and
privatized, and to all but the poorest are often invisible. N S Jod ha’s 3 0 -
year study o f dryland villages illustrates ju st how d rastic has been the
change in com m unity pastures, forests and watersheds, com m unity threshing
g rou nd s, village pond s and rivers. H e found th at the p o o rest rely on
com m on resources the m ost, as these annually provide up to 2 0 0 days o f
em ployment for each household, about one fifth o f total incom e and four-
fifths o f all fuel and anim al feed. But for the m o st wealthy, they rarely
provide m ore than 2 per cent o f incom e. In drought years, com m on s are
even more im portant, when the poorest derive 4 0 to 6 0 per cent o f income
from these resources.18
T on y Beck and Cathy N aism ith have put a m onetary value on these
com m on property resources, calculating that they contribute U S $ 5 billion
per year to the incom es o f the rural p o or in India, w orth about U S $ 2 0 0
per household. Follow ing Jod h a’s groundbreaking study, further research
has confirm ed the fundam ental value o f these resources to rural people,
and particularly to the p o o rest.T h ese studies indicate that the com m ons
contribu te 1 2 —2 5 per cent to rural livelihoods, and that the p ro p ortio n
is greatest for the poorest households —women and children are especially
d epend ent upon them . T h e y also co n firm th at the area and status o f
com m on property regim es have declined steadily over the past 5 0 years,
as rights have been gradually removed and local institutions underm ined.19
In Jod ha’s villages, the area o f com m on s has fallen by 4 0 —5 5 per cent
per village since the 1 9 5 0 s . W ith population grow th, this means that the
nu m ber o f p eo p le relying on each hectare o f co m m o n has increased
threefold. T h e sad truth is that these changes have been accom panied by
a collapse in trad ition al co llective m anagem ent. O ver this period, the
n u m ber o f villages w ith locally established reg u lation s fo r ro tatio n al
grazing, seasonal restriction s and provision o f w atchm en fell from 8 0
villages to ju st 8 . T ran sg ressors o f these n o rm s and reg u lation s were
form erly taxed, levied or fined in 5 5 villages; by the 1 9 8 0 s , it occurred
in none. U sers’ so cial ob lig ation s to invest in the collective upkeep o f
watering points and fencing fell from 7 3 to ju st 1 2 villages.
I t was o n ce d iffe re n t. G a d g il and G u h a te ll us how p re -c o lo n ia l
kingdom s in India set aside elephant forests and hunting preserves, and
how religion played a role in designing social m echanism s and obligations
 M o n o scapbs 35

that prom oted careful use o f natural resources. T h e y quote a third-century

edict, in what is now O rissa, which stated that:

Medical attendance should be made available to both man and animal; the medicinal
herbs, thefru it trees, the roots and tubers, are to be transplanted to those places where
they are not presently available, after being collectedfrom those places where they
usually grow. Wells should be dug and shadowy trees should be planted by the roadside
f o r enjoyment both by man and animal. 20

O ver tim e, com m unities developed locally specific regulations and rules
fo r the care o f natural resources. O ften , nam ed fam ilies were the forest
guards; elsewhere, others would do all the harvesting and delivery o f wood
to household s. R ules on hu nting were co m m on , such as the release o f
trapped pregnant does or young d eer.T hese com m unity regulations came
under serious pressure during the co lo nial era. T im b e r was exported to
E u ro p e and used as sleepers in the expansion o f the d om estic railway
netw ork. W h o le forests in the H im alayas were felled even to destruction’, and
hills in southern India ‘to a considerable degree laid bare’.
W ild co m m on property resources are still im p o rtan t to m any rural
people in developing countries. T h e poorest are the m ost dependent upon
the com m on s and are, o f course, the least likely to have political power.
T h erefo re, they are unable to prevent the loss o r appropriation o f these
com m ons. M any have argued that com m on s are tragedies because they
can not be productive — to o m any collective constraints on the whole, too
m any free riders. L arge-scale privatization, o r enclosure, has been the
result. T h is is no surprise, perhaps; but w hether in England during the
1 8th century, o r India during the later 2 0 th century, the losers were always
the p o orest. In som e cases, this was the in ten tio n ; in oth ers, it was an
accidental but inevitable ou tcom e. D u ring enclosures, those w ith rights
to co m m on s were o ften b o u g h t o ff, and the m oney sp ent o r the land
repossessed. T h e se histories o f dispossession are long, deep and painful.
Sadly, they persist tod ay in the nam es o f bo th conservation and agri­
cultural m od ernization.21

T h e Loss o f C om m ons Knowledge

in S o u th -E ast Asia

T h e rice fields o f S o u th -E a st Asia are one o f the wonders o f the world.

O n a bright day, the azure blue o f the watery fields sparkles, as snow-white
egrets d rift gently across the landscape. W h e n grey clouds bring down the
36 A g r i- C ulture

sky, the landscape takes on a m oody presence. W here the hillsides are steep,
terraced fields cut into the slope with extraordinary precision, like so many
layers o f a cake. It takes deep understanding to bend these landscapes and
the water to the collective will. N o one is quite sure when these m ethods
o f farm ing arose. In Bali, the first records o f irrigated rice cultivation date
to A D 8 8 2 ; since then, landscape m anagem ent on a heroic scale has been
bu ilt into the egalitarian Balinese sawab rice system .22
Irrigation cooperatives, the subaks, were responsible fo r the allocation
o f water and the m ain tenan ce o f irrig ation netw orks because wet rice
farm in g is to o co m p lex fo r on e farm er to p ractise alon e. E ach subak
m em b er had one vote regardless o f the size o f the land hold ing . S o il
fertility was m aintained by the use o f ash, organic m atter and m anures;
rotation s and staggered planting o f crops controlled pests and diseases;
and bam bo o poles, wind-driven noise-m akers, flags and stream ers scared
birds. R ic e was harvested in groups, stored in barns and traded only as
needs arose. T h e system was su stain ab le fo r m ore th an 1 0 0 0 years.
Y et, in the blink o f an eye, rice m od ern izatio n during the 1 9 6 0 s and
1 9 7 0 s shattered these social and ecological relationships by substituting
pesticides for predators, fertilizers for cattle and traditional land m anage­
m ent, tractors for local labour groups, and governm ent decisions for local
ones.
T h e benefit was this: m od ern rice varieties yielded 5 0 per cent m ore,
though only under optim um cond ition s — the new rice was m ore suscept­
ible to clim atic and hydrological variations. Pests and diseases increased
as a result o f the continuous cropping and the elim ination o f predatory
fish and frogs by pesticides. Farm ers sold cattle, as they were no longer
needed fo r plou g h in g and m anu res; m ech an ized rice m ills d isplaced
groups o f women who used to thresh and m ill the rice. M o d ern rice had
to be sold im m ediately after harvest when the prices are low. T h is m eant
that men received large sums o f cash, and women could no longer plan
for the y ea r’s food security by m onitoring the rice barn. T h e dem ocratic subak
organizations, on ce in com plete co n tro l, lo st d ecisions to governm ent
institutions, w hich decided cropping patterns, planting dates and irrig­
ation investments. T h e reduced em ploym ent in rice cultivation forced rural
people to seek work elsewhere; with the underm ining o f the subaks, goods
were no longer redistributed from the b e tte r-o ff to the poorest through
religious rituals.
T h e Indonesian and M alaysian islands and peninsula are also hom e to
another rem arkable cultural system called d^af.This com prises m ore than
indigenous knowledge or beliefs, m ore than a legal system . It is, as Patrick
Segundad o f the Kadazan com m un ity in Sabah says:
 M o n o scapbs 37

. . .an unwritten understanding o f common things that everybody should know. Adat
is not only important in how we deal with our resources but also in how we live.
It isn’t like the concept o f managing but rather that two things happen in the same
time. While you might manage something, what you manage is also managing you.
A person is part o f a greater single action, a larger balance or harmony.

T h is is the key. Adat shapes p eo p les interactions with nature; people, in

turn, are shaped by everything around them . Salfarina G a p o r recently
co m p leted a stud y o f th e M elan au p eo p le in the co astal reg io n s o f
Sarawak. H ere, adat means harm ony between spirits, humans, animals and
plants, and it dictates social systems o f jo in t bearing o f burdens, reciprocal
assistance and an ethic that protects the land and species biodiversity.The
m ain staple for the M elanau is sago palm, and adat dictates a finely tuned
set o f m anagem ent strategies. T h e co ntrast with m od ern rice m ethods
elsewhere in the region is stark. T h e m ain predators o f sago are monkey,
boar and term ites. A t planting tim e, farm ers plant ju st one palm sucker
in the cleared field , and su rroun d it w ith a variety o f p lants th at are
variously itchy, bitter and poisonous. T h e y leave the field for three days
to allow m onkeys and boar the chance to com e to the sago, and learn that
it is n o t tasty. Farm ers then plant out the rest o f the sago, and the monkeys
now eat the pests rather than the crop. But G ap or also found that adat is
under severe pressure. M an y young people do n o t know about it, and
m od ern ag ricu ltu ra l and p la n ta tio n m eth o d s do n o t acco u n t fo r its
sensitive understanding o f ecosystem s. T h e w orry is th at cultural and
ecological knowledge are under threat.23

M od ern D ispossessions

Every co n tin en t has its own tragic histories o f the dispossession o f those
who treat the land, or parts o f it, as a com m on resource. T h e dark side
o f the w orlds first national park at Yellowstone is that Crow and Shoshone
N ative A m ericans were driven out o f their lands by the U S army, who
then managed the park them selves fo r 4 4 years. Today, sim ilar exclusions
p ersist in parks th a t are c o n stitu te d as strictly p ro te cte d areas. T h e
assum ption th at the conservation o f natural resources is only possible
through the exclusion o f local people is pervasive through out history.
L ocal m ism anagem ent has been used as an excuse to exclude people who
may be in different tribes o r who move about, rather than engage in settled
farm ing. States ad opt a variety o f value-laden term s, such as scheduled
tribes in India, m inority nationalities in C hina, cultural m inorities in the
38 A g r i- C ulture

P hilippines, isolated and alien peoples o f Indonesia, aboriginal tribes o f

Taiw an, natives o f B orn eo, and aborigines o f Peninsular M alaysia. As
N an cy Lee Peluso indicates: ‘the terms are politicized by their application to particular
users rather than uses'.24
M any o f these people, nom ads, pastoralists, slash-and-burn hill tribes,
hunter-gatherers, gypsies, and itinerants, have been a thorn in the sides
o f states.25 States have tried to settle them , o r have moved settled peoples
into their regions, such as the massive forced ‘ transmigrasi ’ o f Javanese rice
fam ilies to the ou ter regions o f Indonesia during the 1 9 8 0 s . Excluded
from their own rice cultures and landscapes, the Javanese were resettled
to new areas that were inappropriate for rice cultivation, and which were
already fu ll o f lo c a l p e o p le. C o n f lic ts were inev itable, and n e ith e r
dispossessed gro u p be n efited . T h e s e changes ech o the exp erience o f
transportees who were excluded from Britain during the 1 8th and 19th
centuries, many for m in or m isdem eanours after the loss o f their lands
during the enclosure. T h ese transportees were relocated to Australia, where
they to o k over land from A boriginal tribes.
T h i s fo rce d re se ttlem e n t is deeply dam aging to p eo p le. K aich ela
Dipera, a M ukalahari from Botswana, says o f the Bushmen o f the Kalahari
G am e Reserve:

The experience o f moving away is so painful when you think o f it because they are
movingfrom a place where they have been livingf o r a long time. They know what
the plants are for; they know the source o f water and food. When people are moved
to a new place they are cut off entirelyfro m their culture and are moved to a place
where they must start a new culture26

In tru th , such d isco n n ectio n s are m ore than p ainfu l. T h e y take away
peo p les sense o f the m eaning o f life, and the m em ories o f dispossession
can last for generations.
T h e savannahs o f E a st A frica are world renowned for their w ildlife.
Y et, they have em erged as a result o f a lon g pro cess o f co -ev o lu tio n
betw een pastoralists, th eir cattle, and local w ildlife. W ith o u t one, the
others suffer. W h e n the M aasai were expelled from their lands in Kenya,
the newly created parks were colonized by regenerating scrub and w ood­
land, leaving less grazing for antelopes.27 Even greater harm is caused by
agricultural developm ent. O n e o f the m ost notoriou s cases com es from
Tanzania, where wheat farm s were imposed on the dry Basotu Plains from
the late 1 9 6 0 s to the early I9 9 0 s .T h e s e plains are the hom eland o f m ore
than 3 0 , 0 0 0 B arabaig p asto ra lists, w hose cu ltu re is based u p on the
keeping o f livestock and com m on use o f forage, water and salt resources
scattered throughout their territory. A com plex grazing rotation system
 M on o scap bs 39

w ith eight forage regim es m eans th at som e land is free o f people and
animals for long periods, thereby preserving it from overuse. All m embers
o f the com m unity have access to com m unal land, which is protected by
custom ary rights and obligations for individuals, clans and local groups.
T h e Barabaig, like m any people who live in harsh environm ents, have a
tradition o f respect for the land on which they rely for their survival.Their
elders say: ‘We value and respect the land. We want to preserve itf o r all time.’
But in order for wheat to be grown on the Basotu Plains, about 4 0 ,0 0 0
hectares o f the m ost fertile land was taken from the Barabaig. F o r a few
years, these farm s came to supply h a lf o f the national demand for wheat.
A narrowly focused p ro ject evaluation arrived at a positive co st-b en efit
ratio, and the nearly 4 0 per cent return to invested capital indicated that
it was a ‘very profitable investmentf o r the Tanzanian economy’. But i f the wider social
and environmental impacts had been counted, then a very different picture
would have emerged. Charles Lane spent several years docum enting first
hand the severe im p act upon local people. A lth ou gh the w heat farm s
covered only one eighth o f their land, this was their best grazing land, and
the loss was crucial. By losing access to the m o st fertile areas, the w hole
rotational grazing system was comprom ised, resulting in a drastic reduction
o f livestock num bers. M any o f their sacred graves were ploughed up, and
as the soil was left bare after harvest, so erosion silted up the sacred Lake
Basotu. T h e problem was that outsiders fundam entally m isunderstood the
pastoralists and their strategies for managing com m on rangeland. Herders
move in response to their assessment o f range productivity, and those who
fail to understand this can be m isled in to thinking that land is vacant or
poorly managed. O n e study said: ‘The project has many of the characteristics o f a
frontier development effort. Traditional pastoralists. . . are being displaced and absorbed
into the project as labourers. Previously idle land is being brought under cultivation’.T h e
p ro ject has now closed, but the effects on local people rem ain.28

F orest R ig h ts and P rotection in India

C o n cern s about the d estru ction o f nature in India were form alized by
national policy-m akers in 1 8 6 4 w ith the establishm ent o f the Im perial
F orest D ep artm en t, and a year later with the first Indian F orest A ct. T h is
m arked the steady exten sion o f state co n tro l over forests th at w ould
continue unabated until the early 1 9 9 0 s , when the idea o f jo in t forest
m anagem ent was given policy su pport. D u ring the 1 9 th century, forests
were under pressure, largely from the imperial power itself. It to o k control
and added, over tim e, a narrative about local people s inability to manage
these resources w ith c a re .T h e F orest A ct had no provisions fo r defining
40 A g r i-C u ltu r e

local cu stom ary rights to exploit natural resources — a blind sp o t that

persisted fo r m ore than a century.
A dm inistrators did, however, distinguish between rights that were not
perm itted , and privileges that were granted as concessions to graze and
collect firewood. Gadgil and Guha indicate that such privileges were g‘ ranted
by the policy o f the government f o r the convenience o f the people’.29 In practice, there
were many interpretations, from those who argued the state should annex
and take com plete control o f all forests, to administrators who argued that
where cu sto m a ry use existed , it sh ou ld also be g ran ted legal rig h ts.
A cco rd in g to G a d g il and G u h a, the first in sp e cto r general, D ie trich
Brandes, was a pragm atist who drew com parison between com m on rights
to the N ew Forest in England and indigenous m anagem ent o f forests in
India. H e advocated the restricted take-over o f forests by the state, and
w rote appreciatively o f com m on regulation o f forests and the extended
netw ork o f sacred forest groves.
However, Brandes lost out, and the subsequent 1 8 7 8 Indian Forest A ct
set the scene for another century by granting forests and punitive sanctions
to the forest departm ent. Between 1 8 7 8 and 1 9 0 0 , the area o f designated
state forests grew from 3 6 ,0 0 0 to 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 square kilom etres, o f which
4 0 per cent com prised protected forests. By independence, the total had
grown to 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 square kilom etres. M eanw hile, the forest d epartm ent
evolved into a revenue-raising departm ent, rather than a resource manager,
and its success was judged on incom e rather than the stock o f biodiversity
m ain tain ed. P redictably, this m arginalized those who depended upon
w ild resou rces, such as h u nter-g atherers, sh iftin g ag ricu ltu ralists and
settled farm ers and artisans who relied upon forest products fo r house
co n stru ctio n , basket-m akin g, m usical instrum ents, furnitu re, weaving,
tanning and dyeing.30
An inevitable result o f such exclusions and denials o f rights is that local
people are forced to struggle for their land. O ver the last two decades o f
the 2 0 t h century, the expansion o f nation al parks and p ro tected areas
which perm itted no, o r very lim ited, use o f local resources continued at
a rate o f 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares per year, resulting in the forcible displacem ent
o f m any thousands o f people. T h is has provoked m any open protests,
rallies and acts o f sabotage against n ation al parks and p rotected areas
themselves. In the early 1 9 8 0 s , m ore than 1 0 0 clashes were reported from
national parks and sanctuaries in India. Later, villagers set fire to large areas
o f the Kanha and N agarhole N ational Parks during the early 1 9 9 0 s , when
denied access to the park for forest products. In rem ote areas, insurgents
have taken advantage o f local resentm ent to take over a tiger reserve in
Assam and drive out forest guards, and to invade a tiger and buffalo reserve
in M adya Pradesh, where 5 2 villages o f tribals had been evicted.’1
 M o n o scapbs 4 1

Enlightened professionals realize that imposed m odes o f conservation

sim ply do n o t work. T h e y are expensive —m uch o f the budget for strictly
p ro tected areas has to be spent on aircraft, radios, w eapons, vehicles,
salaries o f arm ed guards, night goggles and oth er ‘anti-poaching’ equip­
m en t. 31 T h e y are also o fte n eco lo g ic a lly co u n te r-p ro d u ctiv e . In the
K eoladeo G han a N a tio n a l Park in R a jasth an , the B haratpu r w etlands
support many birds, including w intering geese, ducks and the endangered
Siberian crane. A ban on buffalo grazing, established in 1 9 8 2 for the cause
o f crane conservation, provoked violent co n flict between local people and
th e p o lice , re su ltin g in several d eath s. T h e ban was re in fo rce d , bu t
paspalum grass began to grow unchecked, choking the water bodies and
m aking the habitat unsuitable for water birds. M oney had then to be spent
on bulldozers to remove the grass; but this was never as efficient as buffalo
grazing. T h ere has been som e recent progress — though only, as M adhav
G adgil put it, to the p o in t that ‘villagers are now allowed to harvest the grass hy
hand’.i}
Such local concerns led to the establishm ent, during the 1 9 7 0 s , o f the
Chipko m ovement, now one o f the m ost famous o f environmental move­
ments. It began when local people in the Himalayas were refused permission
to fell th eir own trees in the A lakananda valley. T h e governm ent then
allocated the same forest to a distant sp orts-good s firm for their sole use.
Chipko means ‘to hug’ in H in d i, and villagers did exactly this to trees that
they wished to p ro te ct.T h e idea was com pelling and simple, and it spread
quickly through U tta r Pradesh, and eventually to southern India, where
it cam e to be know n as th e A ppiko m ovem ent ( ‘to hu g’ in K ann ad a).
Im portantly, these were bo th environm ental and social m ovem ents. T h e y
made the p o in t th at people cared, and they would do som ething about
it. It was from this m ovem ent that the idea o f jo in t forest m anagem ent
em erged, w hich received o fficia l governm ent su p p o rt during the early
1 9 9 0 s . Evidence had shown that i f people are given responsibility for their
natural resources, they can be effective at both increasing productivity and
ensuring th at the benefits are shared. H an din g over such rights does not
mean the tragic d estruction o f forest resources.

Saving N ature in Protected Areas

and N ational Parks

T h e idea o f the wildernesses is com pelling, and it form s a central part

o f the w ritings o f Joh n M u ir, known by m any as the father o f conserv­
ation. Claimed by both Scotland, where he was born, and by the U S , where
42 A g r i-C u ltu r e

he lived until his death in 19 1 4 , M u irs writings and cam paigns gave rise
to the w orld’s first national parks. H e helped to found the Sierra C lub in
1 8 9 2 , an environm ental m ovem ent w ith 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers today. M any
com m entators talk at length abou t the w ilderness M u ir frequented. In
1 8 6 9 , he walked the Sierra Nevada M ou n tain s, and lived rough for five
years to study the flora, launa and geology. M u ir accom panied shepherds
w ith their flo ck o f several thousand sheep from the footh ills to the high
m ountains, including the headwaters o f the M erced and T uolu m ne rivers
and the spectacular waterfalls o f Yosem ite Creek. H e called Yosem ite a
‘park valley', and celebrated nature s creativity: ‘what pains are taken to help this
wilderness in health. . . H ow fin e Nature’s methods! H ow deeply with beauty is beauty
overlaid’.34
Yet, this is a landscape shaped by hum ans, and in p articu lar by the
A hw ah neech ee, who created th e m eadow s o f Y o sem ite th ro u g h fire
clearances.35 M u ir was aware o f the effects o f people on the landscape —
he carefully docum ented the actions o f the shepherds and local N ative
A m ericans whom he m et on the way. But this awareness is lost on many
com m entators, who them selves see only untouched w ilderness through
M u irs eyes. H e encountered groves o f Sabine pines, the nuts o f which,
he was told by a shepherd, were gathered by the ‘Digger In dians’ for food.
T h e s e groves were n o t there by accid ent; they had been sustained and
protected by the gatherers. M u ir observed women collecting wild lupin,
saxifrage and roots, and recorded a variety o f other species as valuable food
sources, including beaked hazel nuts and acorns, squirrels and rabbits,
berries, grasshoppers, black ants, wasps, bee larvae, and many oth er ‘starchy
roots, seeds and bark in abundance’. A t one stage, in early July, M u ir and his
colleagues ran ou t o f food , apart from m utton. Awaiting supplies am idst
gnaw ing hunger, M u ir lam ented the fact that they could n o t find food
in this rich landscape: ‘Like the Indians, we ought to know how to get the starch out
o f fern and saxifrage stalks, lily bulbs, pine bark etc. Our education has been sadly neglected
f o r many generations.’
M u ir noted the s o ft touch o f the N ative A m ericans on the landscape:

H ow many centuries Indians have roamed these woods nobody knows, probably a
great many. . . and it seems strange that heavier marks have not been made. Indians
walk softly and hurt the landscape hardly more than the birds and squirrels. . . H ow
different are most o f those o f the white man, especially on the lower gold region —
roads blasted in the solid rock, wild streams dammed and tamed and turned out of
their channels.

H e also noted that the N ative A m ericans created ‘enchanting monuments. . .

wrought in theforests by thefires they made to improve their hunting grounds’. It would,
 M o n o scapbs 43

therefo re, be ch u rlish to be to o critical o f M u ir, o r indeed o f o th er

w ilderness writers such as T h o reau , as they were on a m ission to save the
rem nants o f primaeval nature, which had intrinsic value and which was
under grow ing threat. It was th eir inspired w ritings th at captured the
im agination o f readers su fficiently to lead to the establishm ent o f the
w orld’s first national parks in Yellow stone in 1 8 7 2 , and later in Yosem ite
in 1 8 9 0 .
T h e harm that has been done lies in the perpetuation o f a n o tio n that
we are separate from nature. Ironically, this is the very modernist problem
that these writers were trying to o p p o se .T h e argument goes like this: as
nature is separate from us, so it should be strictly protected in pockets and
patches away from hum an activity. I f it is protected , then we can shrug
our shoulders at dam aging eco n o m ic activity in the surrounding land ­
scape. T h is is enclave th in k in g , and it is a sim p listic narrative: let the
fa rm in g and fo o d p ro d u ctio n o c c u r in one p lace, and let it do as it
w ishes.’f,T h e m ore productive it is, the less pressure is put on wildernesses
and parks. T h is d ichotom y o f thought and action is damaging, both to
farm ing and to the preservation and conservation o f nature. It is bu ilt on
the idea that nature which exists on agricultural land is largely w orthless.
B ut what about the tens o f m illions o f m onarch bu tterflies that m igrate
across the A m erican plains, to and from M ex ico each year, o r the b io ­
diversity that flourishes in urban gardens? It is also built upon the idea
that wildernesses exist untouched and unshaped by hum ans, and should
be m aintained that way. T h is is a serious m yth o f d iscon nection . It has
led to great damage. It is now tim e to rethink these co n n ectio n s.37
T h e w orld’s first form al p rotected area was established on I M arch
1 8 7 2 , when U S President U lysses G ran t designated 9 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares o f
n o rth -w e st W y o m in g as the Y ellow sto n e N a tio n a l Park. T h e next to
appear was in 1 8 8 5 when the state o f N ew Y ork set aside nearly 3 0 0 ,0 0 0
hectares o f the A dirondacks as a forest preserve. In neither case was the
conservation o f nature and w ilderness the prim ary goal. A t Yellow stone,
the aim was to lim it private com panies from acquiring the geysers and h o t
springs. In the east, N ew York C ity ’s concern was to m aintain its water­
sheds and drinking water supply. T h e s e p rotected areas were follow ed
by th e 1 8 9 0 d e sig n a tio n o f Y o sem ite N a tio n a l P ark, and th e 1 8 9 1
am endm ent to the act revising land laws th at perm itted the president to
create m ore forest reserves (later nam ed national forests). Subsequently,
President B enjam in H arriso n proclaim ed 15 reserves over m ore than 5
m illion hectares. B ut reversals so on follow ed d esignations, such as the
1 8 9 7 F o rest M an ag em en t A ct th at allowed reserves to be cleared for
tim b e r extra ctio n . Su ch advances and reversals have co n tin u ed to the
present day.38
44 A g r i-C u ltu r e

O v e r th e p ast cen tu ry , p ark s and natu re reserves have b e co m e the

p rim ary m eans o f co n serv in g n atu re, b o th fo r w ild life and fo r w hole
landscapes. A cco rd in g to the United Nations List o f Protected Areas, there were
1 2 ,7 5 4 o ffic ia l p ro tected areas w orldw ide in 2 0 0 1 , covering an area o f
1 3 m illion square kilom etres, an area larger than Brazil, C h in a o r the U S .39
U n til th e end o f th e 1 9 5 0 s , U n ite d N a tio n s ( U N ) liste d site s were
designated at a rate o f 3 0 0 —4 0 0 per decade; this rose during the 1 9 6 0 s
to m ore than 1 0 0 0 ; to 2 5 0 0 during the 1 9 7 0 s ; to 3 8 0 0 during the 1 9 8 0 s ;
b ack to 1 8 0 0 d uring the 1 9 9 0 s . T h e W o rld C o n serv atio n M o n ito rin g
C en tre records an a d d itio nal 1 7 ,6 0 0 p ro tected areas on its database th at
are sm a lle r th a n th e U N ’s 1 0 0 0 - h e c t a r e m in im u m c rite rio n , ad d in g
another 2 8 , 5 0 0 square kilo m etres to the total. A ll 3 0 ,0 0 0 p ro tected areas
now a c c o u n t fo r 8 . 8 3 p er ce n t o f th e w o rld ’s land area. O f the 1 9 1
c o u n trie s w ith p ro te c te d areas, 3 6 c o n ta in 1 0 —2 0 p er ce n t o f th e ir
territory as protected areas, and a fu rth er 2 4 have m ore than 2 0 per cen t.40
P ro te cted areas are divided in to six types along a spectrum from strict
p ro te ctio n , to su stainable m anagem ent and use o f resources. O n e third
o f all p ro tected areas, nu m berin g 1 0 ,7 0 0 and covering 7 m illio n square
k ilo m e tre s , are in ca teg o ries 1—3 , p e r m ittin g n o lo c a l use o f n atu ral
resources. O f the 7 3 2 2 p ro tected areas in d eveloping co u n tries, where
m any lo ca l p eo p le still require w ild resou rces fo r so m e o r all o f th eir
livelihood s, 2 5 per cen t are strictly p ro tected in A sia and the P acific, 2 8
per cen t in A frica, and 4 0 per cen t in L atin A m erica. O f the 1 3 m illion
square k ilo m etres in p ro tected areas, 7 m illio n are strictly p ro tected — 4 6
per cen t o f w hich are in A frica, Asia and L atin A m erica (se e T a b le 2 . I ) . 41
T h is is a huge area o f land from w hich peop le are actively ex clu d e d .T h e
problem , as N a n cy Lee P eluso has put it, is th at ‘managed biodiversity is hardly
discussed in the currentfervou r o f concern over losses o f biodiversity, even in habitats (such
as mangroves) that have clearly been occupied by humans for decades or centuries’,42
T h e c o n c e p t u n d erly in g th e d e sig n a tio n o f p ro te c te d areas is th e
conservation o f a ‘natural’ state untouched by people.43 As A rturo G o m ez -
P om p a and A ndrea K aus put it, these areas are seen as ‘p ristine environments
sim ilar to those that existed before human interference, delicately balanced ecosystems
that need to be preservedfor our enjoyment and twe’ T h is is n o t to say th at they do
n o t w ork. A recent study o f 9 3 n ation al parks o f 5 0 0 0 hectares o r m ore
in siz e in 2 2 tr o p ic a l c o u n tr ie s has fo u n d th a t fo rm a l d e sig n a tio n s
do p ro te ct biodiversity. A ll the stud ied parks were m ore than five years
old and were su b je ct to hum an pressure, w ith seven o u t o f ten having
p e o p le liv in g w ith in th e ir b o u n d a r ie s . O n e h a l f had re s id e n ts w ho
co n te ste d th e g o v e rn m e n ts ow n ersh ip o f so m e p a rt o f th e p ark . Y et
m ore than eight o u t o f ten o f the parks had as m uch vegetation cover as
w hen th ey were e sta b lish ed . P ark s su ffered less d eg ra d a tio n than th e
 M o n o scapbs 45

surrounding undesignated area, with policing appearing to help, p artic­

ularly in stopping illegal log g ing .T he m ost effective parks were those with
clearly m arked b o u n d a ries and close and co rd ia l re la tio n s betw een
authorities and local com m unities.44
N ature clearly existed perfectly well before humans intervened, and will
do so after we disappear. B ut for the m om ent, we m ust recognize that m ost
landscapes are fundam entally shaped by hum an im agination and action.
T h is is a continuous dance, a tight coupling o f nature and hum ans, the
ou tcom e o f which is what we see around us every day. Equally, though,
we should not conclude that all nature is an emergent property o f human—
en viro n m en t c o n n e c tio n s .45 Baird C a llic o tt and co lleag u es suggest
a m id d le way fo r co n serv a tio n b io lo g y . T h e s e p o la ritie s are h e lp fu l
m etaphors and rhetorical devices in order to focus debate; but m ost people
in p ra ctice stand som ew here on a spectrum betw een extrem es. T h e re
are such things as w ildernesses, and there is a need for p ro tectio n and
controls. M o st ‘w ild' nature, though, is an em ergent property o f human
interv en tions; globally, m o st biodiversity occurs in hu m an-dom inated
eco sy stem s.T h is m eans that human decisions and visions m atter, as they
can make a difference by provoking all o f us to think and act differently.
But do we have the desire to redesign this relationship? Can we, as i f by
alchemy, imagine different outcom es?

M od ernism and M onoscapes

Around the tim e that M u ir an d T h o reau were w riting about wildernesses,

Brandes was form ing forest policy in India, the first n ation al park was
being established in the U S , the enclosures had finally ended in the U K ,
and the Japanese were com ing to the end o f their E d o period. E d o was
the largest city in the world in the 1 9th century, with m ore than I m illion
people and a population density three tim es as great as today’s T okyo. F o r
close to three centuries, E do gave rise to extraordinary artistic and cultural
in n ov ation , p ro d u cin g all o f th e m a jo r Japanese a rt tra d itio n s — tea
cerem onies, flower arranging, N o h and K abuki dramas, distinctive styles
o f architecture, urban design and landscape painting.
A cco rd in g to a rch itect K ish o K urokaw a, ‘Edo was known as the city o f
blossoms’—a m etaphor for innovation, but also for the greenness o f the city’s
parks and gardens. Kurokawa believes th at one o f the m o st im p o rtan t
features o f E d o was the hybrid organic nature o f design. D iversity was
g ood, and anything that worked could be used in urban o r rural space.
T h is was n o t a recipe for chaos, because principles o f harmony determined
w hat w ould w ork. B u t diversity m eant sy n th esis, and th e sy n erg istic
46 A g r i- C ultu re

process o f bringing together different elements to create a whole more

significant than the sum o f its parts.
T h e sim plicity o f the Japanese tea-room tells us something im portant
about how we m ight design on a landscape scale. T h e first thing to note
is that tea-rooms are not designed, they emerge, 'built through a process of natural
accretion’.T ea masters used only locally available material and had an ability
to discover beauty and harmony in com m onplace objects, such as trees,
fallen branches or decayed bo ard s.T he im portant point here is that these
items have m ultiple meanings. Sim ple rough thatch, for example, is there
to remind you o f the splendour o f cherry blossom in spring, as well as
o f the luminous red maple leaves in autumn. T h is is the ambiguous code
for Edo, with sim plicity and harmony producing a living and changing
series o f landscape sym bols, in which diversity grows over tim e as the
system responds to incremental changes that people make.
Japanese landscape painters were m ore willing than W estern landscape
painters o f the tim e to adopt a variety o f form ats, such as very wide
screens o r tall parchm ents. T h e ir land scapes were always diverse —
harm onious green hills covered with clumps o f pink flowering cherries,
set against a golden m ist.T h ese hills are the satoyama of myth and mystery,
deeply em bedded in Japanese culture and part o f a rural vision called
satockt. T h e se satochi are areas that are m arked by great diversity in the
relationships between humans and nature, and embody the ideas o f a path
to mutual com patibility for both nature and people. T h ey containfurusato
— old settlem ents, places o f com m unity which give a special feeling to
people. Many, too , were com m ons, known as iriaichi, which persisted
w ithout ecological destruction until the mid 2 0 th century. Overall they
are culturally im portant diverscapes o f paddy rice, orchard trees, groves, hills,
rivers and high m ountains.Today, though, satochi are under threat because
o f m odern patterns o f econom ic development.46
T h is is the problem : m odernism creates m onoscapes. It is a kind o f
fundam entalism because it suggests that there is only one way, and no
others can be correct. M onoscapes are dysfunctional systems. T h ey are
good at one thing, but people do not much care fo r them . In truth, a
monoscape is less valuable than it appears, largely because value is captured
and claim ed by a sm all num ber o f stakeholders. Poverty persists in the
m onocultural ideal, though it is clearly present in many societies that we
may wish to call traditional. T h ere is also social injustice at the core o f
wilderness m onocultures. In order to make them ‘wild’ and ‘untouched’,
the people who live there have to be removed. T h ey are then replaced by
tourists, who visit to experience the natural and real landscape upon which
a new order has been imposed. By contrast, a polycultural approach accepts
differences and the value o f the whole.
 M o n o scapbs 47

W h e n I use the term m od ern to describe current agricultural system s,

I mean it in the philosophical rather than tem poral sense. Such systems
are ce rta in ly m o d ern because they are w hat we have now. B u t, m ore
im portantly, they are m od ern ist because they are sin gle-cod e system s.
Kurukawa was also a designer o f the 19 8 1 Royal Academy exhibition in
L ond on on The Art o f the Edo Period, and he says it perfectly:

I do not reject the modern by any means. . . But when I see how rigid it has become,
how it has lost all flexibility, I am forced to ally myself with those who attack the
weaknesses o f the modernist doctrine.

A m od ern ist agriculture is single coded — it does one thing (produces

fo o d ) and it does it well. It draws on no local traditions; it is placeless,
inflexible and m onocultural. Diverscapes, by contrast, have m ore elements,
m ore conn ections between these elem ents, and thus greater poten tial for
sy n erg ies.47 T h e p o st-m o d e rn is m ore s y m b io tic , and acco rd in g to
Kurukawa, ‘f ro m the intermediary space between these opposing poles many creative
possibilities will well up’.*s
L andscapes are com m on s; yet, today they are increasingly shaped by
n o n -local and global interests. T h e se com m on s can never respond to the
particular needs o f the local, nor be able to change direction rapidly when
som ething goes wrong. T h e landscape com m ons have been appropriated
to a vision o f efficien t ‘m on o-u se’ and ‘m on o-cu ltu re’. W e have to find
new ways in which to claim back these com m ons, and to step outside the
co n se rv a tio n -p ro d u ctio n d u alism .49 W h o tells th e land scap e sto ries
m atters, as does who constru cts the visions. I f it is the powerful, defining
a vision for the landscape and pu tting up the money, then we will see one
type o f outcom e. I f it is many individuals and sm all groups developing
genuinely radical visions, then we will get som ething very different.

Repossessing N atural Places

T h e term landscape has com e to mean a p ictorial representation o f the

countryside. Paradoxically, though, tim eless and cultural landscapes may
be allow ing deep in eq u alities to persist. T h u s , a landscape conserved
w ithout social change is only h a lf the picture.T ransform ations are needed
in b o th the natu ral and so cial spheres, and in th e ir in te ra ctio n s and
connections. U ltim ately, transform ations are needed in the way we think.
W ritin g in the m id 1 9 th century, T h o re a u was w orried ab o u t our
d estruction o f nature, and why protecting, conserving and understanding
it m attered. H e is particularly fam ous fo r his public departure from the
4 8 A g r i- C u lture

tow n to live by W alden Pond in the forests o f M assach u setts.50 F o r 2 6

m o n th s, he repossessed his own nature. In his acco u n t o f life in the forest,
he com pared his views w ith those still in the tow n, and explored the nature
o f civilization , the e co n o m ic exp lo itatio n o f nature, the sim ple life, and
the d istin ct soun ds and deep solitu d e. H is is the celebratio n o f nature as
a special place, n o t as a strictly u n tou ched w ilderness: ‘I went to the woods
because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essentialfacts o f life, and see i f I could
not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.’
H is co n te m p la tio n changed him :

Sometimes, in a summer morning. . . 1 sat in my sunny doorway fro m sunrise

till noon, rapt in a reverie amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs. In undisturbed
solitude and stillness, while the birds sang around or flitted noiselessly through the
house. . . I grew in those seasons like corn in the night.

H e discovers an intim acy w ith nature through such close observation, and
through farm in g his bean field: ‘consider the intimate and curious acquaintance one
makes with various kinds o f weeds’.
T h e real insigh t in T h o re a u s w riting is the jo u rn ey he h im se lf travels,
and his vision and w illingness to experim en t, and his desire to m ake his
words m eaningful to oth er people in the cities to w hom he does, o f course,
retu rn. ‘I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that i f one advances confidently in the
direction o f his dreams, and endeavours to live the life which be has imagined, he will meet
with a success unexpected in common hours’. H is co n cern is w ith how we live ou r
lives, each o f us, and how this can be im proved throu g h a closer relation
w ith nature. M o re than a centu ry later, wildness w riter B arry L o p ez m akes
a sim ilar co n n ectio n : ‘A s I travelled, I came to believe that people’s desires and aspirations
were as much a part o f the land as the wind, solitary animals, and the brightfields o f stone
and tundra.’* 1
Su ch pride in your own landscape is co m m o n the world over. D avid
A rn o ld q u o te s th e renow ned B engali p o et and n o velist R a b in d ra n a th
T ag ore who, w ritin g in 1 8 9 4 , said:

Many people dismiss Bengalf o r being so fla t, but for me thefield s and rivers are
sights to love. With thefalling o f evening the vault o f the sky brims with tranquillity
like a goblet o f lapis lazuli, while the immobility o f afternoon reminds me o f the
border o f a golden sari wrapped around the whole world. Where is there another
land tof i l l the mind so?

B ut T agore also knew o f an o th er painful tru th , and he rightly p o in ts to

the co m b in e d so cia l and eco lo g ica l challenge: ‘every house has rheumatism,
swollen legs, colds or fevers, or a malaria-ridden child ceaselessly crying [w h om ] no one
can save.>S2
 M onoscapbs 49

T h e idea o f landscape redesign com bined with such social challenges

is appealing; but, in truth, few have taken a radical view o f what can be
achieved.53 T h is is precisely why changes brought about by today’s newly
emerging sustainable agriculture revolution are so important. Cultural and
natural landscapes are being transform ed precisely because some power
is being put in the hands o f the poorest; they are alchemists bringing forth
a new world. It is the desires, aspirations and stories o f these individuals
that we must harness for a new connection between people and nature.
W e are fortunate that so many heroes have recently found a way o f meeting
food needs, while not damaging nature. It can be done, but it is difficult.
T h e path towards sustainability, which is taken by individuals in remote
places that are far removed from industrialization, must be adopted by
all o f us.
I once stood upon the top o f theTem ple o f the G iant Jaguar, 9 6 metres
above the floor o f T ik a l, the long-since abandoned capital o f the Mayan
empire. Below were the crowns o f giant rainforest trees, the branches o f
which cracked and snapped as how ler and spider m onkeys leapt and
chattered. A storm swept across this Peten forest o f Guatemala and lashed
me with ferocious wind and rain. Later, I reversed my way down the
vertical step ladders, and then to the dizzying steps o f the lower slopes
o f the pyramid. H ad I been dropped here from afar, I may have been
forgiven for thinking that I gazed upon a wilderness. T h e Peten is, after
all, one o f the w orlds hot spots for biological diversity, containing 2 0 0
species o f mammals and 5 0 0 species o f birds. I would have been right
to be awed, but wrong about the wilderness. During the M ayan G olden
Age betw een A D 2 5 0 —9 0 0 , T ik a l alone su pported a p o p u latio n o f
1 0 ,0 0 0 to 4 0 ,0 0 0 people.
Since the m ystifying collapse o f the M ayan civilization, indigenous
people have farmed with slash-and-burn m ethods. Fields are cleared in
the forest, cropped for a couple o f years, and then abandoned as families
move on to new sites. O ver tim e, as the p o p u latio n has increased,
and as others came to log the forests, so farmers have had to reduce their
fallow periods. As a result, they returned to form er fields too soon for
natural soil fertility to have been restored. Both agriculture and the forest
come under pressure — yields remain low or fall, and the forest steadily
disappears.54
But on the edge o f Peten forest, farm ers are using a magic bean to
improve their soils and to save the rainforest. Som e decades ago, the
velvetbean (Mucunapruriens) was introduced to Central America, probably
from South Asia via the U S . It did not spread far until several Honduran
and Guatem alan non-governm ental organizations, in particular W orld
N eighbors, Cosecha and Centro Maya, discovered during the 1 9 8 0 s and
50 A g r i- C ulture

1 9 9 0 s that its cultivation with maize substantially increased cereal yields.

T h e im p ortant thing is that Mucuna is grown as a soil improver. It can fix
1 5 0 kilogram m es o f nitrogen per hectare each year — a free resource for
farm ers. F o r every hectare, it also annually produces 5 0 —1 0 0 tonnes o f
bio m ass.T his plant material is allowed to fall on the soil as a green manure,
suppressing weeds and helping to build the soil. In this bean lies the
protection o f the Peten rainforest. Build the health o f the soil, and farmers
no longer want to burn trees in order to create new fields. Reclaim ing land
fo r agriculture is, after all, d ifficu lt and dangerous w ork, and farm ers
would love an alternative. An improvem ent to soil health changes the way
that farm ers think and act. T h e y see the benefit o f staying in the same
place, and o f investing in the same fields for themselves and their children.
Seven years after first standing a tT ik a l with Sergio Ruano, I came back
to see how far farm ers had developed their new settled ways. I walked with
a n o th er colleague fro m C e n tro M aya, Juan C arlo s M o reira , near the
U sum acinta River, the Guatem alan border with M exico. It is another area
o f extraord in ary biodiversity. In sid e the forest — this silen t and eerie
natural cathed ral — the air was heavy w ith hu m id ity and pierced with
sunlight let in through holes in the canopy far above. By som e w onderful
coin ciden ce o f nam es, this was called the C ooperativa L a Felicidad, or
H appiness Cooperative. O n this real political and administrative frontier,
2 5 0 farm ers now grow Mucuna in their fields and have begun a jou rney
across a cognitive frontier, towards settled and sustainable agriculture. I
asked one, G abin o Leiva, about the bean manure, as they call it: ‘The bean
manure destroys the weeds; the beans simply kill them, and all the cropsflourish much more.
This is what we all need to do — manure our soil f o r increased production.' I t is
tech n ically easy. Im prove the so ils through lo w -co st, environm entally
sound m ethods, save the remaining rainforests, and reclaim the m onoscape
fo r the people who live there.
T h e re rem ain, o f course, many confou nd ing fa c to rs.T h e forests may
still disappear under the chain-saws o f the loggers; farm fam ilies still lack
access to m ark ets; and th e ad o p tio n o f these new settled system s o f
agriculture necessarily m eans the loss o f system s o f shifting agriculture,
w ith their associated knowledge and sub-clim ax biodiversity. M oreover,
this progress towards sustainable agriculture is being made despite current
policies. W h a t would happen i f we were able to get these right, too?

C oncluding C om m ents

In this chapter, I began w ith som e reflections on the darker side o f the
land scape.T hrou ghout history, there are painful stories o f exclusion, with
 M on oscap b s 5 1

the poorest and powerless removed from the very places and resources on
which they rely for their livelihoods. It is easy to m iss these exclusions, as
they are wrapped in picturesque representations o f landscapes, com bined
w ith a narrative o f inevitable eco n o m ic progress. Exclusions have arisen
from both m odern agricultural developm ent and from the establishm ent
o f protected areas — both o f which sim ply discon nect people from the
nature they value and need. O n e third o f all protected areas, covering some
7 m illion square kilom etres, perm it no use o f resources by local people.
Repossession o f natural places is now a priority, and there is progress on
a sm all scale. System ic change, however, will need the collective actions
o f whole com m unities with access to the appropriate technologies and
know ledge, and su p p orted by app rop riate n atio n al and in tern atio n al
policies.
 Chapter 3

Reality Cheques

T h e R eal C osts o f Food

W h e n we buy o r bake our daily bread, do we ever wonder how m uch it

really costs? W e like it when our food is cheap, and com plain when prices
rise. In deed, riots over food prices date back at least to R o m an tim es.
G overnm ents have long since intervened to keep food cheap in the shops,
and tell us that policies designed to do exactly this are succeeding. In m ost
industrialized countries, the p ro p ortio n o f the average household budget
spent on food has been declining in recent decades. Food is getting cheaper
relative to oth er goods, and m any believe that this m ust benefit everyone
since we all need to eat food. But we have com e to believe a damaging myth.
F oo d is n o t cheap. I t only appears cheap in the shop because we are not
encouraged to th in k o f the hidden co sts, in term s o f dam age to the
environm ent and to hum an health as a result o f agricultural production.
T h u s, we actually pay three tim es for our food — once at the till in the
shop, a second tim e through taxes that are used to subsidize farm ers or
 R e a lity C h eq u es 53

s u p p o rt a g ricu ltu ra l d ev elo p m en t, and a th ird tim e to clean up the

environmental and health side effects. F oo d looks cheap because we count
these costs elsewhere in society. As econom ists put it, the real costs are
no t internalized in prices.1
T h is is n o t to say th at prices in the shop should rise, as this would
penalize the p o o r over the wealthy. U sing taxes to raise m oney to support
agricultural developm ent is also potentially progressive, as the rich pay
pro p ortio nally m ore in taxes, and the poor, who spend prop ortionally
m ore o f their budget on food , benefit i f prices stay low. But this idea o f
fairness falters when set against the massive d isto rtio ns brought about by
m odern agricultural systems that, additionally, impose large environmental
and health costs throughout econom ies. O th er people and institutions pay
these costs, and this is both unfair and inefficient. I f we could add up the
real costs o f producing food , we would find that m odern industrialized
system s o f produ ction perform poorly in com parison w ith sustainable
sy stem s.T h is is because we perm it cost-sh iftin g — the costs o f ill-health,
lost biodiversity and water pollution are transferred away from farm ers,
and therefore are n o t paid by those producing the food , or are included
in the price o f the products sold. U n til recently, though, we have lacked
the m ethods to put a price on these side effects.
W h e n we conceive o f agriculture as m ore than sim ply a food factory
— indeed, as a multifunctional activity w ith m any side effects, then this idea
that farm ers do only one thing m ust change. O f course, it was n o t always
like this. M o d ern agriculture has brought a narrow view o f farm ing, and
it has led us to crisis. T h e rural environm ent in industrialized countries
suffers, the food we eat is as likely to do as m uch harm as good, and we
still think that food is ch eap .T h e follow ing words were w ritten m ore than
5 0 years ago, ju st before the advent o f m od ern industrialized farm ing:

Why is there so much controversy ahout Britain’s agricultural policy, and why are
farm ers so disturbed ahout the future?. . . After the last war, the people o f these
islands were anxious to establishfo o d production on a secure basis, yet, in spite o f
public good will, thefarming industry has been through a period o f insecurity and
chaotic conditions.

T h e se are the opening words to a national enquiry that could have been
w ritten about a contem p orary crisis. Y et they are by Lord A stor, w ritten
in 1 9 4 5 to introduce the A stor and R ow ntree review o f ag ricu ltu re.T h is
enquiry was critical o f the replacem ent o f mixed m ethods w ith standard­
ized farming. T h e authors insisted that: ‘tofarm properly you have got to maintain
soilfertility; to maintain soilfertility you need a mixed farming system ’.T h e y believed
that farm ing would only succeed i f it m aintained the health o f the w hole
54 A g r i-C u ltu r e

system , beginning, in particular, with the m aintenance o f soil fertility:

‘Obviously it is not only sound business practice but plain common sense to take steps to
maintain the health and fertility o f soil.’2
B ut during the enquiry, som e w itnesses disagreed, and called fo r a
‘specialized and mechanized fa r m in g ’ — th o u g h , interestin gly , the farm in g
establishm ent at the tim e largely supported the idea o f mixed farm ing.
But in the end, the desire for public subsidies to encourage increases in
food production to o k precedence, and these were m ore easily applied to
sim plified systems, rather than mixed o n es.T h e 1 9 4 7 Agriculture A ct was
the outcom e, a giant leap forward fo r m odern, sim plified agriculture, and
a large step away from farm in g th at valued natu re’s assets. S ir G eorge
Stapled on , a British scientist knighted for his research on grasslands, was
another perceptive individual well ahead o f his tim e. H e, too, was against
m onocultures and was in favour o f diversity, arguing in 19 4 1 that ‘senseless
systems o f monoculture designed to producefood and other crops at the cheapest possible cost
have rendered waste literally millions o f acres o f oncefertile or potentially fertile country’.3
In his final years, just a decade after the 1 9 4 7 act, he said:

Today technology has begun to run riot and amazingly enough perhaps nowhere more
so than on the most productivefarms. . . Man is putting all his money on narrow
specialisation and on the newly dawned age o f technology has hacked a wild horse
which given its head is bound to get out o f control.

T h e s e are wise words from em inent p olitician s and scientists. B ut they

were lost on the altar o f progress until now, perhaps — as new ideas on
agriculture have begun to emerge and gather credence.

A gricu ltu res U nique M u ltifu n ctio n ality

W e sh ou ld all ask: w hat is farm in g for? Clearly, in the first instan ce,
farm ing produces food, and we have becom e very good at it. Farm ing has
becom e a great success, but only i f our measures o f efficiency are narrow.
A g ricu ltu re is un iqu e as an e co n o m ic secto r. It d oes m ore th an ju st
produce food , fibre, oil and tim ber. It has a profound im pact upon many
aspects o f local, national and global econom ies and ecosystem s. T h e s e
im pacts can be either positive o r negative.T he negative ones are worrying.
P estic id e s and n u trie n ts th a t leach fro m farm s have to be rem oved
from drinking water, and these costs are paid by water consum ers, n o t
by the polluters. T h e polluters, therefore, benefit by n o t paying to clean
up the m ess they have created, and they have no incentive to change their
behaviour. W h a t also m akes agriculture unique is th at it affects the very
 R e a lity C h eq u es 55

assets on which it relies fo r success. A gricultural system s at all levels rely

for their success on the value o f services that flow from the total stock
o f assets that they control, and five types o f assets (natural, social, human,
physical and financial cap ital) are now recognized as being im p o rtant.4
Natural capital produces natures goods and services, and com prises food
(b o th farm ed and harvested o r caught from the w ild), w ood and fibre;
water supply and regulation; treatm ent, assim ilation and decom position
o f wastes; nutrient cycling and fixation; soil form ation; biological control
o f pests; clim ate regulation; wildlife habitats; storm protection and flood
co n tro l; carbon sequestration; p o llin ation ; and recreation and leisure. Social
capital yields a flow o f mutually beneficial collective action that contributes
to the cohesiveness o f people in their so cieties. T h e social assets that
comprise social capital include norm s, values and attitudes that predispose
people to cooperate; relations o f trust, reciprocity and obligations; and
com m on rules and san ctions that are m utually agreed upon o r handed
down. T h e s e are connected and structured in netw orks and groups.
Human capital is the total capability that resides in individuals, based
upon their stock o f knowledge skills, health and nu trition . It is enhanced
by access to services that provide these, such as schools, m edical services
and adult training. People’s productivity is increased by their capacity to
interact with productive technologies and with oth er people. Leadership
and org a n iz a tio n a l sk ills are p articu larly im p o rta n t in m akin g o th er
resources m ore valuable. Physical capital is the store o f hum an-made material
resources, and com prises buildings, such as housing and factories, m arket
infrastru ctu re, irrig ation w orks, roads and bridges, to o ls and tractors,
co m m u n ication s, and energy and tran sp o rtatio n system s. A ll o f these
resources m ake labo u r m ore productive. Financial capital is m ore o f an
accounting co ncep t: it serves as a facilitating role, rather than as a source
o f productivity in and o f itself. It represents accumulated claims on goods
and services, bu ilt up through financial system s that gather savings and
issue credit, such as pensions, rem ittances, welfare paym ents, grants and
subsidies.
As agricultural system s shape the very assets upon which they rely for
inputs, a vital feedback loop occurs from ou tcom es to inputs. D o n ald
W o r s te r’s three p rin cip le s fo r g oo d farm in g capture th is idea. G o o d
fa rm in g m akes p eo p le h e a lth ier, p ro m o tes a m ore ju s t so ciety , and
preserves the E a rth and its netw orks o f life. H e says: ‘the need f o r a new
agriculture does not absolve usfrom the moral duty and common-sense advice tofarm in
an ecologically rational way. Good farming protects the land, even when it uses i t T h u s,
sustainable agricultural system s tend to have a positive effect on natural,
social and human capital, w hile unsustainable ones feed back to deplete
these assets, leaving less for future generations. F o r example, an agricultural
56 A g r i- C ulture

system that erodes soil while producing food externalizes costs that others
m ust bear. But a system that sequesters carbon in soils through organic
m atter accum ulation helps to m ediate clim ate change. Sim ilarly, a diverse
a g ricu ltu ra l system th a t en h an ces o n -fa rm w ild life fo r p est co n tro l
contributes to wider stocks o f biodiversity, while sim plified m odernized
system s th at elim inate w ildlife do not. A gricultural system s th at o ffer
la b o u r-a b so rp tio n o p p o rtu n ities, through resource im provem ents or
value-added activities, can b o o st econom ies and help to reverse ru ral-to-
urban m igration patterns.
A gricu ltu re is, therefore, fun dam entally m u ltifu n ctio n al. It jo in tly
produces m any unique n o n -fo o d fun ctions that can not be produced by
o th er eco no m ic sectors as efficiently. Clearly, a key policy challenge, for
b o th industrialized and developing countries, is to find ways in which to
m aintain and enhance food production. But the key question is: can this
be done while im proving the positive side effects and elim in atin g the
negative ones? It will n o t be easy, as past agricultural developm ent has
tend ed to ignore b o th the m u ltifu n ctio n a lity o f ag ricu ltu re and the
pervasive external co sts.6
T h is leads us to a sim ple and clear definition o f sustainable agriculture.
I t is farm ing that m akes the best use o f nature’s goods and services while
n o t damaging the environm ent.7 Su stainable farm ing does this by inte­
grating natural processes, such as nu trient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil
regeneration and natural pest control, w ithin food produ ction processes.
I t also m in im iz es the use o f n o n -ren ew ab le inp u ts th a t dam age the
environment or harm the health o f farm ers and consumers. It makes better
use o f farm ers’ knowledge and skills, thereby improving their self-reliance,
and it m akes productive use o f p eople’s capacities to work tog ether in
order to solve com m on m anagem ent p ro blem s.T h rou g h this, sustainable
agriculture also contribu tes to a range o f public goods, such as clean water,
w ildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flo o d p ro tectio n and landscape
quality.

P utting M on etary Values on E xtern alities

M o s t eco no m ic activities affect the environm ent, either through the use
o f natural resources as an input o r by using the ‘clean’ environm ent as a
sink for p o llu tion . T h e costs o f using the environm ent in this way are
called externalities. B ecause e x te rn a litie s co m p rise th e sid e e ffe c ts o f
eco no m ic activity, they are external to m arkets, and so their costs are not
p art o f the prices paid by producers or consum ers. W h e n such external­
ities are n o t included in prices, they d isto rt the m arket by encouraging
 R e a lity C h eq u es 57

activities that are costly to society, even i f the private benefits are substantial.
T h e types o f extern alities encou ntered in the agricultural sec to r have
several features. T h e ir costs are often neglected, and often o ccu r with a
tim e lag. T h e y often damage groups whose interests are n o t represented,
and the identity o f the producer o f the externality is not always know n.8
In practice, there is little agreed data on the eco n o m ic co st o f agri­
cultural extern a lities.T h is is partly because the costs are highly dispersed
and affect many sectors o f econom ies. It is also necessary to know about
the value o f natu res goods and services, and what happens when these
largely unm arketed goods are lost. Sin ce the current system o f econom ic
accounting grossly underestimates the current and future value o f natural
capital, this makes the task even m ore d ifficu lt.9 It is relatively easy, for
exam ple, to co u n t the rem edial treatm en t costs th at follow p o llu tio n
incid ents; but it is m uch m ore d ifficu lt to value, fo r exam ple, skylarks
singing on a sum m ers day, and the costs incurred when they are lost.
Several studies have recently put a co st on the negative externalities o f
agriculture in C hina, Germ any, the N etherlands, the Philippines, the U K
and the U S .10 W h e n it is possible to make the calculations, our under­
standing o f what is the best or m ost efficient form o f agriculture can change
rapidly. In the P h ilip p in e s, research ers fro m th e In te r n a tio n a l R ic e
Research Institute found that m odern rice cultivation was costly to human
h ealth. T h e y investigated the h ealth statu s o f rice farm ers w ho were
exposed to pesticides, and estim ated the m onetary costs o f significantly
increased in cid en ce o f eye, skin, lung and n eu ro lo g ical disord ers. By
incorporating these within the econom ics o f pest control, they found that
m odern high-input pesticide systems suffer twice. F o r example, with nine
pesticide sprays per season, they returned less per hectare than the integrated
pest management strategies and co st the m o st in term s o f ill health. Any
expected positive p rodu ction benefits o f applying pesticides were over­
w helm ed by th e h e alth co sts. R ic e p ro d u ctio n using natu ral co n tro l
m ethods exhibits multifunctionality by contributing positively both to human
health and by sustaining food p ro d u ctio n ."
A t the U niversity o f Essex, we recently developed a new fram ework
to study the negative externalities o f U K agriculture.This fram ework uses
seven co st categories to assess negative environm ental and health costs,
such as damage to water, air, soil and biodiversity, and damage to hum an
health by pesticides, m icro-organism s and disease agents. T h e analysis o f
damage and m on itorin g costs counted only external costs; private costs
born e by farm ers them selves, such as increased pest o r weed resistance
from pesticide overuse, were not included. W e conservatively estim ated
that the external costs o f U K agriculture, alm ost all o f which is m od ern­
ized and industrialized, were at least U K S 1 .5 billion to U K £ 2 billion each
58 A g r i- C ulture

year. A noth er study by O livia H artrid ge and David Pearce has also put
the annual costs o f m odern agriculture in excess o f U K £ I billio n .l2T h ese
are co sts im posed on the rest o f so ciety and are, effectively, a hidden
subsidy to the p o llu ters.13 T h e annual costs arise from damage to the
atm osph ere ( U K £ 3 I 6 m illio n ), to w ater ( U K £ 2 3 I m illio n ), to b io ­
diversity and landscapes ( U K £ 1 2 6 m illio n ), to soils ( U K £ 9 6 m illion ),
and to human health ( U K £ 7 7 7 m illio n ). U sing a sim ilar fram ework o f
analysis, the external costs in the U S am ount to nearly U K £ I 3 billion per
year.14
H ow do all o f these costs arise? Pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus
nutrients, soil, farm wastes and m icro-organ ism s escape from farm s to
pollute ground and surface water. C o sts are incurred by water delivery
companies, and then passed on to their custom ers in order to remove these
co n ta m in a n ts, to pay fo r resto rin g w atercourses follow in g p o llu tio n
incidents and eutropbication, and to remove soil from water. U sing U K water
c o m p a n ie s’ retu rn s fo r b o th cap ita l and o p era tin g exp en d itu re, we
estim ated annual external costs to be U K £ I 2 5 m illion fo r the removal
o f pesticides below legal standards, U K £ I 6 m illion for nitrates, U K £ 6 9
m illio n fo r so il, and U K £ 2 3 m illio n for Cryptosporidium.'5 T h e s e costs
would be m uch greater i f the policy goal were com plete removal o f all
contam in ation .
A gricu ltu re also co n trib u tes to atm o sp h eric p o llu tio n through the
em ission s o f fo u r gases: m eth ane from liv estock , n itro u s oxide from
fertilizers, am m onia from livestock wastes and some fertilizers, and carbon
dioxide from energy and fo ssil-fu el co n su m p tion and the loss o f so il
carb on . T h e s e , in turn , co n trib u te to atm osph eric w arm ing (m ethan e,
nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide), ozone loss in the stratosphere (nitrou s
oxid e), acid ification o f soils and water (am m o n ia) and eutroph ication
(am m on ia). T h e annual co st for these gases is som e U K £ 4 4 4 m illio n .16
A healthy soil is vital fo r agriculture; but m odern farm ing has accelerated
erosion, primarily through the cultivation o f winter cereals, the conversion
o f pasture to arable, the removal o f field boundaries and hedgerows, and
overstocking o f livestock on grasslands. O ff-s ite costs arise when soil
washed or blow n away from fields b lo ck s d itches and roads, damages
p ro p erty , ind uces tra ffic accid en ts, increases the risk o f flo o d s, and
pollutes water through sediments and associated nitrates, phosphates and
pesticides. T h e s e costs am ount to U K £ I 4 m illion per year. C arbon in
organic m atter in soils is also rapidly lost when pastures are ploughed or
when agricultural land is intensively cultivated, and adds another U K £ 8 2
m illion to the annual external costs.
M o d ern farm ing has had a severe im pact on w ildlife in the U K . M o re
than nin e-ten th s o f w ildflow er-rich meadows have been lost since the
 R e a lity C h eq u es 59

1 9 4 0 s , together with one h a lf o f heathland, lowland fens, and valley and

basin m ires, and one third to one h a lf o f an cien t low land w oods and
hedgerows. Species diversity is also declining in the farm ed habitat itself.
Increased use o f drainage and fertilizers has led to grass m onocultures
replacing flower-rich meadows; overgrazing o f uplands has reduced species
diversity; and herbicides have cut diversity in arable fields. Hedgerows were
removed at a rate o f 1 8 ,0 0 0 kilom etres a year betw een the 1 9 8 0 s and
1 9 9 0 s . Farm land birds have particularly suffered, w ith the populations
o f nine species falling by m ore than one h a lf in the 2 5 years to I 9 9 5 . 17
T h e costs o f restoring species and habitats under biodiversity action plans
were used as a proxy for the costs o f w ildlife and habitat losses; together
with the costs o f replacing hedgerows, stonew alls and bee colonies, this
brings the annual costs to U K £ 1 2 6 m illion.
Pesticides can affect workers who are engaged in their m anufacture,
tran sp ort and disposal, operators who apply them in the field, and the
general public. But there is still great uncertainty because o f differing risks
per p ro d u ct, p o o r understanding o f ch ron ic effects (such as in cancer
causation), weak m on itorin g systems, and m isdiagnoses by d octors.18 F or
these reasons, it is very difficult to say exactly how many people are affected
by pesticides each year. A ccording to voluntary rep orting to governm ent,
1 0 0 —2 0 0 in cid en ts o c cu r each year in the U K .19 H ow ever, a recen t
governm ent survey o f 2 0 0 0 pesticide users found that 5 per cent reported
at least one sym ptom in the past year about which they had consulted a
d octor, and a further 1 0 per cent had been affected, m ostly by headaches,
but had n o t consulted a d octor, incurring annual costs o f about U K £ I
m illion. C h ron ic health hazards associated with pesticides are even m ore
d ifficu lt to assess. Pesticides are ingested via food and water, and these
represent som e risk to the public. W ith current scien tific knowledge, it
is im possible to state categorically whether o r n o t certain pesticides play
a role in cancer causation. O th er serious health problem s arising from
agriculture are foo d -b o rn e illnesses, an tibio tic resistance and B S E -C JD .20
T h e se external costs o f U K agriculture are alarm in g .T h ey should call
into question what we mean by efficiency. Farm ing receives U K £ 3 billion
o f public subsidies each year, yet causes another U K £ I .5 billion o f costs
elsewhere in the econom y. I f we had no alternatives, then we would have
to accept these costs. B ut in every case, there are choices. Pesticides do not
have to get into w atercourses. Indeed, they do n o t need to be used at all
in many farm systems. T h e pesticide m arket in the U K is U K £ 5 0 0 m illion;
yet, we pay U K £ I 2 0 m illion just to clean them ou t o f drinking water. W e
do n o t need farm ing that damages biodiversity and landscapes; we do not
need intensive livestock production that encourages infections and overuse
o f antibiotics. N o t all costs, though, are su bject to imm ediate elim ination
60 A g r i- C ulture

w ith sustainable m ethods o f produ ction. Cows will still belch m ethane,
until animal feed scientists find a way o f amending rum inant biochem istry
to prevent its em ission. But it is clear that m any o f these massive d isto rt­
ions could be removed with som e clear thinking, firm policies, and brave
action by farm ers.21

T h e Side E ffects o f Intensive Food Production

on W ater and W etlands

O n e problem w ith the redesign o f landscape fo r m od ern agriculture is

th at im p o rtant natural features and fun ctions are lost. W atercourses are
one o f the m ost tamed and abused o f natural landscape features. W etlands
have been drained, rivers straightened or hidden behind levees, aquifers
mined, and rivers, lakes and seas polluted, m ostly to ensure that productive
farmland is protected from harm or excessive costs. O nce again, the narrow
view th at farm land is only im p o rtan t for food p ro d u ctio n has caused
second ary problem s. A ccording to the N atio n al Research C o u n cil, 4 7
m illion hectares o f wetlands in the U S were drained during the past two
centuries, and 8 5 per cent o f inland waters are now artificially controlled.
T h is created new farm land, to the b en efit o f farm ers. B ut remove the
wetlands, and the many valued services they provide are also lost. T h e y
are habitats for biodiversity, capture nutrients that run o ff fields, provide
flo od protection, and are im portant cultural features o f the landscape.
D onald W orster describes growing up w ithin 3 0 m etres o f the already
tam ed Cow Creek in Kansas: ‘We could not see itfrom our windows; we could only
see the levee.’ D u ring the 1 9 th century, the town expanded by the river and
the early settlers converted land to w heat cu ltivatio n. As a result, the
natural and regular flo od in g o f the river started to cause considerable
eco no m ic damage. Episod es o f flood in g and continued expenditure on
flood protection continued for decades, until a m ajor flood in 19 4 1 finally
led the Arm y C o rp s o f Engineers to co n stru ct a series o f 4-m etre high
levees: ‘Now at long last the good Kansas folk, having vanquished the Indians and
the bison and the sandhill cranes and the antelope, had managed to vanquish Cow
Creek. Abruptly, it disappeared from their /iv«.’T h is is the alarm ing part. W h e n
valued landscape features have gone, o r have been replaced, the everyday
experiences o f local people will steadily erode old m em ories. T h e young
will n o t know, while the old will be troubled, until they pass on, to o .22
M eanw hile, we all lose.
In Europe, river valleys used to contain many water meadows. T h ese
field s were likely to be flo o d ed by overflow ing rivers, and were used
 R e a l it y C h eq u es 6 1

productively in order to produce a late winter or early spring crop o f grass.

M o re im p o rtantly , when the river did flo o d , w ater was stored on the
m eadows and did not harm housing or oth er vulnerable areas. However,
in the intensification o f food produ ction, m ost o f these meadows were
converted to arable fields. At the same tim e, rivers were tamed through
channelling, field sizes increased, hedgerows removed, and houses bu ilt
on vulnerable land. N ow , when it rains, the conseq u en ce is increased
flood in g to vulnerable areas. It looks as though there has been ‘to o m uch’
rain; but, in truth, this is largely due to changes in the landscape.
In Germ any, R ien k van der P loeg and colleagues have correlated loss
o f meadows with an increased incidence o f inland floods. O ver a century,
6 o f the 1 2 m ost extrem e events have occurred since 1 9 8 3 . T h e y show
that changes in the diversity o f the use o f agricultural land are the m ain
cause o f flooding. In particular, perm anent meadows have been converted
to arable fields, som e 1.5 m illion hectares since the m id 1 9 6 0 s . Surface
sealing and co m p action m eans these fields are less likely to hold water
during winter. A n o th er 4 .5 m illion hectares o f wetland soils have been
drained since the 1 9 4 0 s . T h u s , when it rains, w ater co n trib u tes m ore
rapidly to river w ater d ischarge, thereby increasing the lik elih o o d o f
flood ing. T h e co st o f two flo od s in 1 9 9 3 and 1 9 9 5 was nearly 2 billion
Deutschm arks, and van der Ploeg concludes that the conversion o f arable
back to perm anent meadows would be econom ically and environmentally
beneficial: ‘It must be acknowledged that any further increase in agricultural productivity
is likely to cause additional adverse environmental effects. Future farm policy must pay
more attention to the environment’.23
Japan provides a n o th er exam ple o f the w ider value o f agricultural
wetlands — in this case, irrigated paddy rice fields. Japans very high rainfall
is concentrated into a few m onths w ithin a landscape characterized by a
high m ountain chain. W ith a very sh o rt flow tim e to the sea, this means
th a t m uch o f the co u n try is s u b je c t to severe flo o d risk . Paddy rice
farm ing, though, provides an im portant sink for this w ater.There are more
than 2 m illion hectares o f paddy rice in Japan, and each o f these hectares
holds about 1 0 0 0 tonnes o f water each year. In the Koshigaya C ity basin,
2 5 kilom etres n o rth o f T okyo, paddy fields close to the city have been
steadily converted to residential uses over the past qu arter century. But
as the area o f paddy has declined by about 1 0 0 0 hectares since the mid
1 9 7 0 s , so the incidence o f flo od in g has increased. E ach year, 1 0 0 0 to
3 0 0 0 houses are flood ed. In w hole watersheds, woods and farm s on steep
slopes have been identified as having the greatest value in buffering and
slow ing w ater flow, and m in im iz in g lan d slid es. D iversity, th o u g h , is
critical. As Yoshitake K ato and colleagues have put it:
62 A g r i- C ulture

Traditional villages in rural areas include settlements, paddyfields, cropfields and

forested hills or mountains, all as linked landscape. The systems were dependent on
all their parts. The decline o f farming in the uplands, together with loss o f forests,
threatens the stability o f whole watersheds24

In C hina, the 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares o f wetlands that have been reclaim ed for

crop produ ction during the past 5 0 years have m eant the loss o f flo o d -
water storage capacity o f som e 5 0 billion cu bic m etres, a m ajor reason
fo r the U S $ 2 0 billion flo od damage caused in I 9 9 8 . 2' In many agricult­
ural systems, over-intensive use o f the land has resulted in sharp declines
in soil organic m atter a n d /o r increases in soil erosion, som e o l which, in
tu rn , th re aten s the v ia b ility o f a g ricu ltu re itself. In S o u th A sia, fo r
example, one qu arter o f farm land is affected by water erosion, one fifth
by wind erosion, and one sixth by salinization and waterlogging.26
Puttin g a value on wetlands and w atercourses, so that we can calculate
how m uch is lost when they are damaged or destroyed, is n o t a trivial task.
E co n o m ists have no agreed value fo r wetlands, though various studies
indicate that individual bodies can provide several m illion dollars o f free
services to nearby com m unities for waste assim ilation and treatm ent. A
recent U S D ep artm en t o f Agriculture study put wetland m onetary value
at U S $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 per hectare per year. A n o th er way to assess value is to
investigate how m uch people pay to visit wetlands, whether to watch or
photograph biodiversity, or indeed to sh o o t it. In the U S , it is estim ated
th at 5 0 m illio n people each year spend U S $ 1 0 b illio n observing and
photographing wetland flora and fauna, 3 1 m illion anglers spend U S $ 1 6
billion on fishing, and 3 m illion waterfowl hunters spend nearly U S $ 7 0 0
m illion dollars annually on sh oo tin g it. A recent m eta-analysis o f eco n ­
om ic studies o f p eo p les w illingness to pay for recreational services o f
wetlands and w atercourses puts the average value in Europe at U K £ 2 0 to
U K £ 2 5 per person per hectare per year.27 T h u s, each hectare o f wetland
converted to another purpose m eans the loss o f at least U K £ 2 0 o f value
to the public.There are, o f course, lim itations in these exercises, as monetary
values can not be allocated to all uses.
O n e o f the m ost serious side effects o f agriculture is the leaching and
ru n -o ff o f nutrients, and their disruption o f water ecosystem s. Eutroph-
ication is the term used to describe nutrient enrichm ent o f water th at leads
to excessive algal growth, disruption o f whole food webs and, in the worst
cases, com plete eradication o f all life through deoxygenation. T h e m ost
notoriou s example is the G u lf o f M exico dead zone, an area o f 5 0 0 0 to
1 8 ,0 0 0 square kilom etres o f sea that has received so much nutrient input
that all aquatic life has been k ille d .T h e cost o f farm overuse o f nutrients
in the M ississippi Basin is thus borne by the fishing fam ilies o f Louisiana.
 R e a lity C h eq u es 53

N o one has yet put a cost on these losses. However, i f they were internal­
ized in the prices o f fertilizers, or the activities o f intensive livestock units,
we would expect m uch greater concern about such polluting activities.28
A t the U niversity o f Essex, we recently conducted a study o f the costs
o f nutrient enrichm ent o f water in the U K .29 E u trop h icatio n affects the
value o f waterside properties, and reduces the recreational and am enity
value o f water bodies for water sp orts, angling and general am enity; for
industrial uses; for the tou rist industry; and fo r com m ercial aquaculture,
fisheries, and shell-fisheries. A dditional costs are incurred through a variety
o f social responses by bo th statutory and non-statutory agencies. In total,
we estim ate nutrient enrichm ent to co st som e U K £ I 3 0 —1 7 0 m illion per
year in the U K .30

Industrialized A griculture and F oo d -B orn e Illnesses

H aving m ostly conquered hunger in industrialized countries, it is a sad

irony that food is now a m ajo r source o f ill health. W e eat to o m uch, we
eat the wrong m ix o f food s, and we get ill from foo d -b o rn e illnesses. In
E urope, 1 0 to 2 0 per cent o f all people are defined as obese, with a body
mass index greater than 3 0 kilogram m es per square m etre. T h e W orld
H ealth O rganization ( W H O ) estim ates that 2 to 7 per cent o f health­
care costs in Europe arise from obesity, and one A m erican study suggests
that a 1 0 per cen t weight loss am ongst obese people would increase life
expectan cy by two to seven m on th s, and produ ce lifetim e ben efits o f
U S $ 2 0 0 0 to U S $ 6 0 0 0 per person.31 Several diseases are strongly linked
to un balan ced fo o d co n su m p tio n , in clu d in g n o n -in su lin d ep en d en t
diabetes, the incidence o f which is growing rapidly, together with strokes,
coronary heart disease and som e cancers.
M any o f these health problem s, though, are attributable to the choices
consum ers make. W e could eat five po rtio ns o f fru it and vegetables per
day, thus protecting against many o f these problem s, but fo r a variety o f
reasons we do not. B ut we can no t choose when it com es to fo o d -b o rn e
diseases. T h e W H O estim ates th at 1 3 0 m illio n people in E u ro p e are
affected by food -born e diseases each year, mainly from biological sources,
particularly strains o f Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria and E.coli. Salmonella
is the m ost co m m on pathogen, accounting fo r up to 9 0 per cent o f cases
in som e co u n tries.T h ro u g h o u t the world, diarrhoea is the m ost com m on
sym ptom o f food -born e illness, and is a m ajor cause o f death and retard­
ation o f grow th in infants. T h e re is evidence th at cases o f Campylobacter
and Salmonella p oison in g are increasing in Europe, though som e o f the
increases can be explained by better m on itorin g system s.32 In the U S , the
64 A g r i- C ulture

incidence o f fo o d -b o rn e illness is greater, perhaps because o f the greater

ind ustrialization o f agriculture and, in particular, o f livestock raising.
A cco rd in g to the U S g ov ern m en t’s C en tres fo r D isease C o n tro l, 7 6
m illio n people in the U S fall ill each year from fo o d -b o rn e illness, o f
whom m ore than 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 are hospitalized and 5 0 0 0 die.33
T h e co sts o f fo o d -b o r n e illn esses are m assive. T h e In s titu te fo r
M ed icine at the N a tio n a l Academy o f Sciences, the U S D ep artm en t o f
A griculture and the W orld H ealth O rganization estim ate such illnesses
in the U S to co st between U S $ 3 4 billion and U S $ 1 1 0 billion per year.
In the U K , the governm ent’s F o o d Standards Agency estim ates that each
o f the annual 5 m illion cases o f food poisoning costs on average U K £ 8 5 ,
com prising costs to health services and losses to businesses, putting the
annual co st at m ore than U K £ 4 0 0 m illion pounds. T h e s e data suggest
th a t on e in fo u r A m e rican s and one in ten B rito n s su ffer from food
poisoning each year.34
So m e o f these fo o d -b o rn e illnesses arise from shellfish, oth ers are
associated with mass catering o r occur in the food processing chain. But
it is the initial sources o f infection on the farm , com bined with the overuse
o f a n tib io tic s fo r grow th p ro m o tio n , th a t is an in creasing source o f
disquiet. T h e concentration o f livestock into factory feedlots, broiler sheds
and colossal pig units prom otes infection and spread. As the W H O puts
it: ‘The greatest risk appears to he the production o f animalfoods. It isfrom this source
that the most serious health threats originate, for instance, Salmonella, Campylobacter, E.coli
and Yersinia.The pool o f infection at the start o f the food chain is now very
serious. T h e U S D ep artm en t o f A griculture has found very high levels
o f m icrobial infections in U S farm animals, particularly in broiler chickens
and turkeys. Clostridium has been found in 3 0 to 4 0 per cent o f flocks,
Campylobacter in nearly 9 0 per cen t, Salmonella in 2 0 to 3 0 per cent, and
Staphylococcus in 6 5 per ce n t.T h e se levels o f infection are m atched in som e
European countries, with m ore than 9 0 per cent o f pig herds and nearly
5 0 per cent o f cattle in the N etherlands and D enm ark contam inated with
Campylobacter. A t these levels o f incidence in animals, it is hardly surprising
th a t illnesses fro m m eat co n su m p tio n are so co m m o n . In cid en ces o f
illness in pigs and cattle in the U S are m uch lower, bu t still a w orrying 3
to 3 0 per cen t o f herds fo r these four pathogens.3"’
T h is extraordinary problem , which underlies the desire fo r ever-cheaper
food s, is w orsened by a n tib io tic resistance, brou g h t o n by overuse o f
a n tib io tics fo r liv estock grow th p ro m o tio n and o v er-p rescrip tio n in
m edicine.Tw enty-three thousand tonnes o f antibiotics are used in the U S
each year, o f which 1 1 ,0 0 0 are given to anim als, fou r-fifth s o f which is
just for growth prom otion. In the U K , 1 2 0 0 tonnes o f antibiotics are used
each year, 4 0 per ce n t o f w hich is fo r hum ans, 3 0 per cen t fo r farm
 R e a lity C h eq u es 55

anim als, and 3 0 per cent for d om estic pets and horses. O n ly one fifth o f
the antibio tics and other antimicrobials that are used in m od ern agriculture
are fo r therap eu tic treatm en t o f clin ical diseases, w ith fo u r-fifth s fo r
pro p h ylactic use and grow th p ro m o tio n . T h e U S C en tres fo r D isease
C o n tro l say: ‘antimicrobial resistance is a serious clinical and public health problem in
the US’, and one estimate from the Institute o f M edicine suggests that such
resistance costs U S $ 3 0 m illion per year. A U K H ou se o f Lord s select
co m m ittee enquiry was even m ore alarm ed, recently statin g: ‘There is a
continuing threat to human health from the imprudent use o f antibiotics in animals. . .
we may face the dire prospect o f revisiting the pre-antibiotic era.’31'
In b o th E u ro p e and N o r th A m erica, the m o st co m m o n fo rm s o f
a n tim icro b ia l resistan ce are to strain s o f a n tib io tics used in treatin g
animals, and these are transferred to hum an patients. So m e antibiotics,
such as flu oroqu inones and avoparcin (used to treat infections in poultry
and as growth prom oters), are now associated with dram atic increases in
resistant diseases in hum ans. Flu oroq u inone resistance is thought to be
the m ain facto r why Campylobacter infections have becom e so com m on in
the N eth erla n d s. As the W H O puts it: ‘Campylobacter species are now the
commonest cause o f bacterial gasteroenteritis is developed countries, and cases are
predominantly associated with consumption o f poultry.’ 37 T h e r e is no such thing as
a cheap chicken.

P utting a M on etary Value on

A gricultural Landscapes

L andscapes are culturally valuable, and the aesthetic value we gain from
them owes m uch to their emergence from agricultural p ractices.T h ey are,
o f course, alm ost im possible to value in m onetary term s. However, many
proxies can be used, including how m uch governm ents are willing to pay
farm ers to produce certain habitats or landscapes, how often the public
visits the countryside, and how m uch they spend when they get there. In
the U K , several studies o f agri-environm ental policies have sought to put
a value o n p o sitiv e en viro n m en tal and land scap e o u t c o m e s .T h e s e
schemes have attem pted to restore some o f the habitats and other positive
countryside attributes that were lost during intensification, as well as to
p ro tect those attributes n o t yet lost.
U K agri-environm ental schemes have been designed to deliver benefits
in several form s, including biodiversity, landscape patterns, water quality,
archaeological sites, and enhanced access. Benefits may accrue to those in
the im m ediate area o f a schem e, to visitors from outside the area, and to
66 A g r i- C ulture

the public at la rg e .T h e annual per-household benefits, using a variety o f

valuation m ethods such as contin gent valuation, choice experim ents and
contingent ranking, vary from U K £ 2 to U K £ 3 0 for m ost environmentally
sensitive areas (E S A s ), rising to U K £ I 4 0 fo r the N o rfo lk Broads and
U K £ 3 8 0 for S co ttish m achair grasslands. I f we take the range o f annual
benefits per household to be U K £ IO to U K £ 3 0 , and assume that this is
representative o f the average ho u seho ld s preferences fo r all landscapes
produced by agriculture, then this suggests national benefits o f the order
o f U K £ 2 0 0 m illion to U K £ 6 0 0 m illion. Expressed on a per hectare basis,
this suggests annual benefits o f U K £ 2 0 to U K £ 6 0 per hectare o f arable
and pasture land in the U K .
O n the one hand, these are likely to be overestimates, assuming agri­
environm ent schem es have already targeted certain landscapes because o f
their higher value. O n the oth er hand, they could be substantial under­
estim ates, as they do n o t value such ben efits as p ath o g en -free fo o d s,
uneroded soils, em ission -free agriculture, and bio d iversity -p rod u cin g
sy stem s.T h ey also focus on the outcom es o f a schem e rather than on the
whole landscape. T h e re are to o few studies to corroborate these data. O ne
study in the U K com pared paired organic and n on-org anic farm s, and
conclud ed th a t organic agriculture produces U K £ 7 5 to U K £ I 2 5 per
hectare o f positive externalities each year, with particular benefits for soil
health and w ildlife.39 As there are 3 m illion hectares o f organic farm ing
in Europe, the annual positive externalities could be U K £ 3 0 0 m illion,
assuming that benefits hold for the many organic farm ing system s across
Europe.
Actual visits made to the countryside are another proxy measure o f how
m uch we value landscapes. Each year in the U K , day and overnight visitors
m ake som e 4 3 3 m illion visit-days to the countryside and another 1 1 8
m illion to the seaside.40 T h e average spend per day o r night varies from
nearly U K £ I 7 fo r U K day visitors, to U K £ 3 3 for U K overnight visitors,
and ju st over U K £ 5 8 for overseas overnight visitors. T h is indicates that
the 5 5 1 m illion visit-days to the countryside and seaside result in spending
o f U K £ I 4 billion p eryear.T h is is 3 .5 tim es greater than the annual public
subsidy o f farm ing, and indicates just how much we value the landscape.
I f it is clean water that is required, the value o f an agricultural landscape
can be substantial — as N ew Y ork State has found ou t w ith its su pport
fo r su stainable agriculture in the 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 h ectare C atsk ill-D elaw are
watershed com plex.4' N ew York C ity gets 9 0 per cent o f its drinking water
from these w atersheds, som e 6 b illio n litres a day. In the late 1 9 8 0 s ,
though, the city was faced with having to co n stru ct a filtration facility in
order to m eet new drinking water standards, the co st o f which would be
U S S 5 billion to U S $ 8 billion dollars, plus another U S $ 2 0 0 m illion to
 R e a lity C h eq u es 57

U S $ 5 0 0 m illion dollars in annual operating costs. O n e third o f the

cropland in the watershed would have to be taken out o f farming in order
to reduce ru n-off o f eroded soil, pesticides, nutrients and bacterial and
protozoan pathogens.
Instead, the city opted for a collaborative approach with farmers. It
supported the establishment o f a Watershed Agricultural Council in the
early 1 9 9 0 s , a partnership between farm ers, governm ent and private
organizations with the dual aim o f protecting the city’s drinking water
supply and sustaining the rural economy. It works on whole-farm planning
with each farm, tailoring solutions to local conditions in order to maximize
reductions in off-site costs.T he first two phases o f the programme, leading
to the 8 5 per cent target in pollution red uction, co st som e U S $ 1 0 0
m illion, a sm all p ro p ortio n o f the co st o f the filtration plant and its
annual costs. N o t only do taxpayers benefit from this approach to join t
agri-environmental management, but so do farmers, the environment and
rural econom ies.42 T h e only surprising thing is that these initiatives are
still rare.

A gricultures Carbon Dividend

T h e greatest environmental problem we face anywhere in the world now

is climate change provoked by rising levels o f anthropogenic greenhouse
gases. Clim ate change threatens to disrupt econom ies and ecosystems, to
challenge existing land uses, to substantially raise sea levels, and to drown
coastal lands and even some whole countries. In order to slow down and
eventually to reverse these changes, we need to reduce hum an-induced
emissions o f these gases, as well as to find ways o f capturing or locking
up carbon from the atm osphere. Sustainable agriculture can make an
im p o rta n t co n trib u tio n to clim ate change m itig atio n through b o th
em issions red uctions and carbon sequestration. As the intern ational
m arkets for carbon expand, so sequestered carbon could represent an
im portant new incom e source for farm ers.43
Agricultural systems contribute to carbon emissions through the direct
use o f fossil fuels in farm operations, the indirect use o f embodied energy
in inputs that are energy intensive to manufacture and transport (p artic­
ularly fertilizers and pesticides), and the cultivation o f soils resulting in
the loss o f soil organic m atter. A griculture is also an accum ulator o f
carbon, offsetting losses when organic m atter is accumulated in the soil,
or when above-ground woody biomass acts either as a perm anent sink or
is used as an energy source that substitutes for fossil fuels.
68 A g r i- C ulture

L o n g -te rm a g ricu ltu ra l exp erim en ts in b o th E u ro p e and N o r th

A m erica indicate that soil organic m atter and soil carbon are lost during
intensive cultivation. But bo th can be increased with sustainable m anage­
m ent p ractices.T h e greatest dividend comes from the conversion o f arable
to agroforestry: there is a benefit from bo th increased soil organic m atter
and the accumulation o f above-ground woody biomass. Grasslands within
rotations, zero-tillage farm ing, the use o f legumes and green m anures, and
high am endm ents o f straw and m anures, also lead to substantial carbon
se q u estra tio n . T h e r e is now g ood evidence to show th a t su stain able
agricultural system s can lead to the annual accum ulation o f 3 0 0 to 6 0 0
kilogram m es o f carbon per hectare, rising to several tonnes per hectare
when trees are intercropped in cropping and grazing systems.
Agriculture as an econom ic sector also contributes to carbon em issions
through the co n su m p tion o f d irect and ind irect fossil fuels. W ith the
increased use o f nitrogen fertilizers, pum ped irrigation and m echanical
power, accounting for m ore than 9 0 per cent o f the total energy inputs
to farm ing, industrialized agriculture has becom e progressively less energy
e fficie n t.T h e difference between sustainable and conventional systems o f
production is striking. L ow -input or organic rice in Bangladesh, China,
and L atin A m erica is som e 15 to 2 5 tim es m ore energy efficien t than
irrigated rice grown in the U S . F o r each tonne o f cereal or vegetable from
industrialized high -inp ut system s in E urope, 3 0 0 0 to 1 0 ,0 0 0 megajoules
o f energy are consum ed in its produ ction. B ut fo r each ton ne o f cereal
or vegetable from sustainable farm ing, only 5 0 0 to 1 0 0 0 m egajoules are
consum ed.44
It is now known that intensive cultivation o f cereals leads to reductions
in soil organic m atter and carbon content. However, recent years have seen
an extraordinary growth in the adoption o f conservation tillage and zero-
tillage system s, particularly in the A m ericas. T h e se systems o f cultivation
m aintain a perm anent or sem i-p erm anent organic cover on the soil. T h e
fu n ctio n is to protect the soil physically from the action o f sun, rain and
w ind, and to feed so il b io ta . T h e resu lt is red uced so il ero sio n and
improved soil organic m atter and carbon content. Zero-tillage systems and
those using legumes as green manures a n d /o r cover crops contribu te to
organic m atter and carbon accum ulation in the soil. Z ero -till system s also
have an additional benefit o f requiring less fossil fuel for machinery passes.
Intensive arable with zero-tillage results in the annual accumulation o f 3 0 0
to 6 0 0 kilogram m es o f carb on per hectare. W ith m ixed ro tation s and
cover crops, this system can accu m u late up to 1 3 0 0 k ilo g ram m es o f
carbon per hectare.
T h e 1 9 9 7 K yoto P ro to c o l to the U N F ram ew ork C o n ven tio n on
C lim a te C h an g e estab lish ed an in te rn a tio n a l p o licy c o n te x t fo r th e
 R e a lity C h eq u es 59

reduction o f carbon em issions and the expansion o f carbon sinks in order

to address clim ate change. U nd er the p ro toco l and the 2 0 0 1 Bonn and
M arakesh agreement, the principle o f financial and technological transfers
to land m anagem ent projects and initiatives was established. A rticle 17
perm its countries to produce certified em issions reductions (also known
as o ffsets) and em issions reductions units through jo in t im plem entation
projects. Sin ce it is cheaper for many countries to abate greenhouse gas
em issions, w orking together for jo in t im plem entation is, in theory, a cost-
effective m echanism for achieving global targets.
N evertheless, fo r real im pacts on clim ate change to occur, sinks m ust
becom e perm anent. I f lands under conservation tillage are ploughed, then
all the gains in soil carbon and organic m atter are lost. T h is poses a big
challenge fo r trading system s, as there is no such thing as a perm anent
em issio n s red u ctio n o r a p erm an en tly sequestered to n n e o f carb o n .
D esp ite these uncertainties, carbon banks, boards o f trade, and trading
system s emerged during the year 2 0 0 0 . T h e early carbon trading systems
set p er-tonne credit values m ostly in the U S $ 2 to U S $ 1 0 range, though
the real value o f each ton ne sequestered is m uch higher. T h e im portant
policy questions centre on how to establish perm anent or indefinite sinks,
how to prevent leakage, such as re-p lo u g h in g o f ze ro -tille d field s or
d e fo re sta tio n , how to agree m easu rem en ts, and w hether the c o s t o f
im plem entation can be justified as a result o f additional side effects or
multijunctiomlity.
W e do n o t yet know how m uch carbon could be locked up in response
to m onetary incentives for carbon seq u estra tio n .T h e em pirical evidence
is relatively sparse, and practical experience even m ore lim ited. N o agreed
system o f paym ent levels has yet been established. A noth er unresolved
issue relates to the location for the greatest carbon returns on investments.
Investm ents in creating sustainable systems in the trop ics are likely to be
ch eaper than in tem p erate reg io n s, where in d u strialized ag ricu ltu re
p revails. Su ch fin a n cia l tran sfers fro m in d u strialized to d evelop ing
countries could produce substantial net global benefits, as well as benefit
p o o r farm ers. A t cu rren t prices, it is clear th a t farm ers will n o t solely
becom e ‘carbon farm ers’. However, system s th at accum ulate carbon are
also delivering many other public goods, such as improved biodiversity and
clean water from watersheds. P olicy-m akers may also seek to price these
in o rd er to increase th e to ta l p aym ent package. C a rb o n , th erefo re,
represents an im p o rta n t new source o f incom e fo r farm ers, as well as
encouraging them to ad opt sustainable practices.
70 A g r i- C ulture

Could B etter Policies Help?

T h e s e external costs and benefits o f agriculture raise im p o rtan t policy

qu estion s. In particular, should farm ers receive pu blic su p p ort fo r the
public benefits they produce in addition to food? Should those individuals
and organizations who pollute have to pav for restoring the environm ent
and hum an h ea lth ?T h ese two principles are called ‘the provider gets’ and
‘the p o llu ter pays’, and they are im p o rtan t to b o th industrialized and
developing co u n tries.T h ree categories o f policy instrum ents are available:
advisory and institutional measures; regulatory and legal m easures; and
e co n o m ic instrum ents. In practice, effective p o llu tion co n trol and the
supply o f desired public goods requires a m ix o f all three approaches,
together w ith integration across sectors.
Advisory and institutional measures have long form ed the backbone
o f policies to internalize costs and so prevent agricultural p o llu tion .T h ese
m easures rely on the voluntary actions o f farm ers, and are favoured by
policy-m akers because they are cheap and adaptable. Advice is com m only
given in the form o f codes o f good agricultural practice, such as recom ­
m ended rates o f pesticide and fertilizer application, or measures for soil
erosion co n tro l. M o s t governm ents still em ploy extension agents who
work w ith farm ers on technology developm ent and transfer. A variety o f
institutional m echanism s can also help to increase social capital and the
uptake o f m ore sustainable practices, including encouraging farm ers to
work together in study groups, investing in extension and advisory services
to encourage greater in teractio n betw een farm ers and exteiisionists, and
encouraging new partnerships between farm ers and other rural stakeholders,
since regular exchanges and reciprocity increase trust and confidence, and
lubricate cooperation.
R egu lato ry and legal m easures are also used to in tern alize external
co sts. T h is can be d one eith er by settin g em ission s standards fo r the
discharge o f a p o llu ta n t, o r by estab lish in g q u ality standards fo r the
environm ent receiving the pollutant. Polluters who exceed standards are
then su b je ct to pen alties. T h e r e are m any types o f standards, such as
op eratin g standards to p ro tect w orkers; p rod u ction standards to lim it
levels o f contam inants o f residues in food s; em issions standards to lim it
releases or discharges, such as silage effluents; and environm ental quality
standards fo r undesirable p ollutants in vulnerable environm ents, such as
pesticides in water. B ut the problem w ith such regulations is that m ost
agricultural pollutants are diffuse, or non-point, in nature. It is im possible
fo r inspectors to ensure com pliance on hundreds o f thousands o f farm s
in the way th at they can with a sm all num ber o f factories. R egu lations
 R e a lity C h eq u es 71

are also used to elim in ate certain p ractices, and include bans on the
spraying o f pesticides close to rivers and on straw -burning in the U K , as
well as the m andatory requirem ent to com plete full nutrient accounts for
fa rm s, such as in th e N e th e rla n d s and S w itz e rla n d . A fin al use fo r
regulations is the designation and legal protection o f certain habitats and
species, which are set at national o r international levels.
E co n o m ic instrum ents can be used to ensure that the polluter bears
the costs o f the p ollu tion damage and the abatem ent costs incurred in
controlling the p o llu tio n .T h ey can also be used to reward good behaviour.
A variety o f eco no m ic instrum ents are available fo r achieving intern al­
ization, including environm ental taxes and charges, tradable perm its, and
the targeted use o f public subsidies and incentives. E nvironm ental taxes
seek to sh ift the burden o f taxation away from eco no m ic goods, such as
labour, and towards environm ental bads, such as waste and p o llu tion .
Clearly, the m arket prices for agricultural inputs do n o t currently reflect
the full costs o f their use. E nvironm ental taxes o r p ollu tion paym ents,
however, seek to internalize som e o f these costs, in this way encouraging
individuals and businesses to use them m ore efficiently. Such taxes offer
the op p ortu nity o f a double dividend by cu tting environm ental damage,
p a rticu la rly fro m n o n -p o in t so u rces o f p o llu tio n , w hile p ro m o tin g
welfare. However, many op ponents still believe that environm ental taxes
stifle eco no m ic grow th, despite com pelling evidence to the contrary.45
T h e re is now a wide range o f environm ental taxes used by countries
o f E urope and N o rth Am erica. T h e s e include carbon and energy taxes
in Belgium, D enm ark and Sweden; ch lorofluorocarbon taxes in D enm ark
and the U S ; su lphu r taxes in D en m ark , F ran ce, F in lan d and Sw eden;
nitrogen oxide charges in France and Sweden; leaded and unleaded petrol
differentials in all European U n io n countries; landfill taxes in D enm ark,
th e N eth erla n d s and th e U K ; ground w ater ex tra ctio n charges in the
N etherlands; and sewage charges in Spain and Sweden. However, environ­
m ental taxes have rarely been applied to agriculture, w ith the notable
exception o f pesticide taxes in D enm ark, Finland , Sweden and in several
U S states; fe rtiliz er taxes in Austria, F in lan d , Sw eden, and several U S
states; and manure charges in Belgium and the N etherland s.46
T h e alternative to penalizing farm ers through taxation is to encourage
them to adopt non-polluting technologies and p ractices.T h is can be done
by offering d irect subsidies fo r the ad option o f sustainable technologies,
and by rem oving perverse subsidies th at cu rrently encourage polluting
activities.47 An im portant policy principle suggests that it is m ore efficient
to p rom ote practices that do n o t damage the environm ent, rather than
spend m oney on cleaning up after a problem has been created. M an y
governm ents provide som e d irect o r in d irect p u blic su p p o rt to th eir
72 A g r i- C ulture

d om estic agricultural and rural sectors. Increasingly, paym ents are being
shifted away from being production linked, such as through price support
o r direct paym ents, to being re-targeted to su pport sustainable practices.
G enerally, though, only sm all am ounts o f to tal budgets have been put
aside for environm ental im provem ents though such policies as the U S
C onservation Reserve Program m e, the European U n io n s agri-environ-
m ental and rural developm ent program m es, and the Australian Landcare
program m e. M any now believe that all public support for farm ing should
be entirely linked to the provision o f pu blic environm ental and social
goods.

T h e R adical Challenge o f In tegration

T h e su bstan tial external costs o f m od ern agriculture, and the known

external benefits o f sustainable agricultural systems, pose great challenges
for policy-makers. A range o f policy reform s could do much to internalize
som e o f these costs and benefits in prices. In practice, since no single
so lu tio n is likely to su ffice, the key issue rests on how p o licy -m ak ers
choose an appropriate m ix o f solutions, how these are integrated, and how
farm ers, consum ers and oth er stakeholders are involved in the process o f
reform itself. A tten tio n will therefore need to be paid to the social and
institutional processes that encourage farm ers to work and learn together,
and result in integrated cross-sectoral partnerships. P olicy integration is
vital; yet m o st p o licies seeking to link agriculture w ith m ore environ­
m entally sensitive m anagem ent are still highly fragm ented.
T h e problem is that environm ental policies have tended only to ‘green’
the edges o f farm ing. N o n -cro p habitats have been improved, as have some
hedgerows, w oodlands and wetlands. B u t the food in m odern farm ing is
still largely produced in the conventional manner. T h e challenge is to find
ways o f substantially greening the m iddle o f farm ing — in the field rather
than around th e edges. A thriving and su stainable ag ricu ltu ral secto r
requires bo th integrated action by farm ers and com m unities, and inte­
grated actio n by po licy -m ak ers and planners. T h is im plies h o rizo n tal
integration with better linkages between sectors, and vertical integration
with better linkages from the m icro to m acro level. M o st policy initiatives
are still piecem eal, affecting only a sm all p art o f an individual farm er’s
practices, and therefore not necessarily leading to substantial shifts towards
sustainability.
T h e 1 9 9 0 s saw considerable global progress towards recognizing the
need fo r policies to su p p ort sustainable agriculture. In a few countries,
this has been translated into supportive and integrated policy frameworks.
 R e a lity C h eq u es 73

In m ost, however, sustainability policies rem ain at the m argins. O n ly two

countries have given explicit national su pport for sustainable agriculture,
p u ttin g it at th e cen tre o f a g ricu ltu ral d ev elo p m en t p o licy . Several
countries have given su b-reg ion al su p p ort, such as the states o l San ta
C aterina, Parana and R io G rande do S o l in southern Brazil who support
zero-tillage and catchm ent m anagem ent, and som e states in India who
su pport watershed m anagem ent or participatory irrigation m anagem ent.
M any m ore countries have reform ed parts o f agricultural policies, such
as C h in a ’s su p p o rt fo r in teg rated eco lo g ica l d em o n stra tio n villages;
Kenya’s catch m en t approach to soil co n serv atio n ; In d o n esia ’s ban on
pesticides and its program m e lo r farm er field schools; India’s support for
soybean p ro cessin g and m ark etin g ; B o liv ia ’s reg io n al in te g ra tio n o f
agricultural and rural policies; Sweden’s su pport fo r organic agriculture;
Burkina Faso’s land policy; and Sri Lanka’s and the Philippines’ stipulation
that water users’ groups manage irrigation systems.
O n e o f the best examples o f a carefully designed and integrated pro­
gram m e com es from C hina. In M arch 1 9 9 4 , the governm ent published
a W h ite Paper to set ou t its plan fo r im plem enting Agenda 2 1. T h e plan
advocated ecological farm ing, know n as Shengtai Nongyc or agroecological
en gin eering, as the approach to achieve su stainable agriculture. P ilo t
projects have been established in some 2 0 0 0 townships and villages spread
across 1 5 0 counties. P olicy fo r these ‘eco -co u n ties’ is organized through
a cross-m inistry partnership, which uses a variety o f incentives to encourage
the ad op tion o f diverse p ro d u ctio n system s to replace m on ocu ltu res.
T h e s e incentives include subsidies and loans, tech n ical assistance, tax
exem ptions and deductions, security o f land tenure, m arketing services,
and linkages to research org an izatio n s.T h ese eco-cou n ties contain som e
1 2 m illion hectares o f land, about h a lf o f which is cropland. A lthough
this covers only a relatively sm all part o f C h in a’s total agricultural land,
it illustrates what is possible when policy is coordinated and holistic.
An even larger set o f countries has seen som e progress on agricultural
sustainability at p ro ject and program m e level. However, progress occurs
in spite of, rather than because of, explicit policy su pport. N o agriculture
m inister is likely to say that he o r she is against sustainable agriculture;
b u t w ise w ords have yet to be tran slated in to co m p rehen sive p o licy
reform s. Sustainable agricultural system s can be econom ically, environ­
m entally and socially viable, and can contribu te positively to local liveli­
hoods. But w ith out appropriate policy su pport, they are likely to remain,
at best, localized in exten t and, at w orst, m ay sim ply w ith er away. In
E urope and N o rth A m erica, m ost policy analysts and sustainable agri­
culture organizations now agree that a policy fram ew ork that integrates
su p p ort fo r farm ing together w ith rural developm ent and environm ental
74 A g r i-C u ltu r e

p rotection could create new job s, p rotect and improve natural resources,
and su pport rural com m unities. Such a policy could include many o f the
elements seen in the progressive Swiss and Cuban policy reform s that were
made during the 1 9 9 0 s .

C uba’s N ational Policy for Sustainable A griculture

A t the turn o f the century, Cuba was the only developing country with
an explicit national policy for sustainable agriculture. U n til the end o f the
1 9 8 0 s, Cuba’s agricultural sector was heavily subsidized by the Soviet bloc.
C uba im ported m ore than h a lf o f all calories consum ed, and 8 0 to 9 5
per cent o f wheat, beans, fertilizers, pesticides and animal feed. It received
three tim es the world price for its sugar. A t the tim e, Cuba had the m ost
scientists per head o f population in Latin Am erica, the m ost tractors per
hectare, the second highest grain yields, the lowest infant m ortality, the
h ig h est n u m ber o f d o c to rs per head o f p o p u la tio n , and th e h ig h est
second ary sch o o l en rolm ent. B u t in 1 9 9 0 , trade w ith the So viet blo c
co llap sed , leadin g to severe sh ortag es in all im p o rts, and restrictin g
farm ers’ access to petroleum , fertilizers and pesticides.
T h e governm ent’s response was to declare an ‘alternative m od el’ as the
official policy — an agriculture that focuses on technologies that substitute
lo ca l know ledge, skills and resources fo r the im p o rted inpu ts. It also
em phasizes the d iversification o f agriculture, oxen to replace tractors,
integrated pest m anagem ent to replace pesticides, and the p rom otion of
better cooperation among farmers, both within and between com m unities.
T h e m od el has taken tim e to succeed. C a lo rific availability was 2 6 0 0
kilocalories per day in 1 9 9 0 , fell disastrously to between 1 0 0 0 and 1 1 15
kilocalories per day soon after the transition, leading to severe hunger, but
subsequently rose to 2 7 0 0 kilocalories per day by the end o f the 1 9 9 0 s .
Two im portant strands to sustainable agriculture in Cuba have emerged.
Firstly, intensive organic gardens have been developed in urban areas —self­
p rov ision in g gardens in sch o o ls and w orkplaces ( autoconsumos), raised
co n tain er-bed gardens ( organopotiicos) and intensive co m m u n ity gardens
(,hucrtos intensivos). T h e r e are now m ore than 7 0 0 0 urban gardens, and
productivity has grown from 1 .5 kilogram m es per square m etre to nearly
2 0 kilogram m es per square m etre. Secondly, sustainable agriculture is
encouraged in rural areas, where the im pact o f the new policy has already
been rem arkable. M o re than 2 0 0 village-based and artisanal C entres for
the R eprod uction o f Entom ophages and E ntom opathogens have been set
up fo r biopesticid e m anufacture. E ach year, they produce 13 0 0 tonnes
o f Bacillus tkuringiensis (B .t.) sprays fo r L ep id op tera co n tro l, nearly 8 0 0
 R e a lity C h eq u es 75

ton n es o f Beaveria sprays fo r beetle co n tro l, 2 0 0 ton n es o f Verticillium

for w hitefly co n trol, and 2 8 0 0 tonnes o f Trichoderma, a natural enemy o f
pests. M any biological co n trol m ethods are proving m ore efficient than
pesticides. C u t banana stems that are baited with honey to attract ants are
placed in sweet p o tato fields, and have led to the co n trol o f sweet p otato
weevil. T h e re are 1 7 0 v erm i-com post centres, the annual production o f
which has grown from 3 0 0 0 to 9 3 ,0 0 0 ton nes. C rop ro tation s, green
manuring, intercropping and soil conservation have all been incorporated
w ithin polyculture farm ing.
A t the forefro n t o f the transition towards sustainable agriculture has
been the G ru p o de A gricultura O rganica (G A O ), form erly known as the
A sociacion Cubanes A gricultural O rganica, which was form ed in 1 9 9 3 .
G A O brings together farm ers, field m anagers, field experts, researchers
and gov ernm ent o ffic ia ls to help spread th e idea th at org an ic-b ased
a ltern a tiv e s can p ro d u ce s u ffic ie n t fo o d fo r C u b an s. D e s p ite g reat
progress, there rem ain many d ifficulties, including proving the success o f
the alternative system to sceptical farm ers, scientists and policy-m akers;
d evelo p in g new te c h n o lo g ie s su ffic ie n tly q u ick ly to m eet em erg en t
problem s; coord inating the many actors who work together; the need for
co n tin u ed d e cen tra liz a tio n o f d ecisio n -m a k in g to farm er level; and
appropriate land reform in order to encourage investment in natural asset-
building.48

T h e Swiss N ational Policy

for Sustainable A griculture

T h e Sw iss Federal A gricultural Law was revised in 1 9 9 2 in order to aim

subsidies at ecological practices. It was then radically amended in 1 9 9 6
follow ing a national referendum in which 7 8 per cent o f the public voted
in favour o f change.49 T h e m ain priority was m aintaining the im portant
positive side effects o f upland livestock farm ing — in particular, open
meadows for skiing pistes in winter, but also the m aintenance o f rural
m ountain com m unities who are at the ro o t o f Sw iss culture. P olicy now
differentiates between three d ifferent levels o f public support. T ie r one
provides su p p ort for specific biotypes, such as extensive grasslands and
meadows, high-stem fru it trees and h ed g es.T ier two su pports integrated
production with reduced inputs, m eeting higher ecological standards than
conventional farm ing. T ie r three provides the m ost su pport for organic
farm ing. As the directors o f the federal agricultural and environm ental
offices, H an s Berger and Philipp e R och , have said: ‘In ecological terms, Swiss
76 A g r i- C ulture

agriculture is on the road to sustainability. There are encouraging signs that the agricultural
reform has already began to have positive effects on nature and the environment.’
Farm ers m ust m eet several m inim um co n d ition s in order to receive
paym ents for integrated production, the so-called ‘ecological standard’ o f
p erfo rm a n ce.T h ey m ust provide evidence that nutrient use m atches crop
demands, with livestock farm ers having to sell surplus manures or reduce
liv estock nu m bers. S o ils m ust be p ro tected from erosion , and erosive
crops, such as m aize, can only be cultivated i f alternated in rotation with
meadows and green m anures. A t least 7 per cen t o f the farm m ust be
allocated fo r species diversity p ro tectio n through so -called ‘ecological
co m p e n sa tio n areas’, such as u n fe rtiliz e d m eadow s, hedgerow s and
orchards. Finally, pesticide use is restricted. A vital elem ent o f the policy
process is that responsibility to set, adm inister and m o n ito r is devolved
to can to n s, farm ers’ un ion s and farm advisors, lo cal bodies and n o n ­
governm ental org anizations. By the end o f the 1 9 9 0 s , 8 5 per cen t o f
farm lan d co m p lie d w ith th e basic e co lo g ica l stand ard , w hich allow s
farmers to receive public subsidies. Som e 5 0 0 0 farms are now organic, and
all farm ers are soon expected to m eet the ecological standard. Pesticide
applications have fallen by one third in a decade, phosphate use is down
by 6 0 per ce n t and n itro g en use by h alf. S e m i-n a tu ra l h a b ita ts have
expanded during the decade, from 1 to 6 per cen t in the plains, and from
7 to 2 3 per cent in the m ountains.
T h e re is m uch to learn from the Sw iss and Cuban experiences, as these
rem ain th e on ly tw o co u n trie s at th e tu rn o f th e cen tu ry w ho pu t
sustainable agriculture at the centre o f their national policy. It is also true
that Sw itzerland is a wealthy country and could afford to pay farm ers for
extra services. Cuba had no choice — it could n o t afford to do anything
else. W h ile it is d ifficult to draw general conclusions from these two cases,
they highlight im portant questions. As Am erican farm er and poet W endell
Berry pointed out: ‘I cannot see why a healthful, dependable, ecologically sound farm -
andfarmer-conserving agricultural economy is not a primary goal o f this country.'Is there
the p o litical will in the rem aining 2 0 0 o r so countries for this kind o f
agriculture? T h e o p tio n s are available, and th e net b en efits w ould be
substantial. T o date, the words have been easy, but the practice m uch m ore
d ifficu lt.

C oncluding C om m ents

In this chapter, I have adopted a fairly narrow eco n o m ic perspective in

order to set ou t som e o f the real costs o f m od ern agricultural and food
 R e a lity C h eq u es 77

sy stem s.T h e side effects, o r externalities, o f food production system s are

substantial; yet these do n o t appear in the price o f fo o d .T h e costs o f lost
biodiversity, water pollution , soil degradation, and ill health in humans
are shifted elsewhere in econom ies. Because they are d ifficu lt to identify
and measure, they are also easily lost. A llocating m onetary values to these
externalities is only one p art o f the picture because these m ethod s are
inevitably inexact. How ever, extern alities do illu strate the size o f the
p ro b le m .T h e term m ultifun ctional, when applied to agriculture, implies
a system th a t does m ore than ju st pro d u ce fo o d . A g ricu ltu re shapes
landscapes, water quality, biodiversity and carbon stocks in soils. A ll o f
these are im p o rtant public goods, and represent new incom e op portu nities
for farm ers. But progress is slow, as policy reform s have lagged behind.
T h e re is a need fo r the radical integration o f policies that su pport the
transition towards agricultural systems which m inim ize their external costs
and m axim ize their positive side effects.
 Chapter 4

Food f o r A ll

Revolutions in Central America

Elias Zelayas hillside farm is found near a pine forest on the edge o f the
remote village o f Pacayas in central Honduras. Fifteen years ago, the whole
com m unity was in the doldrums. Farm s were poor-quality pasture and
maize land, and many had been abandoned as worthless. N o child in the
village had ever been to secondary school. Land prices were low, and people
saw their futures only in out-m igration to the city. Yet, now local farmers
are in the vanguard for diverse, sustainable and productive agriculture. In
the mid 1 9 8 0 s, Elias happened to be in the right place and was lucky. H e
was encouraged to train as a (armer-extensionist by R oland Bunch and
his colleagues at W orld N eighbors, and learned about low -cost, soil-
improving technologies and how to adapt them to his own farm . T h e
intercropping o f legumes with maize immediately boosted cereal yields
and improved soil health. Step by step, over the years, Elias added new
 Food for A ll 79

enterprises to his farm , and there are now 2 8 types o f crops and trees,
together w ith pigs, chickens, rabbits, cattle and horses. N o t all flourish
— one day, an earthquake split the b o tto m o f the fish pond. But m ost o f
the diverse enterprises are succeeding on this picturesque farm .
T h e effect is rem arkable. T h e unimproved soils on the edge o f E lias’s
farm are no m ore th an a few cen tim etres deep, and ben eath is hard
bedrock. But in the fields where Elias grows legumes as green manures and
uses com posts, the soil is thick, dark, and spongy to the step. In som e
places on the farm , it is m ore than h a lf a m etre deep. N o soils textbook
will say this is possible, as soil is said to take thousands o f years to create.
Y et over a decade, E lias, and several tens o f thou san d s o f farm ers in
C entral A m erica like him , have transform ed their soils and agricultural
productivity. E lias’s own cereal yields are up fourfold, and this agricultural
success has boosted the local econom y, with fam ilies moving back from
the capital, Tegucigalpa. T h e demand fo r labour has put wages at close to
double th o se in nearby villages. A ll children now finish th eir prim ary
sch oo lin g , and seven from Pacayas have gone on to second ary sch oo l.
E lia s’s own daughter is now a teacher at the local sch ool. A neighbour o f
Elias says: ‘Now, no one ever talks o f leaving.’ People are m ore co ntent with their
own place, and they can choose from a range o f futures.
F u rth er west o f here lies another transform ed farm in the village o f
Guacam ayas, which belongs to Irm a de G u ittierez M en d ez. It, too , is in
the hills — in fact, 8 5 per cent o f H ond uras is located on slopes that are
steeper than 1 5 per cent. Irm a farm s on the edge o f L a T ig r a N ation al
Park, the watershed for the capital city’s drinking water. H e r farm is another
m odel fo r farm ers everywhere — she, too, works w ith nature rather than
b a ttles against it. T h e farm is covered w ith terracita, sm all terraces to
conserve soil and water. Sh e grows m aize; cassava; and four beans; seven
vegetables; banana; guava and avocado; and coffee under apple trees at the
top o f the slo p e .T h e se crops are rotated in order to co n trol diseases, and
Irm a brings wasp nests from the forest to hang on the farm trees, which
co n trol pests. Sh e m akes her own co m p o st and buys in chicken m anures.
Im p ortan tly , Irm a is also a teacher, b o th o f fellow farm ers and o f
professional agronom ists who com e to the valley to see this revolution for
their own eyes. She says: ‘One o j the things we were taught was the responsibility of
anyone who knows something to teach it to others in the community. As a result, we can
think more about what we are doing now. Community spirit has improved.’ Perhaps
so m e m ay fin d th is a cu riou s a ttitu d e in a w orld where m o d ern and
com petitive m ethods o f agriculture dom inate. B ut Irm a is m odest: ‘Our
purpose is not to make a lot o f money, but to help the community as a whole.’ T h e v e is
also a bigger p ictu re to these im provem ents. As farm ers find ways to
improve the quality and health o f their own soils, so the likelihood o f
80 A g r i- C ulture

them illegally m oving on to the national park is drastically red u ce d .T h is

makes the park authority happy because they can spend less on guards and
weapons. Like all these cases o f agricultural transform ation, n o t every­
thing is perfect. Farm ers struggle to find m arkets, infrastructure is poor,
and research and extension agencies are often unaware o f the progress that
is being made.
N o n eth e less, Irm a and E lias are n o t alone in forging a new way for
agriculture fo r those who have been excluded. O n e o f the m o st extra­
ordinary changes to have occurred in the past decade and a h a lf is the quiet
em ergence o f a revolution in developing co u n try agriculture am ongst
small and large farm ers. It has been driven by farm ers who are increasingly
rich in know led ge a b o u t natu re, and how to use it to increase fo o d
produ ction, and who have the willingness and capacity to collaborate in
order to solve com m on problem s. M any poorer farm ers have m ade the
tra n s itio n fro m largely p re -m o d ern a g ricu ltu ra l system s d irectly to
sustainable and highly productive systems. In every case, there are im portant
lessons for us all.

C ritical C hoices for A gricultural D evelopm ent

T h e gloom y g lobal p red ictio n s a b o u t increasing num bers o f p eople,

growing demand fo r cereals and m eat, and stubborn ly persistent hunger
and poverty raise an im p ortant question: whom should we target? M any
now agree that i f w om en have access to food, and the m eans to produce
it, then this food is also m ore likely to get into the m ouths o f children.
Low birth weight is now known to be a vital facto r in bo th child m alnu­
trition and premature death. But this, in turn, is caused by a m oth ers poor
nutrition before conception and during pregnancy. Foetal under-nutrition
also contributes to increasing incidences o f chronic disease in later life. Each
year, 3 0 m illion infants are bo rn in developing countries w ith impaired
grow th, com prising 6 per cen t o f children in S o u th -E a st Asia and Latin
A m erica, and close to 1 5 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa. In the year 2 0 0 0 ,
a q u arter o f p re -sch o o l child ren in developing co u ntries had stunted
growth, where height is less than two standard deviations for the age, with
p ro p ortio n s rising to 5 0 per cent in E ast and So u th -C en tral A sia.1
But this stunting carries forward to school-age children, too . In four
ou t o f ten countries recently surveyed, m ore than one third o f children
were stu n ted . T h is is due to in su fficien t and p o o r-q u ality food , with
d eficiencies o f key vitam ins and m inerals m o st co m m on . W orld w id e,
2 billio n people su ffer from iron -d eficien cy anaemia, including three-
quarters o f pregnant women in So u th -E a st Asia, h a lf in A frica, one third
 Food for A ll g I

in the A m ericas, and one quarter in Europe. A naem ia causes 6 5 ,0 0 0

m aternal deaths per year in Asia, and severe vitamin A deficiency affects
1 0 0 m illion to 2 5 0 m illion children worldwide.2
W h a t can be done? Lisa Sm ith and Lawrence H addad’s review o f the
past 2 5 years o f child m alnutrition suggests that improved food avail­
ability is only one o f four factors that are im portant in overcoming child
health problems. T h e other three are improved female education, access
to family health services, and status improvements for women relative to
men. W om en are disadvantaged in agricultural system s.They produce up
to 8 0 per cent o f food, but have access to less than 10 per cent o f credit
and extension advice, and also own very little la n d .T h e U nited N ation s’
fourth report on the world’s nutrition says:

Investing in maternal and childhood nutrition will have both short- and long-term
benefits of huge economic and social significance, including reduced health care costs
throughout the life cycle, increased educability and intellectual capacity, and increased
adult productivity. No economic analysis can fu lly capture the benefits of such
sustained mental, physical and social development

It is clear that an adequate and appropriate food supply is a necessary

condition for elim inating hunger and food poverty. But increased food
supply does not automatically mean increased food security for all. W h a t is
im portant is who produces the food, who has access to the technology
and knowledge to produce it, and who has the purchasing power to acquire
it. T h e conventional wisdom is that, in order to double food supply, we
need to redouble efforts to m odernize agriculture. A fter all, it has been
successful in the past. But there are m ajor doubts about the capacity o f
such systems to produce the food where the poor and hungry people live.
T h ese people need low -cost and readily available technologies to increase
food production. A further challenge is that this must happen without
further damage to the environment.
All o f this leaves us with three choices for agricultural development
i f we are to increase food supply. W e could expand the area o f agriculture
by converting new lands to crop and animal production, but with the result
th a t im p o rta n t services from forests, grasslands and o th er areas o f
im portant biodiversity are lost. W e could increase per hectare production
in agricultural exporting countries, mostly industrialized, so that food can
be transferred or sold to those who need it, but with the result that the
poor will continue to be excluded. O r we could seek to increase total farm
productivity in developing countries that m ost need the food.
W e know the first two ch oices work in term s o f increased food
production.The third has also worked for farmers with access to sufficient
82 A g r i- C ultu re

inputs o f pesticides, fertilizers and other m odern technologies. But m ost

farmers in developing countries are not in such a position. I f they are poor,
or the country is poor, then there is no option o f purchasing inputs in
order to increase productivity. T h is is before considering whether such
approaches m ight or m ight not cause harm to the environm ent or to
human health. T h e success o f m odern agriculture in recent decades has
often masked damaging externalities or side effects, and it is only recently
that large-scale environmental and health costs have com e to be apprec­
iated.4 T h u s, the specific question we need to ask is: to what extent can
farmers improve food production with cheap, low -cost, locally available
technologies and inputs that do not cause harm to the environment or to
human health when used?
W h a t, then, do we understand by sustainable agriculture? In the first
instance, a more sustainable farming seeks to make the best use of natures
goods and services while not damaging the environment.5 It does this by
integrating natural processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation,
soil regeneration and natural enem ies o f pests into food produ ction
processes. It also m inimizes the use o f non-renewable inputs that damage
the environment or harm the health o f farmers and consumers. It makes
use o f the knowledge and skills o f farmers, thereby improving their self-
reliance, and it seeks to m ake productive use o f p eo p le’s co llective
cap acities to w ork tog eth er in order to solve com m on m anagem ent
problems, such as pest, watershed, irrigation, forest and credit management.
Sustainable agriculture is also multifunctional w ithin landscapes and
economies. It jointly produces food and other goods for farm families and
markets; but it also contributes to a range o f public goods, such as clean water,
biodiversity, carbon sequestration in so ils, groundw ater recharge, flo o d
protection, and landscape amenity value. As sustainable agriculture also
seeks to make the best use o f nature, so technologies and practices must
be locally adapted. T h e y are m ost likely to emerge from new configur­
ations o f social relations (com prising relations o f trust embodied in new
so cia l o rg a n iz a tio n s) and new h o riz o n ta l and vertical p artn ersh ip s
between institutions, and from human capacity (com prising leadership,
ingenuity, management skills and the capacity to innovate). T h u s, agri­
cultural systems with high levels o f social and human assets are more able
to innovate in the face o f uncertainty.

D oes Sustainable Agriculture W ork?

T hese are all fine ideas, but can they work in practice? At the University o f
Essex, we recently completed the largest survey o f sustainable agriculture
 Food for A ll g3

im provem ents in developing countries. T h e aim was to audit progress

towards agricultural sustainability, and assess the extent to which such
initiatives, i f spread on a m uch larger scale, could feed a growing world
population that is already substantially food insecure.6W e looked at m ore
than 2 0 0 projects in 5 2 countries, including 4 5 in Latin A m erica, 6 3 in
A sia and 1 0 0 in A frica.7 W e calculate that alm ost 9 m illion farm ers were
using sustainable agriculture practices on about 2 9 m illion hectares, m ore
than 9 8 per cent o f which emerged in the past decade.8 T h e se m ethods
are w orking p a rticu la rly well fo r sm all farm ers; abo u t h a lf o f those
surveyed are in projects with a mean area per farm er o f less than I hectare,
and 9 0 per cent are in areas with less than 2 hectares each.9
W e fo u n d th a t im p ro v em en ts in fo o d p ro d u c tio n are o c cu rrin g
through one or m ore o f four d ifferent m ech an ism s.T h e first involves the
intensification o f a single co m p o nen t o f farm system , with little change
to the rest o f the farm , such as hom e garden intensification with vegetables
a n d /o r tree crops, vegetables on rice bunds, and the introdu ction o f fish
ponds or a dairy cow. T h e second involves the addition o f a new productive
elem ent to a farm system, such as fish or shrim ps in paddy rice, or agro­
forestry, which provides a b o o st to total farm food p rodu ction a n d /o r
income, but which does n o t necessarily affect cereal productivity. T h e third
involves better use o f nature to increase total farm produ ction, especially
w ater (b y w ater h arv estin g and irrig a tio n sch ed u lin g ) and land (b y
reclam ation o f degraded la n d ).T h is leads to additional new dryland crops
a n d /o r increased supply o f additional water for irrigated crops, and thus
increases cropping intensity. T h e fou rth involves im provem ents in per
hectare yields o f staples through the in tro d u ctio n o f new regenerative
elem ents into farm system s, such as legumes and integrated pest management,
and new and locally appropriate crop varieties and anim al breeds.
As a result, a successful sustainable agriculture project may substantially
improve d om estic food consu m p tion or may increase local food barters
or sales th ro u g h ho m e gardens o r fish in rice field s, o r b e tte r w ater
management, w ithout necessarily affecting the per hectare yields o f cereals.
H o m e garden intensification occurred in one fifth o f pro jects; but given
its sm all scale, it accounted for less than I per cent o f the area. B etter use
o f land and water, giving rise to increased cropping intensity, occurred
in one seventh o f projects, w ith one third o f farm ers and one tw elfth o f
the area. T h e in co rp o ra tio n o f new produ ctive elem ents w ithin farm
system s, m ainly fish and shrim ps in paddy rice, occurred in 4 per cent o f
projects, and accounted for the sm allest p ro p ortio n o f farm ers and area.
T h e m o st co m m o n m echan ism s com prised yield im provem ents w ith
regenerative technologies or new seed s/b reed s, w hich occurred in 6 0 per
cent o f the projects, with an uptake o f m ore than h a lf o f the farm ers and
about 9 0 per cen t o f the area.
84 A g r i-C u ltu r e

W h a t is happening to food produ ction? W e found that sustainable

agriculture has led to an average 9 3 per cent increase in per hectare food
p ro d u c tio n . T h e relative yield in creases are g re a te r at low er yield s,
indicating greater benefits for p o o r farm ers and for those who have not
benefited from the recent decades o f m odern agricultural developm ent.10
T h e increases are qu ite rem arkable, as m o st ag ricu ltu ralists w ould be
satisfied with any technology that can increase annual productivity by even
I o r 2 per cent. It is w orth restating: these projects are seeing close to a
d ou b lin g o f per hectare p ro d u ctivity over several years, and this still
underestim ates the ad ditional benefits o f intensive food p rodu ction in
sm all patches o f hom e gardens or fish ponds.
W e also calculated the increase in food produ ction fo r those projects
w ith reliable data on yields, area and nu m bers o f farm ers. In the 8 0
projects with less than 5-hectare farm s where cereals were the main staples,
4 .5 m illion farm ers on 3 .5 m illion hectares increased household food
produ ction by m ore than 1.5 tonnes per year, an increase o f 7 3 per cent.
In the 1 4 p ro jects w ith p o ta to , sweet p o ta to and cassava as the m ain
staples, the 1 4 6 ,0 0 0 farm ers increased household food production by 17
tonnes per year, an increase o f 1 5 0 per cent. In the pro jects in southern
Latin America with a larger farm size (an average o f 9 0 hectares per farm ),
farm production increased by 1 5 0 tonnes per year, an increase o f 4 6 per
cent.
T h e se aggregate figures understate the benefits o f increased diversity
in the d iet, as well as increased qu antity. M o s t o f these ag ricu ltu ral
sustainability initiatives have seen increases in farm diversity. In many cases,
this translates into increased diversity o f food consumed by the household,
inclu ding fish protein from rice fields o r fish ponds, m ilk and anim al
products from dairy cows, poultry and pigs kept in the hom e garden, and
vegetables and fru it from hom e gardens and farm m icro-environm ents.
A lth ou gh these initiatives are re p o rtin g sig n ifica n t increases in food
produ ction, som e as yield im provem ents, and som e as increases in crop ­
ping intensity or diversity o f produce, few are reporting surpluses o f food
being sold to local m arkets. T h is is because o f a significant elasticity o f
consu m p tion am ongst rural households experiencing any degree o f food
insecurity. As produ ction increases, so also does dom estic consum ption,
w ith d irect benefit, in particular, fo r w om ens and children’s health. In
sh ort, rural people are eating m ore food and a greater diversity o f food,
and this does n o t show up in the international statistics.
I acknowledge that all o f this may sound to o good to be true fo r those
who would disbelieve these advances. M any still believe that food production
and nature m ust be sep arated, th at agroecological approaches o ffe r only
marginal opportunities to increase food production, and that industrialized
 Food for A ll g5

approaches represent the best, and perhaps only, way forward. However,
prevailing views have changed substantially in just the last decade, and
many sceptics are beginning to recognize the value and innovative capacity
emerging from poorer com m unities in developing countries.
T h ere are four types o f technical improvements that play substantial
roles in these ag ro ecolog ical fo o d -p ro d u ctio n increases: soil health
improvem ents; m ore efficient water use in both dryland and irrigated
farming; pest and weed control with minimum or zero-pesticide use; and
whole-system redesigns. In each, there are many stories o f new thinking
and innovative practices. O n ce again, I cannot do these examples justice
by telling the whole sto ry N o r is there the space to dwell on specific
d ifficu lties and lim itations. T h is agricultural sustainability revolution
is not one thing — it is comprised o f many elements that are adapted to
localities and are, inevitably, different from place to place. By telling these
stories and cases, I therefore do not want to imply that the same approaches
and technologies will work everywhere. W h a t is im portant, though, are
the principles o f collective action, locally adapted science and innovation,
and m aking the best o f what nature can offer through agroecological
approaches to food production.

Soil H ealth Improvements

So il health is fundam ental for agricultural sustainability. It is the m ost

im portant part o f any agricultural system —the fundamental asset. W h en
soils are in poor health, they cannot m aintain productive agriculture. Yet,
today, many agricultural systems are under threat because soils have been
damaged, eroded or simply ignored during the process o f agricultural
inten sificatio n .11 It is estim ated that nearly 2 billion hectares o f land
worldwide are degraded. T h ey suffer from a mix o f physical degradation
by water and wind erosion, crusting, sealing and waterlogging; chemical
degradation by acidification, nutrient depletion, pollution from industrial
wastes and excessive use o f pesticides and fertilizers; and b io lo g ical
degradation by organic matter depletion, and loss o f soil flora and fauna.12
Three-quarters o f degraded land is in Africa ( 4 9 0 million hectares), Asia
( 7 5 0 m illion hectares) and Latin America ( 2 4 0 m illion hectares), with
Europe, N o rth America and Australia each having 1 0 0 m illion to 2 0 0
million hectares degraded. In Africa, farmland is annually losing nitrogen,
phosphate and potassium nutrients at a rate o f at least 3 0 kilogrammes
per hectare, with land in 2 3 countries losing more than 6 0 kilogram mes
per hectare.13
86 A g r i- C ulture

Su stainable agriculture starts w ith the soil by seeking to reduce soil

erosion and to m ake im provem ents to so il physical stru ctu re, organic
m atter content, w ater-holding capacity and nutrient balances. S o il health
is improved through the use o f legumes, green manures and cover crops;
the inco rp o ratio n o f plants with the capacity to release phosphate from
the soil in to ro ta tio n s; the use o f co m p o sts and anim al m anures; the
adoption o f zero-tillage; and the use o f inorganic fertilizers where needed.14
Som e o f these are age-old practices adapted for tod ays conditions. Som e,
though, seem to break one ol the fundam ental rules o f agriculture. Ever
since the b irth o f farm in g som e 1 2 ,0 0 0 years ago, farm ers have been
ploughing, o r tilling , the soil. Yet, in the past decade, L atin A m erican
farm ers have found that elim inating tillage can be highly beneficial, and
many in A frica have adopted n o -till o r only shallow cultivations for rice
produ ction. A t first sight, it seems a strange idea. A fter harvest, the crop
residues are left on the surface to protect against erosion. A t planting, seed
is slotted into a groove that is cut into the soil. W eeds are controlled with
h e rb icid e s o r cover cro p s. T h i s m eans th at the so il su rface is always
covered, and the soil its e lf no longer inverted.
T h e fastest uptake o f these m inim um till system s has been in Brazil,
where there are som e 1 5 m illion hectares under plantio direto (also called
zero-tillage even though there is som e disturbance o f the so il), m ostly in
three southern states o f San ta C aterina, R io G rande do Sul and Parana,
and in the central Cerrado. In neighbouring Argentina, there are m ore than
1 1 m illion hectares under zero-tillage, up from less than 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares
in 1 9 9 0 , and in Paraguay there are another I m illion hectares o f zero-
tilla g e .15 T h e r e are several m illio n hectares o f co n serv atio n o r n o -till
farm ing in the U S , Canada and Australia; but here it m ostly tends to be
sim plified m od ern agriculture systems, which save on soil erosion but do
n o t necessarily make the best use o f agroecological principles for nutrient,
weed and pest m anagem ent.
In Argentina, R o b erto Peiretti is responsible for technical and m anage­
m en t d ecisio n s on a b o u t 1 0 ,0 0 0 h ectares o f farm lan d in C o rd o b a
Province. H e is chairm an o f the Argentinian no -till farm ers’ organization
and is an enthusiast. H e says:

We werefaced with serious soil deterioration, and knew we needed tofin d a different
way to produce. . . applying no till as an entirely holistic approach enabled us to
discover an entirely new scenery, a system based on understanding and emulating
nature as much as possible.

T h e ir approach has been to establish no-till research and extension groups,

and to link these to regional and national levels.These coalitions have been
 Food for A ll g7

vital to the rapid spread o f n o -till farm ing. T h e system clearly works. In
A rgentina, average cereal productivity was 2 tonnes per hectare in 1 9 9 0 ;
since then, it has increased by about 1 0 per cent on conventional farm s,
a rate far surpassed by those farm s w ith zero-tillage, where yields have
doubled. O n R o b e r to ’s farm , the 2 0 0 1 harvest has been the best to date.
F rom his field, he says: ‘1 am busy but happy because we are again able to have higher
yieldsf o r our soybean, corn and sorghum. The oldest no-till paddocks are peaking at nearly
fiv e tonnes per hectaref o r soybean, ten tonnes f o r corn, and eight tonnes fo r sorghum.’ I
asked him what he was m ost proud of. H e says: ‘The land has becomefertile.
I'Ve clearly see the wildlife has increased in ourfarm s, there is water in the soil', and farm ers
are better off. I feel that there is strong correlation between feeling well, and being conscious
o f living within a fram ew ork o f environmentally friendly attitudes.’
T o the n o rth in B razil, the tran sfo rm atio n s in the landscape and in
farm ers’ attitudes are equally impressive. Joh n Landers runs a netw ork o f
Clubes Amigos da Terra, friends o f the land clubs, in the Cerrado, the vast
area o f form erly unproductive lands colonized for farm ing during the past
two d ecad es.T h ese lands needed lim e and phosphorus before they could
becom e productive. H e believes that zero-tillage represents ‘a total change
in the values o f how to plant crops and manage soils. On adopting zero-tillage, farm ers
adopt a higher level o f management and become environmentally responsible.’T h e re are
many fundam ental changes, including ‘the adoption o f biological controls, awareness
that the new technology is eliminating erosion and building the soil so they have something
to leave for their children, and a willingness to participate in joint actions.’
Z ero-tillag e has had an effect on social systems, as well as on soils. In
the early days, there was a widespread b e lie f th at zero-tillage was only for
large farmers. T h is has now changed, and small farmers are benefiting from
tech n o lo g y break th ro u g h s developed fo r m echan ical farm ing. A core
elem ent o f z ero -tillag e ad op tion in So u th A m erica has been adaptive
research — w ork in g w ith farm ers at m ic ro c a tc h m e n t level to ensure
technologies are fitted well to local circum stances. A ccording to Landers:
‘Zero-tillage has been a majorfactor in changing the top-down nature o f agricultural services
to farm ers towards a participatory, on-farm approach.’ T h e re are m any types o f
farm ers’ groups: from local (farm er m icrocatch m en t and credit groups),
to m u n icip al (so il co m m issio n s, F rien d s o f L and clubs, co m m ercial
farm ers’ and farm w orkers’ u n ion s), to m u ltim u n icip al (farm er fou n d ­
ations and cooperatives), to river basin (basin com m ittees fo r all water
users), and to state and national level (state zero-tillage associations and
the national zero-tillage federation).
Farm ers are now adapting technologies — organic m atter levels have
im proved so m uch th a t fe r tiliz e r use has been red uced and ra in fall
infiltration improved. Farm ers are now getting rid o f co ntou r terraces at
many locations, insisting that there are no erosion problem s. As biological
88 A g r i- C ulture

co ntrols arc enhanced with surface m ulch and crop rotations, it has also
becom e possible to reduce the am ou n t o f pesticid es used, w ith som e
success in h e rb icid e -fre e m anagem ent. O th e r ben efits o f zero -tillag e
inclu d e red uced s ilta tio n o f reservoirs, less flo o d in g , h ig h er aq u ifer
recharge, lowered costs o f water treatm ent, cleaner rivers, and m ore winter
feed for wild biodiversity.16 A large public good is also being created when
soil health is improved w ith increased organic m atter. O rg an ic m atter
contains carbon, and it is now recognized that soils can act as sites for
carbon sequestration. N o t only are these sustainable agriculture farm ers
creating a soil o f good health, they are providing a benefit to us all by
sequestering large am ounts o f carbon from the atm osphere, in this way
m itigating the effects o f clim ate change. However, there is still controversy
over zero-tillage. So m e feel that the use o f herbicides to co n trol weeds,
or the use o f genetically m odified crops, m eans that we can not call these
systems sustainable. However, the environm ental benefits are substantial,
and new research is already show ing th at farm ers have effective ag ro­
e co lo g ica l alternatives, p articu larly i f they use cover crops fo r green
manures in order to raise organic m atter levels.17
In the Sah elian co u n tries o f A frica, the m ajo r co n strain ts to food
produ ction are also related to soils, m ost o f which are sandy and low in
organic m atter. In Senegal, soil erosion and degradation threaten large
areas o f agricultural land; and since the late 1 9 8 0 s , the R od ale In stitute
R eg en erativ e A g ricu ltu re R e so u rce C e n tre has w orked clo sely w ith
farm ers’ associations and governm ent researchers to improve the quality
o f so ils.T h e prim ary cropping system o f the region is a m illet-groundnut
ro tation . Fields are cleared by burning, and then cultivated with shallow
tillage using anim als. But fallow periods have decreased dramatically, and
inorganic fertilizers do n o t return high yields unless there are concu rren t
im provem ents in organic m atter. S o ils low in organic m atter also do not
retain m oisture well.
T h e R o d a le C en tre now w orks w ith ab o u t 2 0 0 0 farm ers w ho are
organized into 5 9 groups on improving soil quality by integrating stall-
fed livestock into crop system s, by adding legumes and green manures,
by increasing the use o f manures, com posts and rock phosphate, and by
developing w ater-harvesting sy stem s.T h e result has been a 7 5 to 1 9 0 per
cent im provem ent in m illet and groundnut yields — from about 3 0 0 to
about 6 0 0 —9 0 0 kilogram m es per hectare. Yields are also less variable year
on year, w ith co n se q u en t im provem ents in h o u seh o ld fo o d security.
Am adou D io p sum m arizes an im p o rtant lesson fo r us all: ‘Cropyields are
ultimately uncoupled from annual rainfall amounts. Droughts, while having a negative
effect on yields, now do not result in total crop failure.’1*
 Food for A ll g9

T h is is the critical message — improve the soil, and the w hole agri­
cultural system ’s health improves, too. Even i f this is done on a very small
scale, people can benefit substantially. In Kenya, the A ssociation for Better
Land H u sband ry found that farm ers who constru cted double-dug beds
in their gardens could produce enough vegetables to see them through the
hungry dry season. T h e se raised beds are improved with com posts, and
green and animal manures. A considerable investment in labour is required;
but the better water holding capacity and higher organic m atter means that
these beds are both m ore productive and b etter able to sustain vegetable
growth through the dry season. O n ce this investm ent is m ade, little m ore
has to be done for the next two to three years. W om en, in particular, are
cultivating m any vegetable and fruit crops, including kale, onion, tom ato,
cabbage, passion fruit, pigeon pea, spinach, pepper, green bean and soya.
A ccording to one review o f 2 6 com m unities, three-quarters o f p articip ­
atin g h o u seh o ld s are now free fro m hu nger d uring th e year, and the
p ro p ortio n having to buy vegetables has fallen from 8 5 to 11 per cen t.19
F o r to o long, agriculturalists have been sceptical about these organic
and conservation m ethods. T h e y say they need to o m uch labour, are too
traditional, and have no im pact on the rest o f the farm . Yet, you only have
to speak to the w om en involved to find ou t what a difference they can
make. In Kakam ega, Joyce O d ari has 1 2 raised beds on her farm . T h e y
are so productive that she now employs four young m en from the village.
S h e says: ‘I f you could do you r whole farm with organic approaches, then I'd be a
millionaire. The money now comes looking/or me.’Sh e is also aware o f the wider
benefits: 'My aim is to conserve theforest, because theforest gives us rain. When we work
ourfarms, we don’t need to go to theforest. Thisfarming will protect me and my community,
as people now know they can feed themselves.’O n c e again, the s p in -o ff benefits are
substantial — giving women the m eans to improve their food production
m eans th a t food gets in to the m ou th s o f ch ild ren. T h e y su ffer fewer
m on th s o f hunger, and so are less likely to m iss sch oo l.20

Im proved W ater E fficiencies

T h e proper m anagem ent o f water is also essential for agriculture. T o o

much or to o little, and crops and animals die. Carefully managed, though,
and lan d scap es b e co m e p ro d u ctiv e. A b o u t on e fifth o f the w o rld ’s
cropland is irrigated, allowing food to be produced in dry seasons when
rainfall is in sh ort supply but sunlight is abundant. In som e parts o f the
trop ics, farm ers produce three crops each year, and altogether irrigated
lands produce tw o-fifth s o f the w orld’s food . M o st farm ers, though, are
90 A g r i-C u ltu r e

entirely depend ent on rainfall, an input th at is becom in g increasingly

erratic and uncertain in the face o f clim ate change.
D esp ite a long history o f agricultural system s and cultures built upon
com plex water m anagem ent, ranging from the irrigated rice cultures o f
A sia to R o m a n cu ltiv a tio n o f L ib y an N o r th A frica , fro m irrig ated
M e so p o ta m ia and E g y p t to the flo o d -w a ter farm in g cu ltures o f the
Papago, H o p i and N avajo peoples o f the A m erican south-w est, water as
a com m on resource is still under-valued and under-managed tod ay.T h ere
is great scope fo r im provem ent; once again, farm ers in many developing
countries are leading the w ay.Through better social organization, they are
fin d in g th at shared m anagem ent and co o p eratio n can lead to greater
returns fo r whole systems.
W ater harvesting has a wide application in the drylands. In northern
India, in the uplands o f G ujarat, R ajasth an and M adhya Pradesh, land
degradation is severe, soils are poor, and agricultural production is so low
that m ost fam ilies need som eone working in the city in order to survive.
A gain, with the right approach and best sustainable practices, m uch is
being done. T h e Indo-British R ainfed Farm ing project, for example, works
with 2 3 0 local groups in 7 0 villages on water harvesting, tree planting,
and land grazing improvem ents. Basic grain yields o f rice, wheat, pigeon
peas and sorghum have increased from 4 0 0 , to 8 0 0 , to 1 0 0 0 kilogram mes
per hectare, and the increased fodder grass produ ction from the terrace
bunds is highly valued fo r livestock. T h e improved water retention has
resulted in water tables rising by I m etre over three to four years, m eaning
th a t an extra crop is now p o ssible fo r m any farm ers, thus tu rn in g an
unproductive season into a productive one.
W om en are again the m ajo r beneficiaries. P S Sodhi o f the local group
G ram V ik as T ru st in U daipu r puts it this way:

In these regions, women never had seen themselves at thefron t edge o f doing things,
taking decisions, and dealing with financial transactions. The learning by doing
approach o f the project has given them much needed confidence, skills, importance
and awareness.

T h e wider benefits o f a transform ed agriculture are also evident:

The project has indirectly affected migration as people are gaining more income locally
through the various enterprises carried out in the project. People are now thinking
that they must diversify more into new strategies. There has also been a decline in
drawing on resourcesfrom the forests.
 Food fo r A ll 9 1

But perhaps m ore im portantly:

People have also started to question the nature o f democratic participation. They have
also started to challenge the political systems — those who are in power or control
power have little incentive to allow participatory institutions to develop. Yet in our
villages, people are voicing their concerns, have overruled elites, and have even elected
women as Sarpanchs, local leaders.

In sub-Saharan A frica, water harvesting is also turning barren lands green.

Again, the technologies are n o t com plex and costly, and can be used in
even the p o o re st o f co m m u n ities. In cen tral B u rk in a F aso , 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
hectares o f abandoned and degraded lands have been restored with the
ad option o f tassas and zai. T h e se are 2 0 - to 30-cen tim etre holes dug in
soils that have been sealed by a surface layer hardened by wind and water
ero sio n .T h e holes are filled w ith manure to prom ote term ite activity and
to enhance infiltration. W h e n it rains, water is channelled by sim ple stone
bunds to the holes, which fill with water, and into which are planted m illet
or sorghum seeds. N orm ally, cereal yields in these regions are precariously
low, rarely exceeding 3 0 0 kilogram m es per hectare. Yet, these lands now
produce 7 0 0 to 1 0 0 0 kilogram m es per hectare. C hris R e ij o f the Free
U niversity in A m sterdam found that the average family in Burkina Faso
who used these technologies had shifted from being in annual cereal deficit
am ounting nearly to 6 5 0 kilogram mes, equivalent to six and a h a lf m onths
o f food shortage, to producing a surplus o f 1 5 0 kilogram m es a year. Tassas
are best suited to landholdings where family labour is available, or where
farm labour can be hired. T h e soil and water conservation m ethods have
led to a m arket for young day labourers who, rather than m igrate, now
earn m oney by building these structures.21
G oo d organization helps to improve irrigated agriculture, too. D espite
great investm ent, m any irrig ation system s have becom e in efficien t and
su bject to persistent co n flict. Irrigation engineers assume that they know
best how to distribute water, yet can never know enough about the specific
cond ition s and needs o f large num bers o f farm ers. R ecen t years, though,
have seen the spread o f a very sim ple idea — help organize farm ers into
w ater u sers’ g ro u p s, and let th em m anage the w ater d is trib u tio n fo r
them selves. O n e o f the best exam ples com es from the G al O ya region in
S ri Lanka. Before this approach, G al O ya was the largest and m ost run­
down schem e in the country. N ow , farm ers’ groups m anage water for
2 6 ,0 0 0 hectares o f rice fields, and produce m ore rice crops per year and
per unit o f water. M oreover, when farm ers too k co n trol, the num ber o f
com plaints received by the irrigation departm ent about water distribution
fell to nearly zero.
9 2 A g r i- C ulture

T h e b e n e fits were d ram atically show n d uring the 1 9 9 8 d rou g h t.

A cco rd in g to th e g ov ern m en t, there was on ly en ough w ater fo r the
irrig atio n o f 1 8 per cen t o f the rice area. But farm ers persuaded the
irrigation d epartm ent to let this water through on the grounds that they
would carefully irrigate the whole area.T h rou g h cooperation and careful
m anagem ent, they achieved a b e tte r than average harvest, earn ing the
co u ntry U S $ 2 0 m illion in foreign exchange.22 T h ro u g h o u t Sri Lanka,
3 3 , 0 0 0 w ater users’ associatio n s have now been form ed — a d ram atic
increase in local so cia l org an izatio n th a t has im proved farm ers’ own
capacities for problem -solving and cooperation, and for using nature m ore
efficiently and effectively in order to produce m ore food.

Z ero-P esticide Farm ing

M od ern farmers have com e to depend upon a great variety o f insecticides,

herbicides and fungicides to co n trol the pests, weeds and diseases that
th reaten crop and anim al prod u ctivity. T h e s e p esticid es are now big
business, with global sales exceeding U S $ 3 1 billion in 1 9 9 8 . E ach year,
farm ers apply 5 billion kilogram m es o f pesticides’ active ingredients to
their farm s. N in e-ten th s o f this m arket is now controlled by ju st eight
co m p an ies. Y et, it is only in the past century, less than I per cen t o f
agriculture’s history, that such dependence has emerged.2 ,Today, however,
m any farm ers in this agricultural su stain ability revolution are finding
alternative m ethods for pest, disease and weed co n trol. In som e crops, it
may mean the end o f pesticides altogether, as cheaper and m ore environ­
m entally benign practices are found to be perfectly effective.
T h o u g h in teg ra ted p est m an ag em en t dates back to the 1 9 5 0 s , a
significant paradigm -shifting m om ent occurred in the early 1 9 8 0 s when
Peter Kenm ore and his colleagues in S o u th -E a st Asia counter-intuitively
found that pest attack on rice was directly p ro p ortio n al to the am ount
o f pesticides used. In oth er words, m ore pesticides m eant m ore pests.
T h e reason was sim ple — pesticides were killing the natural enem ies o f
insect pests, such as spiders and beetles. W h e n these invertebrates are
elim inated from agroecosystem s, then pests are able to expand rapidly
in n u m b e rs.T h is led, in 1 9 8 6 , to the banning by the Indonesian govern­
m en t o f 5 7 types o f p esticid es fo r use on rice, co m b in e d w ith th e
launching o f a national system o f farm er field schools to teach farm ers
the b e n efits o f b io d iversity in field s. O n e m illio n farm ers have now
attended a b o u t 5 0 ,0 0 0 field sch oo ls, the largest nu m ber in any Asian
country. T h e ou tcom es in term s o f hum an and social developm ent have
 Food for A ll 93

been remarkable, and farm er field schools are now being deployed in many
parts o f the world. A griculturalists now believe that irrigated rice can, for
m ost o f the tim e, be grown w ith out pesticides, provided the biodiversity
is present.
M any countries are now rep orting large reductions in pesticide use. In
V ietnam , 2 m illion farm ers have cut pesticide use from m ore than three
sprays to one per season; in Sri Lanka, 5 5 ,0 0 0 farm ers have reduced use
from three to one h a lf sprays per season; and in In d o nesia, I m illion
farm ers have cut use from three sprays to one per season. In no case has
reduced pesticide use led to lower rice yields.24 A m ongst these are reports
that many farm ers are now able to grow rice entirely w ithout pesticides:
one quarter o f field -school trained farm ers in Indonesia, one fifth to one
third in the M ek ong D elta o f V ietnam , and three-quarters in parts o f the
P hilippines.
T h e key to success is biological diversity on farm s. Pests and diseases
like m onocultures and monoscapes because there is an abundance o f food
and no natural enemies to check their growth. In the end, they have no
fear o f pesticides, as resistance inevitably develops w ithin populations and
spreads rapid ly unless farm ers are able to keep using new p ro d u cts.
M o reo v er, when a h a rm fu l elem en t is rem oved from an ag ricu ltu ral
system , and biodiversity is m anaged to provide free pest-m anagem ent
services, then fu rther op tion s for redesign are possible. Traditionally, rice
paddies were im p ortant sources o f fish protein, and fish living in fields
helped in nutrient cycling and pest control. But pesticides are toxic to fish,
and their increased use since the 1 9 6 0 s entirely elim inated beneficial fish
fro m pad d ies. T ake th e p esticid es away, th o u g h , and th e fish can be
reintroduced.
In Bangladesh, a com bined aquaculture and integrated pest m anage­
m ent program m e is being im plem ented by C A R E w ith the su p p ort o f
the U K governm ent and the European U n io n .23 Six thousand farm er field
sch o o ls have been co m p leted , w ith 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 farm ers ad o p tin g m ore
sustainable rice produ ction on about 5 0 ,0 0 0 hectares. T h e program m es
also em phasize fish cultivation in paddy fields and vegetable cultivation
on rice field dykes. R ice yields have improved by about 5 —7 per cent, and
costs o f p ro d u ctio n have fallen ow ing to reduced pesticid e use. E ach
h ectare o f paddy, th o u g h , yields up to 7 5 0 k ilo g ram m es o f fish, an
extraordinary increase in total system productivity fo r p o o r farm ers with
very few resources. F arm ers them selves recognize the changes in farm
biodiversity. O n e said to T im R obertson , form er leader o f the programme:
‘O urfields are singing again, after 3 0 years o f silence.’ It is the frogs singing in
diverse and healthy fields th at are full o f fish and rice. A rif R ashid o f
C A R E estimates that 8 5 ,0 0 0 farm ers have stopped using insecticides; but
94 A g r i-C u ltu r e

as he says: ‘We do tiot know how much this has spread to otherfa rm ers’ I asked him
what he thought was the m ost significant element o f success, and it is clear
again that farm ers have crossed a fron tier:

C A R E was able to change the behaviour o f participating farm ers with regard to
irrational use o f fertilizers and unwise use o f insecticides, and they now have an
improved understanding o f ecology. They now take decisions based on careful study
o f theirfarm s.

O n ce we start with the idea that diverse systems can provide enough food,
p articu larly fo r farm ers w ith few resou rces, then w hole new fields o f
scien tific endeavour can em erge. O n e o f these is the scien ce o f semio-
chemicals, arom atic com pounds given o f f by plants. In E ast A frica, H an s
H erren, winner o f the W orld F oo d Prize for work on a parasite to control
the cassava mealybug, is d irector o f the In tern ation al C entre for In sect
Physiology and E cology. H e believes th at m in im u m - to zero-p esticid e
farm ing system s are possible th ro u g h ou t the trop ics, and his centre is
researching sustainable pest m anagement through biological control, using
one organism to control another, botanical agents for natural pest-control
com pounds derived from plants, habitat m anagem ent, and pest-tolerant
varieties o f food crops.
In Kenya, researchers from the International Centre for Insect Physiology
and E c o lo g y ( I C I P E ) and R o th a m ste d in the U K fou n d th at m aize
produces sem iochem icals when fed upon by the stem borer ( Chilo spp.).
T h e y also found that these same chem icals increase foraging and attack
by parasitic wasps, and are fortuitou sly also released by a variety o f local
grasses used fo r livestock fod der and soil erosion co n tro l.26 T h e in ter­
actions are complex. N apier and sudan grass attract stem borers to lay their
eggs on the grass instead o f the m aize. A noth er grass, m olasses grass, and
a legum e, Desmodium, repel stem borers. B oth napier and m olasses grass
em it another chem ical th at sum m ons the borers’ natural enemies, so that
pest meets predator. T h ere is yet more, as Desmodium n o t only fixes nitrogen
bu t is allelopathic (to x ic ) to the parasitic witchweed Striga hermonthica.
Researchers call their redesigned and diverse m aize fields vutu sukumu:
p u sh -p u ll in Sw ahili. T h e y clearly work, as m ore than 2 0 0 0 farm ers in
western Kenya have adopted m aize, grass-strip and legum e-intercropping
systems, and have at the same tim e increased m aize yields by 6 0 to 7 0 cent.
T h e sad truth is that fo r 3 0 years, the o fficial advice to m aize growers in
the tropics has been to create m onocultures for m odern varieties o f maize,
and then apply pesticide and fertilizers to make them productive. Yet, this
agricultural sim p lificatio n elim inated vital and free pest m anagem ent
services produced by the grasses and legum es. Vutu sukumu system s are
 Food for A ll 95

com p lex and diverse, and they are cheap — they do n o t rely on costly
purchased inputs.27

W h o le System Synergies

W h a t we do not yet know is whether a transition to sustainable agriculture

(delivering greater benefits at the scale occu rrin g in these p ro jects) will
result in enough fo o d to m eet the cu rren t food needs in d eveloping
countries, let alone the future needs after continued population growth
and the ad option o f m ore urban and m eat-rich diets. But what we are
seeing is highly p ro m isin g .T h ere is also scope for additional confidence,
as evidence indicates that productivity can grow over tim e i f natural, social
and human assets are a ccu m u lated .T h ese findings are sim ilar to those o f
J e f f M cN eely and Sara Scherr, w hose recent review o f ecoagriculture in
b oth developing and industrialized countries has also indicated that there
are novel ways in which to feed the world and to save biodiversity.28
T h e issue o f asset accum ulation over tim e is im portant. I f agricultural
systems are low in natural, social and human assets (eith er intrinsically low
or damaged by degradation), then a sudden switch to ‘m ore sustainable’
practices that rely on these very assets will n o t be im m ediately successful
— or, at least, n o t as successful as it m ight be. In C uba, fo r example, urban
organic gardens produced 4 0 0 0 tonnes o f food in 1 9 9 4 . O ver just five
years, production grew to m ore than 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 tonnes, partly because o f
an increase in th e n u m ber o f gardens, bu t also because th e per area
productivity had steadily risen over tim e.29
In creased p ro d u ctiv ity over tim e has been fou n d in fish pond s in
M alaw i. T h e se are tiny, typically 2 0 0 to 5 0 0 square m etres in size, and
are in teg ra te d w ith in a farm so th a t they recycle w astes fro m o th er
agricultural and household enterprises. In 1 9 9 0 , yields were 8 0 0 k ilo ­
gram m es per hectare, but rose steadily to nearly 1 5 0 0 kilogram m es per
hectare over six years. R and y B rum m et o f the In tern ation al C entre for
A q u atic R eso u rce M a n ag em en t in d icates why: A
‘ s farm ers gain a greater
understanding o f bow this new systemfunctions, and an appreciation o f its potential, they
become increasingly able to guide further evolution towards increasing productivity and
p r o f it a b i l i t y Revealingly, when n o n -p articip atory approaches were used
to work with farm ers, and system s were im posed in a com pleted form at
on farm ers, then yields fell.
E ach type o f sustainable agriculture im provem ent, by itself, can make
a positive contribu tion to raising production. But another dividend com es
w ith com binations. Synergistic effects tend n o t to be captured or apprec­
iated by red uctionist m ethods o f analysis th at measure the effects o f one
96 A g r i- C ulture

variable at a tim e, while holding all the others unchanged — the so-called
ceteris paribus approach. But this ignores synergism — where the w hole is
greater than the sum o f the p a rts.T h u s, soil and water conservation that
em phasizes terracing and oth er physical measures to prevent soil loss is
much less effective than com binations o f biological m ethods that attem pt
to increase the productivity o f the system com bined with finance for credit
groups that reduces the indebtedness o f households.
Sustainable agriculture systems becom e m ore productive when human
capacity increases, particularly farm ers’ capacity to innovate and adapt
th eir farm system s fo r sustainable ou tcom es. Sustainable agriculture is
n o t a concretely defined set o f technologies, nor is it a sim ple m odel or
package to be widely applied o r fixed with tim e. It needs to be conceived
o f as a process fo r so cial learning. L ack o f in fo rm a tio n on agroecology
and the necessary skills to m anage com plex farm s is a m ajo r barrier to
adopting sustainable agriculture. W e know m uch less about these resource-
conserving technologies than we do about the use o f external inputs in
m odernized systems. So , it is clear that the process through which farmers
learn a bo u t tech n o lo g y alternatives is cru cial. I f they are en fo rced or
coerced, then they may only adopt fo r a lim ited period. But i f the process
is particip atory and enhances farm ers' ecological literacy o f their farm s
and resources, then the foundation for redesign and continuous innovation
is laid. As R oland Bunch and G abin o L o p ez have pu t it about C entral
A m erican agriculture: 'What needs to be made sustainable is the social process o f
innovation itself’

M adagascar’s System o f R ice In tensification

I have already talked o f the low -pesticid e and high so cial-co nn ectivity
revolutions in rice m anagem ent. A n o th er revolution m ay be abo u t to
emerge from rem ote and impoverished Madagascar. It is called the System
o f R ic e In ten sifica tio n ( S R I ) , and it breaks m any o f the rules o f rice
cultivation developed over thousands o f years. It was first developed by
F ath er H en ri de Laudanie during the 1 9 8 0 s , and has been tested and
prom oted by the local A ssociation Tefv Saina, with the help o f N o rm an
U p h o f f and colleagues at C o rn ell University. T h e system has improved
rice yields from about 2 tonnes per hectare to 5 , 1 0 and even 15 tonnes
per hectare on fa rm ers’ field s. T h is has been achieved w ith o u t using
purchased inputs o f pesticides or fertilizers. T h e improvements have been
so extraordinary that, until lately, they have been disbelieved and ignored
by m o st scien tists. S R I challenges so m any o f the basic p rin cip les o f
 F ood fo r A ll 97

irrigated rice cultivation, and produces such extraordinary productivity

increases, that m ost professionals have elected to be sceptical.
T h e system is centred on m aking b e tter use o f the existing genetic
potential o f rice. Firstly, rice seedlings are transplanted after 8 to 12 days,
instead o f the norm al 3 0 to 5 0 days. Early transplanting increases tillering,
and S R I plants typically have 5 0 to 8 0 tillers, com pared with 5 to 2 0 for
c o n v e n tio n a l o n es. E ach tille r bears a head o f g rain . S e co n d ly , rice
seedlings are usually planted close together in order to m inim ize weed
infestation. B ut in the S R I , they are planted at least 2 5 centim etres apart
in a grid pattern rather than in rows. T h is facilitates m echanical weeding,
as well as saving on costly seed — the system uses about 7 rather than 1 0 0
kilogram m es o f seed per hectare. M o re widely spaced plants develop a
different architecture, with m ore room for roots and tillers; and better root
system s m ean reduced lodging (ie, the likelihood o f stem weakness and
collapse).
M o st scientists and farm ers believe that rice, as an aquatic plant, grows
best in standing water. In the S R I, however, paddies are kept un flooded
during the period o f vegetative grow th. W ater is only applied to keep the
soil m oist, which is allowed to dry out for periods o f three to six days.
O n ly after flow ering are paddies flo o d e d .T h e y are then drained 2 5 days
before harvest, as with conventional rice. Such m anagem ent encourages
m ore ro o t growth. Sin ce flood in g is the conventional approach to weed
co n trol, S R I farm ers m ust weed up to four tim es — m echanically o r by
hand. Farm ers who do n o t weed still get respectable yield increases o f
tw ofold to threefold. B u t those who weed get increases o f fourfold to
sixfold. S R I farm ers also use co m p o st rather than inorganic fertilizers.
T h e p ro o f that S R I works com es from the num ber o f farm ers using
it — an estim ated 2 0 ,0 0 0 farm ers have now adopted the full S R I , and
Se bastien R afaralah y o f T efy Sain a estim ates th at an o th er 5 0 ,0 0 0 to
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 farm ers are now experim enting with elem ents o f the system .
C o rn ell scientists led by N o rm an U p h o f f have helped research institu t­
ions in C hina, Indonesia, the P hilip p in es, C am bo d ia, N ep al, the C o te
d’Ivoire, Sri Lanka, C uba, Sierra L eone and Bangladesh to test S R I . In
all cases, severalfold jum ps in rice yields were achieved. In C h in a, fo r
exam ple, yields o f 9 to 1 0 tonnes per hectare were achieved in the first
year, com pared with a national average o f 6 ton nes.31

Salin ity Farm ing in V ietnam

It takes a sharp eye and an open m ind to see the possibilities in com plex
system s. V o -T o n g X u an o f Angiang University has bo th o f these, and he
98 A g r i- C ulture

saw som ething special 2 0 years ago on the Ca M au Peninsula o f southern

V ietnam . Here, saline water and problem soils have been turned to farm ers’
advantage by adopting rice-shrim p systems com bined with novel m ethods
o f water and soil management. T h e peninsula has no sources o f freshwater
except rain and very deep wells, but it has m angroves, field s and an
abundant m arine environm ent. O n a field trip with a group o f students,
X u an stopped at L ong D ien D o n g village to show a soil profile. P ointing
to the bluish-grey soil horizon below the brown top soil, he told farm er
Ba Sen: 'If you let this soil dry, it will become acidic, and nothing can be grown on it.
But when thefield is permanently wet, even with saline water on the surface, your soil
fertility will be maintainedforever.’ B ut to Ba Sen, this was n o t news at all. H e
had a ccid e n ta lly d iscovered a su stain ab le p ra c tice o f m an ag in g the
potentially acid sulphate soil four years before, and had even w ritten it in
a will to his eldest son.
T h e rice field is prepared during the start o f the rainy season. Saline
water is let out o f the field and the soil is flushed by the rainwater. Initially,
so il salinity m igh t be high, bu t it falls after a few rains. Seed ling s are
prepared in nurseries in the early rainy season, and fields are cleaned o f
weeds and algae, w ithout tillage. Seedlings are transplanted at the age o f
3 0 to 4 0 days at the end o f July, and Ba Sen gets a yield o f about 4 tonnes
per hectare. A fter harvest, and while the soil is still wet and river water
n o t yet saline, farm ers allow river water to enter the field to raise shrimps.32
T h e first shrim p harvest is after the end o f the rainy season, after which
the field is prepared for another crop o f shrimp. T h is tim e, saline water
is taken into the field at high tide. W ater m anagem ent is crucial, and water
is exchanged once or twice a week in order to create a continuous flow in
the field. Sto ck in g o f shrim ps is carried out between January and M arch,
and these are fed w ith cassava, co co n u t m eal, m illed rice and fishm eal,
yielding (during April to Ju n e) nearly 2 0 0 kilogram m es per hectare.
W h a t is clever about this system is that Ba Sen is getting m uch m ore
from rather unprom ising resources than anyone could have expected. H e
has sp o k en at lo ca l m eetin gs and in te rn a tio n a l co n feren ces, and the
practices have spread through out Ca M au . T h e result is th at mangroves
are being sustained, marine resources valued, and agriculture’s productivity
increased —all because an integrated and balanced system o f m anagem ent
has been developed in which the total is b etter than the sum o f its parts.
As V o -T o n g X u an puts it:

The creative and intelligent people o f Ca Mau now have a rich experience in
exploiting their saline water environment. They do not see it as a constraint to their
development, but on the contrary they take advantage of it, a valuable advantage which
will lead Ca Mau to prosperity.
 F ood fo r A ll 99

Ecological R econ stru ction in C hina

Bei G uan village lies in the rolling hills and plains o f Yanqing County,
under the shadow o f the G reat W all o f China. It is the site o f a remarkable
experim ent in integrating sustainable agriculture with renewable energy
p rodu ction. Bei Guan was selected by the m inistry o f agriculture as an
e co lo g ical d em onstration village for im plem enting integrated farm ing
system s in one o f 1 5 0 co u n ties across the co u ntry .33 It has m ade the
transition from m onocultural m aize cultivation to diverse vegetable, pig
and poultry produ ction. E ach o f the 3 5 0 households has a tiny p lot o f
land, about 2 mu (on e seventh o f a hectare), a pen for the livestock, and
a biogas digester. Ten types o f vegetable are grown and sold directly into
B eijing m a rk ets.T h e green wastes are fed to the animals, and their wastes
are channelled into the d ig ester.T h is produces m ethane gas for cooking,
lighting and heating, and the solids from the digester are used to fertilize
the soil. Each farm er also uses plastic sheeting to create greenhouses from
the end o f August to May, thus extending production through the biting
w inter when tem peratures regularly fall to m inus 3 0 degrees Centigrade.
T h e benefits for local people and the environm ent are substantial —
m ore incom e from the vegetables, b etter and m ore diverse food , reduced
co sts fo r fe rtiliz e rs, reduced w orkload fo r w om en, and b e tte r living
co n d ition s in the house and kitchen. In Bei G uan, there is also a straw
g asification plant that uses only m aize husks to produce gas in order to
supplement household production. Instead o f burning husks in inefficient
stoves, requiring 5 0 0 baskets per day fo r the w hole village, ju st 2 0 are
burned per day in the p la n t.T h e village head, Lei Z h eng Kuan, says: ‘These
have saved us a lot o f time. Before, women had to rush backfrom the fields to collect wood
or husks, and i f it had been raining, the whole house would befu ll o f smoke. Now it is so
clean and easy.’
T h e b e n e fits o f th ese sy stem s are far reaching . T h e m in istry o f
agriculture prom otes a variety o f integrated m odels across the country,
involving m ix tu res o f bio gas d ig esters, fru it and vegetable gardens,
underground water tanks, solar greenhouses, solar stoves and heaters, and
pigs and poultry. T h e s e are fitted to local cond ition s. As W ang Jiuchen,
director o f the m in istry’s division o f renewable energy, says: ‘Iffarm ers do
not participate in this ecological reconstruction, it will not work.’ W h o le integrated
system s are now being dem onstrated across many regions o f C hina, and
altogether 8 .5 m illion households have digesters. T h e target for the com ing
decade is the constru ction o f another I m illion digesters per year. Because
the system s o f waste digestion and energy produ ction substitute for fuel
w ood, coal or inefficient crop-residue burning, the benefits for the natural
environm ent are su bstantial — each digester saves the equivalent o f 1.5
100 A g r i- C u lture

tonnes o f w ood per year, o r 3 to 5 mu o f forest. Each year, these biogas

digesters are effectively preventing 6 —7 m illion tonnes o f carbon from
being em itted to the atm osphere, a substantial benefit to us all.

C onfounding Factors and T rad e-O ffs

T h is agricultural sustainability revolution is clearly benefiting p oor people

and environm ents in developing countries. People have m ore food , are
better organized, are able to access external services and power structures,
and have m ore ch o ices in th eir lives. But like all m a jo r changes, this
revolution m ay also provoke secondary problem s. F o r example, building
a road near a forest can help farm ers to reach food m arkets, but may also
aid illegal tim ber extraction. T h is is n o t to say that d epletion o f natural
assets is always undesirable. It may be in the national and local interests
to convert part o f a forest into finance, i f that m oney is to be used for
investment in hospitals and schools, effectively producing a transfer from
natural to social and hum an capital. Equally, sh o rt-te rm social co n flict
may be necessary fo r overcom ing inequitable land ownership in order to
produ ce b e tter welfare ou tcom es fo r the m ajority. P ro jects m ay m ake
consid erable progress in reducing soil erosion and in increasing water
conservation through the ad option o f zero-tillage, but may still continue
to rely on applications o f herbicides. In oth er cases, improved organic
m atter levels in soils may lead to increased leaching o f nitrate to ground ­
water. I f land has to be closed o f f to grazing for rehabilitation, then people
w ith no o th e r source o f feed m ay have to sell th eir liv esto ck ; and i f
cropping intensity increases or new lands are taken into cultivation, then
the burden o f increased w orkloads m ay fall on w om en, in particular.
A dd itional incom es arising from sales o f produce may also go directly to
men in households, who are less likely than women to invest in children
and the household as a whole.
T h e re are also a variety o f em ergent factors that could slow the spread
o f sustainable agriculture. Firstly, sustainable agriculture that increases the
asset base may sim ply increase the incentives fo r m ore powerful interests
to take over, such as landlords taking back form erly degraded land from
tenants who had adopted sustainable agriculture. In these contexts, it is
rational for farm ers to farm badly —at least they get to keep the la n d .T h e
idea o f sustainable agriculture may also appear to be keeping people in
rural areas away from centres o f power and from ‘m od ern’ urban society;
yet, som e rural p eople’s aspiration s m ay precisely be to gain su fficien t
resources to leave rural areas. Sustainable agriculture also implies a lim ited
role fo r agrochem ical com pan ies, as cu rren tly configu red — and these
 Food fo r A ll x0 1

com panies will n o t accept such m arket losses lightly. Su stainable agri­
culture, furtherm ore, suggests greater d ecentralization o f power to local
com m un ities and groups, com bined with m ore local decision-m akin g,
b o th o f which m ight be opposed by those who benefit from co rru p tio n
and non-transparency in private and public organizations. Research and
extension agencies will have to change, to o —adopting m ore participatory
approaches in order to work closely w ith farm ers. T h e s e agencies m ust
adopt different measures to evaluate job success and reasons for prom otion.
F inally, so cial co n n ectiv ity , relatio n s o f tru st, and th e em ergence o f
significant movements may represent a threat to existing power bases, who,
in turn, may seek to underm ine such locally based institutions.
T h e re will be many who actively dispute the evidence o f prom ising
success, believing that the p oor and m arginalized can not possibly make
these kinds o f im provem ents. But I believe that there is great hope and
leadership in these stories o f progress towards agricultural sustainability.
W h a t is qu ite clear is th at they o ffe r real o p p o rtu n ities fo r people to
improve their food p rodu ction while pro tectin g and improving nature.
Su stainab ility will be d ifficu lt to achieve on a wide scale because many
individuals will oppose these ideas, dismiss the innovators, or resist policy
reform s. Yet, here lie som e pointers to salvation, i f we all could but listen
and learn.

C oncluding C om m ents

F ood poverty remains a daily challenge for m ore than 8 0 0 m illion people,
d espite great progress with ind ustrialized agriculture. H u ng er acco m ­
p an ies in creased fo o d pro d u ctivity - W e know how to increase fo o d
p ro d u ctio n w ith m od ern m eth od s and fo ssil-fu el derived inp u ts; but
anything that costs m oney inevitably puts it ou t o f reach o f the poorest
households and countries. Sustainable agriculture, in seeking to make the
b e st use o f n atu re’s g ood s and services, co m b in ed w ith p eo p le’s own
capacities fo r collective action, offers many new op portu nities. T h e re has
already been great progress, though sceptics remain unconvinced that the
p o o r can be innovative. Su stain ab le ag ricu ltu ral system s im prove so il
health, increase water efficiency and m ake the best use o f biodiversity for
the control o f pests and diseases. W h e n put together, there are im portant
synergistic interactions that improve the system ’s perform ance as a whole.
Sadly, there rem ain m any co n fo u n d in g fa c to rs th a t w ill m ake w ider
ad option of, and transition to, sustainable agriculture d ifficu lt w ithout
substantial policy reform .
 Chapter 5

O nly Reconnect

Such G reat Success. . .

L e t m e take you fo r a su m m ers walk throu g h one o f to d a y s tem perate

wheat fields. As we tread carefully, pushing through the stiff, golden stalks,
n o th in g seem s to stir. Betw een each p lan t the so il is bare and hard. O n
the h orizon , a smudge o f green suggests a field boundary, perhaps a distant
hedgerow o r lon ely tree. W e are now stand ing o n a fa cto ry flo o r, at the
centre o f an efficie n t m achine th at does little else bu t p rodu ce fo o d . L ike
any factory, it does a jo b well, b u t it has no place fo r natu re. T h e sam e
goes fo r m o st anim al raising. In N o r th A m erica, cattle on ce sp en t th eir
w hole lives roam ing the prairies. B u t today, they are packed in to feedlots,
as m any as 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 anim als at a tim e. T h e y are efficien tly fed, p u t o n I
k ilo g ra m m e o r m o re o f m eat each day, and to g e th e r p ro d u ce w astes
equivalent to tho se from a sizeable citv .T h ese, to o , are food facto ries, and
m any say they rep resent great progress in efficie n t food p ro d u ctio n . But
is this true?
 O n i.y R econ nect 103

O n e o f the rarest anim als in the world persists in patches o f these

industrialized landscapes. It is the Su ffo lk Punch, the giant horse first bred
in the 1 6 th century to work the heavy S u ffo lk clays o f eastern England.
Su ffolks are tall, often with a white star or blaze on the face, and have long
been admired fo r their calm tem peram ent and ease o f care.1 But in the
m od ern era, such shire horses could n o t com pete w ith m achinery, and
since the 1 9 5 0 s they were rapidly replaced with tractors and m echanized
co m b in es, b a rm s, o f co u rse, becam e m ore e ffic ie n t. M o re land was
cultivated in less tim e with less labour. B ut when these horses and their
horsem en disappeared from farm s, so m eth in g else was lo st, to o . T h e
horsemen had an intim ate relationship n o t just with their horses, but with
the w hole farm landscape. T h e y were expert b o tan ists, using up to 4 0
species o f wild plants for horse care. Today, having forgotten this know ­
ledge, we call these once useful plants weeds, and the S u ffo lk only survives
through the effo rts o f dedicated societies and individuals, one o r two o f
whom still farm with shire horses.
From generation to generation, horsem en passed on knowledge about
the value o f certain plants for treating illness and disease, shining the coat
or improving appetite. George Ew art Evans, eloquent observer o f English
agricultural change, wrote in The Horse and the Furrow o f fevers treated with
agrim ony or with apples sliced and stored until infested with an tibio tic-
carrying fungi; and o f colds and coughs cured with fever few, belladonna,
meadow-rue and horehound. For de-worming, the horsemen used celandine,
yellow -flow ered in d ic a to r o f sp rin g , and to en cou rage ap p etite, pu t
gentian, elecam pine, horehound and felw ort in to fo o d .T h e y used box to
keep down sweat, and burdock, saffron, rosemary, fennel, juniper, tansy
and m and rak e fo r c o a t c o n d itio n in g . H a z e l, h o lly and w illow were
fashioned into withies and traces fo r h arn esses.T h is example shows that
there is a sim ple principle fo r our m od ern era o f agricultural progress.
As food efficiency increases, so landscape diversity is lost, and so, too, goes
an intim ate knowledge o f nature and a duty o f care.2
F ar from the clays o f S u ffo lk , Kevin N iem eyer stands in the shade o f
his veranda, looking out on one o f the m ost fertile landscapes o f Q ueens­
la n d .T h is is the L ockyer Valley, su b-trop ical vegetable garden o f eastern
A ustralia, and hom e to an o th er m od ern revolution in natu re-frien dly
farm ing. In a land farm ed for only a few generations, crisis p o in t was
reached during the late 1 9 8 0 s and 1 9 9 0 s . Every two or three days, Kevin
had to spray his brassicas with pesticides. B ut this pattern o f use carried
an ecological hazard, as pests quickly developed resistance. W h e n Kevin
bought his farm in the 1 9 7 0 s , he did n o t need to spray m uch for the first
few years. Later, he found he had to spray m ore often as the beneficial
insects disappeared. T h u s , the seeds o f failure are co ntain ed w ithin a
j 04 A g r i- C ulture

m od ern agriculture that has to kill nature in order to survive. O ver the
years, the situation worsened. O n the verge o f qu itting farm ing because
o f pesticide resistance (n o th in g seemed to w ork any m ore), Kevin was
asked by Sue H e issw o lf o f the local research station to try som ething
different. T h e aim was to develop a system dependent upon natural pest
co n trol m e th o d s .'T h e psychological barriers to overcom e were massive.
Kevin says: ‘I was called a nut but I had ago. I put all my crops on the line, and eventually
the people who called me a nut came back and asked me how I did it.’
Sue and Kevin later helped to form the Brassica Im provem ent G roup
to bring together 3 0 o r so local farm ers to experim ent w ith new farm
m ethods and to share their results. T h e y began regular scouting for pests,
cut conventional pesticide use and adhered to a summ er production break.
T h e y introduced predators, pherom one strips, and natural products, such
as Bacillus thuringiensis ( B.t.) sprays, and m anipulated the farm habitat by
adding trees to encourage birds and planting allysum in cabbage rows to
provide food for beneficial insects. T h e im pact has been startling. Says
Kevin: ‘Crops which would have been sprayed 3 6 times in three months are now only
sprayed once or twice with a naturalpesticide.’T h e fields are now full o f green frogs,
wasps, spiders and birds, all providing a free service in the form o f pest
control.
M any oth ers in the valley have got the m essage, to o , and aggregate
pesticide use has fallen dram atically. B ut n o t all farm ers have changed.
W h e n I asked the group what was their biggest worry, they said ‘ourfathers’,
who kept on asking ‘when will you go back tofarm ing properly, rather than messing
around with these strange methods'. Ju st 5 0 0 m etres fro m K evin’s farm , a
neighbour continues to spray every two days, even though Kevins farmland
biodiversity has done the jo b perfectly for the past ten weeks with no need
fo r any intervention. H is brocco li perform s best, as he has n o t sprayed
th a t fo r three years. Kevin reflects on this fu n d am ental challenge fo r
redesigning ecological and social landscape: ‘Conventionalfarming has played
havoc with ourfarm s, butfarm ers still have difficulty changing.’ And change they all
m ust, fo r the forces o f ecological and eco no m ic change are stacking up.

C om m odities or Culture?

M o d ern agricultural m ethods provoked a 50-y e ar revolution in farm ing

in industrialized countries. T h e y brought spectacular increases in product­
ivity —more cereals and animals per hectare, m ore meat and m ilk per animal,
m ore food ou tput per person em ployed. T h e fear o f widespread hunger
has largely been banished, as productivity has grown in alm ost every sector.
In the U K , wheat yields rem ained largely unchanged from the 1 8 8 0 s to
 O n i.y R econ nect 105

the 1 9 4 0 s , around 2 —2 .5 tonnes per hectare. Sin ce then, there has been
a rapid increase to reach an average o f 8 tonnes per hectare today.4 In the
U S , each dairy cow produces nearly 8 0 0 0 kilogram m es o f m ilk each year,
m ore than triple that o f a cow 5 0 years ago. O ver the same period, b e e f
cattle have increased in size by 2 2 per cent, pigs by 9 0 per cent, and broiler
chickens by 5 2 per cen t.5
A t the same tim e, the scale o f production has grown. Sm all farm ers
have been swallowed up, and large operators have thrived and expanded
even fu rth er.T h e industry has becom e bigger and better at producing food
as a co m m o d ity , m o st o f w hich is now grow n o r reared in m assive
m onocultures. W h ereas once farm ing was based on m ixed enterprises,
with livestock wastes returned to the land, and cereal and vegetable by­
products fed to anim als, now enterprises are increasingly specialized and
geographically separated. Sh ou ld we be concerned about these losses o f
cu ltu ral diversity? O r sh ou ld we resist any attem p t to see farm in g as
anything oth er than an efficient producer o f the com m od ities that we all
need on a daily basis?
O n e o f the m o st strik in g changes has been the grow th in scale o f
livestock farm ing, and the shift towards confined systems that rely entirely
on im ported feedstuffs. T h e trend has been the same in every industr­
ialized country — bu t the effect has been the greatest in the U S . H uge
liv estock o p era tio n s have em erged in the pig, dairy, b ro iler and layer
chicken, and b e e f sectors. F o r many o f these enterprises, it is no longer
correct to use the term ‘farm ’.6 In C olorad o andTexas, five com panies own
2 7 feedlots on which 1.5 m illion cattle are penned, an average o f 6 0 ,0 0 0
animals per feedlot. A single feedlot o f 2 4 0 hectares in C alifornia contains
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 anim als, finishing m ore than 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 each year. F ou r hundred
animals are squeezed into each hectare, and each anim al puts on about 1.5
kilogram m es daily, staying in the feedlot for four to five m onths. As they
consum e about 1 0 kilogram m es o f feed each day, there is a great deal o f
waste. A feedlot this size produces 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 tonnes o f waste per year, and
uses 4 m illion litres o f water a day in the summ er. Just to top it all, the
b e e f is sold under the com pany’s own brand name as ‘ranch b e e f ’, evoking
days o f open prairies and traditional cow boy culture.7
T h is growth and skewing o f the size o f farm operations is m irrored
by growing concentration, at every stage, in the food chain. T h ere are fewer
in p u t su ppliers, fewer farm s, few er m illers, slau gh terers and packing
businesses, and fewer processors. Increasingly, one business owns a whole
piece o f the food chain, producing the feed, raising the livestock, slaughter­
ing and packing them , and then selling the products to consum ers in their
own shops. Bill H effern an and colleagues at the U niversity o f M issouri
have been tracking the concentration ratio o f the top four firm s in various
j 06 A g r i-C u ltu r e

food sectors for many years.Today in the U S, the largest four firm s control
7 9 per cen t o f b e e f p ack in g and 5 7 per cen t o f p o rk packing. T h e
concen tration ratio fo r broiler and turkey producers is between 4 0 —5 0
per ce n t. F o r flo u r m illin g , dry and w et c o rn m illin g , and soybean
crushing, the ratio varies between 5 7 —8 0 per cen t.8
Big scale also brings sim p lificatio n and loss o f bio lo g ical diversity.
W orldw ide, there are 6 5 0 0 breeds o f d om esticated anim als and birds,
including cattle, goats, sheep, buffalo, yaks, pigs, horses, chicken, turkeys,
ducks, geese, pigeons and ostriches. O n e third o f these are under im m ed­
iate threat o f extinction owing to their very sm all population size. O ver
the past century, it is believed th at 5 0 0 0 anim al and bird breeds have
already been lo s t.T h e situation is m ost serious in the already industrialized
farm ing systems, with h a lf o f breeds at risk in Europe and one third at
risk in N o rth America. W e m ust now worry that those countries currently
w ith few er breeds at risk , 1 0 —2 0 per cen t in A sia, A frica and L a tin
A m erica, will follow the same route as the industrialized countries.9
F o r some, such large-scale operations and loss o f diversity are a measure
o f success. F o o d co m m od ity prices have been falling steadily over the
past 2 0 years, and m ost industrialized countries have moved well away
from the threat o f food shortages. It was only in 1 9 5 4 , after all, that the
U K ended fo o d ra tio n in g . H ow ever, in th is su ccess lies th e seed o f
d estru ctio n . L arg e-scale in d u strialized farm in g lo o k s g oo d precisely
because it measures its own success narrowly and ignores the costly side
effects.l0T h e re are many signs that our highly productive and m odernized
system s are now in crisis. F arm ers have been d ispossessed, fo o d and
environmental safety com prom ised, and food insecurity allowed to persist.
C o n su m ers are in creasin g ly d isco n n ected fro m th e p ro cess o f food
production, and disenchantm ent grows. A ldo Leopold, perceptive observer
o f our relations o f nature, saw the changes co m in g m ore than h a lf a
century ago when he said: ‘I f the individual has a warm personal understanding of
the land, he will perceive o f his own accord that it is something more than a breadbasket. " 1

T h e End o f the Fam ily Farm Culture?

T h e realities o f industrialized farm ing contrast painfully with the pastoral

n o tio n s o f an agricultural system that m any consum ers still hold dear.
R ural com m unities are dying all over the industrialized world; but the food
system appears to go from strength to strength. In an old landscape only
recently converted to farm ing, yet another farm sale takes place in the
m orning m ist. In the M id -W est grain bowl o f N o rth A m erica, and hom e
to generations o f family farmers, the gavel smacks down on piles o f rusting
 O n ly R e c o n n e c t 1 0 7

machinery, m ournful animals, and acres of desolate farm lan d .T h e life and
history o f another farm family is dispersed to the four winds. T h e farm
is swallowed up, so that another farm can com pete better, until that, too,
needs to get bigger again. D u ring the past 5 0 years, 4 m illion farm s have
disappeared in the U S . T h is is equivalent to 2 1 9 fo r every single one o f
those 1 8 ,0 0 0 days.12
In F ran ce, 9 m illio n farm s in 1 8 8 0 becam e ju st 1 .5 m illion by the
1 9 9 0 s . In Japan, 6 m illion farm ers in 1 9 5 0 becam e 4 m illion by 2 0 0 0 .
M any advocates o f eco no m ic progress and efficiency say that these are
predictable and perhaps sad losses, but inevitable i f we are to have progress.
Farm ers increase their productivity, the inefficient are weeded out, and the
rem aining farm s are better able to com pete on world m arkets.
But each o f these lost farm fam ilies used to have a close conn ection
with the land, and to oth er farm s in their com m unities. W h e n they are
d isconnected, the m em ories are lo st forever. Strangely, again, we call this
progress. Joh n Steinb eck saw this com ing m ore than 6 0 years ago in The
Crapes o f Wrath, when he lam ented:

And when a horse stops work and goes into the barn there is life and a vitality left,
there is breathing and a warmth, and thefeet shift on the straw, and thejaw s clamp
on the hay, and the ears and the eyes are alive. There is a warmth o f life in the barn,
and the heat and smell o f life. But when the motor o f a tractor stops, it is as dead
as the ore it camefrom . The heat goes out o f it like the living heat that leaves a corpse.
Then the corrugated iron doors are closed and the tractor man drives home to town,
perhaps twenty miles away, and he need not come back for weeks or months, for the
tractor is dead. And this is easy and efficient. So easy that the wonder goes out of
the work, so efficient that the wonder goes out o f the land and the working o f it,
and with the wonder the deep understanding and the relation.13

In the U S , the changing num bers o f farm ers and average farm size show
an interesting pattern. Farm num bers increased steadily from 1.5 m illion
to m ore than 6 m illion from I 8 6 0 to the 1 9 2 0 s , as the frontier was pushed
back, stabilized for 3 0 years, but then fell rapidly since the 1 9 5 0 s to todays
2 m illion. O ver the same period, average farm size rem ained remarkably
stable fo r 1 0 0 years, around 6 0 —8 0 hectares; bu t it clim bed from the
1 9 5 0 s to tod ays average o f 1 8 7 hectares.14
However, hidden in these averages are deeply w orrying trends. O nly
4 per cent o f all U S farm s are over 8 0 0 hectares in size, and 4 7 per cent
are sm aller than 4 0 hectares. Technically, 9 4 per cen t o f U S farm s are
defined as sm all farm s — but they receive only 4 1 per cent o f all farm
receip ts.T h u s, 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 farm s out o f the total o f 2 m illion receive 6 0 per
cent o f all incom e. T h e recent N a tio n a l C o m m ission on Sm all Farm s
108 A g r i- C u lture

noted: ‘The pace o f industrialization o f agriculture has quickened. The dominant trend
is a few large vertically integrated farms controlling the majority o f food and fib re products
in an increasingly global processing and distribution system.’15
T om D o b b s o f So u th D ak o ta State University, in his evidence to the
N ational C om m ission, describes what happened in eastern South D akota,
where his great g ran d fath er first set up a farm in the 1 8 7 0 s .16 T h r e e
generations were raised on the farm , and it finally passed ou t o f family
ow nership in 1 9 9 7 . In M o o d y C ounty, the location o f the farm , farm
num bers halved from 1 3 0 0 in 1 9 4 9 to 6 4 0 during the 1 9 9 0 s , with size
doubling to 1 8 0 hectares. But it is in the standardization o f the landscape
where change has been m ost dram atic. Soybean acreage rose sharply, and
areas under oats, flax, hay and barley fell, accom panied by large falls in
num bers o f sheep and sm all declines in cattle and pigs. M ixed systems
were replaced by sim plified systems o f maize and soybean. A sT om D obbs
says, these changes m irror those across the C o rn B elt and G reat Plains,
with small farm s replaced by large farm s, and mixed farm s by simple ones.
It is only narrow eco no m ics that allows us to believe that these large
operations are actually m ore efficient. W e sim ply do n o t use the proper
acco u n tin g m easures. T h e N a tio n a l C o m m issio n also ind icated that:
‘Normal measures o f efficiency do not reflect the social and environmental goods produced
by a large number o f sm all fa r m s .’ W illis P ete rso n o f the U n iv ersity o f
M in nesota echoes this sentim ent by asserting: 'The smallfamily and part-time
farm s are at least as efficient as larger commercial enterprises. In fact, there is evidence of
diseconomies o f scale as fa rm size increases.’'7
In two previous bo ok s, Regenerating Agriculture and The Living Land, I have
reflected on the h isto ric analysis by W alter G old schm id t o f C alifo rn ia in
the m id 2 0 th century. It bears restating, in brief. G old schm idt studied the
two com m unities o f A rvin and D in u ba in the San Joaquin Valley, sim ilar
in all respects except for farm size. D in u b a was characterized by sm all
fam ily farm s, and A rvin by large co rp orate en terprises. T h e im pact o f
these structures o f farm ing was rem arkable. In D in uba, he found a better
quality o f life, superior public services and facilities, m ore parks, shops
and retail trade, twice the num ber o f organizations fo r civic and social
im provem ent, and better p a rticip a tio n by the p u blic. T h e sm all farm
com m unity was seen as a better place to live because, as M ichael Perelman
later put it: ‘The small farm offered the opportunity fo r “attachment” to local culture
and care f o r the surrounding land.’ A study 3 0 years later co n firm ed these
findings —social connectedness, trust and participation in com m unity life
was greater where farm scale was sm aller.1®
Yet, sm all farm ers are still widely viewed as econom ically inefficien t.
T h e ir disappearance has, in truth, been a severe loss to rural culture. Linda
L o b a o ’s study o f rural inequality shows the im portance o f locality that
 O nly R econnect j 09

G o ld sch m id ts research illustrated. T h e decline o f fam ily farm ing does

n o t ju st harm farm ers. It hu rts qu ality o f life in the w hole o f society.
C orporate farm s are good for productivity, but not m uch else.T h ey bring
a decline in rural population, increased poverty and incom e inequality,
lowered num bers o f com m unity services, dim inished d em ocratic p artic­
ipation, decreased retail trade, and increased environmental pollution. Says
L obao : ‘This type o f farming is very limited in what it can dof o r a community. . . we
need farms that will he viable in thefuture, correspond to local needs and remain wedded
to the community.’19
W en dell Berry, p oet and farm er, has long drawn a tten tio n to what
happens during m od ernization. An agricultural crisis, he says, is a crisis
o f culture:

A healthyfarm culture can be based only uponfamiliarity and can grow only among
people soundly established on the land; it nourishes and safeguards a human
intelligence o f the earth that no amount o f technology can satisfactorily replace. The
growth o f such a culture was once a strong possibility in the farm communities of
this country. We now have only the sad remnants o f those communities. I f we allow
another generation to pass without doing what is necessary to enhance and embolden
the possibility now perishing with them, we will lose it altogether.20

Nevertheless, since Berry w rote this in the 1 9 7 0 s , another generation has

passed.
T h e central q u estion is really this: are we co n ten t w ith agricultural
systems becom ing larger in scale and producing anonymous com m odities,
or do we expect som ething m ore from them?21 Family farm s do m ore than
ju st produce food . T h e y help to build a tangible culture o f conn ections
to the land. Lorraine Garkovich and her colleagues’ study o f farm families
in K en tu ck y show s how im p o rta n t are th e accu m u lated c o n n e ctio n s
between family farm s and the land: ‘The fam ily farm is more than just soil and
livestock. It is also traditional strategies fo r how to farm, care for, and use the land and
traditional meanings and values attached to the land 82 O n these farm s, tim e passes
slowly and experience accumulates into individual and collective memories.
T h e s e farm ers are good at story-tellin g, and these stories bind com m un­
ities, giving m eaning and d irection to lives. But when the shared under­
standing breaks down, then dissatisfaction and, eventually, co n flict can
emerge. Today, family farm ers m ourn the decline o f rural com m unities;
no one has tim e to talk anymore, and many people in rural areas no longer
know anything about farm ing. Canadian author Sharon Butala says:

The most potent reason o f all to save small-scalefam ily farm s [ is] because those
who farm ed in this way had the time to ponder and enjoy and be instructed and
j j 0 A g r i-C u ltu r e

inspired by nature. When there’s no one left out there except people whose days in
the land are spent twentyfeet o ff the ground in air-conditioned cabs o f tractors. . .
who will remember how to be on the land? Who will remember how to listen to the
land?13

W ith the increasing scale and centralization o f m odern agriculture have

com e the standardization and sim plification o f whole landscapes. L and ­
scapes w ith diversity have m any fun ctions and niches, but monoscapes are
p oor perform ers.24T h e y have lost vital ecological functions, and therefore
are less resilient. P ut simply, m onoscapes do one thing well, and that is
p ro d u ce abu n d a n t fo o d . B u t th ey are fu n d am en tally u n h ealth y and
d iscon n ected system s o f food p ro d u ctio n . T h e y arise because certain
ind iv id uals are able to claim th e co m m o n b e n efits o f land scap e fo r
them selves, with few checks and balances. Diverscapes do so m uch m ore —
they jo in tly produ ce food , su p p o rt p eo p le’s liv elih ood s, and preserve
nature as a result o f eco no m ic activity, n o t as a sideline. D iverscapes are
multifunctional and polycultural, full o f uncertainty, m ysteries and differ­
ence. As farm er and w riter David K lin e has put it: ‘I believe we need some
unconcreted mysteries. We need the delight o f the unknown and the unexplainable in
nature.’25 T h e only m ystery in m od ern farm ing is th at we have failed to
understand the associated environm ental and health costs.
O n e sad result o f the modernist project is increasing place neutrality.This
is a beguiling vision, as it appears to o ffer independence, the ability to
com e and go as you please, w ithout reference to the cloying and parochial
ties o f places and localities. A t the same tim e, though, such place neutrality
implies all the facilities but none o f the heart, none o f the natural connect­
edness between people, and between people and land.26 In this m odern
world, should we b o th er about those who say they have im p ortant co n ­
nections to a place? W h y n o t ju st let m arket forces dictate, and gather up
our belongings and move whenever necessary? Today, it takes the same
am ount o f tim e to fly h a lf way around the world as it did a century ago
to travel 5 0 kilom etres. S o why n o t pull up these ro ots and make the best
o f opportunity?
T h e re is one sim ple reason, and that is because o f our desire to have
a place we can call hom e. H o m e, as D eb orah T all puts it, ‘is where we know
— and are known — through accumulated experience’.27 It is n o t som eth in g that
happens quickly. It gives us stability and meaning. It is where we have best
established conn ections w ith people and w ith place. It is where we return
after lon g jou rn ey s. It is where the food on ou r plate has som e local
identity. F o r all these reasons, it is n o t a com m od ity to be traded easily.
P eop le relo cated from co n d em n ed slum s o ften su ffer badly because
they feel that they have lost th eir real hom e. Each year, one fifth o f all
 O n ly R eco n n ect j j j

Am ericans move house, m eaning that an average American moves 1 4 times

in a lifetim e. H om es have becom e com m odities, and you trade up when
you can at the cost o f losing som e sense o f perm anence. Even worse, this
prom otes a distrust o f those who do rem ain in one place for a lifetim e,
who arc, as Tall puts it: ‘often interpreted as being unambitious, unadventurous — a
negation o f American values9. M o re w orryingly, th e m ean in g o f place is
changing. It is increasingly so m eth in g th a t is cen trally designed and
created, rather than accum ulated over tim e. Inevitably, this means increas­
ing disconnection from local distinctiveness and nature, resulting in places
com ing ‘to mean proximity to highwaysf shopping and year-round recreation, rather than
natural situation or indigenous character\Z8

C o u n terin g the S h r in k in g Food Pound

A t the turn o f the 2 1 s t century, farm ing cultures are now in crisis all over
the industrialized world. H ow can this be? H ow can an industry showing
extraordinary growth in productivity, and sustained over decades, have lost
public confidence owing to persistent environmental damage and growing
food safety co n c e rn s? T h e food that is supposed to sustain us is now a
source o f ill health fo r many, and the system s th at produce th at fo o d
damage the environm ent. T h is can no longer be right.
O n ce again, the devil is in the detail. O n e o f the reasons why many
farm ers struggle is that the p ro p o rtio n o f the food pound or dollar that
is returned to farm ers has shrunk. F ifty years ago, farm ers in Europ e and
N o rth Am erica received as incom e between 4 5 —6 0 per cent o f the m oney
consum ers spent on food. Today, that p ro p o rtio n has dropped dram at­
ically to ju st 7 per cent in the U K and 3 —4 per cent in the U S , though it
rem ains at 18 per cent in France.29 So, even though the global food sector
continues to expand, now standing at U S $ 1 .5 trillion a year, farm ers are
getting a relatively sm aller share. O ver tim e, the value o f food has been
increasingly captured by m anufacturers, processors and retailers. Farm ers
sell the basic com m odity, and others add the value. As a result, less m onev
gets back to rural co m m u n ities and cultures; and they, in tu rn , suffer
eco n om ic decline. A typical wheat farm er, fo r example, receives 6 cents
o f each dollar spent on bread, about the same as fo r the wrapping. But if
farm ers are receiving such a sm all p ro p o rtio n o f the fo o d pound and
dollar, what happens when they sell directly to consumers? D o their farm s
and landscapes change fo r the better?
Jan and T im D eane were the first farm ers in the U K to sell vegetables
d irectly to lo cal co n su m ers th rou gh a fo rm alized box schem e. T h e ir
1 2-h ectare sm allholding in D evon would barely register as a field on a
j j 2 A g r i- C ulture

conventional large farm . Yet, they grow 6 0 types o f vegetables, and supply
them fresh to 2 0 0 custom ers each week in a boxed selection. It all started
in 1 9 8 4 , when they bought N o rth w oo d Farm on land not well suited to
m arket gardening. Says Jan:

We had the usual disasters in thosefirs t years —pest problems, weed problems and,
especially, I 5 years ago, difficulties infinding suitable markets. Together with several
other growers from Cornwall to Hampshire, we were founding members o f an
organic marketing coop that sold to retail shops, the wholesale market and the
supermarkets. But by the end o f 1 9 9 0 , it was obvious to us that we were never
going to survivefinancially growing 10 or 12 acres o f organic vegetablesf o r the
pre-pack and wholesale markets. We were too small, the land too indifferent, and
as producers in the south-west, we were too f a r away from the major markets so
that transport availability and cost was an ongoing headache and financial drain.

T h e ir cooperative became a casualty, and they began packing a small range

o f vegetables to order in a desperate bid for extra in co m e.T h ey contacted
existing custom ers and other friends and neighbours whom they felt m ight
be interested and offered to pack and deliver a box o f mixed vegetables
each week for a fixed price. T h e response was encouraging and they began
to pack 2 0 boxes a week. T h ese were so popular that within two years they
had dispensed w ith the w holesale m arket altogether and m ade the box
system the sole m eans o f d istribution and incom e generation.
T h ro u g h occasion al qu estionnaires and casual conversation as they
delivered the boxes, they gradually built up a detailed picture o f what their
custom ers wanted in the boxes. T h e y produced a newsletter once a m onth
so th at they could inform their custom ers about what was happening on
the farm and at w hat stages the crops were. T h is helped cu stom ers to
increase their awareness o f what is actually involved in growing vegetables
and help ed th em to feel p a rt o f so m e th in g sp e cia l. O n the ann ual
N o rth w o o d F arm walk, cu stom ers had the o p p o rtu n ity to spend an
afternoon with T im and Jan, who to o k them on conducted tours o f what
they were going to eat in the com ing m onths. Jan says:

It was a revelation to us to realize how divorced so many people arefrom the realities
o f food production. Some o f our customers were shocked to realize that we could
actually grow vegetables infields — in their mind’s eye, Northwood was just a rather
larger than normal garden —and the reality took some adjustment. However, when
it came to rabbits we never really managed to convince them that the cute little bunnies
that they saw hopping away in the distance were to us both a nuisance and a potential
threat to our survival.
 O n ly R e c o n n e c t 113

T h e vegetable season lasts 3 2 weeks from June to February or M arch. Over

the y ears,T im and Jan have increased the num ber o f species grown from
2 0 to 6 0 , and found that the farm seemed to benefit from this. A m ong
other things there seemed to be better stocks o f predators to control pests.
M o reo ver, all cu sto m ers live w ith in 6 k ilo m etres o f the farm . M o st
im portantly for the D eanes, they receive all o f the food pound, and they
make m ore m oney this way. Jan again says: ‘We more than doubled the profitability
o f the fa r m and f o r the fir s t time fo u n d ourselves on a secure fin a n cia l footing.’
N o rth w o o d F arm has gone on to becom e the prototype o f the box and
co m m u n ity -su p p o rte d ag ricu ltu re sch em es th a t have d eveloped so
successfully in the U K during the last decade.

System s o f Sustainable A griculture

O n e reason for this sharply falling share o f the food pound is m odern
farm ing s increased dependence on purchased inputs and technologies. In
the latter part o f the 2 0 th century, external inputs o f pesticides, inorganic
fertilizer, anim al feedstu ffs, energy, tractors and oth er m achinery have
b e com e the m ain m eans to increase food p ro d u ctio n . T h e s e external
inputs, though, have su bstituted fo r free n atu ral-co n tro l processes and
resou rces, ren derin g them m ore vuln erable. P esticid es have rep laced
biological, cultural and m echanical m ethods o f controlling pests, weeds
and diseases. Inorganic fertilizers have substituted for livestock manures,
com posts, nitrogen-fixing crops and fertile soils. W h a t were once valued
local resources have all to o often becom e waste products. T h e se changes
would represent a m ajo r problem i f alternatives did n o t exist. N ow they
do. Su stainable agriculture technologies do two im p ortant things. T h e y
conserve existing on -farm resources, such as nutrients, predators, water
o r soil; and they introduce new elem ents into the farm ing system that add
to the sto ck s o f these resources, such as nitro g en -fixin g crops, w ater-
harvesting structures or new predators. T h e s e then substitute fo r som e or
all o f the external inputs.
M an y o f the individual techn olog ies are m u ltifu n ctio n al, and their
ad option results, sim ultaneously, in favourable changes in several aspects
o f farm systems. F o r example, hedgerows encourage wildlife and predators
and act as windbreaks, thereby reducing soil erosion. Legumes in rotations
fix nitrogen, and also act as a break crop to prevent carry-over o f pests
and diseases. Clovers in pastures reduce fe rtiliz e r b ills and lift sward
digestibility for cattle. G rass co ntou r strips slow surface ru n -o ff o f water,
encourage p ercolatio n to groundw ater, and are a source o f fod d er for
livestock. C atch crops prevent so il erosion and leaching during critical
j 1 4 A g r i-C u ltu r e

periods, and can also be ploughed in as a green m anure. G reen manures

n o t only provide a readily available source o f nutrients for the growing
crop, bu t also increase so il o rg an ic m atter and hence w ater retentive
capacity, further reducing susceptibility to erosion. Low -lying grasslands
that are managed as water meadows, and that provide habitats for wildlife,
also provide an early-season yield o f grass for lambs.
In E urope, about one third of the farm ed landscape, som e 5 6 m illion
hectares, is still under relatively unintensive agricultural system s.30T h e s e
traditional systems are typically highly diverse, and are closely linked to
p a rticu la r ways o f life fo r ru ral co m m u n ities. T h e y include the high
m ou n tain pastures o f so u th ern and cen tral E u ro p e, ch aracterized by
transhum ance and sum m er m igrations o f livestock; the valley farm s of
the Carpathians, alm ost entirely under traditional m anagem ent, with hay
meadows rich in flow ering plants; the diverse w ood-pasture system s o f
Portugal and Spain (th e montados and dehesas'), characterized by species-rich
grasslands, m ixtures o f cork and holm oaks, sheep, pigs and cattle, and
a rem ark ab le a b u n d an ce o f rare b ird s; the 3 —4 m illio n h e ctares o f
traditionally managed fru it trees, olives and vines in G reece, Italy, Spain
and Portugal that are also good for wildlife; the mixed farm s o f Hungary,
Poland and Ireland; and the wet and dry grasslands o f France and Italy.
Sadly, a lm o st all o f these system s are u n der severe th reat from bo th
m od ern farm ing m ethods and rural abandonm ent.
In co n trast to these traditional system s, organic farm ing represents a
deliberate attem pt to m ake the best use o f local natural resources. T h e
aim o f organic farm ing, also known as ecological or biological agriculture,
is to create integrated, hum ane, and environm entally and econom ically
viable agriculture system s in which m axim um reliance is put on locally or
farm -derived renewable resources, and the m anagem ent o f ecological and
b io lo g ical processes. T h e use o f external inputs, w hether inorganic or
organic, is reduced as far as possible. R ecen t years have seen a dram atic
increase in the ad option o f organic farm ing. In E urope, the extent has
increased from ju st 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares in 1 9 8 5 to m ore than 3 m illion
hectares, m anaged by 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 farm ers in 2 0 0 0 . In the U S , 5 5 0 ,0 0 0
hectares o f land managed by 5 0 0 0 growers were certified under organic
production in 19 9 7 . T h e im portant thing for m ost organic farm ers is that
it represents a system o f agriculture rather than sim ply a set o f techn ol­
ogies.31 T h e primary aim is to find ways in which to grow food in harmony
with nature. T h e term organic, as N ic Lam pkin o f the W elsh Institute for
R ural Studies has put it, is ‘best thought o f as referring not to the type o f inputs used,
but to the concept o f thefarm as an organism, in which the component parts — the soil
minerals, organic matter; micro-organisms, insects, plants, animals and humans —interact
to create a coherent and stable whole’.32'
 O n ly R econ nect x 15

T h ese interconnections are im portant. Lady Eve Balfour, founder o f

the So il A ssociation, author o f the 1 9 4 0 s book The Living Soil, and owner
o f an experimental farm at Haughley in Suffolk, saw agriculture as a vital
service for the nation: ‘I f the nation’s health depends on the way its food is grown,
then agriculture must be looked upon as one of the health services, infact the primary health
service.’She, like other founders o f the organic movement, A lbert Howard
and Friend Sykes, saw agriculture as intimately connected with human and
environmental health. T h is should change the way we think about food
p ro d u ctio n : ‘Once agriculture comes to be regarded as a health service, the only
consideration in any matter concerning the production of food would be is it necessaryfo r
the health of the people? That of ordinary economics would take a quite secondary place.’11
A nother type o f agricultural sustainability in industrialized landscapes
is represented by what has been called integrated farming. T h is is another
environmentally friendly approach to farming. O nce again, the emphasis
is upon integrating technologies to produce site-specific managem ent
systems for whole farms, incorporating a higher input o f management and
inform ation for planning, setting targets and m onitoring progress.
T h ere are im portant historical, financial and policy reasons why still
relatively few farm ers have taken the leap from m od ernist farm ing to
organic agriculture. But it is possible for anyone to take a small step that
can, in theory, be followed by another step. In tegrated farm ing in its
various guises represents a step or several steps towards sustainability. W h a t
has becom e increasingly clear is that m od ern farm ing is w asteful, as
integrated farmers have found that they can cut purchased inputs without
losing out on profitability. Som e o f these cuts in use are substantial; others
are relatively small. By adopting better targeting and precision m ethods,
there is less wastage and therefore m ore ben efit to the environm ent.
Farmers can then make greater cuts in input use once they substitute some
regenerative technologies for external inputs, such as legumes for inorganic
fertilizers or predators for pesticides. Finally, they can replace some or all
o f the external inputs entirely over time once they have fully adopted, and
learned about, a new type o f farm ing characterized by new goals and
technologies.34

Bioregional Connections to Sustainable Foodsheds

T h e basic challenge for a m ore sustainable agriculture is to make best use

o f available natural and social resources. Farm ing does not have to produce
its food by dam aging o r d estroying the environm ent. F arm s can be
productive and farmers earn a decent living while protecting the landscape
and its natural resources for future generations. Farm ing does not have
j J 6 A g r i- C u lture

to be dislocated from local rural cultures. Sustainable agriculture, with its

need for increased knowledge, m anagem ent skills and labour, offers new
upstream and downstream jo b op p ortu nities for businesses and people
in rural areas. T h is suggests a log ical need to em phasize ag ricu ltu re’s
conn ections to local ecologies and com m unities.
In this m od ern world, those o f us who are n o t farm ers express our
conn ections with nature in co m b in atio ns o f three ways — by visiting it,
by jo in in g org anizations, and by eating the food . Firstly, we visit and
observe it, walk in it, bathe in it, occasionally at weekends or on annual
holidays, som etim es daily while walking the dog.55 Each year in the U K ,
we make m ore than 5 5 0 m illion day and overnight visits to the countryside
and seaside, spending a to tal o f U K £ I 4 b illio n in local eco n o m ie s.T h is
is m ore than four tim es as great an input to rural areas as subsidies to
farm ers from governm ent. T h e choices that we make on these visits thus
make a big difference to the supply o f goods and services, whether directly
in the form o f food , or indirectly in the form o f landscapes.36
W e also jo in organizations which we feel are engaged in activities to
protect, conserve or regenerate those aspects o f nature o r countryside that
we value. Environm ental, heritage and countryside organizations have now
becom e som e o f the largest m em bership organizations in industrialized
countries. In aggregate, they have overtaken p olitical party m em bership,
and are second only to trades unions. T h e s e represent a wide range o f
d ifferent voices, pulling in m any d ifferent d irectio n s.37 M any began as
p ro test m ovem ents, and then later evolved to take on a m ore positive
‘so lu tio n s-o rien ted ’ ag en d a.T h e eco no m ic and political powers o f these
organizations com e from the m em bership base. In the U K , both the Royal
So cie ty fo r the P ro tectio n o f Birds (w ith m ore than I m illion m em bers)
and the W ild life T ru sts (m o re than 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers) now own large
am ounts o f land, b o th reserves and farm s, and are d em onstrating that
positive m anagem ent can make a d ifferen ce.T h e largest landowner in the
U K after the crown is the N ation al T ru st, which owns 2 7 5 ,0 0 0 hectares
and has 2 .5 m illion m em bers. In the U S , the Sierra C lub has 6 0 0 ,0 0 0
m em bers, the N a tio n a l A udubon S o cie ty 5 5 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers, and the
W ild ern ess S o ciety 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers.
Perhaps m ost im portantly, because it is a daily activity, we eat the food
produced from the farm s that shape nature on a daily basis. W e vote once
every two, three o r four years, yet we shop every week, o r even every day.
W e m ust have food , and in having it we also encourage the system o f
production that brought it from land to larder. T h is means that the food
system as a w hole deserves to be described as another co m m on s. It is
som ething that belongs to us all. Yet, in an unrestrained or unregulated
co n text, the tragedy is th at we over-consum e and under-invest in this
com m ons. W orse, we appear n o t to appreciate the consequences.
 O nly R econ nect x 17

W h e n food is a com m odity, there is little to stop over-consum ption.

T h ere are no checks and balances to have us worry about the hidden costs
o f certain types o f food produ ction. O u r current food system , despite
considerable perform an ce im provem ents in recent decades (it is faster,
fitter and m ore stream lined), is still flawed. It sim ply is n o t w orking to
the advantage o f its 6 billion com m oners. T h e re is hunger at the tables
o f 8 0 0 m illion people. A t the same tim e, there is widespread ob esity .T h is
cannot be right; nevertheless, by our action, it already is accepted. H ow ­
ever, collective action by producers o f food , by consum ers, and by novel
m ixtures o f both groups can make a difference. It is possible to create new
form s o f relationship, trust and understanding, leading to new cognitive
constru ctions o f food and its cultures o f production.
Tw o concep ts are useful in this rethinking — the ideas o f bioregions
and foodsheds. Bioregionalism im plies the in teg ratio n o f hum an activities
within ecological lim its, and bioregions are seen as diverse areas with many
ecological functions. Bioregionalism can thus be seen as a self-organizing
or autofoietic co n cep t that conn ects social and natural system s at a place
people can call hom e. Bioregions are real places where people want to live.
T h e y take years to build, em erging from the interactions o f people who
are n o t indifferent to the outcom es. People leave their m ark and, in turn,
are shaped by local circum stances and cultures. T h e y shape their worlds.
T h e term foodshed has been coined to give an area-based grounding to
the p rodu ction, m ovem ent and consu m p tion o f food . Foodshed s have
been described by Jack K loppenberg as 'self-reliant, locally or regionally based
food systems comprised o f diversified farm s using sustainable practices to supply fresher,
more nutritious fo o d stuffs to small-scale processors and consumers to whom producers
are linked by the bonds o f community as well as economy V58
T h e basic aim o f regionalized foodsheds is tw o fo ld .T h ey shorten the
chain from produ ction to consu m p tion, thereby elim inating som e o f the
negative tra n s p o r t e x te rn a litie s and h e lp in g to bu ild tru s t betw een
producers and consum ers, and ensuring that m ore o f the food pound gets
back to farm ers. T h e y also tend to favour the p ro d u ctio n o f positive
environm ental, social and health externalities over negative ones through
the use o f sustainable p rodu ction systems, leading to the accum ulation
o f renewable assets throughout the food system.

C om m unity-Su pported A griculture

Stan ding w ith T om Spaulding and gazing to one h orizon o f this Illin ois
landscape, all we see is w all-to-w all yellow m aize. It is a m on ocultural
desert, except fo r this tiny oasis o f diversity. W e are at A ngelic O rganics,
j j 8 A g r i- C u lture

a community-supported agriculture (C S A ) farm som e two hours’ drive n o rth ­

west o f C hicago.39T om is d irector o f the farm ’s Learning Centre, and he
shows us a farm quite unlike anything else in the region. Angelic O rganics
is a 3 2 -h ecta re organic farm , ten o f which are used each year to grow 4 7
varieties o f fruiting, leaf, cole, onion and root crops, and a further 12 types
o f herb. It is supported directly by 8 0 0 m em bers who pay for a season's
supply o f vegetables in advance; each week from June to N ovem ber, fresh
produce is packed into boxes and delivered to Chicago, R ockford and other
regional urban centres.
U nlike m ost o f the farms in the region, this is a human-scale operation.
T h e farm com m unity com prises 11 s ta ff and 3 to 5 interns, and produces
1 4 5 tonnes o f vegetables per season. It is well connected to its m em bers.
It has also reached out to many oth er groups through its learning centre,
each year providing 1 0 0 0 urban young p eople w ith ru ral im m ersion
experiences (few, i f any, have ever been near a farm befo re), and h o rti­
cu ltural therapy fo r refugees and victim s o f to rtu re. A group o f 1 5 0
low -incom e families receive free boxes o f vegetables throughout the season.
T h is is a farm connected both to nature and to its wider com m unity, and
m em bers appreciate this fact. O n e m em ber says: ‘You taught me to have more
respect f o r the work that you and other farm ers do, and to appreciate and consider the
connection that should exist between a healthy life and goodfood.’ A nother writes: ‘There
is something to be said about being in time with the seasons. It just feels right.’ A nother
reflects on changed eating habits: ‘We have tried so many new vegetables that I would
not have bought at a store.’
T h is is one o f m ore than 1 0 0 0 C S A farm s across the U S and Canada,
the first having been established in M assachusetts in 19 8 5 . T h e s e farm s
directly co n n ect with 7 7 ,0 0 0 m em bers and bring 3 6 m illion dollars o f
incom e per year directly to the farm s. T h e basic m odel is sim ple: co n ­
sumers pay growers fo r a share o f the to tal farm produce, and growers
provide a weekly share o f food o f a guaranteed qu ality and quantity.
M em b ers typically pay U S $ 2 0 0 to U S $ 5 0 0 fo r a season’s share, and
w ould, on average, have to pay one third m ore fo r the sam e food at a
superm arket. O n e study in M assachusetts indicted that a U S $ 4 7 0 share
was equivalent to U S $ 7 0 0 w orth o f produce i f bought conventionally.40
C SA s also encourage social responsibility, increase understanding o f
farm ing am ongst consum ers, and increase the diversity o f crops grown
by farm ers in response to consum er demand. T h e central principle is that
they produce what people want, instead o f concen tratin g on crops that
could give the greatest returns. In addition to receiving a weekly share o f
p ro d u ce, C S A m em b ers o ften take p a rt in life on th e farm throu g h
workdays. M an y C S A farm s give ou t new sletters with the weekly food
share, so that m em bers stay in touch and know what crops are expected.
 O n ly R e c o n n e c t 119

Sixty per cent o f C SA farm ers say that the m ost successful aspect o f their
op erations is the strengthened bond with food consum ers. M o st offer
boxes w ith 8 to 1 2 d ifferent vegetables, fruits and herbs per week; some
link up with other C SA s to keep up diversity; and others offer value-added
products, such as cheese, honey and bread.
In the U K , box schemes outnum ber C S A s.T h ese schemes began in the
early 1 9 9 0 s , and now 2 0 large schemes and another 2 8 0 small ones are
supplying several tens o f thousand households weekly.41 T h e y ensure that
g ood-quality produce reaches custom ers because food is fresh and picked
the same day in the smaller schemes. Farm ers contract to supply the basics,
such as potatoes, carrots, onions, and one green vegetable, and add other
produce depending upon the season. O ver tim e, box schemes also increase
on-farm biodiversity. In response to consum er demand, many farmers have
increased the diversity o f crops grow n to 2 0 —5 0 varieties. P rices are
co m p arable to th o se in su perm arkets fo r co n ven tio n al vegetables, so
consum ers do n o t end up paying prem ium s. A central rationale fo r both
C SA s and box schem es is that they em phasize that paym ent is n o t just
fo r the food , bu t fo r su p p o rt o f the farm as a w hole. It is the linkage
between farm er and consum er that guarantees the quality o f the fo o d .T h is
encourages social responsibility, increases the understanding o f farm ing
issues am ongst consum ers, and results in greater diversity in the farm ed
landscape.These schemes have brought back trust, human scale and a local
identity to the food we eat. T h e y also em ploy m ore people per hectare,
and provide livelihoods for farm fam ilies on a m uch sm aller area than in
conventional farm ing.

T h e Value o f Farm ers’ Groups

A noth er way in which farm ers can create new value in agricultural systems
is to work together in groups. F o r as long as people have engaged in agri­
culture, farm ing has been at least a partially collective business. Farm ers
have worked together on a h o st o f activities that would be to o costly, or
even im possible, i f perform ed alone. Such conn ections also make it easier
fo r individuals to cross a new fron tier together. T h ere is so m uch th at can
be done with sustainable agriculture; yet, it is somehow so difficult to bring
about. W h e n there is co op eration and trust, then it is possible fo r new
learning mechanisms to be established. Self-learning is vital for agricultural
sustainability. By experim enting, farm ers can increase their own awareness
o f what does and does n o t w ork; and i f many do this together, then they
rapidly m ultiply their learning potential.
120 A g r i- C u lture

A t a m eeting overlooking the sand dunes and boardwalks o f G eorgias

Keys, a group o f N o rth C arolina peanut growers tell their own story o f
ch an g e.T h ese self-confessed form er industrialized farm ers had com e up
hard against an e c o n o m ic b a rrier. P eanu ts are im p o rta n t in N o r th
C arolin a: 2 3 0 0 farm ers produce 1 7 0 ,0 0 0 ton nes per year, the fou rth
largest am ount by any state in the U S . Since the 1 9 3 0 s , the Federal Peanut
P ro g ra m m e m a in ta in e d a stead y and p re d icta b le p rice, w ith prices
elevatin g w henever co sts increased . B u t d u rin g the m id 1 9 9 0 s , the
program m e was radically changed. Prices were cut and quota carry-over
elim inated, resulting in dram atic falls in farm er incom e.
O u t o f the crisis, however, emerge our heroes. W ith the help o f S c o tt
M arlow and colleagues at R ural Advancem ent Found ation International,
a group o f 6 2 farm ers began reinventing bo th local farm ing and social
relations. O ver a period o f four years, these farm ers reduced pesticide use
by a rem arkable 8 7 per cent, saving them selves U S $ 4 0 —$ 5 0 per hectare
in costs w ithout any yield penalty. O n m ore than 3 0 0 0 hectares, they had
m anaged to cu t pesticid e use by 4 8 ,0 0 0 k ilog ram m es. T h e change in
attitudes and values has been rapid. A m ajo r pest o f peanuts is thrips; yet
m ost lea f damage has no yield effect, even though the crop looks damaged.
By cond ucting their own research, farm ers cam e to realize that they did
n o t need to spray: ‘We were farm ing f o r looks’ says R usty H arrell. M ich ael
T aylor adds: ‘The peanuts don’t look good — but the yields increased.’
T h e key to success was scientific experim entation by farm ers and peer-
based learn in g . F a rm ers set th e agenda fo r field trials o f altern ative
practices, watch fo r unexpected results and are encouraged to be careful
about drawing conclusions. W o rk in g together, sharing experiences and
developing new relation sh ip s o f tru st are cen tral co m p o n en ts o f the
process. ‘We got together over food, and fou n d we had a wide range o f problems, and
were all searching f o r new ways,’ sa y s R u sty . ‘We go around and look at other
people’s crops’ Farm ers in the group say th at this has helped to bring the
com m unity together. Im portantly, there are no final solutions, as sustain­
able agriculture needs continuous experimentation and im provem ent.Tom
C lem ents says, ‘This has affected our lifestyles. I ’m still working on it —you have to
farm true every day. Our quality o f life has improved.’T h e field trials gave farm ers
the confidence to try som ething new, and the trust and sharing helps them
to take large steps into the unknown. As a result, incom es go up, and the
environm ent benefits, too.
Sim ilar changes have been provoked across the U S by the governm ents
Sustainable A griculture Research and E xten sion Program m e, w hich has
supported transitions towards sustainability in a wide range o f contexts.
O n e example is w ork by the Kansas R ural Centre, which su pports family
farm ing and the grassroots involvement o f local people in farm ing and
 O nly R econ nect x2 1

countryside m atters. T h e ir H eartlan d Sustainable Agriculture N etw ork

b rin g s fa rm ers to g e th e r to en h an ce e x p e rim e n ta tio n , exchange and
e d u ca tio n . T h e netw ork organizes farm ers in sm all clu sters to w ork
tog eth er on issues th at are im p o rtan t to them . T h e s e include Covered
Acres (farm ers in central Kansas experim enting with legume cover crops);
S m o k in g H ills (fa rm e rs w orkin g on g razin g m an ag em en t in Salin e
C oun ty); Resourceful Farm ers (crop, livestock and dairy farm ers in south-
central Kansas who give on -farm d em onstrations o f rotation al grazing
and clean-w ater practices); and Q uality W h e a t (organic farm ers in west
Kansas seeking to improve soil fertility and increase the protein co ntent
o f w h eat). T h e n e tw ork is a clearin g h ouse fo r ideas on su stain able
agriculture, helps to build su p p ort fo r new ideas, nurtures leadership,
creates confidence am ongst farm ers to try som ething new, and works with
conventional agricultural institutions to build su pport for rural regener­
ation through sustainable agriculture.42

Farm ers’ M arkets

F arm ers’ m arkets are another sim ple idea, already spreading like wildfire
through farm com m unities in both N o rth A m erica and the U K . Sell your
produce directly to a consum er, and you get 8 0 —9 0 per cent o f the food
pound instead o f the paltry 8 —1 0 per cen t through n orm al m arketing
m echanisms. So m e farm ers, o f course, already do this through farm shops
and pick-your-own enterprises, o f which there are 1 5 0 0 —2 0 0 0 in the U K .
O th e rs are begin ning to m ake use o f d irect sales by m ail and via the
In tern et. B ut the best op tio n fo r many is farm ers’ m arkets, which have
emerged on a huge scale in recent years in the U S . T h e re were nearly 2 9 0 0
farm ers' m arkets registered w ith the U S D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ricu ltu re
(U S D A ) in the year 2 0 0 0 , up from 17 0 0 in 19 9 4 — though som e suggest
that there are as m any again operating at the very local level. T h e annual
turnover in these m arkets is m ore than U S $ 1 billion. Again, incom e goes
directly into the pockets o f the 2 0 ,0 0 0 farm ers selling their produce. T h e
U S D A estim ates that 6 7 0 0 o f these farm ers now use farm ers’ m arkets as
their sole m arketing output. E ach week, about I m illion custom ers visit
farm ers’ m arkets, nin e-ten th s o f whom live w ithin 11 kilom etres o f the
m arket.43
T h e benefits that these farm ers’ markets bring are substantial, improv­
ing access to local food , increasing returns for farm ers, and contribu tin g
to com m unity life and local cultures by bringing large num bers o f people
tog eth er on a regular basis. T h e co n trib u tio n s to local eco n o m ies are
122 A g r i-C u ltu r e

substantial. O n e farm ers’ m arket in W isco n sin contributes U S $ 5 m illion

to the local econom y each year; another in N ew M exico brings an added
U S $ 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 to the local farm ers’ incom es. T h e se farm ers’ m arkets also
play a p articu larly im p o rta n t role in increasing the access fo r p o orer
families to good-quality food. Inner-city consumers typically pay one third
m ore for their food than suburban ones, and these m arkets allow them
ready access to w holesom e and cheap food . T h e effect on diets can be
im portant, too . A m id 1 9 9 0 s survey o f N ew Jersey custom ers found that
they increased their consu m p tion o f fru it and vegetables over a five-year
period.
In the U K , farm ers’ markets have becom e very popular in the past lour
to five years. By early 2 0 0 1 , there were 2 0 0 established m arkets trading
on som e 3 0 0 0 m arket days per year. In all, it is estimated that the 5 m illion
cu stom ers at these m arkets each spent U K £ I 0 —£ 1 5 in 2 0 0 0 , thereby
p u ttin g U K £ 5 0 —£ 7 8 m illio n d irectly in to the p o ck ets o f farm ers.
Im portantly, too, these m arkets are a direct connection between producers
and consum ers. N o rm a n M cG eo ch , farm er and coord inator o f farm ers’
m arkets in the eastern region, says: ‘I know exactly i f something is not right with
my fo o d — my customers tell me.*4 T h is may seem obvious for a business, and
yet it is radical fo r m any farm ers. T h e s e farm ers’ m arkets, though, are
unlikely to cause a m ajor change in the way that m ost farm ers m arket their
produce. T h e y are no answer for bulk com m od ities, n o r will they sub­
stitute for co ntract sales to m anufacturers and retailers. However, they do
p oint to a vitally im portant principle. W h ere there are direct links between
producers and consum ers, then farm ers are better able to respond to the
c o n c e rn s o f co n su m e rs; co n su m ers, in tu rn , b e tte r u n d erstan d th e
challenges and vagaries o f food production.

Regionalized and Slow Food System s

D uring recent years, som e national policies have sought to link agriculture
w ith m ore environm entally sensitive m anagem ent. But these policies are
still highly fragm ented. A p o licy fram ework that integrates su pport for
farm ing together with rural development and the environment could create
new jo b s , p ro te c t and im prove n atu ral resou rces, and su p p o rt ru ral
com m unities. Such reform s should also be supplemented with clear policy
d irection on regionalized food system s.45 In N o rth A m erica, such inte­
gration has found m eaning in localized food system s. T h is has received
prom inence owing to the effectiveness o f the C om m un ity F oo d Security
C o a litio n , a diverse n e tw ork o f an ti-h u n g er, su stain able ag ricu ltu re,
 O n i.y R econ nect 123

environm ental, com m unity developm ent and oth er food-related organiz­
ations which persuaded politician s to incorporate com m unity fo o d security
into the 1 9 9 6 U S Farm Bill. As a result, local food policy councils and
system s have becom e increasingly effective, m ost notably in H artfo rd ,
C o nn ecticu t; Knoxville,Tennessee; S t Paul, M in nesota; and A ustin,Texas.
Bringing together different stakeholders with com m on concerns and interests
in a place w orks for lo ca l p eo p le, w orks fo r co m m u n ities, w orks fo r
farm ers, and can benefit the natural environm ent.46
In C onn ecticu t, the H artford F oo d System ( H F S ) was set up by M ark
W in n e in order to address severe poverty and food insecurity. So m e four
in ten children live in poverty, and 8 0 per cen t are eligible fo r free or
reduced-price school meals. In low -incom e neighbourhoods, 2 5 —4 0 per
cen t o f resid en ts experience hunger. T h e H F S p ro m o tes b e tte r food
education and collective food consu m p tion in schools. O ver a period o f
three years, there has been a 3 5 per cent increase in the num ber o f children
eating break fast at sch o o l, and a fa rm -to -sch o o l program m e provides
sch oo ls w ith fresh fru it and vegetables fo r th eir cafeterias. T h e H F S
pro m o tes urban agriculture and farm ers’ m arkets, and has in itiated a
coupon program m e, with low -incom e families receiving U S S IO coupons
to spend at farm ers’ m arkets. As a result, fou r-fifth s o f recipients o f the
coupon rep ort eating m ore fru it and vegetables. Sim ilar innovations have
occurred in T o ro n to , where a F oo d P olicy C o u n cil has brought together
an extended netw ork o f o rg an izatio n s co n cern ed w ith fo o d security,
sustainable agriculture, public health and com m unity developm ent. T h e
resu lt has been increased fru it and vegetable co n su m p tio n am on gst
residents; m ore local sourcing o f food s (on ly one quarter o f food in the
social security food banks, which 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 people use, was sourced from
O n tario farmers in 1 9 9 0 ) ; and a positive effect on school children (schools
with the Field to Table schem e have b etter attendance, less tardiness and
better socialization in classroom s).47
T h e best exam ple from E urope is the recent em ergence o f the Slow
Foo d m ovem ent from Ita ly .T h is arose ou t o f local concerns over the fast
food sector’s increasing hom ogenization and lack o f responsibility towards
local distinctiveness. It was founded by jou rnalist Carlo Petrini in the mid
1 9 8 0 s , and now has 7 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers in 4 5 countries who seek to protect
local production from being driven into extinction by global brands. T h e
idea o f slow food gave rise in 1 9 9 9 to the Slow C ity m ovem ent, which
began in the four cities o f O rv ieto in U m b ria, Greve in Tuscany, Bra in
P ie d m o n t, and P o sita n o on the A m alfi co a st. T h e idea o f slow and
distinctive food , resonant o f place and people, has been taken up by local
authorities, with com m itm ents to increase pedestrian zones, reduce traffic,
encou rage restau ran ts to o ffe r lo cal p ro d u cts, d irectly su p p o rt lo cal
J2 4 A g r i- C u lture

farm ers, increase green spaces in cities, and conserve lo ca l aesth etic
traditions. Slow food and cities have given regionalized food system s and
policies a name and a vision. Slow cities are also known as the Citta delBuon
Vivere — it is, after all, about creating a good life.
A nother effo rt to connect up food systems on a large scale com es from ,
perhaps, a surprising quarter. Unilever, one o f the largest food businesses
in the world, is developing policies and processes that will eventually allow
it to source all prim ary agricultural produce from sustainable system s.
T h e y are assessing sustainability according to a range o f tough biological,
eco no m ic and social criteria, and are seeking to set standards to prom ote
transition s fo r a range o f produce, including peas, spinach, tea and oil
palm. T h e central challenge, though, even for such a large operator, is to
change practices throughout a w hole sector. W h e re produce is derived
from farm s that have a direct relationship with a processing business, or
even from its own farm s, then it is relatively easy to set out new practices.
B ut where a m anufacturer buys a great deal on the open m arket, where it
is im possible to trace products back to the farm , then the only op tion is
to change a w hole sy ste m .T h is is n o t easy and, inevitably, m eans m oving
from a stance o f enlightened self-interest to one addressing wider concerns
and the interests o f a large num ber o f stakcboUers.There is, thus, an im port­
ant role fo r sm all and large businesses in sustainable foodsheds.
T h e se N o rth A m erican and European initiatives are good examples o f
the benefits o f integration, and represent policy and institutional responses
that can be taken, whatever the national and international policy context.
T h e r e are m any p rom isin g signs o f progress towards su stainability in
in d u strialized system s o f ag ricu ltu re. T h e r e are, equally, large forces
aligned against these th a t are d eterm ined to capture th e value o f the
com m on s before anyone notices. Perhaps it is all to o late. Yet, i f som e o f
these principles are m ore widely adopted, then we may well see a revolution
o ccu r in ind u strialized farm in g and fo o d system s. T h e p rin cip les are
simple. A dopt sustainable m ethods o f food production. Organize farm ers
in to groups so th at they can increase th eir m arketin g and purchasing
power, and share experiences and know ledge on the new path towards
sustainable agriculture. O rganize consum ers into groups, so that they can
exercise greater purchasing power. M ake d irect links betw een producers
and consum ers so th at the physical length o f the food chain is shortened,
consum ers are sure o f the quality o f the food they are buying and the
health o f the system th at produced it, and producers receive a greater
p ro p o rtio n o f the food pound.
 O n i.y R econ nect 125

C oncluding C om m ents

T h e re appears to have been great success in industrialized food system s;

yet, the seeds o f d estruction are now present for all to see. A longside the
d isappearan ce o f b io d iversity goes the fam ily farm , w ith its cu ltu ral
relevance and place location . As the focus on agriculture as a com m od ity
has grown, so farm ers have com e to receive a sm aller p ro p ortio n o f what
consumers spend on food. System s o f sustainable agriculture offer farmers
new ways in which to reduce direct costs and dependencies on externally
derived g oo d s and services, co m b in ed w ith b e tte r d irect co n n ectio n s
to co n su m ers.T h e concep ts o f bioregions and foodsheds are centred on
such connectivity, and a variety o f m echanism s have emerged to illustrate
w hat can be achieved when we redesign w hole system s. T h e s e include
com m unity-supported agriculture, farm ers’ groups, farm ers’ m arkets and
slow food systems.
 Chapter 6

The Genetics Controversy

W h at Is Genetic Modification?

It is impossible to write o f the potential for agricultural transformation

without addressing the controversy surrounding biotechnology and genetic
modification. T h e challenge facing us is huge, and we will need to make
the very best o f our collective ingenuity and willpower. T h is ought to mean
simply making the best use o f any available technology, regardless o f its
provenance. W h o produces the technologies, how they can be made
available to the poor, and whether they have an adverse environmental
effect, are important questions that will tell us whether new ideas might
make a real difference to the sustainability and success o f agriculture. In
the 2 1 st century, we have clearly entered an information age, and infor­
mation in agricultural systems is im portant from the smallest scale on
genetics to higher scales on ecological interactions within whole eco­
systems. Biotechnology represents one set o f technologies that could lead
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 127

to benefit. Like all new ideas, though, it requires balance and case-by-case
analysis because we do n o t yet know all o f the risks and benefits.
So , what is biotech nology? It involves m aking m olecular changes to
living o r alm ost living things. It has a long history, dating back 4 0 0 0 years
to the invention o f ferm en tatio n , bread-m akin g, brew ing and cheese-
m aking by E gyptians and Sum erians, grafting techniques developed by
the G reeks, and many years o f selective breeding by farm ers. M o d ern
bio tech no log y and genetic m od ification are, by contrast, the term s given
to the transfer o f D N A from one organism to another, thereby allowing
the recipient to express traits o r characteristics norm ally associated just
w ith the d o n o r.1 As these transfers or mixes do n o t occur in nature, the
scope for genetic m od ification is greater than in conventional anim al or
p lant breeding, even though advanced breeding already involves types o f
g enetic m an ip u lation , inclu ding clon al p rop ag ation, em bryo transfer,
em bryo rescue and m utant selection.
T h e process o f genetic m od ification involves, firstly, identifying and
isolating the novel gene, called the transgene, as a section o f D N A . T h is
transgene codes for the produ ction o f a protein, usually an enzym e, that
catalyses a novel b io ch em ical reaction o r pathway in the h o st plant or
animal. T h is is then linked to a suitable prom oter —another D N A sequence
that regulates the expression o f the g en e.T h is constru ct o f transgene plus
prom oter has to be introduced in to the target organism s own ch rom o­
som e. Tw o m eth od s are cu rren tly available: the use o f th e bacteriu m
Agrobacterium and the gene gun. Agrobacterium naturally transfers D N A to
its h o st p lant, causing diseases o r the fo rm a tio n o f galls. B u t fo r the
purposes o f genetic m od ificatio n, its plant-gall inducing capability has
been removed, and it works as a vector to transfer D N A . Initially, this
m ethod only worked fo r broad leaf plants, but has now been developed
for transform ing cereals. T h e gene gun, by contrast, fires m icroparticles
o f gold o r tungsten coated with the transgene constru cts into the target
cells.
N e ith e r process, though, is p redictable sin ce in co rp o ra tio n o f the
transgenes into the ho st D N A is largely random . L ocatio n in the genome
is vital, as only som e o f the individual organism s will express the desired
characteristics. O n ce these have been identified, they are grown and bred
conventionally.This process o f identification requires the use o f a selective
marker — som e way to distinguish at cellular level the cells that contain
the transgene and those that do not. T h e co n stru ct thus contains a third
elem ent — a m arker gene. T h e easiest m arkers confer resistance to anti­
bio tics o r herbicides, so th at non-genetically m odified cells can easily be
filtered out. However, an tib io tic m arkers are a cause fo r co ncern, given
th eir overuse in farm in g and m edicine, co m b in ed w ith the growth o f
128 A g r i- C u lture

a n tib io tic resistance. A range o f alternatives is therefore being actively

developed, such as staining, fluorescence and rep orter genes.
T h e bio tech no log y industry has grown rapidly in both the food and
m ed ical secto rs in recen t years. T h e first g en etically m od ified ( G M )
products eaten by hum ans were cheese and tom atoes. G M bacteria were
first used in the early 1 9 9 0 s to produce chym osin, an alternative enzyme
to ca lf rennet, for vegetarian cheese (th e G M bacteria are n o t eaten ).T h en ,
in 1 9 9 5 , th e first year to see co m m e rcia l cu ltiv a tio n o f G M cro p s
anywhere in the world, tom atoes with their soften in g gene inactivated,
allowing them to ripen until they reach full flavour and colour w ithout
ro ttin g , were m arketed as to m ato paste. S in ce then, the greatest co m ­
m ercial grow th has been in crops co n tain in g one o f two traits. T h e s e
com prise, firstly, herbicid e toleran ce, introdu ced in soya, oilseed rape,
co tto n , m aize and sugar beet, which allows the ap p licatio n o f broad -
spectrum herbicides to the crop, thereby killing all o f the weeds w ithout
damaging the cro p .T h e second trait is insect-resistance through expression
o f a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.), mainly in m aize and
co tto n , which means that the B.t. insecticidal toxin is expressed by all cells
o f the plant, thereby killing susceptible pests and so reducing the need
to apply som e conventional insecticides. By 2 0 0 1 , there were 5 0 m illion
hectares worldwide, about three-quarters o f which were in the U S, and m ost
o f the rest in Canada, A rgentina and China. In E urope, sm all am ounts
were com m ercially grown in France, Spain, Portugal and the U kraine.2

New D evelopm ents in M ed icine and A griculture

Coinciding with their development in agriculture, these genetic-modification

techniques are also being used in m edicine for the study o f genes and their
fun ction, and the replacem ent o f genes that cause disease. G ene therapy
will provide op portu nities fo r curing som e h ith erto untreatable diseases.
O n e is cystic fibrosis. T h is affects som e 5 0 ,0 0 0 people worldwide, and
damages their respiratory and intestinal tracts. An inability to clear mucus
from these organs leads to intestinal blockage and recurrent chest in fect­
io n s, eventually cau sin g resp ira to ry failu re. O n c e the m u tated gene
responsible fo r cystic fibrosis had been identified, this opened the way to
replace the m utant gene with a norm al copy, introduced by a vector into
the lungs. A lthough m uch research rem ains to be done, it is now likely
that a com plete cure could soon be developed. O th er candidates for gene
therapy include m uscular dystrophy and heart disease.3
M olecu le ‘pharm ing’ is the term used to describe the use o f animals
and plants to make pharm aceutical products for m edical applications. In
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 129

prin ciple, virtually any m olecule produced by the hum an body can be
made in a genetically m odified anim al o r plant. H um an proteins can be
grown and harvested like any other cro p .T h e current technology involves
ferm entation with m icro-organism s in a b io reactor; but ‘pharm ing’ with
genetic m od ification is likely to be m ore controllable and efficient. Sheep
and pigs have already been m odified to produce hum an proteins in their
m ilk, such as insulin, interferon, and the human blo o d -clo ttin g protein
factor-eight, which is vital for haem ophilia sufferers because it is free from
hum an viruses. R ice has also been engineered in C alifo rn ia to produce
alpha-antitrypsin, a hum an protein used to treat liver disease and haem ­
orrhages. T h e transgenic rice is grown norm ally, harvested and allowed
to m alt. N orm ally, it produces an enzym e that turns starch into sugars,
but it has been m odified to produce the hum an protein rather than the
enzyme. In the U K , alpha-antitrypsin is produced by transgenic sheep, and
D olly, the first cloned sheep, was created in order to allow m ultiple copies
to be made o f anim als w ithout diluting valuable genetic traits through
conventional breeding.
D uring the late 1 9 9 0 s , genetically m odified organisms were producing
on e q u arter o f all insulin , grow th h o rm o n e, h e p a titis-B vaccine, and
m onoclon al antibodies needed for cancer treatm ent. Today, other m edical
ap p licatio n s under d evelopm ent include gene treatm en ts for m ultiple
sclerosis sufferers, and b lo od vessel drenches w ith D N A to encourage
hum an hearts to grow their own bypasses. A ll o f these m edical applic­
ations are likely to bring substantial public and consum er benefit, though
none is, o f course, entirely w ithout risk.
M o s t o f the agricultural applications o f genetic m od ification to date
represent changes to ‘in p u t-tra its’, o r genes th at co n tro l specific plant
fu n ctio n s, such as h erbicid e toleran ce or insect resistan ce. M an y new
developm ents will be in so-called ‘ou tp u t-traits’, in which farm products
could be redesigned to m eet specific farm ers’ circum stances or custom ers’
needs, though whether these represent desirable or low -risk opportunities
is another m atter. Plan ts and anim als could be m odified to deliver a wide
range o f drugs, plastics, oils, human proteins and other products o f social
value. In future, som e farm s (o r perhaps ‘ph arm s’) w ill produce these
products rather than ju st food o r fibre. Plants could be engineered with
drought, salt, therm o, frost and alum inium tolerance, so that degraded
and hostile environm ents could be opened up for food production. So m e
1 0 per cent o f the irrigated land in the world ( 2 7 m illion hectares) suffers
from extrem e salinity, and a fu rth er 2 0 per cent has sym ptom s o f salt
damage. Could these lands be turned into productive ones? W o rk is also
underway to incorporate genes from a cold-dw elling fish into sugar beet,
j 30 A g r i- C ulture

tom atoes, straw berries and potatoes, thereby conferring the h ost plants
with a new m echanism for frost tolerance.
M aize, soya beans, oilseed rape and o th er oil crops could be m odified
to alter their saturated fat content. A potato with a higher starch content
w ould absorb less oil during frying, providing an alternate m ethod o f
producing lower fat products such as chips and crisps. Som e fruits and
vegetables will be adapted to contain higher levels o f vitam ins C and E.
Blue co tto n has been engineered through the transfer o f a gene from an
unnam ed blue flower, potentially elim inating the need for dye. In tim e,
fru its and vegetables could be produ ced in d ifferen t co lo u rs, though
w hether we would want this is another m atter. A noth er possibility is that
fruits and vegetables will be engineered with genes from pathogenic viruses
and bacteria so that, when consum ed, they will encourage the production
o f antibodies w ithout the recipient having been exposed to the harm ful
organism. Vaccine potatoes that confer resistance to JJ.co/i-caused diarrhoea
have already been tested, and banana vaccines are under developm ent. In
time, oral vaccines in fruits could replace conventional vaccines. A far more
d ifficu lt problem is the genetic engineering o f nitrogen fixation, w ith the
d istant possibility that cereals could fix their own nitrogen with the help
o f rhizobia associated with their roots, thereby reducing or even elim inat­
ing the need for inorganic nitrogen fertilizers. But the process would have
to involve engineering sym biotic bacteria, and then persuading them to
create stable and heritable relationships with the cereal.
T h e many poten tial agricultural and m edical applications o f genetic
m od ification do, however, raise fundam entally im p o rtan t ethical issues.
X e n o tra n sp la n ta tio n , involving the tran sp lan t o f anim al organs in to
hum ans, could m eet the high dem and for organs for transplantation. In
the U K , there are m ore than 5 0 0 0 people on the waiting list for organ
transplants. G enetic m od ificatio n offers the o p p ortu n ity to create new
organs in m odified pigs. But, to date, the risks o f encouraging the spread
o f retroviruses from pigs to hum ans outweigh potential benefits. G enetic
m od ification also opens the way to the body-part shop; com panies in the
U S are already w orking on creating skin, veins, bone, liver, cartilage and
breast tissue. It also raises the spectre o f p o llu tio n -to leran t hum ans —
individuals w ith genes that confer tolerance to poisonous chem icals who
would be able to, o r perhaps made to, work in places where such pollution
is widespread. H um an reproductive cloning, on ce thought to be far away
in the realm s o f science fictio n , is likely one day to becom e fact. N ew
in fo rm a tio n on an individual’s genes could also be m isused, w ith the
possible emergence o f a new genetic ‘underclass’ unable to get life insurance.
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 131

Divided Camps and D ifferen t Technologies

O n ly a few years after the developm ent o f the first genetically m odified
crops for agriculture, op inions on benefits and risk are sharply divided.
So m e argue that genetically m odified organism s are safe and essential for
world progress; others state that they are n o t needed and hold to o many
risk s. T h e fir s t gro u p believes th a t m ed ia m a n ip u la tio n and scare-
m ongering are lim itin g useful tech n olog ies; the second th at scien tists,
private com panies and regulators are understating hazards fo r the sake o f
eco no m ic returns.4
N e ith e r view is entirely co rre ct fo r one sim ple reason. G en etically
m od ified organism s are n o t a single, sim ple technology. B ach product
brings d ifferen t p o ten tial ben efits fo r d ifferen t stakeholders; each poses
d iffe re n t en v iro n m en tal and h ealth risk s. It is, th e re fo re , usefu l to
distinguish between different generations o f genetically m odified techn o­
lo g ies.T h e first-generation technologies came into com m ercial use in the
late 1 9 9 0 s and have tended n o t to bring d istinct consum er benefits; this
is on e reason why there is so m uch cu rre n t p u b lic o p p o s itio n . T h e
realization o f promised benefits to farm ers and the environment has only
been patchy. First-gen eration technologies include herbicide tolerance,
in sect resistan ce, lo n g -life to m ato es, b acteria in co n ta in m en t fo r the
produ ction o f cheese and w ashing-pow der enzym es, and pre-coloured
flowers and co tto n , such as black carnations and blue co tton .
T h e second-generation technologies com prise those already developed
and tested, but n o t yet com m ercially released, either because o f u n cert­
ainties over the stab ility o f the tech n olog y itself, o r over co n cern s for
p o ten tial environm ental risks. So m e o f these applications are likely to
bring m ore public and consum er benefits, and include a range o f m edical
applications. T h e s e include viral resistance in rice, cassava, papaya, sweet
po tatoes and pepp er; nem atod e resistance in various cereal and oth er
crops, such as banana and potato; frost tolerance in strawberry; B.i. clover;
trees w ith reduced lignin; vitam in-A rice; and ‘pharm ing’ with crops and
anim als for pharm aceuticals.
T h e th ird -g en eration tech n olog ies are tho se th at are still far from
m arket, but generally require the b e tter understand ing o f w hole gene
co m p lexes th a t c o n tro l such tra its as d ro u g h t o r salt to le ra n ce , and
nitrogen fixation. T h ese are likely to bring m ore explicit consum er benefits
than the first generation. T h e se include stress tolerance in cereals, such as
therm o, salt and heavy-m etal tolerance; drought resistance; physiological
m od ificatio n s o f crops and trees to increase efficiency o f resource use
(nu trien ts, water, lig h t) or delaying o f ageing in leaves; neutraceuticals
(crop s boosted with vitam in s/m in erals); vaccine crops (such as banana
132 A g r i-C u l t u r e

and p o ta to ); designer crops m odified to produce oils or plastics; the

developm ent o f new markers to replace antibio tics; and legumes with
increased tannins for bloat control in cattle.
T h e first-generation technologies have tended to provide substantial
private benefits for the companies producing them. H erbicide-tolerant
soya, for example, locks farmers into buying the herbicide produced by
the company who m arkets the genetically m odified seed. M any o f the
later-generation genetically m odified organisms are, by contrast, more
multifunctional and public-good oriented; though clearly none is w ithout risk.
M odifications o f crops with low value in rotations, such as legumes and
oats, will make them more attractive to farmers because o f high protein
and energy content. O thers will be more efficient in nitrogen use, thereby
reducing nitrate leaching; or m odifications o f rhizobia could improve the
nitrogen-fixing capacity o f a wide range o f crops. Both options would
reduce the need to use nitrogen fertilizers.
A breakthrough in plant breeding would occur with the transfer o f
ap o m ictic traits into cereals — the prod u ction o f exact clones o f the
m other plant through asexual reproduction. Research in M exico by the
International Centre for M aize and W h eat Research is seeking to transfer
apomixis, a trait involving several genes, from a grassy relative o f maize,
Tripsacum dactyloides, to m aize itself. T h is would turn currently higher
yielding but infertile hybrid seeds into fertile ones, allowing farmers to
save the seed for subsequent seasons. T h is could boost the yields o f poorer
and rem ote farms, provided a means could be found to get the seeds to
farmers when needed. T h is technology contrasts with term inator techno-
logy — an application o f genetic m odification m ore for public benefit.
T here are already concerns, however, that many o f the methodologies and
products in this process o f G M apomixis transfer are being patented by
companies, and therefore will not becom e available to poorer farmers. In
1 9 9 8 , the Bellagio Apomixis Declaration was formulated, with signatories
sharing a concern that the ‘current trend towards consolidation of plant biotechnology
ownership in a few hands may severely restrict affordable apomixis technology, especially
fo r resource poorfarm ers’. Clearly, property relations are crucial in deciding
whether such developments will confer public benefits.3

T h e Environm ental and H ealth Risks

o f Genetically M odified Crops

Agricultural genetically m odified organisms pose a range o f potential

environmental and health risks.' T hese include five types o f environmental
 T H E GENETICS CONTROV'ERSY 133

risk and two risks fo r hum an health. T h e degree to which each o f these
poses an actual risk is a com bination o f bo th a hazard and exposure, since
n o t all hazards constitu te a risk in p ra ctice.T h u s, the risks and potential
benefits are d ifferent for every application o f genetic m od ificatio n. Each
class o f risk is analysed below in light o f recent independent scien tific
knowledge, drawing particularly upon analyses from the field.7

Gene flow

T h e first potential environmental risk is gene flow, where transgenes could

transfer from a genetically m odified organism to wild relatives a n d /o r
bacteria in soil or hum an guts. G ene flow is a natural phenom enon, with
m any sp ecies o f plants crossin g w ith related species. As a result, the
question o f novel risk rests on whether the transgenes could lead to the
transfer o f undesirable traits, and the em ergence o f perm anently trans­
form ed populations. As these transfers have n o t occurred in nature, it is
im possible to predict the effects w ith confid ence.8T h e m ain concerns lie
in pollen transfer. However, it is im portant to note that pollination is not
the same as gene flow; although pollen can travel many kilom etres, only
rarely will it result in a fertilization event.9 Furtherm ore, many genetically
m odified lines are male sterile; so, even though pollen transfer may occur,
p o llin a tio n ca n n o t. A fu rth e r co n cern is th e p o ten tial fo r uptake o f
transgenic D N A by soil bacteria, which is referred to as horizontal gene
flow.10T h e im portant question is n o t so much whether gene flow occurs;
rather, to what extent m ight transgenes affect native plant ecology? As
B rian Jo h n so n o f E n g lish N atu re pu t it: ‘To add genes fro m other plants
unwittingly and randomly to native gene pools may result in phenotypic effects which could
change the way entire genomes relate to their physical and biotic environments.’11T h u s,
the transfer o f transgenes that are designed to prevent germ ination would
lower fitness o f new crop-native hybrids, whereas resistance to insects,
fungi and viruses could substantially increase fitness. T h is could lead to
th e em ergence o f weeds w ith m u ltip ly stack ed genes fo r h e rb icid e
tolerance.

Emergence o f new forms o f resistance and secondary

pest and weed problems

T h e second environmental risk centres on the potential for the emergence

o f new form s o f resistance a n d /o r secondary pests and weeds. R esistance
had already emerged on a very large scale in m od ern agriculture before
134 A g r i- C ultu re

the advent o f gcnctically modified organisms.Therc are now 50 0 species

o f insect, mite or tick that are resistant to one or more compounds,
together with more than 4 0 0 herbicide-resistant weed biotypes, and 150
resistant fungi and bacteria.12 Evolution o f resistance can occur in the
context o f genetically modified crops that express an insecticidal product
(eg B.t.), leading to insect resistance, or through overuse o f herbicides on
genetically modified crops, causing weed resistance. At first, the potential
problem o f insect resistance went unrecognized. Now, though, there
are mandatory rules in the US to reduce the selection pressure on pests
through integrated resistance management for B.t. genetically modified
crops. These mandate that a proportion o f the cropped area must be
devoted to refuges o f non-genetically modified crops, that rotations must
be used, and that B.t. maize should not be grown where pest pressure is
low.The guidance indicates that 2 0 per cent o f farmland must be devoted
to refuges within 8 0 0 metres o f a B.t. crop field, with varying rules for
refuge size depending upon the proportion o f a parish under the same
genetically modified crop. For B.t. maize grown in a cotton area, the
stipulation is a 50 per cent non-B.t. maize refuge in order to minimize corn
earworm and cotton bollworm resistance.The aim is to provide sufficient
susceptible adult insects to mate with potential B.t.-resistant adult insects
in order to dilute the frequency o f resistance genes. But there is still
controversy over the size, structure and deployment o f non -B.t. crop
refuges, how they should be implemented at a regional scale, and the
difficulty o f enforcing or encouraging farmers to adopt them.

R e c o m b i n a t i o n o f v ir u s e s a n d b a c t e r i a t o p r o d u c e
n ew p a th o g e n s

A third risk relates to the potential for viruses or bacteria to incorporate

transgenes into their genomes, leading to the expression o f novel and
possibly undesirable traits. In addition, viral transgenes that are incorp­
orated into the genetically modified crop could, in theory, recombine to
produce viruses with high fitness. However, such recombination has not
yet been shown to occur.1x In theory, viral genes could affect humans, too,
by surviving passage through the human gut and entering gut bacteria and
human body cells. Once inside cells, DNA could insert itself into the
genome to change the basic structure and functions. This could lead to
the emergence of new diseases. However, this would necessitate the highly
improbable integration o f whole sequences o f DNA into the human
genome.
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 135

D irect and indirect effects o f novel toxins

T h e fourth risk centres on the potential direct and indirect effects o f novel
toxins expressed by genetically m odified organism s. B.t. is expressed by all
cells in a B.t. m aize o r c o tto n p lant, and therefore cou ld a ffect eith er
beneficial organism s com ing into direct co n tact with the plant o r plant
products, or, indirectly, through consum ption o f a herbivorous insect that
has sequestered the toxin in its tissue. In labo ratory co n d ition s, several
p o ten tia l risks have been d em o n strated , such as genetically m o d ified
p otatoes that express a lectin; B.t. m aize that affects ladybirds, lacewings
and bu tterflies; and B.t. products in the soil. However, these laboratory
studies do n o t necessarily m ean that a real risk arises in the field .14
A good example o f the difficulties encountered is represented by recent
stu d ies o f the e ffe c t o f p o llen fro m g en etically m o d ified m aize on
m onarch butterflies (D anaitsplextppus'j.The larvae o f m onarchs were reared
in laboratories on milkweed leaves dusted with B.t. maize pollen, and these
larvae ate less, grew more slowly and had higher m ortality than those reared
on leaves dusted w ith n o n -g en etically m od ified p ollen . T h e p o ten tial
threat to a nationally im portant species raised great concerns about genet­
ically m odified organism s in general, despite the fact that B.t. is already
known to be toxic to Lepidoptera. However, the dose o f pollen required
to cause an effect in the field, the am ount o f pollen on milkweed leaves,
the lik elih o o d o f bu tterflies being exposed to p ollen , and the p h o to ­
d egradation o f B.t. and rain-w ashing effects all rem ain unknow n. F o r
m onarchs, tim ing is vital. In order fo r harm to occur, the larvae have to
emerge at the same tim e as m aize is pollinating, a narrow period o f seven
to ten days. H ow ever, m on arch m ig ra tio n and B.t. p o llen show only
coincide in certain areas; pollen does n o t travel far ( 9 0 per cen t falls in
the first 5 m etres); larvae on milkweed are n o t adversely affected by B.t.
pollen; and m ost milkweed tends n o t to be found close to m aize fields.
M oreover, only one form o f B.t. has been found to be consistently toxic
to m onarchs. Again, this does n o t m ean that all poten tial risks from B.t,
crops will be sm all, or even that all insects will n o t be harm ed — ju st that
a detailed understanding o f the context o f the cropped environm ent is
needed before a clear judgem ent about risk can be m ade.15

Changes to farm practices leading to changes

in biodiversity

As a result o f the incorporation o f genetically m odified organisms w ithin

their farm practices, farm ers may also contribu te directly or indirectly to
j 3 6 A g r i- C u lture

b io d iv ersity losses. T h e p rim ary co n cern cen tres on the a d o p tio n o f

herbicide-tolerant crops that result in the increased use o f broad-spectrum
herbicides. Such products offer the option o f a ‘com plete weed kill’, which
is good fo r the crops, but particularly bad for farm land plants, m amm als
and birds. T h e trend towards clean fields w ith no weeds, and thus no
herbivorous insects or seed production (w hich, in turn, com prise food for
birds and m am m als), has been a m ajo r facto r in the decline o f farm land
bird s.16 O n ce again, however, m uch depends upon the detailed agronom y
and goals o f farm ers. Som e genetically m odified organism s could lead to
greater biodiversity. R ecen t research shows that glyphosate-tolerant sugar
b e et can reduce annual in p u t co sts fro m U K £ 2 3 0 p er h ectare (n o t
counting the com pany’s techn ology fee), with farm ers able to leave weed
co n trol until at least the fo u r-leaf stage, thus m aking beet plants harder
fo r aphids to find and encou raging ben eficial predators. T h is precise
co n trol o f weeds during the tim e when they pose a real threat to yields
could also give the op tion o f greater tolerance o f weeds at oth er tim es,
thereby lead in g to bio d iv ersity b e n efits. A t the sam e tim e, however,
g lu fo sin a te a m m o n iu m -to lera n t sugar b eet has been show n to allow
v irtu a lly c o m p le te rem oval o f all weeds using less h e rb icid e than a
conventional crop would require. In the U S , detailed studies have shown
that some farm ers with herbicide-tolerant soyabeans are surprisingly using
two to five tim es m ore herbicide than conventional growers.17

Allergenic and immune system reactions to new

substances

S in ce transgenes result in the m anu facture o f new prod u cts in crops,

usually protein s, a risk to hum ans arises i f these produ cts provoke an
additional allergenic o r im m une response. C onventional non-genetically
m odified food s already contain a large num ber o f toxic and potentially
toxic products. As a result, the key question is whether a specific genetically
m odified organism could result in a new hazard. As 9 0 per cent o f food
allergens o c cu r in response to p ro tein s found in eight food s, nam ely
peanuts, tree nuts, m ilk, egg, soyabean, shellfish, fish and wheat, it could
be argued that as genetic m od ification involves transfer o f a single o r a
few genes, so it is easier to test for allergenicitv. O n e product, genetically
m odified soya with a brazil nut gene, was withdrawn from developm ent
because o f p o ten tial allergenic e ffe c ts .16 T h e g reatest controversy has
surrounded the case o f genetically modified potatoes containing lectin and
their effect on rats. Im m une response effects have been claim ed, but the
research has been widely criticized. I f the research had, indeed, shown an
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 137

effect, then this would be sig nificant only fo r this p articu lar gene and
its product. Equally, though, the absence o f effect does n o t m ean that
all genetically m od ified organism s are safe. O th e r p o ten tial problem s
m igh t arise in potatoes with m odified biochem ical pathways that could
inadvertently lead to increased levels o f glycoalkaloids. It is also im portant
to distinguish between the consum ption o f food products that potentially
contain genetically m odified D N A , and food products that are identical
to those from conventional crops, such as refined sugar, which contains
no D N A .'9

A ntibiotic resistance marker genes

T h e first-generation genetically m odified organism s have used an tibio tic

or herbicide m arker genes fo r easy cellular selection. In theory, an tibio tic-
resistan t m arker genes from a genetically m od ified organism could be
incorporated into bacteria in the guts o f hum ans and livestock, rendering
them resistant to the a n tibio tic. A lthough this has n o t yet been dem on­
strated em pirically, a n tib io tic resistance is still a m ajor cause fo r concern.
A n tib io tics and oth er antimicrobials are used in agriculture fo r therapeutic
treatm en t o f clinical diseases ( 2 0 per ce n t) and p ro p h ylactic use and
growth p rom otion ( 8 0 per cen t o f to ta l). C o n cern is growing that the
overuse o f antibio tics may render som e human drugs ineffective a n d /o r
m ake som e strains o f bacteria untreatable. T h e W orld H ealth O rgan iz­
ation has d ocu m en ted d irect evidence th at a n tim icro b ial use in farm
livestock has resulted in the emergence o f resistant Salmonella, Campylobacter,
E.coli types, and vancom ycin-resistant E n tero co cci that are linked to the
overuse o f antibio tics both in hospitals and on farm s.20 Alternatives to
antib io tic m arkers now exist, and m any believe antibio tics should n o t be
used in com m ercial genetically m odified organism s.21 T h e Royal Society
has said: ‘It is no longer acceptable to have antibiotic resistance genes present in a new
genetically modified crop.”'2 N onetheless, it is still n o t clear whether an tibio tic
m arker genes add significantly to the risk o f resistance that is em erging
from exposure to antibio tics used elsewhere in the food chain.

T h e C on trastin g C on cern s o f
D ifferen t Stakeholders

T h e pace o f change in developing genetic m odification has provoked many

d ebates, som e sp e cifically abo u t the ben efits and risks o f genetically
m od ified tech n o lo g ies. O th ers, tho u g h, are ab o u t im p o rta n t in d irect
j 3 8 A g r i-C u ltu re

effects, such as the grow ing cen tralization o f world agriculture, that
represent structural changes in agriculture in which genetically modified
organisms are a co n tribu to r to change, but not necessarily the driving
factor. T h ese contested positions raise im portant questions. W ill genet­
ically m odified organisms contribute to the singular prom otion o f tech­
nological approaches to m odern agriculture, or could such technologies
bring environmental benefits and prom ote sustainability? Are genetically
m odified technologies essential for feeding a hungry world, or is hunger
m ore a result o f poverty, with p oor consum ers and farm ers unable to
afford m odern, expensive technologies? In addition, does genetic m od if­
ication across species represent a breakdown o f natural species barriers,
or does the presence o f com m on gene sequences in very different species
indicate that such transfers are part of evolutionary history, and therefore
o f little novel concern? Are foods produced from genetically m odified
organisms ‘substantially equivalent’ to other foods, and therefore do not
require labelling, or is labelling a right for consumers because it permits
them to make inform ed choices? W ill genetically m odified organisms
contribute to greater consolidation o f corporate power in the food system;
and even i f they do, are such globalized op eratio ns a necessary and
desirable part o f econom ic growth?
T h ere are no simple answers, and this has brought great confusion and
a tendency for the protagonists to dismiss the concerns o f environmental
or consumer groups as misguided, but without realizing how complex are
the concerns o f people when promises are made about new technologies.
Equally, those against genetically m odified organisms too readily dismiss
the pro-lobby as unbalanced in presentation and unable properly to assess
the case-by-case risks.23 A significant danger is that scientists, together with
farmers who produce the food, will further lose the trust o f citizens. M ary
Shelleys D r Frankenstein is condemned not so much for what he wanted
to achieve, even though it may have been flawed, but because he failed to
take responsibility for his actions.24T h e creature, popularly but incorrectly
called Fran kenstein, does n o t engage in g ratu itou s violence. R ath er,
because he is lonely, he takes revenge when the scientist, Frankenstein,
refuses to create another com panion for him . Lack o f responsibility and
trust could irreparably damage the science o f genetic m odification. Many
food m anu facturers and retailers have banned g enetically m od ified
products from their foods. M any farmers are un certain.T h ey would like
access to technologies that may give competitors an advantage; but, equally,
they would not like to lose the trust o f consumers any further.
Yet, there is much that can be done to engage wider groups o f stake­
holders in constructive debate and discussion, and to ensure the adoption
o f a cautious and evidential-based stance towards new technologies.Tim
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY I 3 9

O ’Riordan o f the University o f East Anglia has suggested some guidance

for such a stance.2S W here unam biguous scientific p ro o f o f cause and
effect is not available, then people must act with a duty o f care. W here
the benefits o f early action are judged to be greater than the likely costs
o f delay, it is appropriate to take a lead and thus inform why such action
is being taken. W here there is the possibility o f irreversible damage to
natural life-su p p ort fu n ctions, precautionary action should be taken
irrespective o f the forgone benefits. Individuals should always listen to
calls for a change o f course, incorporate representatives o f such calls into
deliberative forums, and maintain transparency throughout. Individuals,
organizations and governments should never shy away from publicity and
try to suppress in form ation , however unpalatable — in the age o f the
Internet, someone is bound to find out it inform ation is being distorted
or hidden. Finally, where there is public unease, it is im portant to act
decisively in order to respond to that unease by introducing extensive
discussions and deliberative processes. T h is is so that benefits and costs
can be discussed together.
N o t all agree, however, on the value o f such deliberation. T h e U S
Senate Com m ittee on Science, for example, adopted a highly combative
tone when reporting on genetically m odified organisms in the U S . It was
dismissive o f ‘political activists’, indicating that critics o f genetic m od if­
ication had ‘mounted a -well-funded campaign’, as i f it was unfair that they should
also be well funded. It is unlikely that this continuing dismissal, on both
sides, will lead to constructive outcom es.26

G enetic M odification: Another Technological Fix or

a C ontributor to Sustainability?

A n o th er area o f disagreem ent co ncerns the p o ten tial for genetically

m odified organisms to contribute to greater sustainability in agriculture.
T h e issue depends fundamentally upon the technologies and practices that
genetically m odified technology would replace. For example, a technology
resulting in the reduced use o f pesticides would be more sustainable than
a conventional system relying on pesticides; but this reduced-use system
would score less well i f compared with an organic system that used no
pesticides.
Many com m entators have argued that genetically m odified technology
represents no m ore than a further technological fix on an intense agri­
cultural treadm ill. M o d ern agriculture has been highly su ccessful at
increasing food production; but it has also brought costly environmental
j 40 A g r i-C u ltu re

and social consequences. Solving these problems has often meant treating
the sym ptom s rather than the underlying problem s. In this process o f
technological determinism, technology is seen as a ‘cure-all’ for problems;
the tendency is to address the symptoms rather than underlying causes.
M iguel Altieri o f the University o f California at Berkeley is worried that
‘biotechnology is being pursued to patch up the problems caused by previous agrochemical
technologies (pesticide resistance, pollution, soil degradation) which were promoted by the
same companies now leading the bio-revolution’.27
T o what extent, then, are commercially cultivated genetically modified
organisms currently contributing to transitions towards sustainability? It
is im p o rtan t to note that n o t all com m ercially cultivated genetically
m od ified organism s are alike in th eir ou tcom es, d espite what som e
individuals say about genetically modified organisms both increasing yields
and reducing agrochemical use. U ncond itional claims by companies, or
by industry-funded research, have fostered further questions about the
efficiency o f genetically m odified technologies. F or every company press
release or aligned report that indicates substantial yield and environmental
benefits, there is another rep ort that suggests problem s with the tech­
nology. It is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from either side.28
W ell-d esigned and ind ependent research takes longer to cond u ct
and write up, and it was only after a few years o f cultivation that field-
based evidence appeared. Independent research from the Universities o f
A rkansas, M isso u ri, N eb rask a, O h io S ta te , Purdue and W isco n sin
conducted during 1 9 9 9 —2 0 0 0 , together with some reports from the U S
D ep a rtm e n t o f A g ricu ltu re and the U S E n viro n m en tal P ro te ctio n
Agency, indicated a highly mixed performance in the field, including some
agronom ic surprises. T h is literature does not su pport the U S Senate
C om m ittee on Science’s broad contention that ‘the current generation of pest -
resistant and herbicide-tolerant agricultural plants produced by biotechnology has reduced
chemical inputs and improved yields’. In reality, there were som e substantial
increases in herbicide use and some falls, and there were some significant
reductions in total insecticide use —although this amounted to relatively
little on a per hectare basis.29

G enetic M odification: Driver o f C orporate Power

or Friend o f Farmers?

A nother contested issue relates to the rapidly changing structure o f world

agriculture, especially the vertical integration o f corporations, and the
growing concentration at every stage o f the food chain. T h ere are fewer
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY I 4 I

inpu t su ppliers, farm s, m illers, slau gh terers, pack ing businesses, and
processors than ever before. Such vertical integration is a concern to many,
w ith the U K H o u se o f Lord s stating: ‘There is a concern, shared by farmers,
witnesses and ourselves, that the powers o f a fe w agrochemical/seed companies are already
great, and will become greater, over the process o f producing (developing and growing) GM
crops.’30
S in ce many genetically m od ified organism s are being com m ercially
produced by large co rp o ratio n s, there is intense interest in how power
relations and property rights will play o u t." Im p ortan t questions arise.
T o what extent, for example, are these private interests concerned only with
their shareholders’ gain, or are they w illing to engage w ith farm ers o f all
types, b o th in in d u strialized and d eveloping co u n tries? F o r the first
g eneration o f genetically m od ified crops, reduced use o t insecticid es,
com bined with increased yields, should mean greater benefits for farmers.
Com panies, however, charge a technology fee, on top o f seed costs; to date,
this appears to capture m ost o r all o f the margin in certain systems. But
i f the genetically m odified organism fails to deliver prom ised benefits to
farm ers, then corporate—farm er relations may begin to fail. In 1 9 9 8 , 5 5
M ississippi farm ers com plained to their state d epartm ent o f agriculture
and com m erce’s arbitration council on the grounds th at their genetically
m odified co tto n had lower yields o r had com pletely failed. M o st settled
out o f co u rt; three were awarded nearly U S $ 2 m illion in damages. A year
later, 2 0 0 co tto n farm ers from G eorgia, Florida and N o rth Carolina were
engaged in a legal dispute w ith M o n san to after crop failure o f B.t. and
herbicid e-toleran t co tto n .
A critical issue relates to who gets (o r ow ns) the benefits o f the new
technology. P atent law is vital because it treats genes and genetic engin­
eering in the same way as any oth er invention. T o be patented in Europe,
as covered by the European Convention, an invention m ust be ‘new ’, ‘n o t
obvious’, ‘capable o f industrial application’ and ‘patentable subject m atter’.
An invention m ust add to the current state o f knowledge. A new m ethod
o f isolating a gene qualifies, as does an isolated gene with a new activity;
but a gene in a hum an body does n o t qualify. It is possible, however, to
patent an artificially synthesised gene o r the rep lication o f the genetic
in fo rm a tio n co n tain ed in the gene. T h e in tern atio n al C o n v en tio n on
Biological Diversity (C B D ) is im p o rtant fo r property rights. It cam e into
force in D ecem b er 1 9 9 3 , and has three aims — namely, the conservation
o f biological diversity, the sustainable use o f its com ponents, and the fair
and eq u itab le sh aring o f the b e n efits arising fro m g en etic resou rces.
However, it rem ains d ifficu lt to allocate ‘ow nership’ when genes interact
in highly com plex ways to express ch aracteristics.T h e conventional wheat
variety Veery, fo r example, was the product o f m ore than 3 0 0 0 d ifferent
j 42 A g r i-C u ltu r e

crosses involving parents from 2 6 countries. U nd er the C B D , the country

o f origin and the legal owner o f plant genetic resources are legally defined
as the first to file a claim on ownership; but it is very difficu lt to attribute
clear ownership when a variety is derived lrom so many sources.32
T h e re are signs, however, that som e corp orations are developing new
benefit-sh aring m echanism s. A ground -breakin g arrangem ent between
A straZ eneca, now Syngenta, and the inventors o f vitam in-A rice, also
called golden rice, will perm it farm ers in developing countries to earn up
to U S $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 w ithout paying royalties.33T h e deal perm its the com pany
to co m m ercia liz e the rice, w hile effectively providing it free to sm all
farm ers.T here remain, however, many controversies over so-called ‘golden’
rice, including the cultural resistance to eating orange-coloured rice, the
need for adequate irrig atio n, and w hether vitam in-A d eficiency could
b e tter be addressed through diversified d iets. A n o th er exam ple is the
Positech selection technique, an alternative to antibiotic resistant markers.
D eveloped by N ovartis, now also Syngenta, at a co st o f U S $ 1 0 m illion,
the com pany has said it will m arket P ositech under a tw o -tier pricing
system , with com m ercial uses incurring royalties, while those developing
tech n olog ies for su bsisten ce farm ers will be granted free access. B ut a
drawback o f this m eans that public-funded researchers are often unable
to use such technologies, owing to their high price.

G enetic M od ificatio n : Feeder o f the W orld or

E lim in ato r o f Alternatives?

A further debate centres on whether genetically m odified crops could help

to feed the world. Som e em phatically say yes, often raising the spectre o f
fam ine as a way to gain g reater su p p o rt fo r genetic m o d ificatio n as a
w hole.34 But genetically m odified technologies can only help to feed the
world if atten tio n is paid to the processes o f technology developm ent,
benefit-sharing and, m ore especially, to alternative or low -cost m ethods
o f production. M o st com m entators agree that food production will have
to increase, and that this will have to com e from existing farm land. But
past ap p roach es to m o d ern ag ricu ltu ral d ev elo p m en t have n o t been
su ccessfu l in all p arts o f the world. In m o st cases, people are hungry
because they are poor. T h e y sim ply do n o t have the m oney to buy either
the food they need o r the m odern technologies that could increase their
yields. W h a t they need are readily available and cheap m eans to improve
th eir farm produ ctivity. As a result, a cereal crop engineered to have
bacteria on the roots to fix free nitrogen from the air, or another w ith the
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 14 3

apom ixies trait, would be a great benefit for poor farmers. However, unless
this techn ology is cheap, it is unlikely to be accessible to the very people
who need it m ost.
As indicated elsewhere in this bo ok , sustainable agriculture is now an
increasingly viable option for many farmers in developing and industrialized
countries alike. B ut where there are no alternatives to specific problem s,
then genetic m od ification could bring forth novel and effective options.
I f research is cond ucted by pu blic-interest bodies, such as universities,
non-gov ernm ental org anizatio ns and governm ents them selves, w hose
concern it is to produce public goods, then biotech nology could result in the
spread o f technologies that have imm ense benefits. Research that is likely
to bring new options for farmers already includes studies on virus-resistant
cassava, p o ta to es, sweet p o tato es, rice and m aize, n em ato d e-resistan t
bananas, therm o-tolerant and drought-tolerant pearl m illet, Sfryw-resistant
maize, and pest-resistant wheat.35
O n e good exam ple is rice yellow -m ottle virus, which is a m ajo r factor
in lim iting A frican rice produ ction, often reducing yields by 5 0 —9 5 per
cen t.36 It has n o t been possible to introduce resistance into local varieties
through conventional breeding; but genetic m od ificatio n has led to the
developm ent o f novel resistant varieties. T h e s e have been tested in five
countries, resulting in com plete resistance to the virus. A n o th er example
is to le ra n ce to salin ity , w hich a ffe c ts 3 4 0 m illio n h ectares o f land
worldwide. So m e plants are know n to produce and accum ulate osm o -
p ro te cta n t so lu tes, such as g lycin ebetam in e, m a n n ito l, treh alo se and
proline. T h ese non-toxic solutes can accum ulate to osm otically significant
levels in order to p ro tect against damage from high salt concen trations
in the soil. In trod u ction o f single genes has led to m odest accum ulations
o f solutes, However, to be successful, m ultiple-genes coding fo r entirely
new m etab olic pathways will be needed.
F u rth er a p p lica tio n s could improve yields in developing co u ntries
i f they remove or tolerate a stress, such as rice th at tolerates prolonged
subm ergence, and i f they allow cultivation o f problem soils, such as those
affected by alum inium toxicity.37 N onetheless, new threats to the liveli­
hoods o f developing country farm ers may yet arise. Transgenic trop ical
crops, such as sugar cane, oil palm, cocon ut, vanilla and cocoa, could be
grown in tem p erate co u n tries w ith appropriate g enetic m o d ifica tio n .
O th er crops may be engineered to replace tropical products. O ilseed rape,
fo r example, could be engineered to produce lauric acid fo r soap-m aking,
thereby threatening producers o f oil palm in M alaysia and G hana.
J44 A g r i-C u ltu re

F u rth er Policy D irections

Genetically modified organisms are not a single, homogeneous technology.

Each application brings different potential benefits and risks for different
stakeholders. Regulators, therefore, face special challenges in the face o f
rapidly developing technical applications. In the European U nion, releases
o f genetically modified organisms were regulated under Directive 9 0 / 2 2 0
for a decade. Following protracted negotiations, this has now been revised,
harmonized and tightened, and signed into effect in early 2 0 0 1 .T h e new
directive sets out provisions for the scientific assessment o f the risks o f
experimental and comm ercial releases o f genetically m odified organisms
into the environment, and establishes protocols for post-release monitoring.
T o date, the general approach to risk assessment in agriculture, as a
whole, has been to establish rigorous procedures prior to release, and then
to assume that farmers engage in ‘good agricultural practice’. T h e novel
nature o f em erging p o licies centres on a fun dam ental sh ift in risk
assessment to a need to understand the effects o f technologies in the field
and on the farm . M uch o f the harm to the environm ent arises when
technologies, whether pesticides, fertilizers or machinery, are not used in
accordance with regulators’ criteria.The assessment o f genetically modified
organisms will, however, now contain new requirements to assess the effects
o f diverse farm practices on the genetically modified organisms themselves,
and to determine how this interaction will affect desirable environmental
o u tcom es, such as the in teg rity o f lo cal biodiversity. Su ch new risk
assessments could have a positive side effect by increasing our under­
standing o f agricultural—environment interactions in agricultural systems
at large.
However, these standards for regulation are not yet widespread. T h e
challenge that developing countries face is to find ways o f increasing
regulatory and scientific capacity in order to assess the effects o f m odern
a gricultural tech n o lo g y on their environm ents. T h e C o n ven tio n on
B iological Diversity establishes a broad framework for assessing effects.
E ffo rts are underway to see the January 2 0 0 0 agreement on adopting the
precautionary principle as the basis for an international biosafety protocol,
and ratified by 1 3 0 countries, signed and put into practice.38 T h e centre
piece could be an ‘advance informed agreement’ procedure to be followed
before transboundary transfer o f genetically modified organisms, although
a blo c o f agricultural exp o rting n ation s still argue th at agricultural
com m od ities should be excluded from this procedure. W h e th e r such
international agreements can be signed or not, there is still a high priority
on findings ways to help build dom estic scientific and legal expertise
 T H E GENETICS CONTROVERSY 14 5

w ithin countries in order to establish com prehensive biosafety p ro toco ls

for genetically m odified organism s.'9 Such policy fram eworks will need
to protect intellectual property rights, to p rotect against environm ental
and health risks, and to regulate the private sector i f developing countries
are to benefit significantly from genetically m odified technologies. It seems
likely that b io tech n o log y will m ake som e co n tribu tion s to the sustain­
ability o f agricultural systems. But for the poorest farm ers, com m unities
and c o u n trie s , b io te c h n o lo g y is u n lik ely to m ake a very sig n ifica n t
co ntribu tion for som e years. As indicated earlier, a significant priority is
the m axim ization o f benefits from agroecological approaches that rely on
high ecological literacy and good social relations.

C oncluding C om m ents

In this chapter, I have addressed the genetics controversy in agricultural

system s. It is im p o ssib le to th in k ab o u t ag ricu ltu ral tra n sfo rm a tio n
w ith o u t assessing these tech n o lo g ies, and w ith o u t ap p raisin g who is
producing them and what they could bring in the form o f bo th benefits
and costs. T h e re are many applications o f biotechnology, and there are
likely to be several d istinct generations o f released technologies. It would
be w rong, th erefo re, to generalize ab o u t g enetic m o d ifica tio n — each
application needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. W e need to ask
questions about who produces each techn ology and why; whether it can
benefit the poorest and, i f so, how will they access it; and whether it will
have adverse o r positive environm ental and health side effects. It is likely
that bio tech no log y will make som e co ntribu tion s to agricultural sustain­
ability; but developing the research system s, institutions, and policies to
m ake them p ro -p o o r will be m ore difficu lt.
 Chapter 7

Ecological Literacy

Knowledges o f Nature

D espite great technological advances in agriculture, the value o f the know­

ledges and practices o f local communities is only slowly being acknowledged.
W e often use the word traditional, yet it remains a problem atic term . T o
many, it implies a backward step —knowledge wrapped up in superstition
or quaint old ways — and there is no place for this in our m odern world.
Traditional, though, is best thought o f as not a body o f knowledge itself,
but the process o f knowing. I f our lives involve continuous writing and
rewriting o f our own stories, through adjusting behaviour, incorporating
new understanding into our cultures, and shaping and being shaped by
local nature, then knowledges are also undergoing continuous revision.
D arrell Posey, anthropologist and protector o f the rights o f the excluded,
quoted the Four D irections Council o f Canada to produce a com pelling
definition:
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y 1 47

What is ‘traditional’about traditional knowledge is not its antiquity, but the way
it is acquired and used. In other words, the social process o f learning and sharing
knowledge. . . Much o f this knowledge is quite new, but it has a social meaning,
and legal character, entirely unlike other knowledge.1

An acquisition process such as this inevitably leads to greater diversity o f

cu ltu res, languages and sto rie s a b o u t land and natu re because close
observation o f one set o f local circum stances leads to divergence from
those responding to another set o f cond ition s. T h e critical elem ents o f
knowledge for sustainability can be defined as follows: its local legitim acy;
its creation and recreation; its adaptive quality; and its em bedded nature
in social processes. T h is know ledge ties people to the land and to one
another. Therefore, when landscape is lost, it is n o t just a habitat or feature.
It is th e m eaning fo r som e p eo p le’s lives. Su ch know ledges are o ften
embedded in cultural and religious systems, giving them strong legitimacy.
Knowledge and understanding take tim e to build, though they can rapidly
be lost. W ritin g o f A m erican geographies, author Barry L o p ez says: ‘To
come to a specific understanding. . . requires not only time but a kind o f local expertise,
an intimacy with a placefew o f us ever develop. There is no way round the former require­
ment: i f you want to know you must take the time. It is not in books.’2
T h is desire for intim acy with specific landscapes lies deep w ithin us.
F o r some, it involves getting away from the city lights to walk the ploughed
fields o f winter, crows cawing overhead, or to step across a glacier in the
piercing m ountain air, or to pause in a sun-pocked clearing deep in myster­
ious w oodlands. F o r others, it is the intim acy o f the daily co n n ectio n —
with cattle that need m ilking every m orn ing, o r the urban park strolled
through on the way to work, or the flocks o f birds feeding in a back garden.
P u t together, these link us to a deep and, sadly, often unrecognized co n ­
nection with whole landscapes. But when these connections are diminished
— by m o d ern fa rm in g th a t takes away th e hedgerow s o r trees, o r by
sprawling suburban settlem ents — then this intim acy is lost. People stop
caring, and the consequences are troublesom e. L opez put it this way: ‘I f
a societyforgets or no longer cares where it lives, then anyone with the political power and
the will to do so can manipulate the landscape to conform to certain social ideals or nostalgic
visions. People may hardly notice that anything has happened.’W h e n the people who
are intim ate w ith the land go, the landscape no longer has any defenders.
A gain, L o p ez identifies the crucial issue: ‘Oddly, or perhaps not oddly, while
American society continues to value local knowledge, it continues to cut such people o ff from
any political power. This is as true o f small farm ers and illiterate cowboys as it is f o r
American Indians, Hawaiians and Eskimos.’
W h a t happens when you ask people in a locality about what is special
to them? W e use this question as the startin g p o in t when interview ing
J48 A g r i-C u ltu r e

people about their own com m unities. All to o often, outside professionals
(w h e th e r p la n n ers, d evelo p ers o r s c ie n tis ts ) b eg in by ask ing ab o u t
problem s, and then identify solutions to these problem s. As a result, they
m iss the fine-grained detail about people’s connectedness to a place. W e
find th at people focus on two m ain them es — special things abo u t the
community, such as neighbourliness, friends and family, and special aspects
o f the land, nature and environm ent. In excluded urban com m un ities,
where physical infrastructure is poor, people will often say things like ‘we
have a strong sense o f com m unity’, and ‘when anyone has a problem , we
all pull together to help’. T h e y celebrate tiny spaces o f greenery — even
th o u g h , w hen p laced ag ain st a m o u n ta in m eadow , th ese sp aces are
im poverished.They m ourn the steady erosion o f their com m unity’s value
through the accrual o f graffiti, litter and dum ped cars.
In rural com m unities that are m ore obviously close to nature, people
will select many valued features. In a series o f com m un ity assessm ents
involving six villages w ithin C onstab le (th e landscape painter) country
in the S u ffo lk and E ssex bo rd ers, we fou n d th at p eo p le em phasized
m ore than 1 3 0 features special to them in a river valley extending only
2 0 kilom etres by 5 kilom etres in area. T h e m ost special places are open
countryside around settlem ents, places where people have walked all o f
their lives and have, in their m inds, made their own. M any sites that were
nam ed are water features, such as the river, weirs and local stream s and
water meadows. Sp ecial buildings included those with historical interest,
together w ith the schools, churches and village halls th at form the social
fabric o f the region. P ut together, these com prise a rich picture o f an entire
landscape. T h e se are n o t partial views and knowledge held by a few people,
bu t are widely dispersed through out the com m unity.
T h is is n o t to say that everyone knows their local place intim ately.They
clearly do not. England is scattered with d orm ito ry villages, populated by
com m uters w orking long hours who know their places only at weekends,
o r w hen th e evenings stre tch o u t in su m m er. T h e y rarely n o tic e i f
som ething is damaged o r lo st from the local landscape. Even i f they do
notice, they m ay n o t know what to do because they lack social co n n ect­
ions. Som e, though, arrive from the city with strange values. In the same
valley, one wealthy incom er hired two hit m en to sh o o t the rooks nesting
in their tree-top rookery on neighbouring land, as they were m aking to o
m uch noise fo r him . T h e ensuing scandal w ith in the co m m u n ity did
nothing for the birds. T h e y never cam e back. N onetheless, it is also true
th a t it so m etim es takes ‘in co m ers’ w ith a d ifferen t perspective on the
environm ent to provoke changes in thinking am ongst local people who
are wedded, fo r example, to industrialized agriculture because they know
no alternatives. How, then, can we build this necessary literacy about place?
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y 149

Building Ecological Literacy

C o g n itio n is the action o f know ing and perceiving; therefore, cognitive

system s are learning system s. T h e y take in in form ation , process it and
change, as a result. A cognitive system coheres —it sticks together different
knowledges and still remains a single whole. It goes beyond the modernist
single code, o r even the p o st-m o d ern ist reco g n itio n o f fractured and
m ultiply d ifferent know ledges. It im plies synthesis and the capacity to
change and adapt. T h ree decades ago, the C hilean biologists H u m b erto
M atu rana and Fran cisco Varela developed their radical Santiago theory
o f co g n itio n .T h ey posed the question ‘how do organism s perceiveJ’T h e ir
theory centres on the idea that all living organism s contin uously bring
fo rth a world — n o t the one w orld, bu t som eth in g individually unique
arising out o f the fundam ental d ifferences betw een the way in which
internal neurological processes work and how these processes interact with
our environm ents. W e actively constru ct a world as we perceive it. W e are,
therefore, ‘structurally co u p led ’ w ith our environm ent. Such stru ctural
cou p ling d escribes the way in w hich a living system in teracts w ith its
e n viron m en t, and these recu rren t in te ra ctio n s trig ger sm all changes,
adaptations and revisions in the system. C ognition is n o t a representation,
but the continual act o f bringing fo rth a world. T h e constan t dance o f
cognitive system s, contin ually shaping, learning and adapting to their
environm ent, thus describes our relationship w ith nature.
Jam es S c o tt, in his visionary bo ok Seeing Like a State, deploys the G reek
term metis to describe ‘f orm s o f knowledge embedded in local experience’. Metis is
norm ally translated as ‘cunning’ o r ‘cunning intelligence’; but S c o tt says
this fails to do justice to a range o f practical skills and acquired intelligence
represented by the term . H e contrasts such metis with the ‘moregeneral, abstract
knowledge displayed by the stale and its technical agencies’b y describing ‘villagization’
inT an zania and E th io p ia, Soviet collectivization, the emergence o f high-
m odernist cities, and the appalling standardization o f agriculture. Failures
com e when we design ou t metis because the state rarely m akes the kinds
o f necessary daily a d ju stm en ts required fo r the effectiv e w orkin g o f
system s. Metis, S c o t t says, is ‘plastic, local and divergent. . . It is, in fact, the
idiosyncrasies o f m etis, its contextualities, and itsfragmentation that make it so permeable,
so open to new ideas’.3 W h a t is encouraging is th at an increased num ber o f
governm ent d epartm ents have found the m ethods and processes to work
sensitively w ith local people; and the recent spread o f sustainable agri­
culture discussed in earlier chapters is partly a result.
E c o lo g ic a l lite ra cy can be created relatively rapidly, and does n o t
necessarily have to have great antiquity. T h is is w hat offers us all hope.
Farm er field -schools in S o u th -E a st Asia create new intim ate knowledge
150 A g r i- C u lture

about en tom olog y in rice fields; w ater-user groups develop new under­
standings o f the jo in t m anagement o f irrigation water for whole com m un­
ities; and farm ers’ experim enting groups in Australia, E urope and N o rth
A m erica develop new ways in which to farm , using few fossil-fuel derived
in p u ts. T h i s know ledge so o n b e co m es bo u n d up in new ritu als and
traditions, which then confer a greater sense o f value and perm anence. It
would be wrong, therefore, to think o f metis as traditional knowledge because
this m istakenly gives the im pression that such intim ate local knowledge
is unchanging, rigid and unable to adapt. In stead , it is the process o f
know ing, and it is central to the idea o f ecological literacy.
T h e idea o f the world being full o f diverse, parochial cond itions, with
each place needing a d ifferentiated approach, does n o t fit well with the
standardizing approach o f industrial development. M odernism is efficient
because it aims fo r sim plification. T h e central assum ption is that techn o­
logical solutions are universal, and therefore are independent o f social
context. Ironically, this is also what makes it appealing —mass production
fo r us all. In som e sectors, it works. D oes it m atter i f the only restaurant
we can visit is the same as those in thousands o f oth er cities around the
world? Yes it does, though we can always choose n o t to go. But does it
m a tte r i f the te c h n o lo g y to p ro d u ce o u r fo o d is stan d ard ized , and
therefore requires coercion in order to encourage ad op tion by farm ers.
Clearly, it does — it m atters for farm ers because their choices dim inish and
their risks increase.
W h e n farm ers' cond itions happen to be sim ilar to those where techno­
logies are developed and tested, then the technology is likely to spread.
But m ost farm ers experience differing cond itions, values and constraints.
W h e n they reject a technology — for example, because it does n o t fit their
needs o r is to o risky —m odern agriculture can have no oth er response but
to assume it is the farm ers’ fault. R arely do scientists, policy-m akers and
extensionists question the technologies and the contexts that have generated
them . Instead, they blam e the farm ers, w ondering why they should resist
technologies with such ‘obvious’ benefits. I t is they who are labelled as
‘backw ard ’ o r ‘laggards’. T h e p ro blem , as a rch ite c t K ish o K urukaw a
indicates, is th at ‘Technology does not take root when it is cut o ff from culture and
tradition. The transfer o f technology requires sophistication: adaptation to region, to unique
situations and to custom.’4
M o d ern ist thinking inevitably leads to a kind o f arrogance about the
social and natural world. It allows us to make grand plans w ithout the
distraction o f consu lting w ith oth er people. It allows us to cut through
the messy and com plex realities o f local circum stance. Such m odernity
seeks to sweep away the confusion o f diverse local practices and pluralistic
fun ctions, accum ulated over the ages, in order to establish a new order.
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y 151

T h is is perceived as an order that brings freedom from the constraints o f

history, and the prom ise o f liberty. But sim plified rules and technologies
can never create properly fun ctioning co m m u n ities.T h e re will always be
som ething missing. Sadly, during the 2 0 th century, we pushed nature and
our com m u n ities far from equilibrium . N ow we need to discover new
equilibria by reshaping the world. Barry L opez says, To keep landscape intact
and the memory o f them, our history in them alive, seems as imperative a task in modern
times as finding the extent to which individual expression can he accommodated.’5
T h e fundam ental contrad iction o f m od ernity centres on standardiz­
ation, which goes against the idea o f self-m ade, o r autopoietic, systems. F o r
M atu rana and Varela, cognition involves perception, em otion and action.
W e can shape, do and think differently. B ut m od ern life has w itnessed
those w ith an intim ate know ledge o f land and landscape being d isen­
franchised. It has removed their linkages, their structural coupling, their
m eaning. A w orld faced by fu n d am en tal e co lo g ic a l ch allen ges m ust
therefore be reshaped by collective cognitive action.
A persistent problem is that the dualistic m odes o f thought go very
deep.6 W e have learned them well, and find it d ifficu lt to shake them o ff.
T echn ological determ inism is a dom inant feature o f m od ernist thought
and action, and science and technology are understood as having co n trol
over nature, with the solutions to nature’s problem s lying in cleverer and
m ore sophisticated technologies. A t the o th er end o f the spectrum are
those who suggest that nature its e lf is no m ore than a social constru ction,
w ith no ecological absolutes o r op portu nities fo r technologies to provide
any value. In truth, the answer lies somewhere in the m iddle. W e are not
separated from nature; we are a fundam ental p art o f a larger whole, and
we do have som e techn ological fixes. B u t we still need clear thinking and
theories in order to ensure that we do n o t imply that by sim ply joinin g
hands w ith nature, all will be well.
N onetheless, from regular use comes accumulated knowledge, and with
the knowledge com es understanding and value for local resources. Sin ce
these are shaped by the specificities o f climate, soil, biodiversity and social
circum stances, they differ from place to place. T h is inherent, ingrained
diversity is what we value. It is what gives a place its character and its unique­
ness. I f we are to protect it, then we have to find new ways o f understanding
and o f creating the collective will to act differently. N iels R olin g uses the
term s ‘beta and gam m a scien ce’ to describe the need fo r new form s o f
interactive design and m anagem ent in order to help us move away from
ecological catastro p h e.T h ese term s go beyond alpha science, which tends
to be single disciplinary. R olin g coins the phrase ‘global garden’ to reflect
the ‘conviction that the Earth must he looked upon as a garden tended by human collective
action. . . no ecosystem, be it wetland, forest, mountain range, or watershed will continue
152 A g r i- C u lture

to exist or be regenerated unless people deliberately set out to create conditions f o r it and
agree to act collectively to that end’.7 A key challenge centres on how vve can
prom ote such collective action.

Ideas A bout the Term ‘Social C ap ital’

T h e term ‘social capital' is used to give im portance to social bonds, norm s

and collective action. Its value was identified by Ferdinand T o n n ie s and
Petr K rop otkin in the late 19th century, shaped by Jane Jacobs and Pierre
Bourdieu 7 0 to 8 0 years later, and given novel theoretical fram eworks by
so ciolog ist James C olem an and political scientist R o b e rt Putnam during
the 1 9 8 0 s and 1 9 9 0 s . C olem an describes it as ‘the structure o f relations between
actors and among actors’th a i encourages productive activities. T h e se aspects
o f social stru cture and organization act as resources for individuals to
realize their personal interests. As social capital lowers the costs o f working
together, it facilitates cooperation . People have the confidence to invest
in collective activities, know ing that others will do so, too. T h e y are also
less likely to engage in unfettered private actions that result in resource
d eg rad ation .T h ere are four central features o f social capital: relations o f
trust; reciprocity and exchanges; com m on rules, norm s and sanctions; and
connectedness, netw orks and groups.8
T ru st lubricates co o p eratio n , and therefore reduces the transaction
costs between people. Instead o f having to invest in m on itorin g others,
individuals are able to trust them to act as exp ected .T h is saves m oney and
time. It also creates a social obligation. By trusting som eone, this engenders
re c ip ro ca l tru s t. T h e r e are tw o types o f tru s t: th e tru s t we have in
individuals whom we know; and the trust we have in those whom we do
n o t know, but which arises because o f our confid ence in a known social
structure. T ru st takes tim e to build, but is easily dim inished; and when a
society is pervaded by distrust, cooperative arrangem ents are very unlikely
to emerge or persist.9
R e cip ro city and regular exchanges increase tru st, and therefore are
im portant for social capital.Tw o types o f reciprocity have been identified.
Sp ecific reciprocity refers to sim ultaneous exchanges o f item s o f roughly
equal value, while d iffuse reciprocity refers to a continuing relationship
o f exchange that at any given tim e may be unrequited, but which over tim e
is repaid and balanced. Again, this contributes to the development o f long­
term obligations between people, which is an im portant part o f achieving
positive sum gains for the environm ent.10
C o m m o n ru les, n o rm s and sa n c tio n s are th e m u tu ally agreed or
handed-dow n norm s o f behaviour th at place group interests above those
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 53

o f ind ivid uals.T hey give individuals the confidence to invest in collective
o r group activities, know ing that others will do so, too. Individuals can
take respon sibility and ensure that their rights are n o t infringed upon.
M u tually agreed sanctions ensure that those who break the rules know
that they will be pu nished.These rules o f the game, also called the internal
m orality o f a social system, the cem ent o f society, and the basic values
that shape beliefs, reflect the degree to which individuals agree to m ediate
their own behaviour. Form al rules are those that are set ou t by authorities,
such as laws and regu lations, w hile in form al ones shape ou r everyday
actions. N o rm s are, by contrast, preferences and indicate how we should
act. H igh social capital implies high internal m orality, w ith individuals
balancing individual rights with collective respon sibilities.11
C onnectedness, netw orks and groups, and the nature o f relationships,
are the fou rth feature o f social capital. C o n n ectio n s are m anifested in
many different ways, such as the trading o f goods, the exchange o f infor­
m ation, m utual help, the provision o f loans, and com m on celebrations
and rituals. T h e y may be one way or two way, and may be long established,
therefo re n o t resp on d in g to cu rren t co n d itio n s o r su b je ct to regular
update. C onnectedness is institutionalized in d ifferent types o f groups
at the local level, from guilds and m utual aid societies to sports clubs and
credit groups; from forest, fishery o r pest m anagem ent groups to literary
societies and m others’ groups. H igh social capital also implies a likelihood
o f multiple m em bership o f organizations and good links between groups.
In one context, there may be num erous organizations, but each protects
its own interests with little cro ss-co n ta ct.T h u s, organizational density is
high, but inter-group connectedness low. In another context, a better form
o f social cap ital im plies high org anizational d ensity and m any cro ss-
organizational lin k s.12
C onnectivity has m any types o f horizon tal and vertical configuration.
It can refer to social relationships at com m unity level, as well as between
governm ent m inistries. It also refers to connectedness between people and
the state.13 Even though som e agencies may recognize the value o f social
capital, it is rare to find all o f these conn ections being em phasized. F o r
example, a government may stress the im portance o f integrated approaches
between d ifferent sectors, but fail to encourage two-way vertical co n n ect­
ions w ith local groups. A noth er may em phasize the form atio n o f local
associations w ith ou t bu ild ing their linkages upwards to o th er external
agencies. In general, two-way relationships are b etter than those th at are
one way, and linkages that are regularly updated are generally better than
historically em bedded ones.
j 54 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Social and H u m an R elation s as Prerequisites

for Im proving N atu re

N ew configurations o f social and human relationships are prerequisites

for long-term im provem ents in nature. W ith o u t changes in thinking, and
the appropriate tru st in others to act differently, to o, there is little hope
for long-term sustainability. It is true that natural capital can be improved
in the sh o rt term w ith no explicit atten tio n paid to social and hum an
cap ital. R e g u la tio n s and e co n o m ic incentives are co m m o n ly used to
encourage changes in behaviour, such as the estab lish m en t o f strictly
protected areas, regulations fo r erosion con trol, and econ om ic incentives
fo r h abitat p rotection . But though these may change behaviour, they do
n o t guarantee a change in attitu d es: farm ers co m m o n ly revert to old
practices when the incentives end or regulations are no longer en forced .14
T h e re arc quite d ifferent outcom es when social relations and human
cap acity are changed. E x te rn a l agencies o r individuals can work with
individuals in order to increase their knowledge and skills, their leadership
capacity and th eir m otivations to act. T h e y can work with com m unities
to create the con d ition s for the emergence o f new local associations with
appropriate rules and norm s for resource m anagem ent. I f these succeed
in leading to the desired im provem ents in natural resources, then this has
a positive feedback on both social and hum an assets. W h en people arc
organized in groups, and their knowledge is sought, incorporated and built
upon during planning and im plem entation, then they are m ore likely to
sustain activities after project co m p letion .15 M ich acl C crn cas study o f 2 5
com pleted W orld Bank p rojects found that long-term sustainability was
only guaranteed when local institutions were strong. C on trary to expect­
ations at the tim e o f p ro ject com p letion , p rojects failed when there had
been no focus on institutional developm ent and local p articip atio n .16
T h e re is a danger, o f course, o f appearing to o o p tim istic about local
groups and their capacity to deliver econom ic and environmental benefits.
W e m ust be aware o f the divisions and differences w ithin, and between,
com m unities, and how con flicts can result in environm ental damage. N o t
all fo rm s o f so c ia l re la tio n s are n ecessa rily g o o d fo r everyone in a
com m unity. A society may be well organized, have strong institutions and
have em bedded recip rocal m echanism s, bu t m ay be based on fear and
power, such as in feudal, hierarchical, racist and unjust societies. F orm al
rules and norm s can also trap people within harm ful social arrangements.
Again, a system may appear to have high levels o f social assets, with strong
fam ilies and religious groups, bu t contain abused individuals o r those in
con dition s o f slavery or other form s o f exploitation. Som e associations
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 55

can also act as obstacles to emerging sustainability, encouraging conform ity,

perpetuating adversity and inequity, and allowing som e individuals to get
others to act in wavs that suit only themselves. W e m ust always be aware
o f the dark side o f social relations and conn ected ness.17
W e need new think ing and p ractice in order to develop and spread
form s o f social organization that are structurally suited to natural resource
m anagem ent. T h is m eans m ore than ju st reviving old in stitu tio n s and
traditions. M o re o ften, it requires new form s o f association for com m on
action. It is also im p o rtant to distinguish betw een social capital that is
em bodied in groups, such as sports clubs, d enom inational churches and
parent-school associations, and social capital that is found in resource-
oriented groups. It is also im p ortant to distinguish between high-density
social capital in contexts with a large num ber o f institutions but little cross­
m em bership and high exclusion, with social capital in contexts with fewer
institutions but m ultiple overlapping m em bership o f many individuals.18
F o r farm ers to invest in collective action and social relations, they m ust
be convinced that the benefits derived from jo in t approaches will be greater
that those from ‘going it alone’. E xternal agencies, by contrast, m ust be
convinced that the required investment o f resources to help develop social
and hum an capital, through participatory approaches o r adult education,
will produce su fficient benefits that exceed the costs. E lisabeth O strom
puts it this way: ‘Participating in solving collective-aclion problems is a costly and time
consuming process. Enhancing the capabilities o j local, public entrepreneurs is an investment
activity that needs to be carried out over a long-term period!F o r initiatives to persist,
the benefits m ust exceed these costs and those im posed by any free riders
in collective system s.19

P articipation and Social Learning

T h e term p a rticip a tio n is now p a rt o f th e n o rm al language o f m o st

developm ent and conservation agencies. It has becom e so fashionable that
alm ost everyone says that it is part o f their work. T h is has created many
paradoxes because it is easy to m isin terp ret the term . In conven tional
development, participation has com m only centred upon encouraging local
people to contribute their labour in return for food, cash or m aterials. But
m aterial incentives d isto rt perceptions, create dependencies and give the
misleading impression that local people are supportive o f externally driven
initiatives. W h e n little effo rt is made to build local interests and capacity,
then people have no stake in m aintaining structures or practices once the
flow o f incentives stop s. I f people do n o t cross a cognitive frontier, then
there will be no ecological literacy.20
156 A g r i-C u l t u r e

T h e dilemma for authorities is that they both need and fear people’s
participation. T h ey need people’s agreement and support, but they fear
that wider and open-ended involvement is less controllable. However, i f
this fear permits only stage-managed form s o f participation, then distrust
and greater alienation are the m ost likely outcomes. Participation can mean
finding something out and proceeding as originally planned. Alternatively,
it can mean developing processes o f collective learning that change the
way in which people think and a ct.T h e many ways in which organizations
interpret and use the term participation range from passive participation,
where people are told what is to happen and act out predetermined roles,
to self-m o b iliz a tio n , where people take initiatives independently o f
external institutions.21
Agricultural development often starts with the notion that there are
technologies that work, and so it is just a m atter o f inducing or persuading
farmers to adopt them. But the problem is that the imposed models look
good at first, and then fade away. Alley cropping, an agroforestry system
comprising rows o f nitrogen-fixing trees or bushes separated by rows of
cereals, has lon g been the focu s o f research. M an y produ ctive and
sustainable systems that need few or no external inputs have been devel­
oped. T h e y stop erosion, produce food and wood, and can be cropped
over long periods. But the problem is that very few farmers have adopted
these systems as designed —they appear to have been produced largely for
research stations, with their plentiful supplies o f labour and resources, and
standardized soil conditions.22
It is critical that sustainable agriculture and conservation management
do not prescribe concretely defined sets o f technologies and practices.This
only serves to restrict the future options o f farmers and rural people. As
cond itions change and as knowledge changes, so m ust the capacity o f
farmers and com m unities enable them to change and adapt, too. A gri­
cultural sustainability should not imply simple models or packages that
are imposed upon individuals. Rather, sustainability should be seen as a
process o f social learning. T h is centres upon building the capacity o f
farmers and their comm unities to learn about the complex ecological and
biophysical com plexity in their fields and farms, and then to act on this
inform ation.The process o f learning, if it is socially embedded and jointly
engaged upon, provokes changes in behaviour and can bring forth a new
world.23
W e could think o f nature and farm fields as being full o f megabytes o f
inform ation, thereby ensuring a focus on developing the proper operating
systems for a new sustainability science. Genetics, pest—predator relation­
ships, m oisture and plants, soil health, and the chem ical and physical
relationships between plants and animals are subject to manipulation, and
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 57

farmers who understand som e o f this inform ation, and who are confident
a bout experim entation, have the com ponents o f an advanced operating
system . T h is is social learning — a process th at fosters innovation and
ad aptation o f technologies that are em bedded in individual and social
transform ation. As a result, m ost social learning is n o t to do with hard
inform ation technology, such as com puters o r the In ternet. R ath er, it is
associated, when it works well, with farm er participation, rapid exchange
and transfer o f in form ation when trust is good, b etter understanding o f
agroecological relationships, and farm ers experim enting in groups. Large
num bers o f groups work in the same way as parallel processors, the m ost
advanced form s o f com putation.

T h e C reation o f New C om m ons

W e treat nature as property in several different ways. In one setting, nature

may be private property, and so only used by a lim ited num ber o f people.
In another, it may be controlled by the state, perhaps on b e h alf o f a larger
group o f people, o r to restrict access by another group. In yet another,
nature may be held as a com m on property. Finally, it may not be controlled
or m anaged at all, and therefore available for use by anyone who wishes.
T h e se controls m atter because they determ ine the ou tcom es for nature.24
Common property o r common pool resources are technically defined as those used
in com m on by an identifiable group o f people, and from which it is too
costly to exclude users who obtain individual benefits from their use. A
key feature is that they are interdependent system s in which individual
actions affect the whole system . I f these action s are coord inated, then
individuals will enjoy higher benefits (o r reduced harm ), when com pared
with acting alone. But i f this jo in t m anagem ent breaks down, then som e
may ben efit greatly in the sh o rt term by extracting all the b en efit fo r
themselves. In this case, the likely outcom e is damage to the whole system.
T h e re are many types o f com m on resources that are shared by co m ­
m unities o f producers and co n su m ers.T h ey include forests and aquifers,
fisheries and w ildlife, roads and public hospitals, carbon reserves in the
soil, and the air we breathe. T h e y exist at d ifferent levels o f aggregation,
from the local to the global. A t the local, they com prise irrigation water,
forests and grazing lands. A t a national level, they include fish stocks in
lakes, soil stocks, biodiversity and landscapes. A t a regional level, they are
manifested in large watersheds and basins, such as the N o rth American Great
Lakes, the N ile Basin and the N o rth Sea, and in ecosystem s th at cross
national boundaries, such as the A m azon forests. A t the global level, they
com prise the high seas, A ntarctica and the atm osphere. C rossing all o f
158 A g r i- C u lture

th ese levels are, o f course, food system s. N o t so long ago, these systems
were solely local; but they have progressively becom e globalized. T h e se
are com m ons in as much as we all need food, and have a stake and interest
in how it is grown or raised.25
T h e origin o f m odern cooperative action is often dated to 1 8 4 4 when
the R ochdale Pioneers established the first cooperative society in northern
England. It led to the establishm ent o f many sim ilar organizations across
Europe, providing alternative institutions and services to those available
from government. In m ost developing countries, by contrast, cooperatives
have been prom oted by governments as instrum ents o f econom ic develop­
m ent. In In d ia, this p h en o m en on began w ith the In d ian C oop erative
Credit Societies A ct in 1 9 0 4 , and m ost five-year plans since independence
have em phasized the roles o f cooperatives in agricultural developm ent.
By the beginning o f the 1 9 9 0 s , there were 3 4 0 ,0 0 0 form ally registered
cooperatives. M an y o f these, tho u g h, seem n o t to have b enefited the
poorest.
T h e problem with conventional cooperatives is well illustrated by Katar
Sin g h ’s d escription o f the plight o f salt m iners' cooperatives in G ujarat,
which accoun t for 6 4 per cent o f all salt p rodu ction in India. M o st o f
the value is captured by com p an ies, bu t licensed cooperatives o f salt
miners and farm ers, locally known as agrarias, still survive. In one area, briny
water is pumped from m ore than 1 0 0 m etres in depth on to surface pans
fo r cry sta lliz a tio n , from w hich the salt is harvested and sold. But the
activity is very risky — agrarias often fail to strike water, the discharge rate
may be variable o r suddenly fail, there may be insufficient sunlight, and
there are many health risks, owing to the lack o f shoes and eye protection.
All o f these risks are born by the agrarias.T h u s, these cooperatives, form ed
by governm ent to improve p o or people's social and econom ic conditions,
have failed to do m uch m ore than provide organized labour fo r exploit­
ation. T h e agrarias share o f the price that consum ers pay for salt stands at
a paltry 4 per cent. S a lt m iners are living, but barely so. H ere, co nn ected ­
ness makes little difference in an econom ic context that is severely stacked
against p o o r people.26
But these old-style cooperatives are being replaced by a remarkable new
m ovem ent o f collective-action institutions that are intended to improve
p e o p le ’s liv elih ood s th o u g h natu ral resou rce m anagem ent. T h e s e are
described variously as com m unity management, participatory management,
jo in t m anagem ent, decentralized m anagem ent, indigenous m anagem ent,
user-particip ation , and co -m an ag em en t.T h ese advances in social capital
creation have centred upon social learning and group form ation in a range
o f secto rs, inclu ding w atershed or catch m en t m anagem ent, irrigation
m anagem ent, microfinance, forest m anagem ent, integrated pest management and
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 59

farmers’ research groups. Hugh Ward and I estimate that between 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 —

5 0 0 ,0 0 0 new groups have form ed in these sectors during the 1 9 9 0 s. M o st
have evolved to be o f sm all rather than large size, typically with 2 0 to 3 0
active m em bers, rising to about 4 0 for m icrofinance program m es.27T h is
puts the total individual involvement at between 8 and 14 m illion people
— a quite rem arkable expansion in social capital and the num bers o f eco ­
logically literate p e o p le.T h e real progress towards sustainability has been
made by these m illions o f heroes. T h e y have made collective action and
inclusion succeed, and have benefited themselves, as well as the environment.

W atershed and catchm ent management groups

Governm ents and non-governm ental organizations have increasingly come

to realize that the p rotection o f w hole watersheds or catchm ents can not
be achieved w ithout the willing participation o f local people. Indeed, for
sustainable solutions to emerge, farm ers need to be sufficiently m otivated
in order to want to use resource-conserving practices on their own farm s.
T h is, in turn, needs investment in participatory processes in order to bring
people tog ether to d eliberate on co m m on problem s, and to form new
g ro u p s o r a sso cia tio n s cap ab le o f d evelop ing p ra ctices o f co m m o n
benefit. T h is led to an expansion in program m es focused upon m icro ­
catchm ents — n o t w hole river basins, bu t areas usually o f no m ore than
several hundred hectares, in which people know and trust each other. T h e
resulting uptake has been extraordinary, w ith p articip ato ry w atershed
program m es rep o rtin g su bstan tial yield im provem ents, tog eth er w ith
substantial public benefits, including groundw ater recharge, reappearance
o f springs, increased tree cover, m icroclim ate change, increased com m on
land revegetation, and benefits fo r local econom ies. So m e 5 0 ,0 0 0 water­
shed and ca tch m e n t g ro u p s have been fo rm ed in th e p ast d ecade in
Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, G uatem ala, the H onduras, India, Kenya,
N iger, and the U S .28

W ater users’ groups

A lth ou gh irrig atio n is a vital resource fo r agriculture, w ater is, rather

surprisingly, rarely used efficiently. W ith o u t regulation or co n trol, water
tend s to be overused by those who have access to it first, resulting in
shortages for tail-enders, conflicts over water allocation, and waterlogging,
drainage and salinity problem s. But where social capital is well developed,
then water users’ groups with locally developed rules and sanctions are able
to make m ore o f existing resources than are individuals w orking alone or
j 60 A g r i- C ulture

in c o m p e titio n .T h e resulting im pacts, such as in the Philippines and Sri

Lanka, typically involve increased rice yields, increased farm er co n trib ­
utions to the design and m aintenance o f system s, dram atic changes in the
efficiency and equity o f water use, decreased breakdown o f systems, and
reduced com plaints to government departm ents. M ore than 6 0 ,0 0 0 water
users’ groups have been set up in the past decade or so in India, N ep al,
Pakistan, the P hilippines and Sri L anka.29

M icrofinance institutions

O n e o f the great recent revolutions in developing countries has been the

em ergence o f new cred it and savings system s fo r p o o r fam ilies. T h e s e
systems lack the kinds o f collateral that banks typically demand, appearing
to represent to o a high a risk. T h e y are therefore trapped into having to
rely on m oney-lenders who charge extortionate rates o f interest. A m ajor
change in thinking and p ractice occurred when professionals began to
realize that it was possible to provide m icrofinance to p o o r groups, and
still ensure high repayment rates. W h e n local groups, in particular women,
are trusted to manage financial resources, they can be m ore effective than
b a n k s.T h e Gram een Bank in Bangladesh was the first to help people find
a way ou t o f this credit trap bv helping women to organize into groups.
Elsewhere in Bangladesh, the non-governm ental organization Proshika has
helped to form 7 5 ,0 0 0 local groups. Such m icrofinance institu tio ns are
now receiving worldwide prom inence: the 5 0 m icrofinance initiatives, in
N ep al, India, Sri Lanka, V ietnam , China, the P hilippines, F iji,T o n g a, the
S o lo m o n Islands, Papua N ew G uinea, Indonesia and M alaysia, have 5
m illion m em bers in 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 groups. Remarkably, these p oor people have
m obilized U S $ 1 3 0 m illio n o f th eir own savings to finance th eir own
revolving credit sy stem s.'0

Jo in t and participatory forest management

In many countries, forests are owned and managed by the state. In som e
cases, people are actively excluded. In others, some are perm itted the right
to use certain products. G overnm ents have n o t been entirely successful
in protecting forests, and in recent years have begun to recognize that they
cannot hope to protect forests w ithout the voluntary involvement o f local
co m m u n ities.T h e m ost significant changes occurred in India and N ep al,
where experimental local initiatives during the 1 9 8 0 s increased biological
regeneration and incom e flow s to the extent that governm ents issued new
policies fo r jo in t and particip atory forest m anagem ent in India in 1 9 9 0 ,
 E c o l o g ic a l L i t e r a c y x6 1

and in N ep al in 19 9 3 .T h ese policies encouraged the involvement of non­

governm ental organizations as facilitato rs o f local group form atio n —
governm ents realized that they were n o t good at doing this themselves.
T h e re are now nearly 3 0 ,0 0 0 forest p ro tectio n co m m ittees and forest
users’ groups in these two countries alone, managing more than 2 .5 m illion
hectares o f forest, m ostly w ith their own rules and san ctions.''1 Benefits
include increased fuelwood and fodder productivity, improved biodiversity
in regenerated forests, and income growth amongst the poorest households.
O ld attitudes are changing as foresters com e to appreciate the remarkable
regeneration o f degraded lands follow ing com m unity protection, and the
growing satisfaction o f w orking with, rather than against, local people.
T h e r e is still a long way to go, though, with an estim ated 3 1 m illio n
hectares o f forest in India that is still degraded, and state institutions n o t
readily capable o f engaging in a participatory fashion with com m unities.32

Integrated pest management and farm er field-schools

F a rm e r fie ld -s ch o o ls have been an o th er sig n ifica n t m od el fo r so cial

learning to emerge in the past decade and a half. Integrated pest m anage­
m ent com prises the jo in t use o f a range o f pest-con trol strategies (insects,
weeds or disease) in a way that reduces pest damage to below econom ic
thresholds and is sustainable and n on-pollu ting. Inevitably, it is a m ore
com plex process than ju st relying on the spraying o f pesticides. It requires
a high level o f an aly tical sk ills and un d erstand ing o f ag ro eco lo g ical
principles, and it also necessitates cooperation between farm ers. Farm er
field -schools are called schools w ithout walls, in which a group o f up to
2 5 farm ers m eets weekly during the rice season to engage in experiential
learning. T h e farm er field -school revolution began in S o u th -E a st Asia,
where research by Peter K enm ore and colleagues on rice system s dem on­
strated that pesticide use was correlated with pest outbreaks in rice. T h e
loss o f natu ral en em ies, and the free services they provided fo r pest
co n trol, com prised costs that exceeded the benefits o f pesticide u s e .T h e
program m e o f field schools has since spread to many countries in Asia
and A frica. At the last estim ate, roughly 2 m illion farm ers are thought
to have made a transition to m ore sustainable rice farm ing as a result. Field
sch o o ls have given farm ers the co n fid en ce to w ork to g eth er on m ore
sustainable and low -lost technologies for rice cultivation. It appears, too,
that the process o f learning is m ore likely to persist. O n e study com pared
farm ers in C h in a who had been trained either in field schools or by the
calendar spraying m ethods. Evidence showed that field -sch o ol farm ers
co n tin u ed to learn in the years after training , whereas conventionally
trained farm ers experienced no changes in their accumulated knowledge.33
162 A g r i-C u l t u r e

F a r m e r s ’ g ro u p s fo r c o - le a r n in g

T h e normal mode o f agricultural research is to experiment under controlled

conditions on research stations, with the resulting technologies passed on
to farmers. In this process, farmers have little control, and manv technologies
do n o t su it them , thus reducing the e fficien cy o f research system s.
Farmers’ organizations can, however, make a difference.They help research
institutions to becom e more responsive to local needs, and can create extra
local value by w orking on technology generation and adaptation. S e lf­
learning is vital for su stainability and, by experim enting them selves,
farmers increase their own awareness o f what does and does not work.
T h ere have been many innovations in both industrialized and developing
countries — though, generally, the num ber o f groups tends to be much
sm aller than in watershed, irrigation, forestry, m icro-finance and pest
management programmes.34

T h e Personal Benefits o f Connectedness

Is there any evidence that new form s o f connectivity with land that are
embedded in local organizations lead to personal change? Ultimately, the
fundamentals o f the sustainability challenge require us to think differently.
I recall being told a story a decade ago by an Indian adm inistrator that
captures this idea o f the personal frontiers that must be crossed. T h is
adm inistrator had seen the effectiveness o f participatory m ethods else­
where, and decided to test them with his own staff. H e divided them
into two cohorts —those who would receive new training in participatory
approaches, and those who would continue to work with local people in
the old top-dow n fashion. H e recounted how this experiment had been
so effective in the w orkplace that he had inadvertently found h im self
treating his driver and his family differently. O nce crossed, these boundaries
are never revisited.
G regory Peter and colleagues from Iowa State U niversity, and the
sustainable agriculture organization Practical Farmers o f Iowa, present
compelling evidence o f the nature o f personal change within households.
In m ost Iowan farms, they say:

The division oj labour still largelyfollows gender lines: men do most of the outdoor
work, and women support the men’s hectic schedules by providing meals at odd hours,
doing chores, running the household, going outf o r tractor parts, and working off-
farm jobs — not to mention taking care o f the children.
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 53

U sin g term s developed by M ik h ail B akh tin , they call this m o n o leg ic
m asculinity, which ‘mandates a specific definition o f work and success’. But they
discovered the emergence o f a dialegic m asculinity am ongst male farm ers
who were engaged in su stainable agriculture as m em bers o f P ractical
Farm ers o f Iowa ( P F I ) .T h e y expressed less need for co n trol over nature,
were m ore socially open, were less likely to distinguish between men’s and
wom en’s roles on farm s, and, im portantly, were ‘more open to talking about
making mistakes, to expressing emotions’.
M o n o le g ic people are individuals who speak and act w ithout acknow ­
ledging oth ers, w hile dialegec so cial acto rs take oth ers in to acco u n t.
Industrial farm ers were m ore likely to celebrate long hours and hard work
in the form o f an ascetic denial o f food , relaxation and being with the
fam ily .T h ey were also m ore likely to have a so-called ‘big iron’ m entality:
a love o f large m achines, which, o f course, ooze authority over the land.
Sustainable agriculture farmers w ithout these worldviews needed the social
co n n e ctio n s o f being a m em b er o f P F I even m ore, as they o ften felt
isolated and excluded am ongst conventional farm ers. W h a t this means,
in practice, is that farm ers who were leaning towards sustainable practices
had becom e another ‘so rt’ o f farm er.35
S o cia l cap ital and the experim en tal cap acity o f farm ers have been
developed by the In tern ation al C entre for T ro p ical Agriculture in Latin
Am erica in groups called C o m ite de Investigacion A gricultura T rop ical
(C IA L ).T w o hundred and fifty groups have been set up in six countries,
developing their own individual pathways according to the m otivations
and needs o f farm ers.T h ese groups decide upon research topics, conduct
experim ents and draw upon tech n ical help from field techn ician s and
agricultural scientists. A ccording to Ann Braun, m embers talk about being
‘awakened about their continuous learning process, and losing their fear o f speaking out
in public’. T h e re have been m any benefits fo r those involved, com prising
m ore experim entation, easier ad option o f new ideas and im proved/<W
security. N o t only do farm ers benefit from their experimental findings, they
also acquire increased status in the com m unity at large.36
A n o th e r exam ple o f th ese p erso n al changes co m es fro m cen tral
T am iln ad u , where the S o cie ty fo r P eo p le’s E d u c a tio n and E c o n o m ic
Change ( S P E E C H ) has carefully measured how their partner w om ens
self-help groups developed over a five-year period. Firstly, they found that
the incom es and savings o f m em bers had increased. M o re im portantly,
they found th at m em b ers’ know ledge o f banking, incom e generation,
com inon-property management, health and sanitation, and family planning
grew steadily over tim e. O n e-year-old groups had a good understanding
of incom e generation and the self-help co ncep t, but less o f oth er issues.
Young groups also tended to spend m ore tim e in m eetings than m ore
j 64 A g r i- C ulture

mature ones. M em bers o f one-year groups were more tentative in expressing

op inions, while those in older groups were m ore frank.
T h e r e were also very im p o rta n t changes w ith in h o u seh o ld s, w ith
husbands m ore likely to dom inate decisions on household purchases and
housing alterations in the early years. A fter one year, decisions made by
the wife occurred only in 6 —15 per cent o f households. Yet, after five years,
decisions were join tly made in 4 0 —6 0 per cent o f households, or by the
wife alone in 3 0 —5 0 per cent o f households. S P E E C H says: ‘Women feel
self-confident because their self-help group is backing them and they are recognized in the
fam ily and communityf o r their contributions to household income and have more control
over fam ily fin an ces than before.’ O ld e r g ro u p s are also three tim es m ore
‘co n n ected up’ to oth er in stitu tio n s, bo th w ithin the co m m u n ity and
ou tsid e.T hey have better and m ore regular links with government officials,
cooperative societies, police, banks, schools, and oth er women’s groups,
including the regional federated body for groups. T h e younger groups,
though, have n o t yet learned to stand alone.37

T h e M atu rity o f Social C apital

T h is em ergence o f social capital, m anifested in groups and associations

worldwide, is very encouraging. It is helping to transform som e natural
resource sectors, such as forest m anagem ent in India, with 2 5 ,0 0 0 forest
p ro te ctio n co m m ittees, o r p a rticip ato ry irrig atio n in Sri L anka, with
3 3 ,0 0 0 groups. So m e countries or regions are being transform ed. O n e
third o f all Australian farm ers are m em bers o f 4 5 0 0 Landcare groups,
and there are nearly 2 m illion Asian farmers who are engaged in sustainable
rice m anagem ent.
However, the fact that groups have been established does n o t guarantee
that resources will continue to be managed sustainably o r equitably. W h a t
happens over time? H ow do these groups change, and which will survive
o r b e co m e ex tin ct? S o m e w ill b eco m e highly effectiv e, grow ing and
diversifying their activities, while others will struggle on in name only. Can
we say anything about the cond ition s th at are likely to prom ote resilience
and persistence? T h e re is surprisingly little em pirical evidence about the
differing perform ances o f these groups, though theoretical m odels have
been developed to describe changes in social and organizational structures,
com m only characterizing structure and perform ance according to phases.38
So m e o f these focus on the organizational developm ent o f business or
corporate enterprises, with a particularly strong emphasis on the life cycles
o f groups. O th ers focus on the phases o f learning, know ing and world
views through which individuals progress over tim e.
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 55

Bruce Frank o f the University o f Queensland and I developed a m odel

to describe how changes in the renewable assets base (natural, social and
human cap ital) affect the perform ance o f managed natural systems, such
as farms, forests or fisheries, or regional systems such as watersheds or river
basins.39 Assets can be in one o f two states: either in a positive state (and
therefore m aintained or accum ulated), or in a negative state (and therefore
degraded). System s may be producing high levels o f desirable outputs,
but are doing so by degrading the asset base —for example, because capital
is being converted into incom e, fewer assets remain for future generations.
Such system s are productive but, inevitably, unsustainable. Alternatively,
system s may have a positive perform ance or output, but w ith assets being
accum ulated. T h is equates to the m ore sustainable sector, where systems
produce desirable outputs by not degrading renewable assets. W e proposed
that groups can be found along a continuum characterized by three phases
called:

■ reactive dependence;
■ realization independence; and
■ awareness independence.

W h e n groups form , they do so to achieve a desired o u tco m e.T h is is likely

to be in reaction to a threat o r crisis, or as a result o f the prom pting o f
an external agency. T h e y tend, at this stage, to be lookin g back, trying to
m ake sense o f w hat has happened. T h e re is som e recog nitio n th at the
group has value; but rules and norm s tend to be externally im posed or
borrowed. Individuals are still looking for external solutions, and therefore
tend to be dependent upon external facilitators. T h e re is an inherent fear
o f change; m em bers would really like things to return to the way things
were before the crisis arose, and before the need to form a group arose.
F o r those groups concerned w ith the developm ent o f m ore sustainable
technologies, the tendency at this stage is to focus on eco -efficien cy by
reducing costs and damage. In agriculture, fo r exam ple, this will mean
adopting reduced-dose pesticides and targeted inputs, but n o t yet the use
o f regenerative com ponents.
T h e seco n d phase sees g row in g in d ep en d en ce, co m b in e d w ith a
realization o f newly em erging capabilities. Individuals and groups tend
to loo k inwards m ore often, and are beginning to make sense o f their new
reality. M em bers are increasingly willing to invest their tim e in the group
itself, as trust grows. G roups at this stage begin to develop their own rules
and norm s, and start to look outw ards.They develop horizontal links with
other groups and realize that inform ation flow ing upwards and outwards
to external agencies can be beneficial for the group. W ith the growing
J 66 A g r i-C u ltu r e

realization that the group has the capacity to develop new solutions to
existing problem s, individuals tend to be m ore likely to engage in active
experim entation and the sharing o f results. Agricultural approaches start
incorporatin g regenerative technologies in order to make the best use o f
natural capital rather than sim ple eco-efficiency. G roups are now begin­
ning to diverge and develop individual ch aracteristics. T h e y are m ore
resilient, bu t still may eventually break down i f m em bers feel that they
have achieved the original aims, and do n o t wish to invest fu rther tim e in
pursuing new ones.
T h e final phase involves a ratchet sh ift fo r groups, w ith greater aware­
ness and interd ependence.T hey are very unlikely to unravel or, i f they do,
individuals have acquired new world views and ways o f thinking that will
n o t revert. G roups are engaged in shaping their own realities by looking
forward, and the individual skills o f critical reflection (how we came here)
com bined w ith abstract conceptualization (how we would like things to
b e ) m ean that groups are now expecting change and are m ore dynamic.
Individuals tend to be m uch m ore aware o f the value o f the group itself.
T h e y are capable o f prom oting the spread o f new technologies to other
groups, and o f initiating new groups them selv es.T h ey want to stay well
linked to external agencies, and are sufficiently strong and resilient to resist
external powers and threats. G roups are m ore likely to com e together in
apex organizations, platform s o r federations in order to achieve higher-
level aim s. A t th is stage, a g ricu ltu ra l sy stem s are m ore likely to be
redesigned according to eco lo g ical principles, no longer ad opting new
technologies to fit the old ways, bu t innovating to develop entirely new
systems.
T h e idea o f a link between m aturity o f groups and outcom es raises
im p o rtan t qu estion s. Are groups who are endowed with social capital
m ore likely to proceed to m aturity, o r can they becom e arrested because
so cial capital is a form o f ‘em beddedness’ th at prevents change? D o es
feedback occu r between m aturity and social capital? I f so, is it positive
(fo r exam ple, success with a new sustainable practice that spills over into
success fo r others, o r creates new op portu nities fo r co op eration ), o r is it
negative (such as changes in world views and tech n olog y th a t unsettle
traditional practices, erode tru st and make existing netw orks redundant)?
G roups and individuals at stage three (awareness independence) appear
unlikely to regress to a previous stage, because world views, philosophies
and p ra c tice s have fu n d am en tally changed . B u t g ro u p s at stage one
(reactive dependence) are unstable and could easily regress o r term inate
w ith out external su p p ort and facilitation . T h is raises fu rther challenges
fo r external policy agencies. C an they create the cond ition s for ta k e -o ff
towards m aturity when there is little social capital? H ow best should they
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 57

proceed in encouraging tran sfo rm atio n s th at will lead to sustained

progress?

Building Assets for Sustainable Futures

W h at lessons have we learned from programmes that successfully promote

social learning and sustainable natural resource m anagem ent?The first is
that sustainability is an emergent property o f systems that are high in
social, human and natural capital. W hen these assets are in decline, then
we are retreating from sustainability. N ext is the recognition that farmers
can improve their agroecological understanding o f the com plexities o f
their farms and related ecosystems, and that new inform ation can lead to
improved agricultural outcom es. In turn, increased understanding is also
an emergent property, derived, in particular, from farmers engaging in their
own experim entation, supported by scien tists and extensionists, and
leading to the development o f novel technologies and practices. T h ese
practices are more likely to spread from farmer to farmer, and from group
to group.These conclusions strongly suggest that social learning processes
should become an important focus for all agricultural and natural-resource
management programmes, and that professionals should make every effort
to appreciate the com plem entary nature o f such social processes with
sustainable technology development, and the subtlety and care required
in their implem entation.
W h a t can be done both to encourage the greater adoption o f group-
based programmes for environmental improvements, and to identify the
necessary support for groups in order to evolve to m aturity (and thence
to spread and co n n ect w ith oth ers)? Clearly, in tern atio n a l agencies,
governments, banks and non-governm ental organizations should invest
m ore in social and human capital creation. Building human capital and
establishing new form s o f organization and social capital are not without
their costs. T h e m ain danger lies in being satisfied with any degree o f
partial progress, and therefore not going far enough. As Elisabeth O strom
has put it, ‘Creating dependent citizens rather than entrepreneurial citizens reduces the
capacity of citizens to produce capital.’10 O f course, group-based approaches are
not, alone, sufficient conditions for achieving sustainable natural-resource
management. Policy reform is an additional requirement for shaping the
wider context, in order to make it more favourable for the emergence and
sustenance o f local groups. T h is has clearly worked in countries such as
India, Sri Lanka and Australia.
O ne way to ensure the stability o f social connectedness is for groups
to work together by federating in order to influence district, regional or
J 68 A g r i-C u ltu r e

even national b o d ie s .T h is can open up econom ies o f scale, thus bringing

about greater econom ic and ecological benefits. T h e em ergence o f such
federated groups with strong leadership also makes it easier for govern­
m ent and non-governm ental organizations to develop d irect links with
p o o r and form erly excluded groups — alth ou gh, i f these groups were
dom inated by the wealthy, the op posite would be true. T h is could result
in greater empowerment o f poor households, as they better draw on public
services. Such interconnectedness between groups is m ore likely to lead
to improvem ents in natural resources than regulatory schem es alone.41
B u t th is raises fu rth e r q u estio n s. H ow can p o licy -m ak ers p ro te ct
existing program m es in the face o l new threats? W h a t will happen to
sta te —co m m u n ity rela tio n s when so cia l cap ita l in the fo rm o f lo cal
associations and their federated bodies spreads to very large num bers o f
people? W ill the state co lo n ize these groups, or will new broad -based
form s o f dem ocratic governance emerge? Im p ortan t questions also relate
to the groups themselves. G oo d programmes may falter i f individuals start
to ‘burn ou t’, feeling that investments in social capital are no longer paying.
I t is vitally im p o rtan t that policy-m akers and practitioners continue to
seek ways in which to provide su pport fo r the processes that bo th help
groups to form , and help them to m ature along the lines that local people
desire and need, and from which natural environm ents will benefit.
T h e r e are also p ersisten t co n cern s th a t the estab lish m en t o f new
com m unity institutions and users'groups may n o t always benefit the poor.
T h e re are signs that these groups can all to o easily becom e part o f a new
rh etoric, w ith out fundam entally improving equity and natural resources.
If, fo r exam ple, jo in t forest m anagem ent becom es the new order o f the
day for foresters, then there is a very real danger that som e will coerce local
people into externally run groups so that targets and quotas are m e t.T h is
is an inevitable part o f any transform ation p ro cess.T h e old guard adopts
the new language, implies that they were doing it all the tim e, and nothing
really changes. But this is n o t a reason fo r abandoning the new. Just because
som e groups are captured by the wealthy, o r are run by governm ent s ta ff
with little real local participation, does not mean that all are fatally flawed.
W h a t it clearly show s is th a t th e c ritic a l fro n tie r s are in sid e o f us.
T ran sform ations m ust occur in the way we all think i f there are to be real
and large-scale transform ations in the land and the lives o f people.

C oncluding C om m ents

In C h apter I , I w rote o f the losses o f knowledge about land and nature.

I f we are to develop su stainable agricultural and food system s — even
 E c o lo g ic a l L ite r a c y i 59

sustainable econom ies and societies at large —then we will need to develop
new form s o f social organization and ecological literacy. O u r knowledges
o f nature and land usually accrue slowly over tim e. Yet, the im m ediacy o f
the challenge means that we m ust move quickly in order to develop novel
and robust systems o f social learn in g .T h ese seek to build up relations o f
trust, reciprocal m echanism s, com m on norm s and rules, and new form s
o f connectedness, thus helping in the development and spread o f a greater
literacy about the land and nature. G reat progress on developing new
com m ons is now being made through the actions o f hundreds o f thousands
o f groups engaged in collective watershed, water, m icrofinance, forest and
pest m anagem ent. T h e se collective system s can also prom ote significant
personal changes. U ltim ately, the barriers are inside each o f us, and large-
scale transform ations o f land and com m unity can only occur i f we cross
these frontiers, too.
 Chapter 8

Crossing the Internal Frontiers

A Fundam ental Redesign

Human connectedness to nature has deep roots. F or 5 million to 7 million

years we walked this earth as hunters and gatherers, entirely dependent
upon our knowledge o f wild resources, and on our collective capacity to
gather plants and catch animals. A bout 1 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 2 ,0 0 0 years ago, we
began to domesticate plants and animals. For m ost o f the time since then,
the culture o f food production was intimately bound up in some form
o f collective action, and in an intimate knowledge o f nature. W h ere city-
states emerged, as in G reece, R om e, M esop o tam ia, C hina, M aya and
mediaeval Europe, the num ber o f people no longer needing this intimate
connection for their livelihoods grew. But it was not until the advent o f
the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions, just 2 0 0 hundred years ago,
that food production in som e countries began its d rift away from the
m ajority o f the population. It is barely two generations since agriculture
became industrial, and modernist agriculture came to dom inate, producing
 C r o s s in g t h i; I n t e r n a l F r o n t ie r s x7 1

food as com m odities. T h is industrialization o f a basic human connection

has underm ined m any things.
So, for 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 generations, we care and hunt, use and overuse, harvest
and replant, cut and re-seed, and from all this emerges the human condition.
T h e state o f the world is an outcom e o f this relationship. F o r generations,
our effects were globally benign, though n o t necessarily locally benign.
Today, however, we are largely d isconnected, and because o f that we are
less likely to notice when the environm ent is further degraded, or when
valued resources are captured and damaged by others. W e are satisfied
to know (o r, at least we believe we are) that m ore and m ore food is being
produced. But i f we lack the innate conn ections, we no longer question
when environmental and social problem s emerge. W e do not notice that the
extrinsic is damaged at the same time as the intrinsic withers away. Although
these breakdowns are sym ptom s o f system ic disarray, there is still hope.
T h e re is a great hero in landscape and com m unity regeneration, and
he is the fiction al creation o f author Jean G ion o , resident o f M anosque
in France for m ost o f his life. In G ion o s The Man Who Planted Trees, Elzeard
Bouffier, shepherd and silent roam er o f the hills and valleys o f Provence,
helps to transform a whole rural system. G iono stands alongside all o f the
‘greats’ o f nature and wilderness w riting, perhaps surpassing many since
his concerns are centred on the conn ection between land and its people,
and on what each can do fo r the other. A ccording to translator N o rm a
G oo d rich , G io n o term ed his confidence in the future esperance, the word
describing the co nd ition o f living in hopeful tranquillity.1
In the fiction, the narrator com es upon Elzeard, who is planting acorns
am idst a desert lan d scap e.T h ere are no trees or rivers, houses are in ruin,
and a few solitary people eke ou t a meagre living. 'In 1 9 1 3 , this hamlet of
10 or 12 houses had three inhabitants. . . hating one another. . . all about, the nettles were
feeding upon the remains o f abandoned houses. Their condition had been beyond hope.’T h e
unnam ed narrator returns 5 years later, then again in 12 years, and finally
3 2 years after the original visit. D u ring this tim e, Elzeard continues to
p la n t a co rn s, and seed lings o f beech and birch , and th e land scape is
steadily transform ed. W h e n the forest emerges, then the wildlife returns,
the rivers run freely, and the com m unity is regenerated.

Everything had changed. Even the air. Instead o f the harsh dry winds that used to
attack me, a gentle breeze was blowing, laden with scents. A sound like water came
from the mountains: it was the wind in theforest. . . Ruins had been cleared away,
dilapidated walls torn down. . . The new houses,freshly plastered, were surrounded
by gardens where vegetables and flow ers grew in orderly confusion, cabbages and
roses, leeks and snapdragons, celery and anemones. It was now a village where one
would like to live.2
172 A g r i- C u lture

T h is is the glorious key to w hole landscape redesign — the creation o f

places where we would really like to live in esperance.3
M o st o f the main principles for redesign are present in this storv.T here
is leadership from a hero, som eone willing to take a risk, to do som ething
different for the benefit o f oth ers.T h ere is ecological literacy, with know ­
ledge about the particulars o f local agroecology helping to shape actions.
T h e re is the building o f social and natural assets as foundations for life
and for sustainability. T h e re is also a sense o f how long it takes, but just
how good are the rewards. However, the shepherd is a loner and achieves
change only on a small scale. T h is new agricultural sustainability revol­
ution will n o t happen all at once. It will take tim e, and require the co ord ­
inated effo rts o f m illions o f com m unities worldwide. But o f one thing
we should no longer be in any doubt. This is the way forward, and it offers
real hope fo r our world and its interdependent people and biodiversity.

An E th ic for Land, N ature and Food System s

A ldo L eo p o ld s m asterpiece, Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here andThere,

was published in 1 9 4 9 , a year after his death. H is greatest contribu tion
to us all was the idea o f the land ethic. T h is is a proposal fo r an ecological,
ethical and aesthetic science to shape hum an interactions with, and as a
part of, nature. L eo p o ld ’s land ethic sets ou t the idea that the beauty and
integrity o f nature should be protected and preserved from our actions.
E th ics is about lim its to freedom s. W e are free to destroy nature (and we
d o ), yet we sh ou ld p rescribe and accep t certain lim its. L eo p o ld sees
hum ans as part o f nature, n o t separated as distant observers o r m eddlers.
In the Sand County Almanac, he says:

We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see

land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and
respect. . . That land is a community is the basic concept o j ecology, but that land
is to be loved and respected is an extension o j ethics.

Such an ethic should be ‘a differentiation o f social and anti-social conduct’.

T h is land ethic implies thinking o f land and com m unity as a connected
network o f parts, which includes us as humans, and in which each element
possesses intrinsic rights. T h ere are many different views o f this land ethic:
som e say it is visionary, others that it is dangerous nonsense. B ut the point
rem ains that m ost people in industrialized countries still see nature as a
bundle o f resources that are separate from u s.T h u s, the land ethic remains
radical, m ore than h a lf a century after it was woven together by L eop o ld .4
 ;
C ro s s in g t h i I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 73

In tru th , such an eth ic is w hat m akes us hum an — the reco g n itio n of,
and respect for, these lim its. F reed om s are vital, but we have o b lig ation s
and resp on sibilities, to o . I f we accep t that we (as g lobal co m m u n ities) are
an in tricate p a rt o f so m eth in g , o r th at so m eth in g is a p art o f us (ju s t as
ou r livers o r lungs are p art o f ou r b o d ies), it is then absurd to engage in
action th a t endangers a co m p o n e n t o f the system , sin ce the w hole will
suffer. T h e A m azo n is n o t a p art o f m e, so I m ay d estroy it. Y et i f I do
so, the co nseq u en ces fo r the atm osph ere are severe, and in the end I will
su ffe r. L e o p o ld u n d e rsto o d th e c o n n e c tio n b etw een e c o n o m ie s and
nature:

I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket
the unearned investment on a stock or a bond, or a piece o f real estate, I am ‘selling
out’to the enemies o f conservation. . . When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping
to drain a marsh to graze, and to exterminate the birds o f Brazil. When I go birding
or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oilfield, and re-electing an imperialist
to get me rubber:5

T h e s e ch oices m a tter in to d ay s fo o d system . E ach tim e we buy fo o d , our

choices m ake a difference to nature and com m un ities som ew here — though
there is perhaps a danger o f overstating the pow er o f consu m ers in the
face o f stru ctural e co n o m ic co n strain ts. W e are co n n ected w ithin a m uch
larger system , and we can m ake these co n n ectio n s w ork to the good — i f
we w ish. A lb e r t H o w ard was o n e o f th e m o s t in flu e n tia l o f B ritis h
scien tists to take a h o listic view o f the co n n ectio n s betw een nature and
p eople. H e sp e n t 2 6 years in In d ia, and developed the In d o re P rocess in
w hich m o d ern scie n tific know ledge was applied to an cien t m eth od s. H e
called fo r a resto ratio n o f agriculture based up on an im provem ent to the
health o f the w hole system , saying th at:

The birthright o f all living things is health. This law is truef o r soil, plant, animal
and humans: the health o f thesefo u r is one connected chain. Any weakness or defect
in the health o f any earlier link in the chain is carried on to the next and succeeding
links, until it reaches the last, namely us.b

W h a t do we need to do differently? Perhaps the m o st com p elling o f A ldo

L e o p o ld s essays is a sh o rt, bu t b rillian t, p iece en titled T h in k in g L ik e a
M o u n ta in , in w hich he details the relationship betw een the wolf, deer and
m ou n tain in A rizon a. H e first recalls his own sh o o tin g o f a m o th er w o lf
caring fo r a tu m blin g pack o f cu bs: ‘in those days, we never heard o f passing up
a chance to kill a w olf’, and th en m o u rn s th e ir loss and his earlier lack o f
understanding. H e goes on to d escribe the co nseq u en ces o f elim inating
j 74 A g r i-C u ltu r e

the wolves; w ith out them , the deer expand to o greatly in num bers, and
the m ountain loses all its vegetation. In the end the whole system collapses.7
H e says: ‘Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl o f the
wolf Those unable to decipher the hidden meaning know nevertheless that it is there,for it
is felt in all wolf country, and distinguishes that country from all other land.’ T h e se
interconn ections are true, though, o f all lands, and are again som ething
th a t L eo p o ld foresaw, ech oin g T h o r e a u ’s phrase o f alm o st a cen tu ry
earlier: ‘In wildness is the salvation o f the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in
the howl o f the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.’ s
L eop old would feel at hom e in today’s ancient beech and fir forests o f
the C arpath ian M o u n ta in s. T h e s e are hom e to the largest num bers o f
wolves in Europe, and are testam ent to the principles o f ecological balance
and diversity. T h e Carpathian range stretches 1 5 0 0 kilom etres in a giant
elbow from Austria in the west, via the Czech R ep u blic, Poland, Slovakia,
H ungary and the U kraine, and finally to R om ania. A bo u t h a lf o f the area
is forest, and the rest flow er-rich meadows and valley-floor farm s. M o re
than h a lf o f the Carpathians are inTransilvania, the region o f R om ania
best know n fo r the fic tio n s o f D racu la and werewolves. Today, these
R om anian forests contain red and roe deer, wild boar and cham ois, and
E urope’s largest concen tration o f carnivores — 5 5 0 0 brown bears, 3 0 0 0
wolves and 3 0 0 0 lynx.
W alking through these grand forests, you would n o t know it, for the
p redators are m ostly m ysterious. So m e bears have becom e n o to rio u s
locally in the city o f Brasov. In the R acadau neighbourhood, where harsh
tower blocks m arch in ranks to the fo rests edge, habituated bears com e
dow n to ran sack the garbage on su m m er n ig h ts. L o c a l p eo p le seem
habituated, too, watching calmly from just a few m etres away. Som e worry
that, one day, there will be a serious incid ent, and sen tim ent will turn
against the bears. W h e n we walk the forest edge, as dusk falls and the heady
scent o f resin is in the air, the bears seem no m ore than d istant myths. In
local m ythology, the forests are also special. T h e y are a friendly hiding
place, a protection from enemies, and a part o f everyone. R om anians have
a saying: 'The forest is our brother.’ T h e C arpathians are still farm ed as they
have been fo r centuries, w ith sm all valley farm s, and livestock are herded
on the com m on m ountain meadows for the w hole o f the summ er. E ach
year, shepherds lose a few sheep to bears and wolves, som e 1 0 to 2 0 per
flock . T o date, though, there has been reasonable balance, and shepherds
earn a living despite the dangers. T h e wolves keep down the num bers o f
deer, w ithout w hich the trees would su ffer.T ree damage in Bavaria, where
there are no wolves, is ten tim es greater than in Transilvania.
T h e re is som ething very significant about the Carpathians that goes
beyond the quirky behaviour o f tow n bears o r the d istan t how ling o f
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 75

wolves. Cultural traditions still persist in a m od ern world, the landscape

is patchy and diverse, and nature coexists w ith people. But m ost people
are still very p o o r, and so the co re qu estio n is w hether there can be
sustainable econom ic and social developm ent w ithout throw ing away all
that is culturally valuable and distinctive. W ill R om anians tread the same
path that is followed over m uch o f the industrialized world?1' I am not
suggesting that all landscapes should loo k like the C arpathians, or that
substantial tracts o f agricultural land should be converted to forests or
set aside for nature conservation. I do believe, though, that it is possible
to have food -p rod u cin g system s that com p lem ent and enhance nature.
N ature, after all, still exists on larm s and in fields. Today, there is growing
confidence that we can, indeed, make the transition directly to sustainable
and productive agricultural and food systems that p rotect and use nature.
T h is is such a significant break from the recent past that the m ovem ent
may becom e another agricultural revolution.

T h in k in g Like a W o lf

O u r old th in k in g has lam entably failed the rest o f nature, and it is in

danger o f failing us, too. Today, one in four m am m als and one in eight
bird species face a high risk o f extinction . So m e 9 per cent o f the w orld’s
trees, 8 7 0 0 hundred species, and 1 2 per cent o f all plants, 3 4 ,0 0 0 species,
are threatened. Sp ecies are disappearing at a rate 1 0 0 —1 0 0 0 tim es faster
than before hum ans diverged from apes.10 Each year, the world is losing
at least 1 0 0 0 species. T h e w o lf has gone, ecosystem s are disturbed, and
now the m ountain is slipping away, with soils clogging rivers and damaging
distant ecologies. W e are in desperate need o f a new way o f thinking that
rein teg rates people and nature. C o n serv atio n b io lo g ist D avid O r r o f
O h io ’s O b erlin C ollege pu t it this way:

Now we have to learn entirely new things, not because we haveJailed in the narrow
sense o f the word, but because we succeeded too well . . What must we learn? We
must learn that we are inescapably part o f what Leopold called ‘the soil-plant-
animal-man fo o d chain’ . . .which is to say we must embrace a higher and more
inclusive Uvel o f ethics."

T h in k in g like a w o lf and a m ou n tain im plies a great change to bo th

practice and ethics.
W e have to ask — could we make a difference i f we change the way we
think and act? It is n o t enough to count and catalogue the richness o f the
w orld ’s bio d iv ersity , w hile at th e sam e tim e w atching its in exorab le
j 7 6 A g r i- C u ltu re

depletion.Thinking like a mountain means adopting a new ethic to define

our human interactions and connectivity with nature. David Hhrenfield
o f Rutgers University and first editor o f the journal Conservation Biology
asks: ‘What are we really accomplishing? What are we really changing?’ O f species and
ecosystems, he also queries: Are we improving health? Are we saving lives?’
T h e answer is, o f course, yes we are doing a lot, but by no means
enough. M ore o f the same thinking will not help us get out o f the current
crisis. Ehrenfield says:
J

In the process of deluding ourselves into thinking that our science alone canf i x the
world, we are likely to end upf at best, utterly ineffectual or at worst doing a good
deal of damage. . . Success will most likely come to those who knock down the walls
around their expertise (painful as this may be), share their knowledge with the
community, and learn from it in return.11

In other words, we will n ot succeed unless we find better connectivity

between scientists o f different disciplines, between scientists and local
people, between communities and politicians, and between story-tellers
and red u ction ists. Such con nectivity im plies learning, but does n ot
guarantee it. W e are going to need to find new ways o f learning about what
works and what does not. Tim e, though, is running out.
T h ere is a simple truth in the stories throughout this book. From the
forests o f Guatemala to the coasts o f England, from the drylands o f India
to the vegetable valleys o f Australia, it has taken individuals with courage
and motivation to think something new, something so different that they
break all the apparent rules. T h ey step outside a paradigm; they cross a
frontier. In doing so, they create new possibilities for all o f us. Peter Senge,
author o f The Fifth Discipline, rightly identifies the key question:

When things are going poorly, we blame the situation on incompetent leaders, thereby
avoiding any personal responsibility. When things become desperate, we can easily
find ourselves waitingfo r a great leader to rescue its. Through all of this, we totally
miss the bigger question ‘what are we, collectively, able to create?’

H e also notes: ‘Nothing will change in the future withoutfundamentally new ways of
thinking. . . To think that the world can ever change without changes in our mental models
isfolly.’
W e are often resigned to think that we cannot have any influence in
the world; yet, we can i f we only think differently. W e can choose food
with the environment and animal welfare in mind. W e can buy locally to
save on carbon emissions. W e can visit our local special places and care
for them. Above all, we should believe that what we do matters. In the
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 77

process, we may discover new meanings in the world and in our com m un­
ities. W e may just be able to find a way to save this one planet o f ours.
David Suzuki says: ‘We are still settlers 0/1 this earth.’ Settlers have enorm ous
responsibilities on the frontier. T h e y have to bring the best o f the past,
yet n o t allow old thinking to get in the way o f new requirem ents.
C rossing these frontiers is to u g h .T h ere is no sim ple co o k b o o k o r set
o f instru ctions, as the process m ust be d ifferent for each o f us and is,
therefore, adapted to local circum stance. W e can, however, take heart from
those who have already begun to w rite a new sto ry — in the coasts o f
England, forests and fisheries o f Japan, co tto n com m unities o f Australia,
drylands o f India, m ountains o f Pakistan, hills o f Kenya and gardens o f
N ew Y ork City.

T h e Environm ental D esigner

T h e low -lying fields and estuaries o f eastern England are under a double
threat from the se a .T h e land has been sinking since the glaciers retreated
from northern Britain at the end o f the last Ice Age, and thermal expansion
o f the oceans resulting from clim ate change is pushing up sea levels. F o r
about 1 0 0 0 years, local com m unities have actively protected their coasts
by building sea walls strong enough to repel the highest o f tides and the
severest o f storm surges. T h e y have also relied on salt m arshes to absorb
the energy o f the sea. T h e se salt m arshes pay — a sea wall w ith no salting
in fron t o f it costs U K £ 5 m illion per kilom etre to co n stru ct, but only
one tenth o f that i f there is a salting. F o r a variety o f reasons, though,
sa lt m arsh es are d isap p earin g . T h e y are sq u eezed ag ain st sea w alls,
damaged by pollutants, and drained fo r farm land and housing. So , we are
faced with a difficu lt choice. D o we continue to invest in repelling the sea,
with costs likely to spiral, or do we step outside 5 0 generations o f thinking
and loo k at the landscape in a radically d ifferent way?
Joh n H all o f the Essex W ild life T ru st recently did exactly this, and he
has big plans for one branch o f the Blackw ater Estuary. T h is is a land and
seascape o f massive skies th at seem to stretch forever, whether you stand
on the sea wall by basking snakes on a su m m ers day, or cower behind it
in the teeth o f a cold, steel-grey w inter’s gale. T h is coastline is hom e to
hundreds o f thousands o f wetland birds, including Brent geese, dunlin,
k n o t, shelduck and redshank. T h e fisheries am ongst the m arshes contain
im p o rta n t sto c k s o f oysters, co ck les, h e rrin g , bass, m u llet and eels.
F rontin g the n o rth bank o f the Blackw ater Estuary in Essex is A bb otts
H a ll farm , u n til recen tly a 280-hectare co n v en tio n al arable farm . T h e
farm land is protected by a 2-m etre seawall, on the river side o f which are
j 78 A g r i- C ulture

remnants o f salt marsh, a once com m on h ab itat.T h e farm itself dates back
at least to the Domesday Book survey o f 1 0 8 5 . In 2 0 0 0 , with the support
o f several organizations, the Essex W ild life T ru st purchased the farm with
a grand design in m in d.13T h is is highly productive farm land, yet John and
colleagues plan to punch five breaches into the sea wall and allow salt-water
irrigation to create 12 0 hectares o f new salt marshes, coastal grazing, reed
beds and saline lagoons. T h e rem ainder o f the farm will be devoted to
sustainable agriculture m ethods, including the reinstatem ent o f hedge­
rows, ditches, copses and field m argins.
T h e idea is alarm ing to som e people, who see the sea as the enemy o f
the land .14 Yet, what will happen when this change in landscape occurs?
Previously, the farm did one thing, and one thing well. It produced arable
crops. But now it will do many things, w ith rare habitats and sustainable
farm ing m ethods on land, and new habitats lo r oysters and fish in the sea.
T h e extra salt m arsh could benefit the village o f S a lco tt further up the
channel, since high tide would be su bstantially lowered, thus reducing
flood risk. As the sea level rises, is it n o t better that it is used positively
to create new h ab itats th at co m p lem en t oth er land uses? T h is diverse
landscape will help to do exactly th a t.T h e A bb otts H all pro ject will also
be a practical exam ple o f coastal realignm ent th at scien tists and local
people can tou ch and feel, thus bringing reassurance about sustainable
coastal defences.

T h e Fisherm an and T h e Poet

T h e r e is no greater co n trast than betw een the coastal flats o f eastern

England and the m ountainous landscapes o f Japan. O u r heroes com e from
M iyagi and Iwane Prefectures, and they co n n ect forests and the m arine
environm ent in the Okaw a watershed. A t the top o f the m ountains there
were deciduous forests, once valued fo r charcoal and fuel w ood; in the
estuary in Kesennum a Bay there were fam ous beds o f oysters and edible
seaweed known as konhu and non. B ut over the years, the traditional forests
were cut down or replaced with conifers, wetlands were reclaimed near the
river m outh, the river its e lf was channelled w ith concrete, and m odern
agricultural m ethods were adopted.
T h e first sign th at so m eth in g was w rong occu rred when the oyster
fishery collapsed three decades before the end o f the century, closely
followed by large changes in seaweed populations. It seems obvious that
changes in water quality, com bined with variable flows, m ight have had an
effect at the estuary end o f the system. But at the time, it too k the perceptive
observation o f a fisherm an nam ed Hatakeyam a to do som ething about
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 79

it. A t the end o f the 1 9 8 0 s , he saw that there was a conn ection between
the sea, forest and river, and he began to talk to people. H e travelled up the
watershed — a fisherman out o f water. H e encouraged the other fishermen
o f Karakuwa town to organize and reflect, and then begin discussions in
upstream villages. R esidents o f upland M u rone agreed to cooperate, and
this led to the fisherm en them selves providing m oney and labo u r for
reafforestation o f the watershed with deciduous trees. H atakeyam a m et
people in order to talk about com m on problem s, exchange inform ation
and share in replanting. T h e y say the fisheries are now m ore productive;
perhaps m ore im portantly, the fisherm en have, w ith remarkable foresight,
becom e ed u cators.T hey invite schoolchildren from the top o f the m ount­
ains to visit the b o tto m , and take their children upstream to plant trees.
T h e forests have now been gloriously renamed Forests o f Oysters. 1'hey
are so successful that sim ilar activities are being attem pted elsewhere in
Japan. T h e Okaw a poet Ryuko K um atani captures the deep conn ections
with the follow ing poem :

The Forest lives a long way o ff the Sea.

The forest, regarded as blessing o f the heaven,
Is nurturing a love from f a r away, longing for the Sea.
Forest is the lover o f the Sea.ts

W h a t these fisherm en, foresters, villagers and poets have done is to claim
a whole watershed as a com m on . It is a region in which they each act to
m ake a d ifference. E ffectively, this has revived an im p o rtan t Japanese
tradition — that o f the com m on lands, or iriaichi. Each o f Japans 7 0 ,0 0 0
traditional villages once had carefully controlled and managed com m ons,
w ith horizon tal kumi associations to manage them and set locally appro­
priate rules and norm s. M argaret M cK ean indicates: ‘These thousands o f villages
managed their common lands f o r several centuries without experiencing a single tragedy
o f the commons. . . I have not yet turned up an example o f a commons that suffered ecological
destruction while it was a common’.l6lt is only in recent times that there has been
steady attrition , with com m on s appropriated by the state or sold o ft for
alternative uses. F o r centuries ‘villagers themselves invented the regulations, enforced
them, and meted out punishments, indicating that it is not necessaryf o r regulation o f the
commons to be imposed coercively or from the outside’. Now, these traditions, rights
and responsibilities are being reclaim ed in the F orests o f O ysters.

T h e C otto n W om en

D alby is a small linear town on a distant crossroads on the Darling Dow ns

in eastern A u stralia. L ik e m any sim ilar ru ral settle m en ts, th e w hole
j 80 A g r i- C ulture

com m un ity and econom y is under threat. Farm ing seems to get tougher
year on year, businesses struggle, children m ust travel further to school,
and existing associations seem som ehow tired and inappropriate for the
challenges that m odern society brings. C o tto n is big on the D ow ns, but
it, to o , is stru g g lin g a g ain st g ro w in g p est resistan ce and in creasin g
e n v iro n m en ta l d e g ra d a tio n . H ow ever, farm ers are b e g in n in g to get
organized to share ideas and practices fo r novel pest m anagem ent, and
there are 3 5 0 fam ilies in the growers’ a sso ciatio n .T h ere is som e progress
tow ards su stainability. O n the Jim b o u r P lain , C arl and T in a G raham
reflect on the changes, by saying: ‘Ten years ago>, if you saw your neighbour spraying,
we’d go out and do it, foo.’Today, they are scouting the fields, using trap crops,
m anaging beneficial insects and using natural viral pesticides. T h e y are
creating a m osaic landscape so that sorghum can build up parasites, or
lucerne can benefit the co tto n . T h e y know there is much to do, and say:
‘We still have a lot o f learning to do.’
But som ething else is changing, too, and it involves relations between
m en and women in the farm com m unity. O n a blisteringly h o t noontim e,
I m eet w ith the W om en in C o tto n group in Dalby. It is led by C atrina
W alto n and has 6 0 m em bers. T h e y convened for the first tim e in 1 9 9 7
to talk about the pesticides used in co tto n cultivation. O n e says: ‘Wefound
it so powerful, just to get us all together.’ T h e y m eet on ce o r tw ice a m on th ,
som etim es fo r discussion, or to hear talks from external professionals o f
their ch o ic e .T h e y organize farm visits for several hundred children each
year. T h e benefits o f the group seem to centre on two things. T h e first is
the value o f the m eetings. Says one m em ber: ‘You feel safe; you don’t have to
tread carefully with your words.’ A noth er m em ber explains: ‘Social networking is
one o f the greatest things I get out o f this group.’
T h e second, though, is m ore subtle, and this is about changed relations
w ithin fam ilies. W om en say that they did n o t know enough in the past
to ask sen sible qu estion s, and m oth ers tend ed to be pushed in to the
background. B ut now there is greater understanding in families, improved
com m unications and m ore jo in t d ecision-m aking. O n e m em ber says: ‘It
makes f o r a better marriage.’ R a ck at Jim bo u r, Carl says: ‘When I come homefrom
the paddock I get asked heaps o f questions, and we interact more.’T in a says: ‘Womenfeel
more involved. Now I have ideas f o r improvement, and can answer questions.’ T h e
w om en themselves are adding productive value to the system. T h e y read
rep orts, help w ith m arketing and learn about pests and predators. M en
tend to lack the social netw orks that w om en develop, and these netw orks
help to spread g oo d p ra ctice and ideas. B u t it is n o t easy. O n e m ale
agronom ist arrived at a recent m eeting to give a talk and, in fro n t o f 5 0
wom en, said: ‘Oh, so there’s no one hereyet.’Together, though, women and men
are slowly redesigning their farm system s, m aking them m ore sustainable
 C r o s s in g t h i; I n t e r n a l F r o n t ie r s x8 1

and productive, and they are doing so by crossing a m ultitude o f personal,

fam ily and com m unity frontiers.

T h e Land W ith o u t a Farm er Becom es Barren

Far from the co tto n plains, but in a similarly dry and challenging environ­
m ent, women and men in southern India are redesigning their landscapes
and com m unities. Farm ers in central Tam ilnadu live in a rain shadow o f
the western Ghats, an area known for acute droughts and erratic m onsoons.
T h e y have a saying: ‘The land without a farm er becomes barren — thaan vuzhu
nilam thariso.’17W h e n I first walked to the village o f Paraikulum, an unas­
sum ing settlem ent o f 6 0 households several kilom etres from the nearest
road, the 5 0 hectares o f land above the village were barren. Villagers could
rem em ber a tim e when they were cultivated, but over the years co n flicts
and land-grabs had underm ined cooperation . T h is area is so dry that it
is hom e to India’s m atch and firework industry. Yet, when it does rain, the
water sim ply rushes o f f o f the barren land to join distant rivers, and a
valuable resource is wasted.
Paraikulum , though, is lucky. It is one o f 4 7 villages in the d istrict o f
V irudhunagar with whom a group called the So ciety for People's E d u c­
a tio n and E c o n o m ic C h ange co lla b o ra te s. Jo h n Devavaram , E rsk in e
A runothayam and R ajen dra Prasad and their colleagues began their work
here in the m id 1 9 8 0 s . T h e ir approach has been to help form self-help
groups, o r sanghas, and to build the social and hum an capital o f the area
so that environmental improvements can be made and then sustained. T h e
e ffect on the landscape and com m unity has been rem arkable. A fter the
Paraikulum women’s sangha was form ed , Pandiyam mal, Laxm i and neigh­
bours decided to recover the barren land through careful planning o f
physical and biological w ater-harvesting m easures. T h e y redesigned the
fields, so that water would be used effectively.
N ow when it rains, the water is channelled, collected and ponded, and
seeps into the ground to replenish aquifers. T h is has produced a double
benefit. Firstly, the watershed turned green w ithin three years, as crops
could now be grown there. Secondly, enough water was collected in the
tank fo r the com m unity to irrigate the tiny 12-hectare patch o f wetland
rice close by th e village fo r an extra season each year. W ith existin g
resources (a fter all, the water had been there), they now produce an extra
3 0 —5 0 tonnes o f rice each year. Increasing cropping intensity on sm all
patches in this way offers great hope for farm ers o f the drylands in many
parts o f the world. But it requires com m unity organization and motivation.
T h e upper watershed is now unrecognizable. W h e n I first walked across
182 A g r i- C u lture

the dusty scrubland, it was good for only goats and the collection o f scraps
o f firew o od .T he soils were sandy and barely capable o f sustaining grasses
and sh ru b s, le t alon e cro p s. T od ay, there are fru it trees on the field
boundaries, and fields full o f swaying finger m illet or creeping groundnut.
All o f this com es about through collective action, led, in this case, by the
lo ca l w om en’s group, who had, in tu rn , been helped by an active and
enlightened local group. P u t the farm ers on the land, and it becom es
productive again.

People in the M ou n tain D esert

N o rth o f these drylands lies an even m ore challenging environm ent, the
m ountain deserts o f what is now n o rth ern Pakistan. T h e K arakoram s,
Pam irs and H in d u K ush, at the w estern end o f the H im alayan range,
co n ta in two o f the high est m ou n tain s o f the w orld — the prosaically
nam ed K 2 and spectacular R akap osh i. It is to o far inland to catch the
m on soons that yearly sweep up the Indian O cean. But here people have
carved ou t fields from rocky fans, channelled water from distant glaciers,
and turned barren and h ostile m ountainsides green over the centuries.
H ig h above, alpine pastures su pport endangered ibex and snow leopards.
T h e feats o f im agination, com bined with locally adapted engineering, are
extraordinary. W ith o u t these people o f the H u nza Valley, o f Baltistan and
C hitral, there would only be desert.
T h e appealing idea o f wilderness, where you can stroll with backpack
and rem ain in touch through satellite com m unications, is alm ost under­
mined by these harsh environments. In winter, temperatures plum m et tens
o f degrees below zero, and people may n o t venture outside for a couple
o f m onths. T h e growing season is sh o rt and sharp, and in high summ er
it can reach 4 0 degrees Centigrade o r m ore. T h e infrastructure is poor,
and for centuries people have lived at subsistence level.T h ere was poverty,
hardship and inequity. O ver the past 2 0 years, though, the physical and
natural environment o f these com m unities has been gradually transform ed,
m ainly due to the w ork o f the Aga K han R u ral S u p p o rt P rogram m e.
M em bers o f the program m e realized that huge poten tial rested in these
com m unities, i f only village organizations and, in many cases, w om en’s
organizations could be form ed to address collective problem s and op p ort­
unities. T h e y have helped to form 1 8 0 0 village organizations with 7 5 ,0 0 0
m em bers, and another 7 7 0 w om ens organizations with 2 6 ,0 0 0 members.
T h e s e o rg a n iz a tio n s have b u ilt new lin k ro ad s, reclaim ed land s fo r
farm ing, constru cted irrigation channels from glacial m elts, and in tro ­
duced new farm and post-harvest technologies. T h e W orld Bank says:
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 33

The programme’s most significant contribution is not so much in the number o j trees
planted or additional area irrigated, but in attitudinal change; people begin to believe
they can influence and achieve their development agenda; and the effect o f giving
women knowledge and self-esteem may outweigh all j other benefits/.'*

It is easy to underestim ate the significance o f these achievements. I once

flew in one o f the Aga K han’s helicopters from C hitral in the west, across
the Shandur Pass, location o f a fam ous annual p o lo m atch at some 4 2 0 0
m etres, and down the 2 0 0 -k ilo m e tre long G hizer valley towards G ilgit.
T h e tim e o f year was July, but the hillsides were brown and grey rock,
picked ou t w ith tiny patches o f green around villages, o r yellow waving
barley and wheat. You cannot take in the scale.T h e helicopter flew at about
4 5 0 0 metres for safety, but the valley stretched up another kilom etre. And
down, to o — poring over a m ap in G ilg it, I found ou t later that the top
o f this valley was above 6 0 0 0 metres, the flo o r at som e 1 5 0 0 metres. T h e
G hizer valley is 4 .8 kilom etres deep, and is just one o f many in the region.
It would swallow the G ran d Canyon in the U S . But before we get to o
rom antic about these landscapes o f villages and fields clinging to hillsides,
it is im portant to be rem inded o f the deep poverty, lack o f econom ic and
educational opportunity, and unrem ittingly tough clim ate. N evertheless,
if the people o f the villages o f H unza can build their own schools for girls,
th e first ever know n, o r can reclaim a g lacial fan and share th e new
farmland equally, then elsewhere in the world, should we n o t be wondering
i f we can do the same? Perhaps we have som ething to learn from them .

T h e M in istry O fficials in Kenya

F o r to o lon g , A frica has been dism issed as being som ehow unable to
engage in p atterns o f developm ent th at aid people and environm ents.
F oo d production lags well behind the rest o f the world —it is 1 0 per cent
less per person than 4 0 years ago. Yet, such a view m isses a critical truth.
D espite the difficulties, there are many who have crossed the frontier, and
who, too, have im p o rtan t lessons fo r the rest o f the world, i f only we
would listen. Som e o f these new thinkers are in governm ents, and their
successes are even m ore rem arkable. O n e exam ple com es from Kenya,
where a decade ago M in istry o f A griculture officials came up with a new
way o f protecting soils and com m unities. Kenya has a long history o f state
intervention in bo th soil and water conservation and land m anagem ent.
F o r five to six decades, farm ers had been coerced o r paid to ad opt soil
conservation m ethod s. T h e s e m ethod s require coord inated action at a
j 84 A g r i- C ulture

catchm ent level, and state suspicion o f local people’s lack o f knowledge
m eant that these decisions im posed upon farm ers. In the long run, this
approach sim ply does n o t work, as people do n o t m aintain the structures
over which they feel no ownership. By the end o f the 1 9 8 0 s, it had becom e
painfully clear that the conventional approach to soil and water conserv­
ation was n o t conserving soils.
H ow ever, a group o f so il co n serv atio n o ffic ia ls, led by J K K iara,
M au rice M begera and M M b o te, recognized that the only way to achieve
widespread conservation coverage was to m obilize people to em brace soil
and water conserving practices on their own term s. A ll financial subsidies
were stop p ed , and resou rces were allo cated , instead , to p a rticip ato ry
processes, good advice and training, and farm er trips. T h e catchm en t
approach was adopted in 1 9 8 9 , and was seen as a way o f concentrating
resources and effo rts w ithin a specified catchm en t, typically 2 0 0 —5 0 0
hectares, for generally one year, during which all farm s are laid out and
conserved with fu ll co m m u n ity p a rticip atio n . S m all ad ju stm en ts and
m aintenance are then carried ou t by the com m unity m em bers themselves,
w ith the su p p ort o f extension agents.
But these participatory m ethods imply shifts o f initiative, responsibility
and action to rural people themselves, and this is n o t easy for governm ent
officials who are used to getting their own way. Moreover, cross-disciplinary
teams are drawn from various government departm ents, such as those with
responsibility for education, environment, fisheries, forestry, public works,
water and health, in order to work together with local people. A catchm ent
conservation com m ittee o f farm ers is elected as the institution responsible
fo r coord inating local activities. Q uietly, and w ith little fuss, som e 4 5 0 0
co m m ittees have been form ed over the decade, and by the late 1 9 9 0 s ,
about 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 farm s were being conserved a year. T h is was m ore than
double the rate, and with fewer resources, than in the 1 9 8 0 s , a tim e when
m uch o f the lon g-term benefits o f conservation were in d oubt because
o f local disapproval o f the im posed approach.
T h e process o f im plem enting the catchm en t approach its e lf has, o f
course, varied according to the hum an resources available and differing
interpretations o f the degree o f participation that is necessary to m obilize
the catchm ent com m unity. So m e still feel that farm ers should sim ply be
to ld w hat to do. T h is approach inevitably fails. O th ers do n o t invest
enough tim e in developing relations o f trust. B ut where there is genuine
p a rticip a tio n in p lann ing and im p lem en ta tio n , the im p acts on food
produ ction, landscape diversity, groundw ater levels and com m unity well­
being are substantial.
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t e r n a l F r o n t i e r s i 35

T h e M agic Gardeners

T h is b o o k has m ostly been about the redesign o f rural landscapes and

com m unities. Yet, there will soon be m ore urban than rural people. U rban
people already play two p o ten tially critical roles in rural redesign: by
buying food and by visiting rural landscapes and wild areas. T h e r e is,
though, a third o p p o rtu n ity th at is helpin g to encourage the intern al
tran sfo rm atio n s necessary fo r a m ore sustainable world. T h is is urban
gardening. A t first glance, this m ight appear a m arginal activity, even the
word ‘gardening* implies a leisure activity for those w ith tim e to spare. But
urban gardeners, both individual and collective, are also p art o f this new
agricultural revolution. In developing countries, it is already com m on for
large numbers o f urban families to be directly engaged in food production.
It has been estim ated that 1 0 0 —2 0 0 m illion urban households farm in
the city, providing food som e fo r 7 0 0 m illion p eo p le.19 In som e L atin
Am erican and A frican cities, up to one third o f vegetable demand is m et
by urban produ ction; in H o n g Kong and Karachi it is about half; and in
Shanghai m ore than fou r-fifth s. In Cuba, it is a central part o f the whole
co u ntry ’s food security. In industrialized countries, far fewer people grow
their own food. F o r those who do, though, it is an increasingly im portant
source o f psychological w ell-being.
In the U K , hom e gardens and allotm en ts used to be vital sources o f
food. D u ring the early 2 0 th century, there were 1.5 m illion hectares o f
allotm en ts producing about h a lf o f all fru it and vegetables consum ed
dom estically.Today, the area has fallen to less than 1 5 ,0 0 0 hectares, eroded
by dying in terest and grow ing urban d evelopm ent. N o n e th e le ss, the
3 0 0 ,0 0 0 fam ilies who garden these allotm ents are estim ated to produce
in excess o f 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 tonnes o f fresh produce each year, w orth U K £ 5 6 0
m illion pounds.20 In the U S, the N ational Gardeners Association estimates
that 3 5 m illion people grow food in their back gardens and allotm ents,
annually producing 6 b illio n kilogram m es o f food w orth U S $ 1 2 billion
to U S $ 1 4 billion per year. Elsewhere in Europe, urban gardening is hugely
popular in Germ any, w ith 5 0 ,0 0 0 Berliners growing their own food , and
in Russia, where urban and ro o fto p gardens are now com m on.
But why do people bother, when m od ern agriculture is so successful
at producing large am ounts o f food fo r industrialized econom ies? F o r
som e, the food is vital, particularly in econom ies in transition where food
supply is still insecure. B ut for m o st people, it is prim arily a m atter o f
psychological well-being and improved social relations, supplem ented by
the bonus o f nu tritiou s and healthy fo o d .21 U rb an gardens are special
places in the city, oases o f tranquillity and rep o se.T h ey tend, though, to
be invisible am ongst the pace and dynamics o f the city, and so are easily
j 86 A g r i-C u l t u r e

ignored and undervalued. O ne o f the world’s m ost intense urban spaces

is surely N ew York City. M o st people feel that they know N ew York, even
i f they have not been there. Yet, in amongst the skyscrapers another trans­
formation is underway.This is the G reenThum b movement o f community
gardens, led heroically for a decade and a h a lf by Jane Weissman. G reen­
T h u m b is New York C ity’s comm unity gardening programme, promoted
from within the m unicipal authority, and aimed at turning vacant lots
blighted with rubbish, rats and abandoned cars into thriving comm unity
gardens.
Derelict lands have been transformed, according to Jane Weissman, into
‘safe, thriving and productive oases of green’, and now about 2 0 ,0 0 0 households
are actively involved in managing 7 0 0 community gardens.22T hese gardens
produce U S S I m illion worth o f fruit and vegetables each year, and also
revitalize neighbourhoods, foster com m unity pride, provide safe meeting
places for local youngsters and seniors, and offer job training. But perhaps
more importantly, they are peoples little patches o f wildness in the city.
Bertha Jackson, o f the I2 7 t h Street Block Association in Central Harlem,
says: 'This is the beauty. Yearly we got two or three bushels of peachesfrom the tree. People
have comefrom near andf a r for Harlem grown peachesfrom our garden tree. The peach
that grew in Harlem.’ Nearby M ary Sciales says:

Our community garden was created by students, staff neighbours, community

workers and environment groups. Together we. . . have improved the environment,
which has made East New York a more beautiful place to work and live. Flowers
bloom, vegetables are harvested, the smell o f barbecues fills the air and the students
learn. They enjoy learning outside. . . and our gardens are an oasis o f beauty in
the deserts o f urban decay.

D onna A rm strong’s recent study o f 6 3 com m unity gardens in N ew York

State shows just how valuable these are to local people. She found that
they changed local resid en ts’ attitud es to th eir own neigh bourh ood,
resulting in improved care for properties, reduced littering and increased
pride in the locality. She also found that com m unity gardens promoted
social cohesion and encouraged people to work cooperatively on a range
o f local needs, such as shared child-care. In short, they improve social
capital and personal well-being. T h o se engaged in com m unity gardening
have crossed another frontier, with four out o f five saying that their mental
health has improved.
But not all is well. T hough Jane Weissman was honoured in 1 9 9 8 with
an appointm ent to the People’s H all o f Fame, the city authorities do not
like the gardens. T h e y do not recognize their value to local people, and
have transferred all resp o n sib ilities away from G reen T h u m b to the
 C r o s s in g t h i ; I n t er n a l F r o n t i e r s i 37

housing d ep artm en t.T h ey want the sites for buildings, and intend to have
them . T h e y are m issing the huge significance o f this revolution. Lydia
Brown o f Hast H arlem says:

I f you had seen that trash-filled lot, you ’d have said it would take a miracle to make
a garden. In time and with much hard work we accomplished the impossible. Now
we have something beautiful to look at —flow ers, fruits and vegetables for the
community. When people walk by, they compliment thegarden. One surprised person
said‘it’s magic’. So we called thegarden the Magic Carden. But, in reality, the magic
is within us.2i

C onnecting up the Prom ising Cases

T h e se cases, and the stories o f transform ation that form the backbone
o f this b o o k , are still in the m inority. Yet, tim e is sh ort, and the challenge
is simply en orm ou s.T h e time has com e to take seriously the opportunities
offered by this revolution in agricultural and food system s.There is already
prom ising evidence that it can work, and we should w onder: what would
be achieved i f we all realized that another future is p o ssib le?T h e state o f
the world and its com m unities is at stake. Sustainable agricultural and food
system s can right many wrongs; but, o f course, salvation will n o t com e
from these sources alone. U ltim ately, i f there is to be system ic change
centred on b o th individual tran sfo rm atio n s in th o u g h t and collective
changes in action, then it is a question o f politics and power.
As I have indicated, everyone is in favour o f the idea o f sustainability,
yet few seriously go beyond fine words. O n ly two countries in the world,
accom panied by som e progressive provinces, states or co u n ties w ithin
countries, have exp licit n ation al p o licies fo r sustainable agriculture to
encourage transitions in the w hole landscape. T h e re are also prom ising
advances w ithin som e sectors, and arising ou t o f specific program m es in
others. Yet, such sustainable systems o f food produ ction are clearly good
fo r whole nations. T h e y help to produce food in an efficient way. T h e y
are fairer and m ore equitable, offering real op p ortu nities for the h itherto
poorer and m arginalized groups to lead at least reasonable lives. T h e y help
to p ro tect nature and the vitally im p o rtan t, bu t often hidden, services
upon which we so depend.
W h e n governm ents or policy-m akers hesitate, then it will be necessary
for those who believe in this vision to organize and show the strength that
co m es fro m co lle ctiv e w ill. M o s t p eo p le have so m eth in g to gain by
su pportin g a sustainable agricultural revolution. B ut som e will feel they
have to o m uch to lose: eco no m ic power because a product is no longer
j 38 A g r i- C ulture

required; p olitical power because existing su p p ort erodes as new form s

o f social organization emerge; or personal power because the sun is setting
on an old idea. Yet, as we have seen, those who progress beyond the internal
frontiers originate from many places and perspectives. T h e re is nothing
to support a contention that only certain sorts o f people are able to make
such a transform ation. Equally, there is nothing to say that all individuals
w ill.T h is m illennium offers all kinds o f op portunities to make the future
sustainable fo r life on E arth . Puttin g the culture into agri-culture and the
w onder and m agic back into nature, together w ith co nn ectin g up food
systems along agroecological, knowledge-based and com m unity-oriented
principles, can, I believe, help in these wider transform ations.
T h is m eans th at we will need to develop entirely d ifferen t ways o f
thinking about the value o f food, and the additional services or side effects
that com e from sustainable agricultural systems. Public money that is used
to subsidize farm ers in industrialized countries, o r to support agricultural
developm ent in developing countries, should be targeted towards both the
provision o f public goods and services, and the creation o f fairer, m ore
equitable system s o f produ ction. So m e private m arkets, such as for carbon
sequestration, will provide further incom e to farm ers engaged in sustainable
ag ricu ltu re. F u r th e r so u rces o f in co m e w ill co m e fro m e co to u rism .
Farm ing m ust reorient itself as a multifunctional activity, with diverse cultural
and environm ental conn ections. An im p o rtan t step is the radical reform
o f national agricultural policies. W ith o u t such change, advances seen to
date will stay sm all scale and parochial. W ith it, a new d irection towards
a m ultipurpose and sustainable agriculture, tied closely to cultures and
com m unities, could becom e increasingly m ainstream . G et it right, and we
have m utually supportive, productive and interconnected system s. G et it
w rong, and we have productive system s that continue to underm ine their
own success by damaging the health o f nature, people and com m unities.
 Notes

C h a p te r I L a n d sca p es L o s t an d F o u n d

1 D ata on food production analysed from the F oo d and Agriculture O rg an­

ization's (F A O ’s) FAOSTAT database ( www.fao.org). D u ring the past 15 years,
aggregate p rodu ction in Europe has been largely stable due to supply manage­
m ent policies, whereas in the U S it has grown by 3 5 per cent.
2 W orld population was 3 .0 8 billion in 1 9 6 0 ; 3 .6 9 billio n in 1 9 7 0 ; 4 .4 4
b illio n in 1 9 8 0 ; and 5 .2 7 b illio n in 1 9 9 0 . T h e annual grow th rate o f world
population was 2.1 per cent in the late 1 9 6 0 s ; had fallen to 1.3 per cent during
the late 1 9 9 0 s ; and is projected by the U n ited N atio n s Population Fund, 1 9 9 9 ,
to fall further to I per cent by 2 0 1 5 , to 0 .7 per cent by 2 0 3 0 , and to just 0 .3
per cent by 2 0 5 0 .
3 F o r d etails o f food p o licy analyses and ch allen ges, see, in p articu lar,
materials from the International Food Policy Research Institute ( I F P R I ) (www.
ifpri.org) and FA O ( www.fao.org). F o r specific papers, see Pinstrup-A ndersen
and C o h en , 1 9 9 9 ; FA O , 2 0 0 0 a ; Pin stru p-A n dersen et al, 1 9 9 9 ; D elgado et al,
1999.
4 In the U S , U S $ 2 5 billion is spent each year by federal and state organiz­
ations to provide extra food fo r this 1 2 per cent o f the national population who
are food insecure. O n diets and obesity, see Eisinger, 1 9 9 8 ; Lang et al, 1 9 9 9 ;
W H O , 1 9 9 8 , 2 0 0 1 ; FAO, 2 0 0 0 a , 2 0 0 0 b ; Lang et al, 2 0 0 1 .
5 F o r m ore on the nu trition transition, see Popkin, 19 9 8 . D u ring the period
to 2 0 2 0 , the urban population in developing countries is expected to double to
nearly 3 .5 billion, while rural num bers will grow by only 3 0 0 m illion to 3 billion.
T h e num bers o f urban people w ill, fo r the first tim e in hum an history, have
exceeded those in rural areas. Su ch a change w ill also affect food consum ption.
As rural people move to urban areas, and as urban people’s disposable incom es
increase, so they tend to go through the nu trition transition — particularly from
rice to wheat, and from coarse grains to wheat and rice. T h e y also tend to eat
m ore livestock products, processed foods, and fruit and vegetables.
6 T h e annual demand fo r cereals is predicted by the IF P R I to grow from
1 4 0 0 m illion tonnes in 1 9 9 5 to 2 1 2 0 m illion tonnes by 2 0 2 0 . O f this, 2 .1 2
b illio n tonnes, 4 8 per cent will be for food and 21 per cent for anim al feed in
developing countries, and 8 per cent fo r fo o d and 2 3 per cent fo r anim al feed
j 90 A g r i-C u ltu r e C h a pter I: pp 1 —2 6

in ind ustrialized co u n tries. M e a t dem and is expected to d ou b le by 2 0 2 0 in

developing countries to 19 0 m illion tonnes per year, and increase by one quarter
in industrialized countries to 1 2 0 m illion tonnes.
7 O n average, intensive livestock fed a diet o f grain and silage produce only
1 megajoule o f m eat fo r every 3 m eg ajo u les o f grain eaten. T h e r e is an o th er
problem . As we eat m ore m eat, so cereals are increasingly diverted tor livestock
feed, and those in food poverty stay in poverty. Today, 7 2 per cent o f all cereals
co n su m ed in in d u stria liz ed co u n trie s is fo r liv esto ck feed . In d evelo p ing
countries, the pattern is inverted, with 7 4 per cent o f all cereal still being directly
consum ed by hum ans. O n the livestock revolution, see D elg ad o et al, 1 9 9 9 ;
R oseg rant et al, 1 9 9 7 . See also W h ite , 2 0 0 0 ; Seid l, 2 0 0 0 .
8 I w ould like to ack n o w led g e L in d a H a sse lstro m fo r h er fin e essay
A dd icted to W o rk ’ ( 1 9 9 7 ) , in which the idea o f converting hum an history to
generations is developed. M y estim ates are slightly d ifferent from hers, as I use
the dates o f 7 m illion years before present (B P ) for human divergence from apes,
1 2 ,0 0 0 B P for the start o f agriculture, and a figure o f 2 0 years for the average
generation length. F o r m ore, see D iam on d , 1 9 9 7 .
9 F o r m ore on collective action in agriculture, and the effects o f m odern
agriculture, see Balfour, 1 9 4 3 ; Huxley, I 9 6 0 ; Palm er, 1 9 7 6 ; Picardi and Siefert,
I 9 7 6 ;J o d h a , 1 9 9 0 ; O stro m , 19 9 0 ; Brom ley, 1 9 9 2 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 5 , I 9 9 8 ;B e r k e s
and Folke, 1 9 9 8 ; K othari et al, 1 9 9 8 . F o r a com prehensive review o f how social
system s have developed m anagem ent practices based on ecological knowledge
fo r dealing with the dynamics o f local ecosystem s, see Berkes and Folke (ed s),
1 9 9 8 . P etr K ro p o tk in was one o f the first w riters to give co llectiv e actio n
p ro m in en ce in his 1 8 9 8 b o o k Mutual Aid. H e drew a tten tio n to the ‘immense
importance which the mutual-support instincts, inherited by mankindfo r its extremely long evolution,
play even now in our modern society, which is supposed to rest on the principle “every onefo r himself,
and the Statef o r «//’” ( pxv). K ro p o tk in drew upon the history o f guilds and unions
in many countries, including craft guilds o f mediaeval cities, brotherhood groups
o f Scandinavia, artels and druzhestva o f Russia, amhari o f G eorgia, com m unes o f
France, and the Geburschaflen o f G erm any. ‘Organizations came into existence wherever
a group o j people —fishermen, hunters, travelling merchants, builders or settled craftsmen — came
together for a common pursuit’ (p 1 7 1 ).
1 0 C a to , M P ( 1 9 7 9 ) in H o o p e r, W D (e d ) (revised A sh, H B ) D i Agri
Cultura. M arcu s Porcius C ato , On Agriculture, and M arcus T erentiu s V arro, On
Agriculture, Harvard U niversity Press, Cam bridge, M assachusetts.
11 See Li W enhua ( 2 0 0 0 ) , Agro~Ecological Farming Systems in China. F o r a classic
text on C hinese agriculture, see F H K ing ( 1 9 9 1 ) Farmers o f Forty Centuries. H ere
he in tro d u ces the idea o f p erm an en t agriculture. F o r a review o f h isto ry o f
innovation in C hina, see T em ple ( 1 9 8 6 ) China: Land o f Discovery and Invention.
12 T h e dates o f birth s and deaths for these four are: Francis Bacon ( 15 6 1—
1 6 2 6 ) , G alileo G alilei ( 1 5 2 4 —1 6 4 2 ) , R ene D escartes ( 1 5 9 6 —1 6 5 0 ) and Isaac
N ew to n ( 1 6 4 2 —1 7 2 7 ) . T h o u g h the E n lig h te n m en t provided the b o o s t fo r
m od ern scien ces d iscon nection , it is im p o rtant to note that it has n o t affected
all sciences in the same way. T h e re is great diversity w ithin scien tific disciplines.
C h a p t e r I : pp I - 2 6 N otes 191

T h e r e is also g reat sig n ifican ce in die in stitu tio n al lo ca tio n o f, and pressures on,
scie n tific research.
1 3 T h e voiccs o f th e B a rth q u otes are all from Senanayake in Posey, 1 9 9 9 ,
pp1 2 5 -1 5 2 .
1 4 T h e s e p rin c ip le s are c o m m o n in B ra z il and E c u a d o r, w here D a n ie l
M a ta h o C a b ix i o f the Paraci people and C ristin a G ualinga o f the Q u ich a talk
a b o u t th e fu n d a m en ta l c o n n e c tio n s and d iffic u ltie s in m o d e rn tim es. F ir s t
C a b ix i:

We have our mythological hero who is railed Wasari. . . Wasari allocated territory to the different
Paraci groups. . . and taught them the technologies o f hunting and preparing and consuming
natural resources. Wasarifurther established political and economic principles revealing how to
deal with other human beings and nature. . . Our traditional territory o f 12 million hectares. . .
has been reduced to 1 2 0 0 hectares today. Now the Paraci have to face a number o f serious
limitations in order to survive.

Says G ualinga: ‘Nature, what you call biodiversity, is the primary thing that is in the jungle, in
the river; everywhere. It is part o f human life. Nature helps us to befree, but i f we trouble it, nature
becomes angry. All living things are equal parts o f nature and we have to caref o r each other’ (in
Posey, 1 9 9 9 ) .
1 5 F o r the story o f the C ree, see Berkes, 1 9 9 8 .
1 6 S e e H a rd in ( 1 9 6 8 ) The Tragedy o f the Commons.
1 7 S e e O lso n , 1 9 6 5 .
1 8 F o r the study o f 8 2 villages in In d ia, see Jo d h a, 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 9 1 . F o r m ore
o n the effects o f local institu tio ns on natural resources, see S co o n es, 1 9 9 4 ; P retty
and P im b e r t, 1 9 9 5 ; L each and M ea rn s, 1 9 9 6 ; P retty and S h a h , 1 9 9 7 ; G h im ire
and P im b e rt, 1 9 9 7 ; Sin g h and B allabh , 1 9 9 7 .
1 9 F o r the dangers o f ‘them ing ’ ou r urban and rural spaces and the attem pted
m anu facture o f co m m u n ity , see C o in , 1 9 9 2 ; G arreau, 1 9 9 2 ; Barker, 1 9 9 8 .
20 F o r m ore on the d ifferen t types o f th in k in g ab o u t the en viron m en t and
types o f sustainability, including p o st-m od ern views, see H u tch eo n , 1 9 8 9 ; N aess,
1 9 9 2 ; W o rste r, 1 9 9 3 ; B e n to n , 1 9 9 4 ; S o u l and L ease, 1 9 9 5 ; R o ls to n , 1 9 9 7 ;
B a rrett and G riz z le , 1 9 9 9 ; D o b s o n , 1 9 9 9 ; C o o p er, 2 0 0 0 a . It is in terestin g to
n o te th a t the term ‘e co lo g y ’ has now co m e to m ean m uch m ore than a scien tific
d is c ip lin e d e s c rib in g n a tu ra l p ro c e ss e s; it is a lso a n o u n th a t d e fin e s th e
environm ent as a w hole. F o r a good co llection o f the w ritings on the ph ilosophies
o f en viron m en talism , see Sessio n s ( 1 9 9 5 ) Deep Ecology f o r the 2 1 st Century.
21 F o r m ore on the landscape scale, see K lijn and V os, 2 0 0 0 ; Forem an, 1 9 9 7 ;
C o o p er, 2 0 0 0 a .
2 2 S e e C ro n o n et al, 1 9 9 2 ; D eu tsch , 1 9 9 2 ; B ru n k h o rst et al, 1 9 9 7 .
23 S e e B en to n , 1 9 9 4 ; G ray, 1 9 9 9 , p 6 3 .
2 4 S e e B en n ett, 1 9 9 9 , p i 0 4 .
25 F o r T h o r c a u qu ote, sec N ash , 1 9 7 3 , p 8 4 — qu oted , in tu rn , from a speech
b v T h o r e a u o n 2 3 A p ril 1 8 5 1 to th e C o n co rd L yceum . F o r M u ir q u o te, see
O elsch laeger, 1 9 9 1 . Se e also N a sh , 1 9 7 3 ; O elsch laeger, 1 9 9 1 ; Sch am a, 1 9 9 6 .
S ee also V andergeest and D u P u is, 1 9 9 6 .
19 2 A g r i-C u lture C h a p t e r I : pi>1 - 2 6

2 6 W orster, 1 9 9 3 , p 5.
2 7 F o r a good review o f T h o reau , see O elschlaeger, 19 9 1 , pp 13 3 —17 1 .
2 8 Q u o tes are from T h o rea u s A Winter Walk, p i 6 7 ; and T h o reau s Maine Woods,
p p 9 3 —9 5 . Also, see The Writings o f H D Thoreau, volumes 1 -6 , Princeton University
Press, 1 9 8 1 - 2 0 0 0 .
2 9 See C oop er, 2 0 0 0 b .
3 0 See N ash, 1 9 7 3 , p 3. F o r a discussion o f the static and dynam ic nature
o f locality and our desire, or otherwise, to conserve it, see Scru ton , 1 9 9 8 , in Town
and Country. C om m on G round, a U K charity, makes this p oin t in the recent book
on com m unity orchards: ‘defining beauty as mountains, and richness as rarity, has not only
devalued the remainder, but it has diminished people’s confidence to speak outf o r ordinary things. . .
everyday places are as vulnerable as the special’. In the com m on place and the everyday,
we fo rm d eep er cu ltu ral relatio n s w ith natu re and the land. See C o m m o n
G ro u n d s The Common Ground Book o f Orchards, 2 0 0 0 .
31 In O k ri, 1 9 9 6 , Birds o f Heaven, p 2 6 .
3 2 R ack h am , 1 9 8 6 .
3 3 See Suzuki, 1 9 9 9 . F o r m ore on the stories o f Japan, see Suzuki and Oiwa
( 1 9 8 6 ) The Japan We Never Knew.
3 4 See Berry, 1 9 9 8 .
35 M abey ( 1 9 9 6 ) Flora Britannica. F o r quotes, see p p 7, 1 6 2 —1 6 3 , 2 3 2 .
3 6 F olk lore author R alp h W h itlo c k ( 1 9 7 9 ) suggests that ‘all superstitions and
customs are logical i f looked at in the right way’.
3 7 T h e contrast with India is striking. D arshan Sh ankar ( 1 9 9 8 ) estim ates
that there are I m illion local people in India, such as traditional birth attend ­
ants, bone-setters, herbal healers and wandering m onks, who still have extensive
knowledge o f the uses o f plants and animals, including another 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 licensed
practitioners o f systems o f m edicine such as Ayurveda and S id d h a .T h e num ber
of plants used for m edicinal, food , fodder and fuel uses can be extraordinary,
with som e 7 5 0 0 species across India with described values. Individual groups
may have knowledge o f several hundred species, such as the M ahadev Koli tribals
who use m ore than 6 0 0 species, and the K arjat tribals o f the W estern G hats who
use 5 0 9 species.
3 8 O f the 5 0 0 0 —7 0 0 0 oral languages persisting worldwide, 3 2 per cen t are
in A sia, 3 0 per cen t in A frica, 1 9 per cen t in the P acific, 15 per cen t in the
Am ericas, and 3 per cent in Europe. See G rim es, 1 9 9 6 .
3 9 M a ffi, 1 9 9 9 , p 3 1 .
40 F o r m ore on the T o h o n o O ’od h am , see the w ork o f O fe lia Z ep ed a
at the U niversity o f A rizona on reinvigorating the language and its links to the
land ( w w w .u .a riz o n a .e d u /~ m iz u k i/w a in /w ain0.htm l). T h e T o h o n o O ’odham
abandoned the m ore com m on term for their culture, Papago, in the 1 9 8 0 s , as
it means ‘bean eaters’.
41 M o lin a , 1 9 9 8 , p 3 1 .
4 2 Evers and M o lin a , 1 9 8 7 .
43 F o r a d iscu ssion o f the use o f language and rh eto ric to d escribe the
transform ation o f the w estern interior o f the U S, sec Lewis ( 1 9 8 8 ) in Cosgrove
and D a n ie ls (e d s ). F o r an analysis o f the linkage betw een language and an
C h apter I: ppI -2 6 . C h apter 2: pp2 7 -5 I N o te s 193

understanding of the land amongst the Innu of Canada, see Sam son, 2 0 0 2 . Even
when taught in school, young Innu are stripped o f the experience o f being on
the land — they arc taught a h u nting language in a settin g th at presum es
agriculture as the dom inant activity rather than hunting.
4 4 See C ronon et al, 1 9 9 2 , pp4, 18.
4 5 O n the work o f Frederick Jackson Turner ( 1 9 3 0 ) , W illiam Cronon and
colleagues suggest that 'it would be a shame to lose the power of this insight just because Turner
surrounded it with a lot o f erroneous, misleading and wrong-headed baggage’ (p 6 ).
4 6 In N ash, 1 9 7 3 , P2 3 .
4 7 In N ash, 1 9 7 3 , p 2 7 .
4 8 See M iles, 1 9 9 2 ; Jennings, 1 9 8 5 .
4 9 See C ronon et al, 1 9 9 2 , p i 5.
5 0 Assuming a date o f 3 0 ,0 0 0 —3 5 ,0 0 0 years BP for human arrival on the
Australian continent —see Diam ond, 1 9 9 7 . Sec also Sm ith, 1 9 8 5 ; Carter, 1 9 8 7 .
51 See Carter, 1 9 8 7 , pp9, 4 1 , 5 4 .
5 2 F or more details on the problem s o f dryland salinity, see the Australian
N ational Drylands Salinity Programme ( www.lwrrdc.gov.au/ndsp/index.htm).
See also Pannell, 2 0 0 1 , salinity policy.
5 3 See M oorehead, 1 9 6 6 ; Sm ith , 1 9 8 5 , pix; Sm ith, 1 9 8 7 , p 80.
5 4 M arkTw ain is quoted in M iles, 19 9 2 , p 5 2 . For later quote, see p p 65—6 6 .

C h a p te r 2 M o n o sca p es

1 Taking 19 6 1 as the baseline of 1 0 0 , total food production increased in

the following 4 0 years (to the year 2 0 0 0 ) to 2 4 5 for the whole world, to 2 5 2
for Africa, to 3 8 1 for Asia, to 2 9 6 for Latin America, to 2 0 2 for the U S, to 168
for western Europe, to 5 7 0 for China, and to 15 5 for the U K . Again taking 1961
as a baseline of 1 0 0 for per-capita food production, the index in 2 0 0 0 was 125
for the world, 91 for Africa, 1 7 6 for Asia, 1 2 8 for Latin America, 1 3 7 for the
U S , 1 4 2 for western Europe, 2 9 9 for China, and 1 3 9 for the U K . D ata were
analysed from the F o o d and A gricultural O rg an ization ’s (F A O ’s) database,
FAOSTAT, Rom e.
2 Cosgrove and D aniels ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Iconography o f Landscape.
3 Barrell ( 1 9 8 0 ) The Dark Side of the Landscape.
4 F or a fine analysis o f English landscape painting by G ainsborough ,
Richard W ilson , J M W Turner, John Constable and George R obert Lewis, see
Prince, 1 9 8 8 , in Cosgrove and Daniels (eds).
5 Before 1 7 1 4 , there were eight parliamentary acts to enclose open fields.
T here were then 18 between 1 7 1 4 —1 7 2 7 under George I; 2 2 9 between 1 7 2 7 —
1 7 6 0 under George II; and 2 5 0 0 under George III and Queen V ictoria between
1 7 6 1 —1 8 4 4 . For details o f the enclosures o f open fields and the com m ons, see
H oskins, 1 9 5 5 ; W ordie, 1 9 8 3 ; Mingay, 1 9 7 7 .
6 F or m ore on the com m ons o f England and W'ales, see D F .T R , 19 9 8 ;
English Nature, 1 9 9 9 ; S h o rt and W inter, 1 9 9 9 ; Sh ort, 2 0 0 0 .
1 94 A g r i- C u i .t u r e C h a p te r 2: p p 2 7 - 5 I

7 See Lord Ernie (Prothero, R ) ( 1 9 12 ) English Farming. Past and Present for a
review o f writers o f the tim e, such as Taylor, S ( 1 6 5 2 ) Common Good; M oore, A
( 1 6 5 3 ) Bread for the Poor. . . Promised by Enclosure o f the Wastes and Common Grounds;Lee
J ( 1 6 5 6 ) A Vindication oj a Regulated Enclosure; H artlib, S ( 1 6 5 1 ) Legacie; Tusser, T
( 1 5 8 0 ) Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, Fitzherbert, A ( 1 5 2 3 ) The Boke of
Husbandries N orden J ( 1 6 0 7 ) The Surveyors Dialogue; Houghton J ( 1 6 8 1 ) A Collection
o f Lettersfo r the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade. F or a comprehensive summary
o f 4 4 7 agricultural writers, see D onaldson, 1 8 5 4 .
8 See Ernie, 1 9 1 2 , p i 2 0 .
9 See C obbett, 1 8 3 0 .
10 See Pretty, 19 9 1.
11 See Hum phries, 1 9 9 0 .
12 From John Clare’s journal entry for Wednesday, 2 9 Septem ber 1 8 2 4 , p 37
in T ibbie, A (ed ) The Journal; Essays; The Journey from Essex, Carcanet N ew Press,
M anchester. F or a m asterpiece on country life and social history o f the time,
see Clare’s poem 'T h e Shepherd s Calendar’ (ed R obinson et al). For more on
his natural history writing, see Grainger (ed ) 1 9 9 3 ; Blythe, 1 9 9 9 . Clare's own
village o f H elpston in N ortham ptonshire was enclosed 1 8 1 6 , and throughout
his writings in journals and poems he referred to the disappearance o f secret
pathways, narrow lanes, old stone pits and diverse hedgerows.These are the long-
vanished features o f rural life th at form the alm anac o f 'T h e S h ep h erd ’s
Calendar’, from the opening in January ‘withering and keen the winter comes, While comfort
flies in close shut rooms’ to D ecem ber’s close with And boiling, elder berry wine, To drink
the Christmas eve’s good bye’. T h e losses, though, continued after enclosure. In 1 8 2 5 ,
he says in his journal: 7 thought thatfresh intrusions would interrupt and spoil my solitudes
after the Inclosure they despoil a bogey place that is famous for orchids at Rovce Wood end’
(Grainger, 1 9 8 3 , p i 6 9 ).
13 Q uoted in Ernie, 19 12, pp 1 1 5 —116.
14 F or the Black Act, see F. P T h o m p son ( 1 9 7 5 ) Whigs and Hunters.
15 T h o m p son , 1 9 7 5 , p p 91, 1 5 6 .
16 F or conflicts in Germany, France, M exico and Russia, see Engels, 19 5 6 ;
Lewis, 1 9 6 4 ; Bloch, 1 9 7 8 ; Shanin, 1 9 8 6 . For more on the value o f cooperation
in rural com m unities throughout Europe, see also Blum, 19 7 1.
17 Gadgil and Guha ( 1 9 9 2 ) This Fissured Land, p 2 .
18 Jodha, 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 0 .
19 F or the review of the value o f the com m ons in India and Africa, see Beck
and N aism ith, 2 0 0 1 . See also Pasha, 1 9 9 2 ; Beck, 1 9 9 4 ; Agarwal, 1 9 9 5 ; Iyengar
and Shukla, 1 9 9 9 ; Beck and G hosh, 2 0 0 0 .
2 0 Q uoted in Gadgil and Guha, 1 9 9 2 , p p 88—8 9 , 1 2 1 .
21 F o r a good survey o f the sp e cific roles o f women in the collective
management o f natural resources, see Agarwal, 19 9 7 . O n the folly o f privatizing
and standardizing nature, and of letting only a few control power, see Steinberg,
1995.
2 2 For details o f the Balinese subaks and effects o f m odern rice in Indonesia,
see C ollier et al, 1 9 7 3 ; Poffenberger and Zurbuchen, 1 9 8 0 ; Pretty, 1 995a.
C h apter 2: pp2 7 -5 I N o te s 195

23 F o r m ore on die nature o f adat, see G eertz, 1 9 9 3 . A lso see Segundad,

1 9 9 9 and G apor, 2 0 0 1 .
2 4 Sec Peluso, 1 9 9 6 . Sh e also m akes the follow ing statem en t: ‘By depicting
resources users (the local ones) as wild, destructive (or illiterate; uneducated, backward or non-
innovative), state resource management agencies think they can justify their use o j militaristic
environmental protection.’
2 5 See P retty and P im b ert, 1 9 9 5 ; S c o tt, 1 9 9 8 .
2 6 See D ipera, 1 9 9 9 , pp 1 3 1 —1 3 2 .
2 7 A dam s and M cSh an e, 1 9 9 2 . F o r a h isto ry o f A frican land use, see also
Reader, 1 9 9 7 . Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (in G him ire and P im bert, 1 9 9 7 ) quote
C o lo n e l M ervy n C o w in , an early p re serv atio n ist w ho helped to set up the
Serengeti N ation al Park, which was to be a ‘cultured person’s playground’, w ith the
main purpose to ‘protect nature from the natives’.
2 8 F o r details o f the Barabaig, see Lane, 19 9 0 , 19 9 3 ; Lane and Pretty, 19 9 0 .
Partial evaluations were by Sto ne, 1 9 8 2 , and Young, 1 9 8 3 , both quoted in Lane,
1 9 9 0 . T h e elders are quoted by Paavo, 1 9 8 9 , and recorded by Lane, 1 9 9 0 .
2 9 See G adgil and G uha, 1 9 9 2 , p l 2 5 .
3 0 F o r an alternative view, th at B ritish foresters w orked w ith a genuine
interest in conservation rather than sim ply for m axim izing econom ic returns, see
Grove, 19 9 0 , in M acK en zie (e d ) Imperialism and the Natural World. See also A rnold
(1 9 9 6 ) Colonising Nature, C h apter 6.
31 In K othari et al, 1 9 8 9 .
3 2 See R oy and Jackson, 1 9 9 3 ; C olchester, 1 9 9 7 ; D u ffy, 2 0 0 0 .
3 3 G adgil, 1 9 9 8 , P2 2 9 ; Khare, 1 9 9 8 .
3 4 See M u ir ( 1 9 1 1 ) A Summer in the Sierra. F o r quotes used in this section,
see p p 3 1 , 4 3 —4 7 , 7 7 . F o r a com prehensive text o f all o f Joh n M u ir ’s eight
journeys, see the single volume The Eight Wilderness-Discovery Books (Story o j My Boyhood
and Youth; A Thousand Mile Walk in the Gulf; The First Summer in the Sierra; The Mountains
o f California; O ur Natural Parks; The Yosemite; Travels in Alaska; Steep Trails).
3 5 See Scham a, 1 9 9 6 .
3 6 T h is enclave thinking is nowhere put b etter than by Avery, 1 9 9 5 , in his
bo o k Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic.
3 7 T h e U S W ild ern ess A ct o f 1 9 6 4 defines wilderness as a place ‘where man
himself is a visitor who does not remain’, in G om ez-P o m p a and Kaus, 1 9 9 2 .
3 8 Se c N ash, 1 9 7 3 .
3 9 T h e data on protected areas have been analysed from the com prehensive
d atab ase at U N E P / W C M C ( 1 9 9 7 ) United N ations List o j Protected Areas
( w w w .u nep-w cm c.org/p r o te c te d _ a re a s /d a ta /un-eaanalysis.htm ).
4 0 T h e largest designators include the U S and the U K ( 2 1 per cen t); N ew
Zealand ( 2 4 per cen t); G erm any ( 2 7 per cen t);T anzan ia ( 2 8 per cen t); Australia
( 2 9 per ce n t); D enm ark ( 3 2 per cen t); E cu ad or and Saudi A rabia ( 3 4 per cen t);
Kiribati ( 3 9 per cen t); Belize ( 4 0 per cen t); Venezuela (6 1 per cen t); and Slovakia
( 7 6 per cen t).
1 9 6 A g r i-C u i .t u r e C h a pter 2: pp2 7 —5 1

41 Table 2.1 N u m b e r a n d area o f p ro te c te d areas according to protection

re g im e s (end o f 1990s)

Africa Asia and Latin Rest Total

Pacific America and of
Caribbean World

Number of protected areas

Total 1254 3706 2362 23,028 30,350

Number in categories 346 944 936 8,478 10.704

1-3 (nature reserves,
wildernesses, national
parks and monuments)

Number in categories 908 2762 1426 14,550 19,646

4-6 (habitat and
species areas,
protected landscapes,
managed resources)
Proportion in 28% 25% 40% 37% 35%
categories 1-3 (%)

Area o f protected areas (million square kilometres)

Total area 2.06 1.85 2.16 7.16 13.23

Area in categories 1.21 0.72 1.37 3.82 7.12

1-3 (strict protection)

Area in categories 0.85 1.13 0.79 3.34 6.11

4-6 (managed resources)

Proportion in categories
1-3 (%) 59% 39% 63% 53% 54%

Source: adapted from UNEP-WCMC, 2001

42 In Pcluso, 1 9 9 6 .
43 S e c M a n n in g , 1 9 8 9 ; K o th a ri ct al, 1 9 8 9 ; W e st and B rech in , 1 9 9 2 ;
O elschlaeger, 1 9 9 1; P im b ert and Pretty, 1 9 9 5 .
4 4 See G om ez-P o m p a and Kaus, 1 9 9 2 . A lso Bruner et al, 2 0 0 1 .
45 F o r a summ ary o f recent debates on fu n ctio n alist (th o se seeing hum ans
as p art o f and em bedded in n atu re) and co m p o sitio n al (th o se who only see
hum ans as destroyers o f pristine nature) po sition s, see recent articles in C on­
servation Biology by C a llico tt et al ( 1 9 9 9 ) , critical responses by H u nter ( 2 0 0 0 ) and
W illers ( 2 0 0 0 ) , and responses to these by C allico tt et al ( 2 0 0 0 ) . F o r a view from
the ‘nay-sayers’, those who disagree w ith com m unity p articipation o r any use o f
resources in protected areas, see Spinage, 1 9 9 8 .
4 6 F o r saloehi and satoyama, see Environm ent A gency o f Japan, 1 9 9 9 . Satoyama
are hilly regions blessed w ith coppiced forests, natural spring water, and a stable
farm ing environm ent with little damage from flood s o r dry spells. F o r the best
review o f Japanese art o f the E d o period, see Royal A cademy o f A rts, 19 8 1.
C h apter 2: pp2 7 -5 I. C h apter 3: pp5 2 -7 7 N otes 19 7

M an y o f the m ost fam ous images o f Japan com e from the E d o period, such as
H o k u sai’s images o f M o u n t Fuji painted in the 1 8 3 0 s . F o r m ore on the Japanese
com m ons, see M cK ean , 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 9 2 . F o r m ore on cultures and land, sec Suzuki
and Oiwa, 1 9 9 6 . F or a comprehensive review o f M ansanobu Fukuoka’s invention
o f natural farm ing, sec Fukuoka ( 1 9 8 5 ) The Natural Way o j Farming.
4 7 See New by, 1 9 8 8 . F o r a discussion o f landscape ecology and the value
o f patchiness, see Selm an, 1 9 9 3 . F o r a review o f the value o f diversity in agro­
ecosystem s and in landscapes, see S w ift et al, 1 9 9 6 . F o r a review o f m osaic
landscapes, see Ryszkow ski, 1 9 9 5 ; K lijn and V os, 2 0 0 0 .
4 8 T h e post-m od ern , according to architect Charles Jenks, has five elements.
It works on several levels at on ce; it is a hybrid drawing on many tradition s; it
is rich in language, particularly m etaphor; it is new and enduring; and it responds
to the m ultiplicity o f a particular place. All o f these features apply directly to
ag ricu ltu ral system s. F o r an excellen t d iscu ssion o f the au th o ritarian high-
m odernism o f L c C orbusier, see S c o tt ( 1 9 9 8 ) Seeing Like a Stale, C hapters 3 —4,
p p 8 7 -1 4 6 .
49 In m ost industrialized countries, there is yet to emerge the idea that nature
and food p rod u ction can com e from the same process. In farm ers’ and policy­
m akers’ minds, these areas are separate. It is fine to ‘green the edge’ o f farm ing,
bu t n o t yet accep tab le to ‘green the m id d le’. In A ustralia, accord ing to R u th
Beilin, this means that the last decades extraordinary Landcare movement o f rural
social organization ‘is doomed lo act within the existing paradigm o f productive landscapes,
with conservation zones created on the edges’. G overnm ent m oney furthers this process
o f keeping conservation outside o f productive agriculture. In Europe, governm ent
program m es have supported agri-environm ental program m es to create patches
o f w ild life and n o n -farm ed h a b itat p recisely in th o se areas th at n o t highly
productive. See Beilin, 2 0 0 0 , p5.
5 0 F o r quotes, se e T h o re a u ’ s Walden, pplOO, 1 6 4 —1 8 0 , 3 6 2 .
51 See L op ez, 1 9 8 6 , pxxii.
5 2 Q u o ted in A rnold, 1 9 9 6 .
5 3 F o r a summary o f recent landscape ecology and science, see K lijn and Vos,
2000 .
5 4 F or a discussion o f the agricultural expansion in E l Peten, see K atz, 2 0 0 0 .

C h a p te r 3 R e a lity C h e q u e s

I O n the cheapness o f fo o d , D o n a ld W o rste r recog nized th is ab o u t a

decade ago:

The fo rm experts merely assume, on the basis o j marketplace behaviour; that the public wants
cheapness above all else. Cheapness, o j course, is supposed to require abundance, and abundance
is supposed to come from greater economies o j scale, more concentrated economic organization,
and more industrialized methods. The entire basis for that assumption collapses ij the marketplace
is a poor or imperfect rejUctor of what people want (W o rster, 1 9 9 3 , The Wealth o j Nature,
p 8 7 ).
1 9 8 A g r i-C u i .t u r e C h a pter 3 : p i> 5 2 -7 7

2 See A stor and Row ntree, 1 9 4 5 , p p 3 3 , 4 7 .

3 F o r m ore on G eorge Stapled on , see C onford ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Organic Tradition,
p p I9 2 -I9 3 , 1 9 6 -1 9 7 .
4 D esp ite my regular use o f these five term s as capitals, I agree with the
m isgivings that m any have. C apital im plies an asset, and assets should be looked
after, protected and built up. But as a term , capital is problem atic for two reasons:
it im plies m easurability and transferability. Because the value o f som ething can
be assigned a single m onetary value, it appears to m atter n o t i f it is lost because
we could sim ply allocate the required m oney to buy another, or transfer it from
elsewhere. However, we know that this is nonsense. N ature and its cultural and
so cia l m ean in g s are n o t so easily rep laceab le. N a tu re is n o t a co m m o d ity ,
reducible only to m on etary values. N o netheless, as term s, natural capital and
social capital have their uses in reshaping thinking around basic questions, such
as what is agriculture for, and what system works best? f or further discussions,
see B en to n , 1 9 9 8 ; Bourdieu, 1 9 8 6 ; C o lem an , 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 0 ; P u tn am , 1 9 9 5 ;
C o stanza et al, 1 9 9 9 ; B en ton , 1 9 9 8 ; Carney, 1 9 9 8 ; F lo ra, 1 9 9 8 ; G ro o ta ert,
1 9 9 8 ; O stro m , 1 9 9 8 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ; Scoon es, 1 9 9 8 ; U p h o ff, 1 9 9 8 ; P retty and
W ard, 2 0 0 1 .
5 W orster, 1 9 9 3 , p 9 2 .
6 See Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ; FAO, 1 9 9 9 ; Conw ay and Pretty, 19 9 1; A ltieri, 1 9 9 5 ;
Pingali and Roger, 1 9 9 5 ; Conway, 1 9 9 7 .
7 F or m ore on the definitions and principles o f sustainable agriculture, see
A ltie ri, 1 9 9 5 , I 9 9 9 ; T h r u p p , 1 9 9 6 ; Conw ay, 1 9 9 7 ; P retty , 1 9 9 5 , 1 9 9 8 ;
D rinkw ater et al, 1 9 9 8 ;T ilm a n , 1 9 9 8 ; H in ch liffe et al, 1 9 9 9 ; Z h u et al., 2 0 0 0 ;
W olfe, 2 0 0 0 .
8 An externality is any action that affects the welfare of, or o p p ortu n ities
available to, an individual or group w ithout direct payment or com pensation, and
may be positive or negative. See Baum ol and O ates, 1 9 8 8 ; Pearce and Turner,
1 9 9 0 ; F F A , 1 9 9 8 ; Brouwer, 1 9 9 9 ; P retty et al, 2 0 0 0 . E co n o m ists distinguish
between ‘tech n olog ical’ or physical externalities, and ‘pecuniary’, or price effect,
externalities. Pecuniary externalities arise, for example, when individuals or firm s
purchase or sell large enough quantities o f a good or service to affect price levels.
T h e change in price levels affects people w ho are n o t directly involved in the
original transactions, but w ho now face higher o r lower prices as a result o f those
original transactions. T h e s e pecuniary externalities help som e groups and hu rt
others, but they do n o t necessarily constitu te a ‘failure’ o f the m arket economy.
An exam ple o f a pecuniary externality is the rising co st o f housing fo r local
people in rural villages that results from high er-in com e workers from m etro­
politan areas m oving away from urban cores and bidding up the price o f housing
in those villages. Pecuniary externalities are a legitim ate public concern, and may
m erit a public policy response.Technological externalities, however, do constitute
a form o f ‘m arket failu re'. D u m p in g p esticid es sewage in to a lake, w ith o u t
paym ent by the polluter to those who are adversely affected, is a classic example
o f a techn olog ical externality. T h e m arket fails in this instance because m ore
pollution occurs than would be the case i f the market or other institutions caused
C h a pter 3: pp5 2 -7 7 N o te s 199

the polluter to bear the full costs o f its actions. It is technological externalities
that are commonly termed 'externalities’ in most environmental literature (see
Davis and Kamien, 1972; Common, 1995; Knutson et al, 1998).
9 For more on the value o f nature’s goods and services, see Abramovitz,
19 9 7 ; Costanza et al, 1997, 1999; Daily, 1 9 9 7 ; and Ecological Economics, 1999,
vol 2 5 (1 ).
10 See Pimentel et al, 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 5 ; Rola and Pingali, 1 9 9 3 ; Pingali and
Roger, 1 9 9 5 ; Evans, 1 9 9 5 ; Steiner et al, 1 9 9 5 ; Fleischer and Waibel, 1 9 9 8 ;
Waibel and Fleischer, 19 9 8 ; Bailey et al, 19 9 9 ; Norse et al, 2 0 0 0 .The data from
these studies are not easily comparable in their original form as different
frameworks and methods o f assessment have been used. M ethodological
concerns have also been raised about some studies. Some have noted that several
effects could not be assessed in monetary terms, while others have appeared to
be more arbitrary (eg the U S $2 billion cost o f bird deaths in the U S is arrived
at by multiplying 6 7 million losses by U S $ 3 0 a bird: see Pimentel et al, 1992).
T h e Davison et al (1 9 9 6 ) study on the Netherlands agriculture was even more
arbitrary. It added an estimate o f the costs that farmers would incur to reach
stated policy objectives, and these were based on predicted yield reductions o f
10 —2 5 per cent arising from neither cheap nor preferable technologies, which led
to a large overestimate o f environmental damage (see Bowles and Webster, 19 9 5 ;
Crosson, 19 9 5 ; Pearce andTinch, 1998; van der Bijl and Bleumink, 1997).
11 On the effects o f pesticides in rice, see Rola and Pingali, 1993; Pingali
and Roger, 1995.
12 Hartridge and Pearce, 2 0 0 1 .
13 See Pretty et al, 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 0 1. These arc likely to be conservative estimates
o f the real costs. Some costs are known to be substantial underestimates, such
as acute and chronic pesticide poisoning o f humans, monitoring costs, eutro-
phication o f reservoirs and the restoration o f all hedgerow losses. Some currently
cannot be calculated, such as dredging to maintain navigable water, flood
defences, marine eutrophication and poisoning o f domestic pets. T h e costs o f
returning the environment or human health to pristine conditions were not
calculated, and treatment and prevention costs may be underestimates o f how
much people might be willing to pay in order to see positive externalities created.
T h e data also do not account for time lags between the cause of a problem and
its expression as a cost, as some processes that have long since ceased may still be
causing costs. Some current practices, furthermore, may not yet have caused costs,
and this study did not include the externalities arising from transporting food
from farms to manufacturers, processors, retailers and, finally, to consumers.
14 See Pretty et al, 2 0 0 1 .
15 T h e governments Office o f the Director General o f Water Services sets
industry price levels every five years, which determine the maximum levels o f
water bills and specify investments in water quality treatment. During the 1990s,
the water industry undertook pesticide and nitrate removal schemes, resulting
in the construction o f 120 plants for pesticide removal and 3 0 for nitrate removal
(O fw at, 1 9 9 8 ). Ofwat estimates that water companies will spend a further
2 0 0 A g r i- C u i.tu r e C h a pter 3 : p i> 5 2 -7 7

U K £ 6 0 0 m illio n betw een 2 0 0 0 —2 0 0 5 on cap ital expend iture alone due to

continuing d eterioration o f 'raw water’ quality due to all factors. O fw at predicts
capital expenditure for pesticides to fall to U K £ 8 8 m illion per year at the end
o f the I9 9 0 s /e a r ly 2 0 0 0 s , and for nitrate to fall to U K £ 8 .3 m illion per year.
A lthough O fw at has sought to standardize reporting, individual com panies
rep ort that water treatm ent costs in different ways. M o st distinguish treatm ent
fo r pesticides, nitrate, Cryptosporidium, and several m etals (iro n , m anganese and
lead). T h e rem aining treatm ent costs for phosphorus, soil removal, arsenic and
other m etals appear under a category labelled ‘oth er’. O f the 2 8 water com panies
in England and W ales, 3 rep ort no expenditure on treatm ent whatsoever; and a
further 3 do n o t disaggregate treatm ent costs, with all appearing u n d e r‘o th er’.
Tw enty com panies rep ort expenditure on removal o f pesticides, 11 on nitrates,
and 1 0 on Cryptosporidium. It is impossible to tell from the records whether a stated
zero expenditure is actually zero, o r whether this has been placed in the ‘o th er’
category. U sing O fw at and water com p an ies’ returns, we estim ate that 5 0 per
cen t o f expenditure under the ‘o th e r’ category refers to the rem oval o f agri­
culturally related m aterials.
1 6 W e originally calculated the annual external co sts o f these gases to be
U K £ 2 8 0 m illio n fo r m eth ane, U K £ 7 3 8 m illio n fo r n itro u s oxide, U K £ 4 7
m illion for carbon dioxide, and U K £ 4 8 m illion for am m onia. But a later analysis
of m arginal costs (H artrid ge and Pearce, 2 0 0 1 ) suggests that costs are lower for
m ethane ( U K £ 8 3 m illion), nitrous oxide ( U K £ 2 9 0 m illion ) and carbon dioxide
( U K £ 2 2 m illio n ), putting the total at U K £ 4 4 4 m illion per year.
1 7 D E T R , 1 9 9 8 a , 1 9 9 8 b ; Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ; C am p bell et al, 1 9 9 7 ; Pain and
Pienkow ski, 1 9 9 7 ; M ason , 1 9 9 8 ; Siriw ardena et al, 1 9 9 8 ; Krebs et al, 1 9 9 9 .
18 R ep etto and Baliga, 1 9 9 6 ; Pearce a n d T in ch , 1 9 9 8 ; H S E , 1 9 9 8 a ; 1 9 9 8 b ;
Pretty, 1 9 9 8 .
19 Fatalities from pesticides at work in E urope and N o rth Am erica are rare:
one a decade in the U K , and eight a decade in C alifo rn ia. In the U K , a variety
of in stitu tio n s co llect m ortality and m orb id ity data; but in C alifo rn ia, where
there is the m ost com prehensive rep orting system in the world, official records
show that 1 2 0 0 —2 0 0 0 farmers, farm workers and the general public are poisoned
each year (see C D FA , passim; Pretty, 19 9 8 ) . T h ere appears to be greater risk from
pesticides in the hom e and garden where children are m ost likely to suffer. In
B rita in , 6 0 0 —1 0 0 0 p eo p le need h o sp ita l tre a tm e n t each year fro m hom e
poisoning.
2 0 O n food poisoning in the U K , see P H L , 1 9 9 9 ; Evans et al, 1 9 9 8 ; W all
et al, 1 9 9 6 . F o r a study o f fo o d -b o rn e illnesses in Sweden, see Lindqvist et al,
2 0 0 1 . W h e n bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( B S E ) was first identified in
late 19 8 6 , research confirm ed that it was a m em ber o f a group o f transmissible
diseases occurring in animals and humans. It appeared sim ultaneously in several
places in the U K , and has since occurred in native-born cattle in other countries.
By m id 2 0 0 1 , m ore than 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 cases had been co n firm ed in the U K , the
epidem ic having reached a peak in 1 9 9 2 . T h e lin k betw een B S E and variant
Creutzvcldt-Jakob Disease ( C J D ) in humans was confirm ed in 1 9 9 6 ; 1 0 0 deaths
C h apter 3: pp5 2 -7 7 N otes 2 0 1

from C J D have occu rred to 2 0 0 1 . T h e ann ual ex tern a l co sts o f B S E were

U K £ 6 0 0 m illion at the end o f the 1 9 9 0 s . See N A O , 1 9 9 8 ; W H O , 2 0 0 1 . By
m id 2 0 0 1 , there had been 1 8 1 ,0 0 0 cases o f B S E reported in the U K , 6 4 8 in
Ireland, 5 6 4 in Portugal, 3 8 1 in Sw itzerland, 3 2 3 in France, 81 in Germ any, 4 6
in Spain, and 3 4 in Belgium . F o r m ore on the im plications o f B S E and lessons
to be learned, see L obstein et al, 2 0 0 1 ; M illsto n e and van Zw anenberg, 2 0 0 1 .
21 F o r an excellent review o f food crises and the need for new thinking in
food system s, see Lang et al, 2 0 0 1 . See also W altn er-T oew s and Lang, 2 0 0 0 .
2 2 D onald W orster ( 1 9 9 3 , p i 8 ) points ou t th at this was not, o f course, the
end o f the story. C o n tro l through the levees did n o t sto p co n flic ts between
farm ers who wanted water for irrigation, and others who wanted to p rotect the
natural habitat o f w aterfow l.The levees also did n o t stop pesticides and nutrients
from washing o f f the fields, o r stop the em ergence o f livestock feedlots, with
their massive produ ction o f anim al wastes.
2 3 O n the effects o f changes in the G erm an landscape from flo od in g , see
van der Ploeg et al, 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 0 . V o -T on g X u an , rector of Angiang U niversity
in V ietnam , notes sim ilar problem s in the M ek o n g D elta, where farm ers have
switched from one crop o f floating rice per year to three sh o rt duration crops
o f m odern varieties, which has led to the occurrence o f floods on an annual basis.
2 4 O n the effects o f water co ntrol in the Japanese landscape, in particular
on paddy rice fields, see M in am i et al, 1 9 9 8 ; K ato et al, 1 9 9 7 ; O E C D , 2 0 0 0 .
2 5 O n the externalities o f C hinese agriculture, see N o rse et al, 2 0 0 0 .
2 6 FAO, 2 0 0 0 a .
27 O n the values o f w etlands, see H e im lic h et al, 1 9 9 8 . F o r a study on
eu trop h ication co sts, see P retty et al ( 2 0 0 2 ) An Assessment o f the Costs o f Eutro­
phication. See also Postel and C arpenter ( 1 9 9 7 ) in D aily (ed ) Nature’s Services; Ewel
( 1 9 9 7 ) in Daily (ed ) Nature’s Services. F o r a study showing that the costs o f creating
wetlands are less than for co nstru ctin g treatm ent plants, see G ren, 1 9 9 5 .
2 8 See Keeny and M u ller, 2 0 0 0 .
2 9 Wre distinguished between value—loss costs arising from the reduced value
o f clean or n on-eutrophic (nutrient-enriched) water, and the direct costs incurred
in resp on d in g to e u tro p h ica tio n , plus the co sts o f ch anging behaviou r and
p ractices in order to m eet legal o b lig atio n s. V alue—loss co sts, by d e fin itio n ,
represent a loss o f existing value, rather than an increase in costs, and arc divided
into two categories: use values and non-use values. U se values are associated with
private benefits gained from actual use (o r co n su m p tion ) o f ecosystem services,
and can include private-sector uses (eg agriculture, industry), recreation benefits
(eg fishing, water sports, bird watching), education benefits, and general amenity
benefits. N o n -u se values are o f three types: op tion values, bequest values and
existence values. See Prettv et al, 2 0 0 1 ; also M ason , 19 9 6 ; Environm ent Agency,
1998.
3 0 T otal fertilizer consum ption (nitrogen, phosphate and potassium ) for the
world was 1 3 8 m illio n ton n es ( m t ) in the year 2 0 0 0 , co m p risin g 8 3 m t o f
nitrogen, 3 2 m t o f phosphate, and 2 2 m t o f potassium . N itrogen consu m p tion
in western E urope was 1 7 m t, in N o rth A m erica 2 1 m t, in So u th Asia 21 m t,
20 2 A g r i-C u i.tu r e C h a pter 3 : i > i> 5 2 - 7 7

in the Russian states 3 8 int, and in China 3 8 int. W orld consum ption o f all
fertilizer has grown from 3 0 m t in I 9 6 0 (when nitrogen consu m p tion was
11 m t, phosphate 11 m t and potassium 8 m t). D ata are from the International
Fertilizer Industry A ssociation, Paris.
3 1 W I l O ( 1 9 9 8 ) Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. See also
O ster er al, 1 9 9 9 .
3 2 See W H O ( 2 0 0 1 ) Food and Health in Europe: A Basis fo r Action.
3 3 F or details o f food -born e illnesses, see C D C , 2 0 0 1 ; Kaeferstein et al,
1 9 9 7 ; M ead et al, 1 9 9 9 . F or U S D epartm ent o f Agriculture (U S D A ) data on
m icrob ial in fectio n s in farm anim als, see the U S D A w ebsite ( www.usda.
fsis.usda.gov). F or costs o f antibiotic resistance, see the N ational Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases. For Centres for Disease C ontrol (C D C ), see
the C D C website ( www.cdc.gov).
3 4 See Buzbv and R obert, 1 9 9 7 ; W H O ( 2 0 0 1 ) Food and Health in Europe.

3 5 Table 3.1 Incidence o f m icrobial infection in U S farm anim als

Proportion o f individuals with infectious bacteria (%)

B roiler chickens Turkeys P ig s Cattle

Clostridium 43 29 10 8
C am pylobacter 88 90 32 1
Salm onella 29 19 8 3
S taphy lo coccus 65 65 16 8

Source: USDA data

3 6 For more on antibiotics and the emergence o f resistance, see H arrison

and Lederberg, 1 9 9 8 ; W ise et al, 1 9 9 8 ; H ouse o f Lords, 1 9 9 8 .
3 7 See Havelaar et al, 2 0 0 0 ; W H O , 2 0 0 1 ; FAO, 2 0 0 1 .
3 8 See W illis et al, 1 9 9 3 ; Foster et al, 1 9 9 7 ; Stew art et al, 1 9 9 7 ; H anley et
al, 1 9 9 8 .
3 9 See C obb et al, 1 9 9 8 .
4 0 D ata are from the Countryside Agency and English Tourism C ouncil
surveys: 1 9 6 8 m illion tourist-days were spent in the U K in 1 9 9 8 , o f which 4 3 3
million were to the countryside, 1 1 8 m illion to the seaside, and 1 2 9 9 m illion
to towns.
41 IATP, 1 9 9 7 .
4 2 W atershed Agricultural Council. C atskill/D elaw are Watershed Complex
( www.iacp.org/ watersheds).
4 3 Pretty and Ball, 2 0 0 1 .
4 4 See Pretty and Ball, 2 0 0 1 ; Swingland et al, 2 0 0 2 .
4 5 Growing em pirical evidence on the costs o f com pliance with environ­
mental regulations and taxes suggests that there has been little or no impact on
the overall competitiveness o f businesses or countries, with some indications that
they have increased efficiency and employment. See E E A , 1 9 9 6 ; 1 9 9 9 ; Sm ith
C h apter 3: pp5 2 -7 7 . C h apter 4: pp7 8 -I0 I N otes 203

and Piacentino, 1 9 9 6 ; Ekins, 1 9 9 9 ; O E C D , 1 9 9 7 ; Jarass and Obertnair, 1 9 9 7 ;

Rayem ent ct al, 1 9 9 8 ; D E T R , 1 9 9 9 a ; Ribaudo et al, 1 9 9 9 .
4 6 See Ekins, 1 9 9 9 , for a comprehensive review o f environmental taxes.
4 7 See M yers, 1 9 9 8 ; Potter, 1 9 9 8 ; Dum ke and D obbs, 1 9 9 9 ; H anley and
O glethorpe, 1 9 9 9 .
4 8 F or more on Cuba, see R ossett, 1 9 9 7 , 1 9 9 8 ; Funes, 2 0 0 1 .
4 9 Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape and Federal O ffice
o f Agriculture, 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 0 . See also D u bois et al, 2 0 0 0 .

C h a p te r 4 F o o d fo r A ll

1 See M axwell and Frankenberger, 1 9 9 2 ; H o d d in o tt, 1 9 9 9 ; A C C /S C N ,

2 0 0 0 ; Sm ith and Haddad, 1 9 9 9 .
2 T h e effect of dietary improvements can be dramatic, and nutritionists have
long considered the positive effects o f supplementing diets. T h e effect o f the
treating of Indonesian children with vitamin A tablets has been shown to reduce
child m ortality by 3 0 percent (Sm ith and Haddad, 1 9 9 9 ). O ther micronutrients,
such as vitamins B, D, folic acid and iron, could be added to wheat flour; but
rice is more difficult. It cannot easily be used as a fortification vehicle, and poor
people often cannot get access to sufficient quality and quantity o f foods that
are rich in m icronutrients, vitamins and minerals.
3 See A C C /S C N , 2 0 0 0 .
4 See Chapter 3 o f this book for more on the real costs o f food production.
Key references are Balfour, 1 9 4 3 ; Carson, 1 9 6 3 ; Conway and Pretty, 19 9 1;
Pimentel etal, 1 9 9 2 ,1 9 9 5 ; Steiner et al, I 9 9 5 ;E E A , I9 9 8 ;W a ib e l and Fleischer,
1 9 9 8 ; N orse et al, 2 0 0 0 ; Pretty et al, 2 0 0 0 a , 2 0 0 0 b ; M cN eely and Scherr, 2 0 0 1 ;
U p h off, 2 0 0 2 .
5 F or a selection o f books on sustainable agriculture, see A ltieri, 19 9 5 ;
T h ru p p , 1 9 9 6 ; Conway, 1 9 9 7 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 5 a , 1 9 9 8 ; H in chliffe et al, 1 9 9 9 ;
N R C , 2 0 0 0 ; U p h o ff, 2 0 0 2 .
6 W e used a four-page questionnaire as the m ain survey instrum ent for
sustainable agriculture projects and initiatives. It addressed: key impacts on total
food production, and on natural, social and human capital; the project/initiative
structure and institutions; details o f the context and reasons for success; and
spread and scaling-up (institutional, technical and policy constraints).
T h e questionnaire was centred on an assets-based model o f agricultural systems,
and was developed in order to understand both the role o f these assets as inputs
to agriculture and the consequences o f agriculture upon them. T h e questions
were also form ulated with regard to the nine types o f sustainable agriculture
improvement identified as the conceptual base for this project. We collated all
returned questionnaires and secondary material, and added this to the country
databases. All data sets were re-examined in order to identify gaps and ambiguities,
and correspon d en ts were contacted again to help fill these. W e established
trustworthiness checks by engaging in regular personal dialogue with respondents,
20 4 A g r i-C u i.tu r e C h apter 4 : p i> 7 8 -I0 I

through checks with secondary data, and by critical review by external reviewers
and experts. W e rejected cases from the database on several grounds:

■ where there was no obvious sustainable agriculture link;

■ where participation was for direct m aterial incentives (there are doubts that
ensuing improvements persist after such incentives end);
■ where there was heavy or sole reliance on fossil-fu el derived inputs for
improvement, or on their targeted use alone (this is not necessarily to negate
these projects, but to indicate that they are not the focus o f this research);
■ where the data provided in the questionnaire have been too weak; and
■ where findings were unsubstantiated by the verification process.

However, we undoubtedly missed many novel, interesting and globally relevant

projects/initiatives. W e therefore present conservative estimates o f what has been
achieved, over what area, and by how many farmers. See Pretty and H ine, 2 0 0 1 .
7 T h e largest country representations in the 2 0 8 project dataset arc India
( 2 3 projects/in itiativ es); Uganda ( 2 0 ) ; Kenya (I7 );T a n z a n ia ( 1 0 ) ; China ( 8 );
the Philippines ( 7 ) ; Malawi ( 6 ) ; Honduras, Peru, Brazil, M exico, Burkina Faso
and Eth iopia ( 5 ) ; and Bangladesh ( 4 ) . T h e projects and initiatives range very
widely in scale — from 10 households on 5 hectares in one project in Chile to
2 0 0 ,0 0 0 farmers on 10.5 m illion hectares in southern Brazil.
8 T h e total arable land comprises some 1 6 0 0 m illion hectares in 1 9 9 5 /
1 9 9 7 , o f which 3 8 8 million hectares are in industrialized countries, 2 6 7 m illion
hectares in transition countries, and 9 6 0 m illion hectares in developing countries
(see FAO, 2 0 0 0 a ).
9 W e found some 8 .6 4 m illion small farmers practising sustainable farming
on 8 .3 3 m illion hectares, and 3 4 9 ,0 0 0 larger farmers in Argentina, Brazil and
Paraguay farming with zero-tillage m ethods on 21 m illion hectares.
10
S ustainable agric u ltu re p rojects/initiatives -
crop yield changes (89 projects)

Source: Pretty and Hine, 2001; Pretty et al, 2002

Figure 4.1 Sustainable Agriculture Projects/Initiatives - Crop-Yield Changes

(89 Projects)
C h apter 4: pp7 8 -I0 I N otes 2 0 5

11 F o r a discussion on the value o f ecosystem services in the soil, and the

problem s o f agricultural intensification, see D aily et al, 1 9 9 7 . See also Cleaver
and Schreiber, 1 9 9 5 ; R C EP, 1 9 9 6 ; W orld B a n k /F A O , 1 9 9 6 ; H in ch cliffe et al,
1 9 9 9 ; Petersen et al, 2 0 0 0 ; l; iB L , 2 0 0 0 . F o r a sum m ary o f issues relating to
sustainable m anagem ent o f land and soils, see FA O ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Future o j Our Land.
1 2 In A rgentina, the am ount o f organic m atter in soils fell over a century
to 1 9 9 0 from 5 .5 per cent to 2 .2 5 per cent; where no till systems are being used,
it is increasing by 0 .1 per cen t per year (R o b e rto Peiretti, personal com m un­
icatio n ).
13 F o r a sum m ary o f the exten t o f soil d egrad ation and its effects, see
K oohafkan and Stew art, 2 0 0 1 ; Sm aling et al, 1 9 9 7 ; H enao and Baanante, 1 9 9 9 .
1 4 See Reicosky, 1 9 9 7 ; Sanchez et al, 1 9 9 7 ; Sorrenson et al, 1 9 9 8 ; de Freitas,
2 0 0 0 ; Bunch, 2 0 0 0 . Som e plants are called phosphate releasing, not because they
release ph osp hate bu t because acids secreted from ro o ts so lu b ilize iron and
alum inium phosphates in the soil. See San ch ez and Jam a, 2 0 0 0 .
15 F o r effects o f zero-tillage in L atin A m erica, see So rrenso n et al, 1 9 9 8 ;
Petersen, 1 9 9 9 ; de Freitas, 2 0 0 0 ; Peiretti, 2 0 0 0 ; Landers, 1 9 9 9 .
1 6 See L and ers et al ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘E n viro n m en tal B enefits o f Z e ro -T illa g e in
Brazil’.
17 U sing 2 0 species o f cover crops and green m anures, P aolo Petersen and
colleagues at A S -P T A have shown how sm all farm ers can ad opt zero -tillag e
system s w ithout herbicides. See Petersen et al, 2 0 0 0 ; von der W eid, 2 0 0 0 .
1 8 F o r details o f the work o f R odale in Senegal, see D io p , 2 0 0 0 .
19 See H a m ilto n , 1 9 9 8 ; A ssociation for B etter H usbandry, 2 0 0 1 .
2 0 O n e o f the best examples o f how changed rotations can transform whole
ag ricu ltu ra l system s co m es fro m w estern K enya, w here farm ers are using
improved fallows using sesbania ( Sesbania sesban), tephrosia ( Tephrosia vogelii) and
various species o f Crotalaria. T h e se are interplanted during the m ain rainy season
m aize crop, and capture 1 0 0 —2 0 0 kilogram m es o f nitrogen per hectare per year,
with the added benefit o f no transport costs and associated benefits for fuelwood
produ ction. Pedro San ch ez indicates that ‘many farmers say hunger is now a thing o f
the past’. See San ch ez et al, 1 9 9 9 ; San ch ez and Jam a, 2 0 0 0 .
21 R e ij, 1 9 9 6 .
2 2 See U p h o ff, 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 0 .
2 3 See BAA Animal Report, 2 0 0 0 . T h e eight com panies in 2 0 0 1 that control
9 0 per cent o f the world pesticide m arket are Aventis, Syngenta, M o n san to, D u
P ont, Bayer, Cvanam id, D ow and BASF. D ata on the weight o f pesticides used
in agriculture are very d ifficult to access, not least because o f the great differences
in toxicity o f active ingredients, with som e products being high volume and low
toxicity, and others low volume and high toxicity. A ccording to the W orld H ealth
O rgan ization , som e 3.1 billion kilogram m es were exported in 1 9 8 5 at a value
o f U S $ 1 6 billion. Sin ce tod ays m arket is estim ated to be in excess o f U S $ 3 1
billion, the total pesticides applied are likely to exceed 5 billion kilogram m es.
2 4 F or m ore on farm er field schools in Asia, see Evelleens et al, 1 9 9 6 ; H eong
et al, 1 9 9 9 ; D esilles, 1 9 9 9 ; Jones, 1 9 9 9 .
206 A g r i-C u i.tu r e C h a pter 4 : p p 7 8 -1 0 I. C h apter 5: p p I0 2 -I2 5

2 5 T h e IN T E R F IS H , N O P E S T and G O L D A integrated pest management

fo r rice and aquaculture p ro jects in Bangladesh are su pported by the U K
D epartm ent for International Development ( D F I D ) and the European U nion,
and are implemented by C A R E .
2 6 F or the sem iochemicals research and outcom es, see Pickett, 1 9 9 9 ; Khan
et al, 2 0 0 0 .
2 7 T h e push-pull strategy involves trapping pests on highly susceptible trap
plants (pull) and driving them away from the crop using a repellent intercrop
(p u sh ).T h e forage grasses Pennisetum purpitreum (N ap ier grass) and Sorghum vulgare
sudanense (Sudan grass) attract greater ovi-position by stem borers (C/»7o spp) than
in cultivated m aize.T he non-host forage plants Melinis mimitiflora (molasses grass)
and Desmodium uncinatum (silver leaf) repel female stalk borers. Intercropping with
molasses and sudan grass increases parasitism, particularly by the larval parasitoid
Cotesia sesamiae and the pupal parasitoid Dentuhasmis husseolae. Melinis contains several
physiologically active compounds.Tw o o f these inhibit ovi-position (egg-laying)
in Chilo, even at low concentrations. M olasses grass also emits a chemical, ( £ )-
4 ,8 -d im e th y I-l,3 ,7 -n o n a trie n e , which sum m ons the borers’ natural enemies.
N apier grass also has its own defence mechanism against stem borers: when the
larvae enter the stem, the plant produces a gum-like substance that kills the pest.
And finally, intercropping m aize with the fodder legumes Desmodinm uncinatum
(silver leaf) and D. intortum (green leaf) reduces infestation by the parasitic weed
Slriga hermonthica by a factor o f 4 0 compared to maize m onocrop.
2 8 For more on ecoagriculture, see M cN eeley and Scherr, 2 0 0 1 .
2 9 F or the effects of sustainable agriculture in Cuba, sec M urphy, 1 9 9 9 ;
Funes, 2 0 0 1 ; Kovaleski, 1 9 9 9 ; So corro Castro, 2 0 0 1 ; Funes et al, 2 0 0 2 .
3 0 O n aquaculture, see Brum met, 2 0 0 0 .
31 F o r reviews o f the em ergence o f S R I in M adagascar, and its spread
elsewhere, see the work o f N o rm an U p h o ff at C o rn ell U niversity: U p h o ff,
1999, 2001.
3 2 T h e farmed shrimps are Penaeus spp. or Macrohrachium spp.
3 3 See Li W enhua, 2 0 0 1 .

C h a p te r 5 O n ly R e c o n n e c t

1 For more on Su ffolk Punches, see Su ffolk H orse Society, W oodbridge,

S u ffo lk ( www.suffolkhorsesociety.org.uk). See also Evans ( I 9 6 0 ) The Horse and
the Furrow. It is interesting to note that breeders o f Su ffo lk Punches were also
involved in breeding other now rare Su ffo lk animals, such as R ed Poll cattle,
Su ffolk sheep and Large Black pigs.
2 T h e loss o f horses from the landscape was not only due to their replace­
ment with efficient machines. H orses regularly themselves suffered from grass
sickness, a disease even today not fully understood, and their numbers had not
recovered after the huge losses in the World W ar I. Reliable machinery thus helped
to replace relatively unreliable horses.
C h apter 5: pp I0 2 -I2 5 N otes 2 0 7

3 A fter the progress made by Sue H eissw olf and Kevin N iem ever with the
Brassica Im provem ent G roup, Brad S ch o ltz and colleagues ( 1 9 9 8 ) found that
the m ore pesticides applied to m aize in Q ueensland, the lower die yields; and
the less spray, the higher the yields. T h is echoes earlier research by Peter Kenm ore
and colleagues in A sia in the 1 9 8 0 s , w ho found th at pest attack in rice was
directly pro p ortio nal to the am ount o f pesticides applied —pesticides killed the
beneficial insects that were exerting good co n trol o f pests.
4

Source: DEFRA statistics

Fig u re 5.1 C h an g in g Y ields o f W h e a t in the UK, 188 5 -20 0 0

5 See Fuglie et al, 2 0 0 0 ; U S D A , 2 0 0 1 a

Table 5.1 M e a s u r e s o f Increasing P ro d u ctiv ity in U S Liv e sto ck Prod u ctio n

1955 1995 % in cre a se

Beef cattle (kg beef/cow) 267 327 23

Pigs (kg pork/sow) 357 680 90
Dairy (kg milk/cow) 2643 7444 182
Broilers (kg/bird) 1.39 2.11 52
Layers (eggs/layer/year) 192 253 32

Source: Fuglie et al, 2000

6 In the U S hog industry, just 2 7 0 0 farm s now have h a lf o f all Am erican

pigs. T h e o th er h a lf are found on 1 4 0 ,0 0 0 farm s, down from 9 0 0 ,0 0 0 since
1 9 7 0 . In the egg industry, 9 5 per cent o f all 2 7 0 m illion layers are m anaged by
3 0 0 egg-producing operations, each ow ning flo ck s o f 7 5 ,0 0 0 o r m ore. Just ten
com pan ies co n tro l n in e-ten th s o f all poultry p ro d u ctio n . S im ilar polarizing
trends are evident in the European U n io n , where 6 per cent o f farm ers produce
6 0 per cent o f cereals, and 15 rear 4 0 per cent o f all farm anim als. In the U K ,
just 5 2 pig hold ings rear 8 0 ,0 0 0 pigs, w hile an o th er 4 0 ,0 0 0 h o ld in g s raise
1 7 0 ,0 0 0 pigs in herds o f less than 2 0 . In the broiler chicken sector, 3 3 0 holdings
raise 6 7 m illion broiler chickens ( 6 6 per cent o f the to tal), while 7 2 0 holdings
2 0 8 A g r i-C u ltu r e C h apter 5 : pp 1 0 2 - 1 2 5

have 5 9 ,0 0 0 birds in flocks o f less than 1 0 0 0 . T h e picture is similar for laying

chickens, with 3 0 0 holdings having 2 9 m illion laying chickens ( 8 0 per cent o f
the total), all in flocks o f more than 2 0 ,0 0 0 ; yet 4 5 per cent o f all holdings with
layers have 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 birds in flocks o f less than 1 0 0 birds. O n arable farms, 8 3 0 0
holdings have half o f all the cereal area, while 3 2 ,0 0 0 have only a tenth o f the
area, all on farms of less than 2 0 hectares. D ata are from the D ep artm ent o f
the Environment, Farm ing and Rural Affairs (D E F R A ; formerly M A F F ) annual
data, E conom ic and Statistics Group ( www.defra.gov.uk/esg). For a good review
o f the future o f the pig industry, see H arrington, 2 0 0 0 .

Table 5.2 Concentration o f Operations in the UK

S e c to r Large-scale operations Small-farm s e c to r

Cereal 8300 holdings have 48% of 31.000 holdings have 9% of the

cereal area (all on farms of area (on farms of less than 20
greater than 100 hectares) hectares)

Laying chickens 300 holdings have 29 million 45% of all holdings with layers,
laying chickens (79% of the some 23,200, have 0.4 million
total), all in flocks of more birds in flocks of less than 100
than 20,000 birds

Broiler chickens 334 holdings raise 67 million 722 holdings have 59,000 birds in
broiler chickens (66% of the flocks of less than 1000 (0.1% of
total) the total)

Sheep (England 9700 holdings have 57% of 18.000 holdings have 2.2% in
and Wales) total sheep in herds of more herds of less than 100
than 1000

Beef cattle 1300 holdings with 19% of 30,000 holdings with 31 % in herds
national herd in herds of of less than 30
more than 100

Pigs 52 holdings have 80,000 pigs 41,200 holdings have 170,000 pigs
(13% of total) in herds of (30% of total) in herds of less than
more than 1000 20

Dairy cattle 922 holdings have 247,000 5300 holdings have 69,000 cattle
cattle (12% of herd) in herds (35% of total) in herds of less than
of more than 200 30.

Source: MAFF, Ju n e 1999 C e n s u s data (Economic and Statistics Group.

www.defra.gov.uk/esg)

7 See H effernan et al, 1 9 9 9 ; W eida, 2 0 0 0 ; W esselink, 2 0 0 1 . In the dairy

industry, the greatest gains in market share in recent decades have occurred in
non-traditional milk-producing regions, such as California, W ashington, Arizona
and New M exico, which now produce a quarter of all U S m ilk .T h e traditional
dairy-producing areas have suffered m ost — yet these tend to have smaller herd
sizes and more diversified operations that also grow m ost o f their own food. In
W isconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, M innesota and M ichigan, 4 0 —7 0 per cent
C h apter 5: ppI 0 2 -I2 5 N otes 2 0 9

o f cattle are in herds of less than 1 0 0 . By contrast, 9 6 per cent o f all cattle in
New M exico, 7 8 per cent in California and 4 7 per cent in W ashington are in
herds o f more than 5 0 0 animals. Now, only ten businesses account for half of
all U S milk production, a staggering 3 6 billion kilogram mes per year, and 5 0
account for three-quarters o f total production.

8 Table 5.3 C oncentration Ratios in the U S F o o d Chain, 1999

S ecto r Concentration ratio N o te s on changes over tim e

for top four firms
(CR4) (%)

Beef packers 79 Up from 72% in 1990

Pork packers 57 Up from 37% in 1987
Broiler producers 49 Up from 35% in 1986; top
company produces 70 million
kilogrammes per week
Turkey producers 42 Up from 31 % in 1988
Flour milling 62 Up from 44% in 1987
Dry corn milling 57 -
Wet corn milling 74 Up from 63% in 1977
Soybean crushing 80 Up from 54% in 1977
Seed corn market 69 -

Source: Heffernan, 1999

T h e same names keep reoccurring. ConAgra, for example, turns up at every stage
o f the food chain except for pesticide and machinery manufacture. ConAgra also
owns about 1 0 0 0 grain elevators, 1 0 0 0 barges and 2 0 0 0 railway cars. Cargill is
in the top four firms which produce animal feed, rear cattle and process cattle.
O n the product side, 6 0 —9 0 per cent o f all wheat, maize and rice is marketed
by only six transnational companies. O ne o f these, Cargill, earns more from its
coffee sales alone than the total income o f any o f the African countries from
which it buys coffee. Again, is not all this efficiency for the best? Should we not
be celebrating such advanced m ethods o f producing more meat, milk and eggs
from each animal and from each square metre o f farm?
9 F A O /U N 'E P , 2 0 0 0 ( w w w .fao.org/dad-is). See also Blench, 2 0 0 1 . For
m ore on dom estic animals, see D om estic Anim al Diversity Inform ation System
(D A D IS ) at w w w .d ad .fao.o rg /cg i-d ad /S cg i_d ad .ex e/su m m aries. Livestock
experts consider that only when there are 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 individuals o f a given species
is a population stable and able to reproduce w ithout genetic loss. Less than
1 0 ,0 0 0 , and population num bers will decrease rapidly; below 1 0 0 0 , and the
whole population is endangered, with size too small to prevent genetic loss.
Europe has one quarter of the w orlds cattle, sheep, pig and duck breeds, and
one h alf of horse, chicken and geese breeds. But in the five years to 1 9 9 9 , the
number o f mammalian breeds at risk grew from 3 3 —4 9 per cent, and bird breeds
at risk rose from 6 5 —7 6 per cent.
2 JO A g r i - C u i .t u r e C h a p te r 5: ppI 02-I25

T a b le 5.4 N u m b e r o f A n im a l B r e e d s a n d P ro p o rtio n a t R is k o f E x tin c tio n

L o c a tio n N u m b e r o f b re e d s P ro p o rtio n a t risk {%)

Europe 2576 50
North Am erica 259 35
Asia and Pacific 1251 10
Sub-Saharan Africa 738 15

Source: FAO, Rome

1 0 F o r a com prehen sive review o f g lob al ag ro ecosystem s, sec W o o d et al,

2 0 0 0 . See also R o sse t, 1 9 9 9 .
1 1 A ld o L e o p o ld is qu oted in C o o p er, 1 9 9 6 .
1 2 U S D A , 2 0 0 1 a (fa rm size and nu m bers data at www.usda.gov).
1 3 S te in b e ck ( 1 9 3 9 ) The Grapes o f Wrath.
1 4 U S D A , 2 0 0 1 b (fa rm sta tistics at w w w .ers.usda.gov/sta tefa cts).

F ig u re 5.2 C h a n g in g N u m b e r o f F a rm s a n d F a rm S ize in U S (W 6 0 s -1 9 9 0 s )

1 5 See U S D A ( 1 9 9 8 ) A Time to Act. N ational Commission on Small Farms.

16 P ro fe ss o r T h o m a s D o b b s ’s eviden ce was given to th e N a tio n a l C o m ­
m ission on Sm all F a rm s on 2 2 A ugust 1 9 9 7 .
1 7 See P eterson , 1 9 9 7 .
1 8 See G o ld sch m id t, 1 9 7 8 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ; Perelm an, 1 9 7 6 ; Sm all Farm V ia b ility
P ro je ct, 1 9 7 7 . F o r a review o f the pros and co n s o f the G o ld sch m id t hypothesis,
see L o b a o et al, 1 9 9 3 . See also D u rren b erg er and T h u , 1 9 9 6 .
1 9 See L o b a o , 1 9 9 0 .
2 0 Se c Berry, 1 9 7 7 .
21 O n e o u tc o m e o f th e g ro w in g c e n tra liz a tio n o f th e fo o d ch ain is th e
increase in unnecessary m ovem ents o f fo o d , b o th w ithin and betw een co u ntries.
In the U S , it has been estim ated that each item o f food travels 2 0 0 0 k ilo m etres
fro m field to p la te, cau sin g d am age to th e en v iro n m e n t th ro u g h fo ssil fuel
C h a p te r 5 : ppI 02-I25 N otes 211

em ission s d uring tra n sp o rt and greater co n g estio n on the roads. T h e r e are also
m any unnecessary fo o d swaps betw een countries, w ith large am ounts o f the sam e
prod u cts being im p o rted and exported to and from the sam e c o u n trie s .T h e U K ,
fo r exam ple, e x p o rts 2 1 3 , 0 0 0 to n n e s o f pig m eat each year, yet also im p o rts
2 7 2 , 0 0 0 ton nes, resulting in a large nu m ber o f unnecessary road m ovem ents (see
T a b le 5 .5 ) ,

T a b le 5.5 T h e U K 's F o o d S w a p To a n d F ro m th e E u r o p e a n U n io n 's 14

M e m b e r C o u n trie s a n d the R e s t o f th e W orld, 2 0 0 0

Sector Dom estic production Exports Imports

(thousand tonnes) (thousand tonnes) (thousand tonnes)

Poultry 1514 170 363

Pigs 738 213 272
Cattle/calves 706 9 202
Sheep/Iambs 390 125 129
Milk (million litres) 14,054 423 124
Wheat 16,700 3505 930
Barley 6490 1730 51

Source: DEFRA. Annual Statistics, 2001

2 2 S e e G ark ov ich et al, 1 9 9 5 .

23 B utala, 2 0 0 0 .
2 4 S ee C o o p and B ru n k h o rst, 1 9 9 9 ; S w ift et al, 1 9 9 6 .
2 5 S ee K lin e, 1 9 9 6 .
2 6 S e e B u tle r-F lo ra and F lo ra, 1 9 9 6 .
2 7 S e e T a ll, 1 9 9 6 .
28 D ren n a n W a tso n (p erso n al co m m u n icatio n , 2 0 0 1 ) m akes an interestin g
observation a b o u t G aelic co m m u n ities in S c o tla n d : ‘You don't ask a person in Caelic
where they comefro m , you ask them where they belong to. There is a special word f o r this belonging
to a place — D u th ca s —f o r which there is no equivalent in the English language.’

2 9 T a b le 5.6 P ro p o rtio n o f th e F o o d P o u n d R e tu rn e d to F a rm e rs

UK US

Expenditure on food by consum ers UKE92.3 billion US$788 billion

Farmers' gross receipts UKE14.1 billion US$208.7 billion
Farm ers’ expenditure on seeds, UKE7.4 billion US$181 billion
feedstuffs, pesticides, fertilizers,
machinery fuel and insurance
Farmers' net share of the food pound 7.3% 3.5%

Sources: DEFRA and USDA statistics

3 0 See B ignall and M cC ra ck en , 1 9 9 6 .

31 T h e r e are m any v a riatio n s in in te rp re ta tio n in w hat o rg a n ic fa rm in g
should be doing. S o m e in d icate th at produ ce should only be m arketed locally;
2 J2 A g r i - C u i .t u r e C h a p te r 5: P P I0 2 -1 2 5

o th ers are co n te n t fo r produ ce to travel lon g d istan ces i f co n su m ers express a

dem and in the m arket.
32 F o r d eta ils o f o rg a n ic p ro d u c tio n , see U S D A ( 2 0 0 0 ) Factbook (www.
usda.gov). See also G reene and D o b b s, 2 0 0 1 . T h e 3 .3 m illion hectares o f organic
farm in g in the E u ro p ean U n io n in the year 2 0 0 0 includes 4 2 0 , 0 0 0 hectares in
th e U K , 2 9 , 0 0 0 h e cta re s in th e N e th e rla n d s , 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 h e cta re s in F ra n ce ,
4 5 5 , 0 0 0 hectares in G erm any, 3 6 0 ,0 0 0 hectares in A ustria, and 2 5 5 ,0 0 0 hectares
in Italy. S e e S o il A sso ciatio n ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Organic Food and Farming Report. Se e also
L am p k in and Padel, 1 9 9 4 ; L am p k in and M id m o re, 2 0 0 0 .
3 3 S ee B a lfo u r ( 1 9 4 3 ) The Living Soil, p i 7 3 . See also C o n fo rd (e d ), 1 9 8 8 .
34 F o r a recent com p arison o f U K farm in g system s, se e T in k e r ( 2 0 0 0 ) Shades
o f Green.
35 N ic k R o b in s and A ndrew Sim m s ( 2 0 0 0 ) analysed a N a tio n a l O p in io n
P oll ( N O P ) survey cond ucted fo rS a tis h K u m ars jou rn al Resurgence. Interestingly,
w hen individuals were asked w hat they w ould d o if they had a free day o ff, 3 8
per cen t said they w ould spend tim e w ith friend s and family, and 2 8 per cen t
said they w ould go fo r a walk in the country. O n ly 1 6 per cen t said sh op p in g ,
and 2 per cen t said they would watch television. P eople were also asked how they'd
like to be rem em bered — 6 8 per cen t said as a good parent o r kind person . O n ly
2 per cen t said th a t they would like to be rem em bered as a wealthy o r su ccessfu l
business p erson . W illin g n e ss to act fo r the en viron m en t was also high, w ith 2 4
per cen t saying p u b lic p ro test was the best way to p ro te ct the environm ent, and
32 per cen t saying p u blic b o y cotts. O n ly 1 5 per cen t said n o th in g could be done.
T h is survey ind icates co n sid erable h o p e, w ith values o f co n n ected n ess betw een
p eo p le and w ith th e en v iro n m en t far exceed in g th e c o n su m e rist, m o d e rn ist
m ythology. T h is op p oses som e o f the im ages o f ou r m od ern world.
36 D a ta fo r visits and exp end itu re in the U K co u n try sid e co m e fro m the
C o u n try sid e A gency ( 2 0 0 1 ) and E n g lish T o u rist C o u n cil ( 2 0 0 0 ) , w ho use the
U K Leisure D a y V isits Survey and U K tou rism surveys to calcu late th e nu m ber
o f visits m ade to the co u n try sid e for leisure and recreational activities. In 19 9 8 ,
so m e 1.2 6 1 b illio n tou rist day-visits were m ade, o f which 7 2 per cen t were to
tow ns, 6 per cen t to the seaside, and 2 2 per ce n t to th e co u n try sid e. In ad d itio n
to day visits, a fu rth e r 1 7 2 m illio n to u rist trip s arc taken by U K and overseas
residents, in w hich one or m ore nigh ts are sp ent away, to tallin g 7 0 7 m illion days.
T h u s , there were 4 3 3 m illio n visit-d ays to the co u n try sid e. Average spend per
d a y /n ig h t is U K £ I 6 . 9 0 fo r U K day v isito rs, U K £ 3 3 . 0 0 fo r U K o v ern ig h t
visitors, and U K £ 5 8 .4 0 fo r overseas overnight visitors, p u ttin g the to ta l spend
at U K £ I 1 .0 2 b illio n per year.
3 7 T h e o ld e st en viron m en tal o r co u n try sid e g roup in the U K is th e O p en
S p a c e s S o c ie ty , w h ich was e sta b lish e d in 1 8 6 5 and was s e t up to p r o te c t
co m m o n s in m e tro p o litan areas. M o s t o rg an izatio n s aim to p ro te ct so m eth in g
perceived as threatened, such as bird s and w ild life (e g the R oyal S o cie ty fo r the
P ro te ctio n o f Birds, the S ierra C lu b and the W ild life T ru sts); anim al w elfare (eg
th e R o y a l S o c ie ty fo r th e P re v e n tio n o f C r u e lty to A n im a ls , w ith 2 5 , 0 0 0
m em b ers); the preservation o f houses and p ro p erties (e g the N a tio n a l T ru s t);
C hapter 5: pp I 0 2 - I 2 5 N otes 2 13

the preservation o f w ildernesses (eg the W ild ern ess S o c ie ty ); the livelihood
interests o f specific rural groups (eg the N ation al Farm ers' U n io n , with 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
m em bers; the C o u n try Land and Business A sso ciatio n ); the general m ilieu o f
the countrysid e (eg the C o u n cil fo r the Preservation o f R u ral England , with
4 5 .0 0 0 m em bers); access to the countryside (eg the R am blers A ssociation, with
1 1 2 .0 0 0 m em bers); and, m ore recently, the w ider environm ent (eg Friends o f
the E arth and G reenpeace); o r the very specific interests o f hunting and shooting
lo b b ies (eg the M o o rla n d A sso ciatio n and the C o u n try sid e A llian ce); o r o f
p ro test m ovem ents against ro ad -bu ild in g and genetically m od ified crops (eg
E a rth F irst!). It is very d ifficu lt to say how many d ifferent people are m em bers
o f these organizations, as it is likely that there many individuals who are m embers
o f several organizations. In ad dition, som e distinguish between m em bers and
su p p o rte rs, and a ffilia te d o rg an izatio n s. It is also in the in terests o f som e
organizations to in fla te th eir m em bership num bers in order to achieve m ore
political recognition.
3 8 See K loppenberg, 1 9 9 1 ; B run khorst and R ollin g s, 1 9 9 9 ; M cG in n is et
al, 1 9 9 9 , p 2 0 4 . S e e also D ry z ek ( 1 9 9 7 ) The Politics o j the Earth: Environmental
Discourse.
3 9 See A ngelic O rganics, 15 4 7 R ock ford R oad, C aled onia, Illinois (www.
angelicorganics.com ).
40 A T T R A , 2 0 0 0 ( w w w .attra.org/a ttra -p u b /csa .h tm ).
41 T h e attrib u tes o f box schem es are sim ilar to N o rth A m erican C S A s,
although C SA s generally expect a higher level o f com m itm ent from consumers.
T h e re has been no recent evaluation o f box schem es in the U K ; but G reg Pilley
and colleagues o f the S o il A ssociation estim ate that the 2 0 large schem es have
up to 1 2 0 0 cu sto m e rs each , and th e 2 8 0 sm a ller o n es an average o f 2 0 0
custom ers, putting the total at 8 0 ,0 0 0 custom ers. T h e ir judgem ent is that this
may be o p tim istic, and thus 6 0 ,0 0 0 m em bers is a m ore reasonable estim ate.
However, this appears to approach the num ber o f m em bers o f all 1 0 0 0 C SA s
in the U S , su ggesting a need fo r a clear evaluation o f the im p acts o f these
schem es.
4 2 F o r m ore on the success o f farm ers’ groups across all regions o f the U S,
see docu m ents from the Sustainable A griculture and R ural E xten sion ( S A R E )
P ro g ra m m e ( 1 9 9 8 ) Ten Years o j SARE, C S R E E S , U S D A , W a sh in g to n , D C
( www.sare.org).
4 3 F o r U S fa rm e rs' m ark ets, see: w w w .am s.u sd a.g o v /f a r m e r s m a r k c t/
facts.htm . See also Burns and Johnson ( 1 9 9 9 ) Farmers’Market Survey Report, U SD A
( w w w .am s.usda.gov/d irectm a rk etin g /w a m 0 2 4 .h tm ), and R om inger, 2 0 0 0 .
44 F o r U K fa rm ers’ m arkets, see the N a tio n a l A sso ciatio n o f F a rm ers’
M ark ets ( w w w .farm ersm arkets.net).
45 F o r an e x ce llen t review o f the w ider p o lic y and d e m o c ra tic issues
surrounding food system s, see Lacy, 2 0 0 0 .
4 6 O n food system s in N o rth A m erica, see R od M a c R a e et al, 1 9 9 3 ; 1 9 9 9
pers com m ; W h e e ler et al, 1 9 9 7 ; M ark W 'inne, pers com m , 1 9 9 9 .
4 7 W h e e le r et al, 1 9 9 7 .
2 J 4 A g ri-C u i.tu r e C h a p t e r 6: P P I 2 6 - 1 4 5

C h a p t e r 6 T h e G e n e tic s C o n tro v ersy

1 See Conway 2 0 0 0 ; Royal Society et al, 2 0 0 0 .

2 Prelim inary data in late 2 0 0 1 from the In ternational Service for the
A cqu isition o f A g ribiotech A pplications (IS A A A ) suggest that 5 0 m illion
hectares o f genetically m odified crops were grown in 2 0 0 1 , up from 4 4 .5 in the
year 2 0 0 0 . In the year 2 0 0 0 , m ost genetically modified organisms were cultivated
in the U S ( 6 8 per cent), Argentina ( 2 3 per cen t), Canada ( 7 per cen t), with
2 5 ,0 0 0 —1 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares each in Australia, M exico, Spain, and South Africa.
There were also about 1 0 0 0 hectares each in Bulgaria, France, Rom ania, Uruguay
and Ukraine (Portugal grew a small amount in 1 9 9 9 , but then withdrew consent
for 2 0 0 0 ) . In the U K , experimental field releases o f genetically m odified plants
have occurred on 3 0 0 hectares. T h e re are 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 —5 0 0 ,0 0 0 hectares o f
genetically m odified tob acco and co tton planted in C hina (see C hen, 2 0 0 0 ;
James, 2 0 0 1 ; and www.isaaa.org). O f the total 4 4 .5 m illion hectares planted
worldwide in 2 0 0 0 , 5 8 per cent comprised soya; 2 3 per cent maize; 12 per cent
cotton; and 6 per cent oilseed rape. T h e others include potato, squash and papaya.
3 See Stren and A lton, 1 9 9 8 .
4 For summaries o l the contested views, see H ouse o f Lords, 1 9 9 8 ; Royal
Society, 1 9 9 8 ; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1 9 9 9 ; British Medical Association,
1 9 9 9 ; Royal Society et al, 2 0 0 0 .
5 Bellagio Apom ixis D eclaration, 1 9 9 8 .
6 For a summary o f environmental and health risks, see Rissler and M elon,
19 9 6 ; Alcieri, 19 9 8 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ; H ouse o f Lords, 1 9 9 9 ; Royal Society, 19 9 8 ;
N uffield Council on Bioethics, 1 9 9 9 ; B M A , 1 9 9 9 ; A C R E 2 0 0 0 a , 2 0 0 0 b .
7 For a detailed discussion o f the risks and benefits, see Pretty, 2 0 0 1 .
8 For more on gene flow, see Raybould and Gray, 1 9 9 3 ; Chevre et al, 19 9 7 ;
D E T R , 1999b.
9 Sec M cPartlan and Dale, 1 9 9 4 ; Gray and Raybould, 1 9 9 8 ; BC PC , 1 9 9 9 ;
Young et al, 1 9 9 9 ; A C R E , 2 0 0 0 b .
10 O n potential gene flow in soils, see Gebhard and Sm alla, 1 9 9 8 , 1 9 9 9 ;
ACRE, 2000b.
11 See Johnson, 2 0 0 0 .
12 F or more on resistance, see G eorghiou, 1 9 8 6 ; Vorley and Keeney, 1 9 9 8 ;
Heap, 2 0 0 0 .
13 Royal Society, 1 9 9 8 .
14 For more on the indirect effects, see Birch et al, 1 9 9 7 ; H ilbeck et al, 1 9 9 8 ;
Losey et al, 1 9 9 9 ; Crecchio and Stotzky, 1 9 9 8 ; Saxena et al, 1 9 9 9 .
15 For details o f the research on monarch butterflies, see Losey et al, 1 9 9 9 ;
M onarch Butterfly Research Sym posium , 1 9 9 9 ; Jesse and O brycki, 2 0 0 0 ; Scars
et al, 2 0 0 1 ; H em lich et al, 2 0 0 1 .
16 F or more on biodiversity effects, see C R E , 1 9 9 8 ; Royal Society, 1 9 9 8 ;
Johnson, 2 0 0 0 ; Cam pbell et al, 1 9 9 7 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ; Siriwardena et al, 1 9 9 8 ;
M ason, 1 9 9 8 .
C h a p te r 6: p p I 2 6 - I 4 5 . C h a p te r 7: p p ! 4 6 - I 6 9 N otes 2 1 5

17 F o r an overview o f herbicide use, see Read and Bush, 19 9 9 ; Dew ar et al,

2 0 0 0 ; B enbrook, 1 9 9 9 ; Joh nson, 2 0 0 0 .
18 See Royal Society, 1 9 9 8 ; N u ffield C o u n cil on B ioethics, 1 9 9 9 .
19 The I.ancel, 1 9 9 9 ; for a summary, see N u ffield C oun cil on Bioethics, 1 9 9 9 .
20 F o r m ore on the effects o f an tib io tic resistance, see H o u se o f Lord s,
1998.
21 F o r m ore on the alternatives to a n tib io tic m arkers, see B M A , 1 9 9 9 ;
A CRE, 2000b.
2 2 In Royal Society, 1 9 9 8 .
2 3 See G ro v e -W h ite et al, 1 9 9 7 ; E S R C , 1 9 9 9 ; U S Sen ate Scien ce C o m ­
m ittee, 2 0 0 0 .
2 4 See M ary Shelley, 1 8 1 8 .
2 5 From O ’R iord an, 1 9 9 9 .
26 U S Senate C o m m ittee on Scien ce, 2 0 0 0 .
27 K lo p p cn b erg and Burrow s, 1 9 9 6 ; A ltieri and R o sset, 1 9 9 9 a ; A ltieri,
1998.
2 8 A ltieri and R osset, 1 9 9 9 ; Conway, 1 9 9 7 ; P retty 1 9 9 5 , 2 0 0 0 b ; Gianessi
and C arpenter, 1 9 9 9 ; U S Senate Scien ce C o m m ittee, 2 0 0 0 .
2 9 F o r independent research on the effects o f genetically m odified organ­
isms in the field, see B enb roo k , 1 9 9 9 ; E R S -U S D A , 1 9 9 9 ; H yde et al, 2 0 0 0 ;
M in o r et al, 1 9 9 9 ; O p ling er et al, 1 9 9 9 ; U S D A , 1 9 9 9 ; Conway, 2 0 0 0 ; Elm ore
et al, 2 0 0 1 a , 2 0 0 1 b ; H al W illso n , pers com m , 2 0 0 0 .
3 0 See U K H ouse o f Lords, 1 9 9 9 .
31 See H erd t, 1 9 9 9 ; H u bb ell and W elsh , 1 9 9 9 .
3 2 See Fow ler and M oon ey, 1 9 9 0 .
3 3 See Potrykus, 1 9 9 9 .
3 4 See M cG lo u g h lin , 1 9 9 9 ; A ltieri and R osset, 1 9 9 9 a , 1 9 9 9 b .
3 5 F o r a summ ary o f novel applications o f genetic m od ification in develop­
ing countries, see Conway, I9 9 7 ;T a n k s le y and M cC o u ch , 1 9 9 7 ; D F ID , 1 9 9 8 ;
C G IA R , 2 0 0 0 ; Royal So ciety et al, 2 0 0 0 ; W in ro ck International, 2 0 0 0 ; ISA A A ,
2000.
3 6 See P in to et al, 1 9 9 8 .
3 7 See Conway, 1 9 9 7 .
3 8 Se c Jum a and G upta, 1 9 9 9 .
3 9 See Pin stru p-A n dersen, 1 9 9 9 .

C h ap ter 7 E c o lo g ic a l L it e r a c y

1 F o r m ore on the nature o f traditional, see Posey, 1 9 9 9 .

2 See L op ez, 1 9 9 8 , p l 3 3 .
3 See S c o t t ( 1 9 9 8 ) Seeing Like a State, p p 3 I I , 3 3 2 ; M atu rana and Varela
( 1 9 9 2 ) The Tree o j Knowledge. See also Capra, 1 9 9 6 .
4 See Kurukawa, 1 9 9 2 .
5 From L op ez, 1 9 9 8 , p i 4 4 .
2 J 6 A g r i- C u i.tu r e C h a p t e r 7: PP 1 4 6 -1 6 9

6 Ted B enton ( 1 9 9 4 ) indicates th at: ‘There is now quite widespread agreement

that. . . the dualistie opposites between subject and object, meaning and cause, mind and matter,
harm and animal, and above all, culture (or society) and nature have to be rejected and transcended.
The really difficult problems only start here, however.’
7 R olin g ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Gateway T o the G lobal G arden’.
8 F o r a sum m ary o f social capital principles, see P retty and W ard, 2 0 0 1 .
F o r the main social capital literature o f the past, seeT onn ies, 1 8 8 7 ; K ropotkin,
1 9 0 2 ; Jacob s, 19 6 1 ; Bourdieu, 1 9 8 6 ; C olem an , 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 0 ; Putnam , 1 9 9 3 ,
1995.
9 F o r m ore on trust, see G am b etta, 1 9 8 8 ; Fukuyam a, 1 9 9 5 ; Baland and
Platteau, 1 9 9 8 .
1 0 F o r m ore on reciprocity, see C olem an , 1 9 9 0 ; Putnam , 1 9 9 3 ; P latteau,
1997.
11 F o r m ore on rights and resp on sibilities, see T aylor, 1 9 8 2 ; C o lin s and
Chippendale, 19 9 1; C olem an, 1 9 9 0 ; Olster, 1 9 8 9 ; E tzio n i, 1 9 9 5 .
1 2 F o r m ore on co nn ected ness, see U p h o ff, 1 9 9 3 ; C ernea, 1 9 9 3 ; F lo ra,
1 9 9 8 ; G ro o ta e rt, 1 9 9 8 ; W o o lco ck , 1 9 9 8 ; W ard, 1 9 9 8 ; Rowley, 1 9 9 9 ; B arrett
et al, 2 0 0 1 .
13 Firstly, there are local conn ections, com prising links between individuals
w ithin g roups and co m m u n ities. L o ca l—local co n n ectio n s im ply ho rizo n tal
connections between groups within com m unities or between com m unities, which
som etim es becom e new higher-level institutional structures. T h e n there are lo c a l-
external co nn ectio ns, in which vertical co n n ectio n s between local groups and
external agencies or organizations can be one way, usually top-dow n, o r two way.
E xtern al—external conn ections refer to horizontal conn ections between external
agencies, leading to integrated approaches for collaborative partnerships. Finally,
there are co nn ectio ns between individuals w ithin external agencies.
1 4 See P retty et al, 2 0 0 1 ; D o b b s and Pretty, 2 0 0 1 a , 2 0 0 1 b .
1 5 See, for example, de los Reyes and Jop illo , 1 9 8 6 ; C ernea, 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 9 1 ;
U p h o ff, 1 9 9 2 ; P retty , 1 9 9 5 ; P re tty et al, 1 9 9 5 ; B unch and L o p e z , 1 9 9 6 ;
Narayan and P ritchett, 1 9 9 6 ; R olin g and Wagemakers, 19 9 7 ; Singh and Ballabh,
1 9 9 7 ; U p h o ff, 1 9 9 8 ; P retty and H in e, 2 0 0 1 .
1 6 Cernea, 1 9 8 7 .
1 7 O n t h e ‘dark sid e 'o f social capital, see O lso n, 19 6 5 ; Taylor, 1 9 8 2 ; Knight,
1 9 9 2 ; P ortes and L an d h olt, 1 9 9 6 .
1 8 Barrett et al, 2 0 0 1 .
1 9 F o r m ore on the problem o f free riders, see G ro o taert, 1 9 9 8 ; Dasgupta
and Serageldin, 2 0 0 0 ; O stro m , 1 9 9 8 . F o r m ore on social innovation, see Boyte,
1 9 9 5 ; H a m ilto n , 1 9 9 5 .
20 Long and L ong, 19 9 2 ; R olin g and Jiggins, 19 9 7 ; Pretty and Buck, 2 0 0 2 .
21 F o r a ty p o lo g y o f seven d ifferen t types o f p a rticip a tio n , see P retty,
1995b.
2 2 Kang et al, 1 9 8 4 ; Lai, 1 9 8 9 ; C arter, 1 9 9 5 .
2 3 See R olin g , 1 9 9 7 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 5 b ; A rgyris and Scho n, 1 9 7 8 ; H aberm as,
1 9 8 7 ; K enm ore, 1 9 9 9 ; M atu rana and Varela, 1 9 9 2 .
C h a p te r 7 : p p I 4 6 - I 6 9 N otes 2 17

2 4 See D Bromley, 1 9 9 2 .
2 5 O n the hierarchy o f the com m ons, see Johnson and D uchin, 2 0 0 0 ; Buck,
1 9 9 8 .Two things are im portant about this hierarchy o f com m ons. Firstly, actions
at the lower levels influence the state and health o f higher-level systems. Secondly,
it is easier to take collective action at lower lev els.T h e num ber o f stakeholders with
com peting interests increases as we go up the hierarchy, w hich m akes it m ore
d ifficult to achieve collective action. B ut agreem ents at the higher levels can filter
down to bring great changes. R onald O akerson has used a range o f attributes
to d ifferen tiate co m m on s. T h e first is the degree o f jointness, which refers to
whether one person’s use o f the resource subtracts from its value for others. Such
‘subtractability’ may simply reduce the flow o f benefits at one tim e, such as water
or fish; o r it may reduce the total yield o f the co m m on , perhaps changing it
forever. T h e second is the degree o f exclusion: how m uch access to the resource
is controlled or restricted. I f there is no exclusion, the resource is open access. If
use is restricted to a defined group, then it is closed access. W h a t is im portant
is the system through which co n d ition s for exclusion are applied. T h e third is
the degree o f divisibility o f the co m m on s: can the resource be divided am ong
private property holders? W h e re should boundaries be drawn in order to define
the resource and its users? T h e fourth is the rules and decision-making arrangements
specified by a group o f people. T h e s e include op erational rules — how m uch
should be taken or used, at what tim e and by w hom, and the generalized norm s
by w hich individuals lim it their actions in favour o f the collective benefit. See
O akerson, 1 9 9 2 , p 4 6
2 6 Singh and Bhattacharya, 1 9 9 6 .
2 7 T h is was predicted two decades ago by O lso n , 1 9 8 2 .
28 F o r w atershed groups, see Pretty, 1 9 9 5 b ; I A TP, 1 9 9 8 ; Bunch, 2 0 0 0 ;
H in chcliffe et al, 1 9 9 9 ; F Shaxson, S H o com b e, A M ascaretti, pers com m , 1 9 9 9 ;
N a tio n a l Landcare P rogram m e, 2 0 0 0 ; P retty and Frank, 2 0 0 0 .
2 9 F o r water users’ groups, see de los Reyes and Jopillo, 19 8 6 ; Bagadion and
K orten, 1 9 9 2 ; O stro m , 19 9 0 ; U p h o ff, 1 9 9 2 ; Cernea, 1 9 9 3 ; Singh and Ballabh,
1 9 9 7 ; U p h o ff, 1 9 9 8 ; Sh ah, 1 9 9 8 .
3 0 F o r m icrocredit groups, see Fernandez, 1 9 9 2 ; G ibbo n s, 1 9 9 6 ; G ram een
T ru st, passim.
31 F o r jo in t forest m anagem ent, see M alla, 1 9 9 7 ; Sh resth a, 1 9 9 7 , 1 9 9 8 ;
S P W D , 1 9 9 8 ; R a ju , 1 9 9 8 ; P offen berger and M cG ea n , 1 9 9 8 . N o te than in
India, the 2 5 , 0 0 0 jo in t fo rest m anagem ent groups arc m anaging 2 .5 m illion
hectares o f forest, but the total am ount o f forest listed in gazetteers is 8 0 m illion
hectares. T h e re has been m uch progress, but still a long way to go.
3 2 N o t every case o f jo in t forest m anagem ent ( J F M ) results in benefits for
all local people, particularly i f the forest d epartm ent sim ply uses the name o f
JF M to exert control over local com m unities. M ad hu Sarin recently docum ented
the case o f the village o f Pakhi in U tta r Pradesh, where a wom en’s group had
sustainably m anaged a 2 4 0 -h e cta re forest since the 1 9 5 0 s . But when the J F M
program m e was initiated in 1 9 9 9 , the local men form ed the jo in t m anagem ent
group and ousted the w omen. C o n flicts arose, and the forest departm ent stepped
218 A g r i -C u i .t u r e C h a p t e r 7: PP 1 4 6 -1 6 9

in to take back the key decisions. In the U ttarakh and region o f U tta r Pradesh,
there are 6 0 0 0 com m un ity forests managed properly by com m unities, and h a lf
of households depend heavily upon these co m m o n s.T h e worst kind o f develop­
m ent occurs when a good system is replaced by another (w hich turns out to be
w orse) in the name o f sustainability. See M ad hu Sarin ( 2 0 0 1 ) Disempowerment
in the Name o j Participatory Forestry? Village Forests Management in Uttarakhand.
33 F o r in teg ra ted pest m anag em ent fa rm er fie ld -s c h o o ls, see K iss and
M eerm an, 1 9 9 1 ; M atteson et al, 1 9 9 2 ; Eveleens et al, 1 9 9 6 ; van de Fliert, 1 9 9 7 ;
K enm ore, 1 9 9 9 ; D esilles, 1 9 9 9 ; Jon es, 1 9 9 9 . See also K enm ore et al, 1 9 8 4 ;
M angan and M angan, 1 9 9 8 .
34 F o r fa rm e rs’ g ro u p s, see P retty , 1 9 9 5 a , 1 9 9 5 b ; H a rp et al, 1 9 9 6 ;
O erlem ans et al, 1 9 9 7 ; vanW eperen et al, 1 9 9 7 ; van Veldhuizen et al, 1 9 9 7 ; Just,
1 9 9 8 ; Braun, 2 0 0 0 ; P retty and H in e, 2 0 0 0 . See Sue H eissw olf s thesis ( 2 0 0 0 )
for the R ural E xten sion C entre, G atto n C ollege, U niversity o f Q ueensland, for
m ore on the value o f social organization for agricultural changc.
3 5 F o r m ore on the study o f Iowan farm ers, see P eter et al, 2 0 0 0 , p 2 I 6 .
M o n o le g ic implies a one-way co nn ectio n, a transfer, instruction and the passing
o f in form ation , whereas dialegic suggests two-way co n n ectio n , an equal recog­
nition o f both partners, and co nn ectio ns between people—people and people—
nature: see B akhtin, 19 8 1.
3 6 F o r m ore on C IA L s, see Braun, 2 0 0 0 .
3 7 In her research in the southern state o f Santa C'aterina, Julia G uivant of
the U niversity o f F lorian op o lis found substantial changes in wom en’s welfare
when fam ilies becom e involved in group production schem es. Sh e says:

Participation in production groups, whether involving agroindustry or not, allows the burden
of agricultural production to he distributed between variousfamilies. This has led to important
changes in the daily routine oj the women, making it possible to share child-care in a way which
would have been impossible with their husbands. Incorporating value added activities within these
groups opens up new opportunities for women in the direction oj greater empowerment: courses,
direct contact with consumers, pride in their production, plans for future expansion.

3 8 F or m ore on the m aturity o f social capital in groups, see Bunch and Lopez
( 1 9 9 6 ) fo r H o n d u ras and G uatem ala; Bagadion and K o rten ( 1 9 9 1 ) fo r the
P hilip p in es; U p h o f f ( 1 9 9 8 ) fo r Sri L ank a; K rish na and U p h o f f ( 1 9 9 9 ) for
R ajasth an , India; and C u rtis et al ( 1 9 9 9 ) fo r Australia.
3 9 See P retty and Frank, 2 0 0 0 .T h e m odel identifies four d istinct stages that
relate the levels o f total renewable assets to perform ance or o u tp u ts.T h ese have
been synthesized from a range o f descriptive m od els that were developed for
analysing changes in social capital m anifested in groups and th eir life cycles
(M o o n e y and Reiley, 19 3 1; Handy, 1 9 8 5 ; Pretty and W ard, 2 0 0 1 ) ; for analysing
types o f p articip atio n betw een organizations and individuals (P retty , 1 9 9 5 b ;
W orld N eig h b ors, 1 9 9 9 ) ; fo r analysing changes in hum an capital m anifested
in phases o f learn in g , know ing and world views th ro u g h w hich individuals
progress over tim e (A rg y ris and S c h o n , 1 9 7 8 ; H ab erm as, 1 9 8 7 ; C o lin s and
Chippendale, 19 9 1; Law rence, 1 9 9 9 ) ; for analysing changes in natural capital
C hapter 7: ppI 4 6 - I 6 9 . C hapter 8: pp! 7 0 - I 8 8 N otes 2 1 9

during agricultural tran sfo rm atio n s (M a c R a e et al, 1 9 9 3 ; Pretty, 1 9 9 8 ) ; and for

an a ly sin g ad ap tiv e m a n a g e m e n t sy stem s in te rm s o f re s ilie n c e , c a p ita l and
co n n ectiv ity (H o llin g , 1 9 9 2 ) .
4 0 S e e O stro m , 1 9 9 8 .
41 See R o lin g and W agem akers, 1 9 9 8 ; Baland and P latteau , 1 9 9 9 ; D o b b s
and P retty, 2 0 0 1 a , 2 0 0 1 b .

C h ap ter 8 C ro ssin g th e In te r n a l F ro n tie rs

1 Intriguingly, the original o f The Man Who Planted Trees was entitled by G io n o
as The Man Who Planted Hope and Crew Happiness.
2 See Jean G io n o , 1 9 5 4 , p p 3 4 —3 7 .
3 M o re than tw o decades before The Man Who Planted Trees was published, Jean
G io n o show ed in Second Harvest how a Provencal village, again d esertified , could
be raised from the dead. In th is story, a giant o f a m an, Panturle, has his hope
rekindled by the arrival o f Arsule, fo r w hom he tills the soil and helps to rem ake
the farm , ch erry trees and m eadow s. P anturle m ore obviou sly su ffers than the
sile n t shepherd, and so when b o th he and the co m m u n ity are w hole again, w ith
children running and calling, and the fields full o f crops, the sense o f achievem ent
is perhaps even greater:

Then, all o f a sudden, standing there, he became aware o j thegreat victory. Before his eyes passed
the picture oj the old earth, sullen and shaggy with its sour broom and knife-like grasses. . . He
was standing in jront o f his fields. . . with his hands stretched down along his body, he stood
motionless. He had won. It was over. He stood firmly placed in the earth like a pillar (G io n o ,
1930, ppl 1 9 -1 2 0 ).

4 A re c e n t m a n ife s ta tio n o f th e land e th ic c o m e s fro m E O W ils o n ’s

c o n c e p t o f b io p h ilia . H e d efin es b io p h ilia as ‘the connections that human beings
subconsciously seek with the rest o f life’, and argues th a t th ese are d e term in ed by a
b io lo g ica l need. See K ellert and W 'ilson ( 1 9 9 3 ) The Biophilia Hypothesis.
5 A L eo p o ld ( 1 9 3 2 ) ‘G am e and W ild life C o n serv atio n ’, in River and Other
Essays, q u o ted in O elsch laeger, 1 9 9 1 , p p 2 I 6 —2 1 7 .
6 See H ow ard ( 1 9 4 0 ) An Agricultural Testament.
7 T h e w olf, o f co u rse, has ad ded sig n ifica n ce fo r h u m an s; it was th eir
sy m b io tic relation sh ip w ith hum ans, guarding against o th e r p redators in return
fo r scraps o f fo o d , th a t p ro b ab ly led to th e d o m e stica tio n o f th e d og a b o u t
1 2 ,0 0 0 —1 4 ,0 0 0 years ago. S ee B len ch, 2 0 0 1 .
8 L eo p o ld ( 1 9 4 9 ) A Sand County Almanac, p 1 2 9 .
9 T h e C a rp a th ia n E co re g io n a l In itiativ e is on e a tte m p t to address rural
developm ent across th e C arp ath ian region, and to draw in fin an cial resources
th ro u g h e co to u ris m , th ereby in creasin g the value o f lo ca l natu ral assets. See
C arp ath ian Large C arnivore P ro je c t and C arp ath ian E co re g io n a l In itiative.
10 See W ils o n , 1 9 8 8 . See also T ilm a n , 2 0 0 0 ; M y ers et al, 2 0 0 0 ; W o o d et
al, 2 0 0 0 ; Bass et al, 2 0 0 1 ; S to ll and O ’R io rd a n , 2 0 0 2 . F o r a g o o d overview, see
220 A g ri-C u i.tu r e C h a p te r 8: P P I 7 0 - I 8 8

the whole issue o f Nature ( I I M ay 2 0 0 0 ) on biodiversity with papers by Purvis

and H e cto r; G aston; M cC ann ; Chapin et al; and Margules and Pressey, p p 2 I 2 —
253.
11 See O rr, 2 0 0 0 . l;or more on design, see O rr, 2 0 0 2 .
12 Sec Ehrcnficld, 2 0 0 0 , p p 10 6 - 10 7 , 1 0 0 - 1 11.
13 A bbotts H all farm in Essex was purchased by the Essex W ild lifeT ru st
with the support o f the W orld W ide Fund for N ature, the Environment Agency,
English Nature, T h e W ild life T rusts and the H eritage L ottery Fund.
14 A measure o f the difficulty o f m aking these landscape changes to sea
defences is given by the fact that the Essex W ild lifeT ru st had to obtain over 3 0
statutory consents, as well as approval through the form al planning process.
15 I am grateful to Eri N akajim a for pointing me to this story of ecological
redesign, and for translating original government m aterial from the Japanese.
16 M cKean, 1 9 8 5 , p p 67, 82^
17 Devavaram et al, 1 9 9 9 ; Rengasamv et al, 2 0 0 0 .
18 W orld Bank, 1 9 9 5 .
19 Schwarz and Schwarz, 1 9 9 9 ; Sm it et al, 1 9 9 6 ; Rees, 1 9 9 7 .
2 0 See Garnett, 1 9 9 6 ; N ational Society o f Allotments and Leisure Gardeners
( www.nsalg.co.uk).
21 F or m ore on the psychological benefits o f gardening, see A rm strong,
2 0 0 0 . See also Kaplan, 1 9 7 3 ; McBey, 1 9 8 5 ; W H O Regional O ffice for Europe,
2000 .
2 2 W eissman, 1 9 9 5 a , 1 9 9 5 b .
2 3 G reenT hum b tales from the field ( w w w .cityfarm er.org/tales62.htm l).
 References

A bram ovitz, J ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Valuing nature’s services’ in Brown L, Flavin C and French

FI (ed s) State o j the World. W orldw atch In stitute, W ash ington, D C
A C C / S C N ( 2 0 0 0 ) 4th Report on The World Nutrition Situation. U N Adm inistrative
C om m ittee on C oord ination, S u b -C o m m ittee on N u trition , in collaboration
w ith IF P R I , U n ited N atio n s, N ew York
A C R E ( 1 9 9 8 ) The Commercial Use o j CM Crops in the U K : The Potential Wider Impact
on Farmland Wildlije. A dvisory C o m m ittee on R eleases to the E nviro nm ent,
D e p a rtm e n t o f th e E n v iro n m en t, T ra n s p o r t and the R e g io n s ( D E T R ) ,
L ond on
A C R E ( 2 0 0 0 a ) Annual Report 1 9 9 9 . A dvisory C o m m ittee on R eleases to the
Environm ent, D ep artm en t o f the Environm ent, T ran sp ort and the R egions
( D E T R ) , L ond on
A C R E ( 2 0 0 0 b ) Cene F low jrom Genetically Modified Crops. U n p u blish ed rep ort.
A dvisory C o m m ittee on Releases to the Environm ent and the A C R E S e cre­
tariat. D ep artm en t o f the E nvironm ent,T ransp ort and the R egions ( D E T R ) ,
L ond on
Adam s, J S and M c S h a n e ,T O ( 1 9 9 2 ) The Myth o j Wild Africa. W W N o rto n and
C o , N ew York
Agarwal, B ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘R e-sou n d in g the alert — gender, resources and com m unity
action', World Development 2 5 ( 9 ) , p p I 3 7 3 —1 3 8 0
Agarwal B ( 1 9 9 5 ) Gender, Environment and Poverty Linkages in Rural India. U N R I S D
D iscu ssio n Paper 6 2 . U N R IS D , Geneva
A ltieri, M A ( 1 9 9 5 ) Agroecology: The Science o j Sustainable Agriculture. W e stv iew Press,
Boulder, C olorad o
A ltieri, M A ( 1 9 9 8 ) The Environmental Risks o j Transgenic Crops: an agro-ecological
assessment. D ep artm en t o f Environm ental Scien ce, P olicy and M anagem ent,
U niversity o f C alifo rn ia, Berkeley, C alifo rn ia
Altieri, M A ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Enhancing the productivity o f Latin American traditional
peasant farm in g system s through an ag ro -eco lo g ical ap p roach ’. Paper for
C onference on Sustainable A griculture: N ew Paradigms and O ld Practices?
Bellagio C onferen ce C entre, Italy, 2 6 —3 0 A pril 1 9 9 9
A ltieri, M A and R osset, P ( 1 9 9 9 a ) ‘Ten reasons why b io tech n o lo g y will n o t
ensure fo o d security, p ro te ct the en viron m en t and reduce poverty in the
d ev elo p in g w o rld ’, AgBioForum 2 ( 3 —4 ) , p p 1 5 5 —1 8 2 ( w w w .ag b io fo ru m .
o r g / D e f a u l t / a ltieri.h tm )
2 2 2 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Altieri, M A and Rosset, P ( 1 9 9 9 b ) ‘Strengthening the case for biotechnology

will not help the developing world: a response to M cG loughlin’, AgBioForum
2 ( 3 —4 ), p p 2 2 6 - 2 3 6 ( w w w .agbioforum .org/D efault/altierireply.htm )
A ngelic O rg an ics, 1 5 4 7 R o ck fo rd R oad , C aled onia, Illin o is ( www.angelic
organics.com )
Argyris, C and Schon, D ( 1 9 7 8 ) Organisational Learning. Addison-Weslev, Reading,
M assachusetts
A rm strong, D ( 2 0 0 0 ) A survey o f com m unity gardens in upstate New York.
Im plications for health prom otion and com m unity development’, Health and
Place 6 ( 4 ), p p 3 1 9 - 3 2 7
A rnold, D ( 1 9 9 6 ) The Problem o f Nature. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford
A ssociation for Better H usbandry ( 2 0 0 0 ) P roject reports and annual reports
( www.ablh.org)
A stor, V iscount and Rowntree, B S ( 1 9 4 5 ) Mixed Farming and Muddled Thinking: An
Analysis o f Current Agricultural Policy. M acdonald and Co, London
A T T R A ( 2 0 0 0 ) Comm unity-supported agriculture ( www.attra.org/attra-p u b/
csa.htm )
Australian N ational Drylands Salinity Program m e ( www.lwrrdc.gov.au/ndsp/
index.htm )
Avery, D ( 1 9 9 5 ) Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic. T h e H udson Institute,
Indianapolis
BAA ( 2 0 0 0 ) Annual Review and Handbook. British A grochem icals A ssociation,
Peterborough
Bagadion, B J and K orten, I- F ( 19 9 1) ‘D eveloping irrigators’ associations: a
learning process approach’ in Cernea, M M (ed ) Putting People First. Oxford
University Press, O xford
Bailey, A P, R ehm an, T , Park, J, Keatunge, ] D H and T rainter, R B ( 1 9 9 9 )
‘Towards a method for the econom ic evaluation o f environmental indicators for
U K integrated arable farming systems’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 12,,
p p1 4 5 -1 5 8
Bakhtin, M M ( 19 8 1) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by H olquist, M ;
translated by Em erson, C and H olquist, M . University o f Texas Press, Austin,
Texas
Baland, J-M and P latteau, J -P ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘D ivision o f the com m ons: a partial
assessment o f the new institutional econom ics o f land rights’, American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 8 0 ( 3 ) , p p 6 4 4 —6 5 0
Balfour, E B ( 1 9 4 3 ) The Living Soil. Faber and Faber, London
Barker, P ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Edge city’ in Barnett, A and Scruton, R (eds) Town and Country.
Jonathan Cape, London
Barnett, A and Scruton, R (eds) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Town and Country. Jonathan Cape, London
B arrell, J ( 1 9 8 0 ) The Dark Side o f the Landscape: C am bridge U niversity Press,
Cam bridge
Barrett, C and Grizzle, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘A holistic approach to sustainability based on
pluralism stewardship’, Environmental Ethics, Spring, p p 2 3 —4 2
Barrett, C, Brandon, K, G ibson, C and G jertsen, H ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Conserving tropical
biodiversity amid weak institutions’, BioScience 5 1 ( 6 ) , p p 4 9 7 —5 0 2
 R eferences 2 2 3

B ass, S , H u g h e s, C and H a w th o rn e , W ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘F o re sts, b io d iv ersity and

livelihoods: linking policy and practice’ in Koziell, I and Saunders, ] (eds) Living
O ff Biodiversity. IIE D , Lond on
Baum ol, W J and O ates, W H ( 1 9 8 8 ) TheTheory o f Environmental Policy. Cam bridge
U niversity Press, Cam bridge
B C P C ( 1 9 9 9 ) Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevancef o r Transgenic Crops. Sym posium
Proceedings N o 7 2 . University o f Keele and British C rop P rotection Council,
L ond on
Beck, T ( 19 9 4 ) The Experience o f Poverty: Figbtingfor Respect and Resources in Village India.
I T P u blications, L ond on
B e c k .T and G h o sh , M ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘C o m m o n p ro p erty resources and the poor.
Findings from W est Bengal’, Economic and Political Weekly 3 5 ( 3 ) , p p I 4 7 —1 5 3
B e c k .T and N aism ith , C ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Building on po or p eo p les capacities: the case
o f com m on property resources in India and W est A frica’, World Development
2 9 (1 ), pp l 1 9 -1 3 3 '
B eilin, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Su staining a vision: recognising landscape futures’. Paper at
Landcare International 2 0 0 0 conference: C om m unity participation in natural
resource m anagem ent. M elb ou rn e, Australia
B ella g io A p o m ix is D e c la r a tio n ( 1 9 9 8 ) 2 7 A p ril—I M ay ( w w w .b illie.
harvard .ed u /apom ixis)
B en b ro o k , C ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘E vid ence o f the m agn itu d e and co n seq u en ces o f the
R oundup R eady soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in
1 9 9 8 ’, Ag Bio Tech InfoN et Technical Paper N o I . S a n d p o in t, Id a h o (www.
b io te c h -in fo .n e t/R R _ y ie ld _ d r a g _ 9 8 .p d f)
Bennett, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Step p in g from the diagram : Australian A boriginal cultural
and spiritual values relating to biodiversity’ in Posey, D (ed ) Cultural and Spiritual
Values o f Biodiversity. I T P u blications and U N E P , Lond on
B en to n , T ( 1 9 9 4 ) B io lo g y and so cia l th eo ry in the en viron m en tal d eb ate’
in R e d c lift, M and B en to n , T (e d s ) Social Theory and the G lobal Environment.
Routledge, Lond on
B enton , T ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Sustainable developm ent and the accu m u lation o f capital:
reconciling the irreconcilable?’ in D o b so n , A (e d ) Fairness and Futurity. O xford
U niversity Press, O xford
Berkes, F ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Indigenous knowledge and resource m anagem ent system s in
the Canadian su barctic’ in Berkes and Folk e (ed s) Linking Social and Ecological
Systems. C am bridge U niversity Press, Cam bridge
Berkes, F and Folke, C (ed s) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Unking Social and Ecological Systems. Cam bridge
U niversity Press, Cam bridge
Berry, T ( 1 9 9 8 ) The Dream o f the Earth. Sierra C lub B ook s, San Francisco
Berry, W ( 1 9 7 7 ) The Unsettling o f America. Sierra C lu b B ooks, San Francisco
Bignall, E M and M cC rack en , D I ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Low intensity farm ing system s in the
conservation o f the countryside’, Journal o f Applied Ecology 3 3 , p p 4 I 6 —4 2 4
Birch, A, G eoghegan, I, M ajeru s, M , M c N ico I, J, H ackett, C , G atehouse, A and
G atehouse, J ( I 9 9 7 ) ‘Tri-tro p h ic interactions involving pest aphids, predatory
2 -sp o t ladybirds and transgenic potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin fo r aphid
resistance’, Molecular Breeding 5 , p p 7 5 —8 3
2 2 4 A g r i- C u lt u r e

B len ch , R ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘W h y co nserve liv esto ck b io d iv ersity ?’ in K o z iell, I and

Saunders, J (ed s) Living O ff Biodiversity. 1IED , Lond on
B loch, M ( 1 9 7 8 ) French Rural History. R outledge and Kegan Paul, L on d on ( 1 9 3 1
rep rint)
Blum , J ( 1 9 7 1 ) ‘T h e E uropean village as com m un ity: origins and fu n ctio n s’,
Agricultural History Review 4 5 , p p I 5 7 —1 7 8
Blythe, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) Talking about John Clare. T ren t B ooks, N o ttin g h am
Bourdieu, P ( 1 9 8 6 ) ‘T h e form s o f capital’ in Richardson, J (e d ) Handbook o f Theory
and Researchfo r the Sociology o f Education. Greenw ood Press, W estp o rt, C onn ecticu t
Bowles, R and W ebster, J ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘So m e problem s associated with the analysis
o f the costs and benefits o f pesticides’, Crop Protection 1 4 ( 7 ) , p p 5 9 3 —6 0 0
B o y te, H ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘B eyond d e lib e ra tio n : citiz e n sh ip as p u b lic w o rk ’. P aper
delivered at P E G S co n fe re n ce , 1 1 —2 5 F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 5 . C iv ic P ra ctic e s
N etw ork ( w w w.cpn.org)
Braun, A ( 2 0 0 0 ) The CLALs (Comite de Investigacion Agricultura Tropical) at a glance.
CIA T , C o lo m b ia
British M ed ical A ssociation ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Impact o f Genetic Modification on Agriculture,
Food and Health. B M A , L ond on
Brom ley, D W (e d ) ( 19 9 2 ) Making the Commons Work. In stitute for C ontem p orary
Stu dies Press, San Fran cisco, C aliforn ia
Brouwer, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) Market integration o f agricultural externalities: a rapid assessment across
E U countries. R e p o rt for E uropean Environm ent Agency, C openhagen
Brum m et, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Integrated aquaculture in Sub-Saharan A frica’, Environmental
Development and Sustainability 1 ( 3 —4 ) , p p 3 I 5 —3 2 1
Bruner, A G , G ullison , R E , R ice, R E and de Fonseca, G A B ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Effectiv e­
ness o f parks in protectin g trop ical biodiversity’, Science 2 9 1, p p I 2 5 —1 2 8
B ru n k h o rst, D J and R o llin g s, N M ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘L in k in g eco lo g ica l and so cial
fu n ctio n s o f landscapes: I. In flu en cin g resource governance’, Natural Areas
Journal 1 9 ( 1 ) , p p 5 7 —6 4
B run khorst, D , Bridgewater, P and Parker, P ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘T h e U N E S C O biosphere
reserve program co m es o f age: learn in g by d o in g ; land scap e m o d els fo r
su stainable co n serv atio n and resource use’ in H ale, P and L am b, D (e d s )
Conservation Outside Nature Areas. U n iv ersity o f Q u e en slan d , Q u een slan d ,
p p 17 6 - 18 2
Buck, S J ( 1 9 9 8 ) The Global Commons. E arth scan , L on d on
Bunch, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Learning how to make the soil grow ’ in M c D o n a ld , M and
Brown, K (ed s) Issues and Options in the Design o f Soil and Water Conservation Projects.
Proceedings o f a w orkshop held in Llandudno, Conwy, W ales, 1—3 February.
U niversity o f W ales, Bangor
Bunch, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘M o re productivity with fewer external inputs’, Environmental
Development and Sustainability I ( 3 —4 ) , p p 2 1 9 —2 3 3
Bunch, R and L opez, G ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘So il recuperation in Central America: sustaining
innovation after intervention’, Gatekeeper Series SA 5 5 , Sustainable A griculture
P rog ram m e, In te rn a tio n a l In stitu te fo r E n v iro n m en t and D ev elo p m en t,
L ond on
 R efer en ces 2 2 5

Burns, A and Johnson, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) Farmers’Market Survey Report. U SD A , Washington

D C ( w w w .am s.usda.gov/directm arketing/w am 024.htm )
Butala, S ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Fields o f broken dreams', The Toronto Clobe and Mail, 4 M arch,
Toronto
Butler-Flora, C and Flora, J L ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘entrepreneurial social infrastructure: a
necessary ingredient’, The Annals o j the American Academy o j Political and Social Science
5 2 9 ,p p 4 8 -5 5
Butler-Flora, C and Flora, J L ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Creating social capital’ in V itek, W and
Jackson, W (eds) Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. Yale University
Press, N ew Haven and London
Buzby, J C and R ob ert, T ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘E con om ic costs and trade im plications o f
m icrobial foodborne illness’, World Health Statistics Quarterly 5 0 ( 1 —2 ), p p 5 7 —
66
C alifornia D ep artm en t o f Food and Agriculture ( 1 9 7 2 —current) Summary oj
Illnesses and Injuries Reported by Californian Physicians as Potentially Related to Pesticides,
1 9 7 2 —current. Sacram ento, California
C a llic o tt, J B, Crow der, L B and M u m ford , K ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘C u rren t norm ative
concepts in conservation’, Conservation Biolog)1 13, p p 22—35
C allicott, J B, Crowder, L B and M um ford, K ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘N orm ative concepts in
conservation biology. Reply to W illers and H unter’, Conservation Biology 14 ( 2 ),
pp575—578
Cam pbell, L H , Avery, M L, Donald, P, Evans, A D, Green, R E and W ilson , )
D ( 19 9 7 ) A Review o j the Indirect Effects oj Pesticides on Birds. R ep ort N o 2 2 7 . Joint
N ature Conservation Com m ittee, Peterborough
Capra, F ( 1 9 9 6 ) The Web o f Life. H arperCoIlins, London
Carney, D ( 1 9 9 8 ) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. D ep artm en t for In tern ation al
Development, London
Carpathian Ecoregional Initiative ( 2 0 0 0 ) W orld W'ide Fund for N ature, Austria,
Vienna ( www.carpathians.org)
Carpathian Large Carnivore P ro ject ( 2 0 0 0 ) Annual Report. Z arnesti, Rom ania
( www.clcp.ro)
Carreck, N and W illiam s, I ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T h e econom ic value o f bees in the U K ’, Bee
World 7 9 ( 3 ) , p p l 1 5 - 1 2 3
Carson, R ( 1 9 6 3 ) Silent Spring. Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth
Carter, P ( 1 9 8 7 ) The Road to Botany Bay. Faber and Faber, London
Carter, J ( 1 9 9 5 ) Alley Cropping: Have Resource Poor Farmers Benejited? O D I Natural
Resource Perspectives N o 3 , London
Cato, M P ( 1 9 7 9 ) ‘D i Agri Cultura’ in H ooper, W D (revised Ash, H B ) M arcus
Porcius Cato On Agriculture, and M arcusTerentiusVarro On Agriculture. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, M assachusetts
C D C ( 2 0 0 1) ‘Preliminary foodnet data on the incidence o f foodborne illnesses’,
MMWR Weekly 5 0 ( 1 3 ) , p p 2 4 I - 2 4 6
C ernea, M M ( 1 9 8 7 ) ‘F arm er org an isation s and in stitu tio n bu ild ing for
sustainable development’, Regional Development Dialogue 8, p p l—2 4
Cernea, M M ( 19 9 1) Putting People Tirst. O xford University Press, Oxford, second
edition
2 2 6 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Cernea, M M ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘T h e sociologists approach to sustainable development’,

Finance and Development, D ecem ber, p p l I —13
C G IA R ( 2 0 0 0 ) Promethean Science: Agricultural Biotechnology, the Environment and the Poor
(eds I Serageldin and G J Persley). C G IA R Secretariat. T h e W orld Bank,
W ashington, D C
C hen, Z L ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Transgenic food: need and safety'’. Paper presented at O E C D
Edinburgh conference on T h e Scientific and H ealth Aspects o f G M Foods,
28 February—I M arch ( w w w.oecd.org/s u b je c t/b io te c h /ed_prog_sum .htm )
Chevre, A -M , E ber, F, Baranger, A and Renard, M ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘G ene flow from
transgenic crops’, Nature 3 8 9 , p 9 2 4
Clare, J ( 1 9 9 3 ) The Shepherd’s Calendar (ed R obin son , E , Sum m erfield, G and
Powell, D ). O xford University Press, Oxford
Cleaver, K M and Schreiber, G A ( 19 9 5 ) The Population, Agriculture and Environment
Nexus in Sub-Saharan AJrica. W orld Bank, W ashington, D C
C obb, D, l'eber, R , H opkins, A and Stockdale, L ( 1 9 9 8 ) Organic Farming Study.
G lobal Environmental Change Programme Briefing 17, University o f Sussex,
Falmer
C o b b e tt, W ( 1 8 3 0 ) Rural Rides (ed W o o d co ck , G , 1 9 6 7 ) . Penguin Classics,
H arm ondsw orth
Colchester, M ( 19 9 7 ) ‘Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples and protected areas’
in Ghimire, K B and Pim bert, M (eds) Social Change and Conservation. Earthscan,
London
Colem an, J ( 1 9 8 8 ) ‘Social capital and the creation o f human capital’, American
Journal of Sociology 9 4 , supplement S 9 5 - S I 2 0
Colem an, J ( 1 9 9 0 ) Foundations o f SocialTheory. Harvard University Press, Harvard,
M assachusetts
C olins, C J and Chippendale, P ] (19 9 1) New Wisdom: The Nature of Social Reality.
A corn Publications, Sunnybank, Queensland
Collier, W L, W iradi, G and Soentoro ( 1 9 7 3 ) ‘Recent changes in rice harvesting
m ethods: Som e serious social im plications’, Bulletin o f Indonesian Economic Studies
9 (2 ), p p 3 6 -4 5
Com m on Ground ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Common Ground Book o f Orchards. Com m on Ground,
London
Comm on, M ( 1 9 9 5 ) Sustainability and Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
C onford , P (e d ) ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Organic Tradition: An Anthology o f Writing on Organic
Farming. Green Books, Bideford, Devon
C on wav, G R ( 1 9 9 7 ) The Doubly Green Revolution. Penguin, London
Conway', G R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Crop biotechnology: benefits, risks and ownership’. Paper
presented at O E C D Edinburgh conference on T h e Scien tific and H ealth
A spects o f G M F oo d s, 2 8 February'—I M arch ( w w w .o ecd .o rg /su b ject/
b io te c h /ed _prog_sum .htm )
Conway, G R and Pretty, J N ( 19 9 1) Unwelcome Harvest: Agriculture and Pollution.
Earthscan, London
Coop, P and Brunkhorst, D ( 19 9 9 ) ‘Trium ph of the comm ons: age-old particip­
atory practices provide lessons for institutional reform in the rural sector’,
Australian Journal o f Environmental Management 6 ( 2 ), p p 48—5 6
 R efer en c es 2 2 7

C ooper, G ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘A ldo Leopold and the values o f nature’ in V itek , W and

Jackson W (eds) Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. Yale University
Press, N ew Haven and London
Cooper, N S ( 2 0 0 0 a ) ‘Speaking and listening to nature: ethics within ecology',
Biodiversity and Conservation 9, p p l 0 0 9 —1 0 2 7
Cooper, N S ( 2 0 0 0 b ) ‘How natural is a nature reserve? An ideological study o f
British nature conservation landscapes’, Biodiversity and Conservation 9, pp 1 1 3 1—
1 152
C osgrove, D and D an iels, S ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Iconography o j Landscape. C am bridge
University Press, London
Costanza, R , d’Arge, R , de G root, R , Farber, S, Grasso, M , H annon, B, Limburg,
K, Naeem , S, O ’N eil, R V, Paruelo, J, R askin, R G , Su tto n , P and van den
Belt, M ( 1 9 9 7 and 1 9 9 9 ). ‘T h e value o f the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital', Nature 3 8 7 , p p 2 5 3 —2 6 0 ; also in Ecological Economics 2 5 ( 1 ), pp3—
15
Countryside Agency ( 2 0 0 1 ) The State o j the Countryside 2 0 0 1 . Countryside Agency,
Cheltenham
Crecchio, C and Stotzky, G ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Insecticidal activity and biodegradation o f
the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil’,
Soil Biology and Biochemistry 3 0 , p p 4 6 3 —4 7 0
C ronon, W , M iles, G and G itlin, J (ed s) ( 1 9 9 2 ) Under an Open Sky. Rethinking
America’s Western Past. W W N o rto n and C o, N ew York
Crosson, P ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘So il erosion estimates and costs’, Science 2 6 9 , p p 4 6 I —4 6 4
C urtis, A, van N ouhays, M , R obin son , W and M acKay, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Exploring
Landcare effectiveness using organisational theory’. Paper to International
Sym posium for Society and Natural Resources, University o f Queensland,
Brisbane, July 1 9 9 9
Daily, G (ed ) ( 19 9 7 ) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, W ashington, D C
Daily, G C, M atson, P A andVitousek, P M ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Ecosystem services supplied
by soil’ in Daily, G C (ed ) Nature’s Services. Island Press, W ashington, D C
Dasgupta, P and Serageldin, I (ed s) Social Capital: A Multiperspective Approach. W orld
Bank, W ashington, D C
Davis, O and K am ien, M ( 1 9 7 2 ) ‘E xternalities, inform ation, and alternative
co llective a ctio n ’ in D o rfm a n , R and D o rfm an , N (e d s ) Economics o j the
Environment: Selected Readings. W W N o rto n and C o, N ew York, p p 69—8 7
D avison, M D, van So est, J P, de W it, G and D e B oo, W ( 1 9 9 6 ) Financiele
waardering van de milieuschade door de Nederlandse landhouw — een benadering op
basis van de preventiekosten. [F in an cial valuation o f environm ental hazard
from Dutch agriculture —an approximation based on prevention costs]. Centre
for Energy Conservation and Clean Technology (C E ), D elft, T h e Netherlands
de Freitas, H ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Transform ing m icrocatchm ents in Santa Caterina, Brazil’
in H in ch cliffe, F, T h o m p so n , J, Pretty, J, G u ijt, I and Shah, P (ed s) Fertile
Ground: The Impacts oj Participatory Watershed Development. I T Publications, London
de los Reyes, R and Jopillo, S G ( 1 9 8 6 ) An Evaluation o j the Philippines Participatory
Communal Irrigation Program. Institute o f Philippine Culture, Q uezon City
228 A g r i- C u ltu r e

D elgado, C, R oseg rant, M , Steinfield , H , E hui, S and C'ourbois, C ( 1 9 9 9 )

Livestock to 2 0 2 0 : the next food revolution. IF P R I B rief 6 1 . In ternational Food
Policy Research Institute, W ashington, D C
Desilles, S ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Sustaining and managing private natural resources: the way
to step out ot the cycle o f high-input agriculture’. Paper for Conference on
Sustainable Agriculture: N ew Paradigms and O ld Practices? Bellagio C onfer­
ence Centre, Italy, 2 6 —3 0 April 1 9 9 9
Departm ent o f the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (D E F R A ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) June
Census data. E con om ic and Statistics Group ( www.defra.gov.uk/esg)
D epartm ent o f the Environm ent,Transport and the Regions ( D E T R ) ( 1 9 9 7 a )
Indicators oj Sustainable Developmentfo r the UK. Environmental Protection Statistics
and In fo rm atio n M anagem ent D ivision ( w w w .environm ent.detr.gov.uk/
e p sim /in d cs/isd .h tm )
D E T R ( 1 9 9 7 b ) Digest o f Environmental Statistics No 19 ( www.detr.gov.uk/ep sim /
d ig e s tI 9 / d ig I9 -9 .h tm )
D E T R ( 1 9 9 8 a ) The Environment in Your Pocket ( www.environment.detr.gov.uk/
d e s 2 0 /p o c k e t/env24.htm )
D E T R ( 1 9 9 8 b ) Digest o f Environmental Statistics No 20. UK Emissions o f Greenhouse
Gases ( www.environment.detr.gov.uk/d e s2 0 /c h a p te rl / )
D E T R ( 1 9 9 8 c ) Good Practice Guide on Managing the Use o f Common Land. D E T R ,
London
D E T R ( 1 9 9 9 a ) Design of a Tax or Charge Scalesfor Pesticides. D E T R (now D E F R A ),
London
D E T R ( 1 9 9 9 b ) Environmental risks o f herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape. A review of the PGS
hybrid oilseed rape. Research R ep o rt N o 15. D E T R , London
D eutsch, S ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘Landscape o f enclaves' in Cronon, W , M iles, G and G itlin,
J (ed s) ( 1 9 9 2 ) Under an Open Sky. Rethinking America’s Western Past. W W N o rton
and C o, N ew York
Devavaram, J, Arunothayam, E , Prasad, R and Pretty, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘W atershed and
com m unity development inTam il Nadu, India’ in H inchcliffe, F ,T hom p son ,
J, Pretty, J, G u ijt, I and Shah, P (eds) Fertile Ground: The Impacts of Participatory
Watershed Development. I T Publications, London
Dewar, A M , H aylock, L A, Bean, K M and May, A J ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Delayed control
o f weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid
infestation and yield', Pest Management Science 5 6 ( 4 ) , p p 3 4 5 —3 5 0
D ep artm en t fo r In ternational D evelopm ent ( D F I D ) P lant Science Research
Program m e ( 1 9 9 8 ) Rice Biotechnology. University o f Wales, Bangor
D iam ond, J ( 1 9 9 7 ) Guns, Germs and Steel. Vintage, London
D io p , A ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Su stainable agriculture: new paradigms and old practices?
In creasin g p ro d u ctio n w ith m anagem ent o f organic inpu ts in Sen eg al’,
Environmental Development and Sustainability 1 (3 —4 ), p p 2 8 5 —2 9 6
D ipera, K ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Botswana — Kaichela D ipera — M ukalahari’ in Senanayake,
R (e d ) Voices of the Earth, pp 121 —1 6 7 . In Posey, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and Spiritual
Values o f Biodiversity. I T Publications and U N E P, London
 R efer en c es 2 2 9

D ju retic, T, W all, P G , Ryan, M J, Evans, H S, Adak, G K and Cowden, J M

(1 9 9 6 ) ‘G eneral outbreaks o f infectious intestinal disease in England and
Wales 19 9 2 - 1 9 9 4 ’, Communicable Disease Report 6 ( 4 ), R 5 7 - 6 3
D o b b s ,T L and Dumke, L M ( 1 9 9 9 ) Implications o f ‘Freedom to Farm’f o r Crop System
Diversity in the Western Corn Belt and Northern Great Plains. E con om ics S ta f f Paper
9 9 - 3 . South D akota State University, Brookings
D o b b s, T L and Pretty, J ( 2 0 0 1 a ) The United Kingdom ’s Experience with Agri-
Environmental Stewardship Schemes: Lessons and Issues fo r the United States and Europe,
South D akota State University Econom ics S ta ff Paper 2 0 0 I - I and University
o f Essex Centre for Environm ent and Society
D obbs, T L and Pretty, J ( 2 0 0 1 b ) Future Directions for Joint Agricultural-Environmental
Policies: Implications o f the United Kingdom Experience fo r Europe and the United Slates.
South D akota State University and University o f Essex
D obson, A (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Fairness and Futurity. O xford University Press, Oxford
D o m e s tic A nim al D iv ersity In fo rm a tio n System (D A D IS ): www.dad.
fa o .o rg /cgi-d ad /$cgi_d ad .exe/sum m aries
D onaldson, J ( 1 8 5 4 ) Agricultural Biography. Life and Writings o f the British Authors of
Agriculture. London
D rin k w ater, L E , W agoner, P and S a rra n to n io , M ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Legum e-based
cropping system s have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses’, Nature 3 9 6 ,
p p 2 6 2 —2 6 5
Dryzek, J ( 1 9 9 7 ) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourse. O xford University
Press, N ew York and Oxford
D ubois, D, Fried, P M , Deracuasaz, B and Lehman, H ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Evolution and
instrum ents for the im plem entation o f a program for whole farm environ­
m ental m anagem ent in Sw itzerland ’. O E C D W ork sh o p on A doption of
Technologies for Sustainable Farm ing S y stem s,T h e N etherlands, July 2 0 0 0 .
O E C D , Paris C O M / A G R / C A / E N V / E P O C ( 2 0 0 0 ) 6 5
Duffy, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) Killingfor Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. James Currey,
O xford
Dumke, L M and D obbs, T L ( 1 9 9 9 ) Historical Evolution o f Crop Systems in Eastern
South Dakota: Economic Influences. E co n o m ics Research R e p o rt 9 9 - 2 . South
D akota State University, Brookings
D uPuis, E M and Vandergeest, P (ed s) Creating Countryside: The Politics of Rural and
Environmental Discourse. Tem ple University Press, Philadelphia
D urrenberger, E P and T h u , K M ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘T h e expansion o f large scale hog
farming in Iowa: the applicability o f G oldschm idt’s findings fifty years later’,
Human Organisation 5 5 ( 4 ) , p p 4 0 9 —4 1 5
Ecological Economics ( 1 9 9 9 ) , 2 5 ( 1 ) . Special issue devoted to Costanza et al ( 1 9 9 7 )
paper, with 12 responses (Ayres; Daly; E l Serafy; Herendeen; H ueting et al;
Norgaard and Bode; O p schoor; Pim entel; R ees;T em p let;T om an; and Turner
et al), and a reply from Costanza et al
European Environm ent Agency (E E A ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) EnvironmentalTaxes: Implementation
and Environmental Effectiveness. Environmental Issues Series N o I . EEA , Copenhagen
2 3 0 A g r i- C u lt u r e

E E A ( 1 9 9 8 ) Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment. Report and Statistical Compendium.

E E A , Copenhagen
E E A ( 1 9 9 9 ) Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1 9 9 0 - 1 9 9 6.
T echnical R e p o rt N o 1 9 , E E A , Copenhagen
E hren field , D ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘W ar and peace and conservation b io lo g y ’, Conservation
Biology 1 4 ( 1 ) , p p l 0 5 - 1 1 2
Eisinger, P K ( 1 9 9 8 ) Towards an End o j Hunger in America. Brookings In stitu tion
Press, W ash ington, D C
Ekins, P ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘European environmental taxes and charges: recent experience,
issues and trends’, Ecological Economics 3 1 , p p 3 9 —6 2
Elm ore, R W , R oeth, F W , Klein, R N , Knezevic, S V, M artin , A, N elson, L A
and Shapiro, C A ( 2 0 0 1 b ) ‘G lyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar response to
glyphosate’, Agronomy Journal 9 3 , p p 4 0 4 —4 0 7
E lm ore, R W , R oeth , F W , N elso n , L A, Shapiro, C A, K lein, R N , Knezevic,
S V and M a rtin , A ( 2 0 0 1 a ) 'G ly p h o sate-resistan t soybean cultivar yields
relative to sister lines’, Agronomy Journal 9 3 , p p 4 0 8 —4 1 2
E lster, J ( 1 9 8 9 ) The Cement o j Society: A Study o j Social Order. Cam bridge U niversity
Press, C am bridge
E ngels, F ( 1 9 5 6 ) The Peasant War in Germany. Progress Publishers, M oscow
E n g lish N a tu re ( 1 9 9 9 ) Common I.and: unravelling the mysteries. E ng lish N atu re,
Peterborough
English T ou rist C ouncil ( E T C ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) United Kingdom Tourist Statistics 19 9 9 . E TC ',
L on d on
E n viro n m en t A gency ( E A ) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Aquatic Eutrophication in England and Wales: a
proposed management strategy. E A , B ristol
E nvironm ent Agency o f Japan ( 1 9 9 9 ) One Summer in Satochi. T okyo, Japan
E rn ie , L ord (P ro th ero , R ) ( 1 9 1 2 ) English Farming. Past and Present. L ong m ans,
G reen and C o, L on d on
E scalada, M M , H e o n g , K L , H uan, N H and M ai, V ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘C om m u n ication
and behaviour change in rice pest m anagem ent: the case o f using mass m edia
in V ietnam ', journal o j Applied Communications 8 3 ( 1 ) , p p 7—2 6
E S R C ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Politics o j CM Food. Special Briefing N o 5, O cto b er 19 9 9 . E S R C
G lo b a l Environm ental Change P rogram m e, U niversity o f Sussex, Brighton
E tzion i, A ( 1 9 9 5 ) The Spirit o f Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian
Agenda. Fon tan a Press, L ond on
Evans, G E ( I 9 6 0 ) The Horse and the Furrow. Faber, L on d on
Evans, H S , M ad den, P, D ouglas, C , Adak, G K, O ’Brien, S J, D ju re tic,T , W all,
P G and Stan w ell-Sm ith , R ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘G eneral outbreaks o f infectious disease
in England and W ales 1 9 9 5 —1 9 9 6 ’, Communicable Disease and Public Health 1 (3 ),
p p 1 6 5 —17 1
Evans, R ( 1 9 9 5 ) Soil Erosion and Land Use: Towards a Sustainable Policy. Cam bridge
Environm ental Initiative, U niversity o f Cam bridge, Cam bridge
Eveleens, K G , C hisholm , R , van de Fliert, E, Kato, M ,T h i N h at, P and Schm idt,
P ( 1 9 9 6 ) Mid Term Review o j Phase I I I Report —The FAO Intercountry Programme for
the Development and Application o j Integrated Pest Management Control in Rice in South and
South East Asia. G C P / R A S / I 4 5 - 1 4 7 / N E T - A U L - S W I . FAO, R om e
 R efer en ces 2 3 1

Evers, L and M olina, F S ( 1 9 8 7 ) Maso/ Bwikam j Yatjui Deer Songs: A Native American
Poetry. Sun Track and University o f Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona
Ewel, K C ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘W ater quality improvem ent in wetlands’ in Daily, G (ed )
( 1 9 9 7 ) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
W ashington, D C
Food and Agriculture O rganization (FA O ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultivating Our Futures: Taking
Stock o j the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. FAO, Rom e
FAO ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Future of Our Land. FAO, Rom e
FAO ( 2 0 0 0 a ) Agriculture: Towards 2 0 1 5 / 3 0 . G lobal Perspective Studies U n it,
FAO, Rom e
FAO ( 2 0 0 0 b ) Food Security Programme ( w w w .fa o .o rg /s d /F S d ire c t/F S P in tro .
htm )
FAO ( 2 0 0 1 ) FAOSTAT Database. FAO, R om e
FAO ( 2 0 0 1 ) Animal agriculture in the EU. Some elements j o r a way jorward. Anim al
Production and H ealth Division, LAO, Rom e
F A O /U N E P ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘W orld watch list for dom estic animal diversity’ ( www.fao.
o rg /d a d -is)
Fernandez, A ( 1 9 9 2 ) TheMYRADA Experience: Alternate Management Systemsjo r Savings
and Credit of the Rural Poor. M Y R A D A , Bangalore
F iB L ( 2 0 0 0 ) Organic Farming Enhances Soil Fertility and Biodiversity. Results jrom a 21
year Jield trial. F iB L D o ssie r I (A u g u st). R esearch In stitu te o f O rg an ic
Agriculture (F iB L ), Zurich
Fleischer, G and Waibel, H ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Externalities by pesticide use in Germany’.
Paper presented to Expert M eeting: T h e Externalities o f Agriculture: W h at
do we Know/’ E E A , Copenhagen, M ay 1 9 9 8
Flora, J L ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Social capital and com m unities o f place’, Rural Sociology 6 3 ( 4 ),
pp481 -5 0 6
Forem an, R T ( 1 9 9 7 ) Land Mosaics: The Ecology oj Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Foster, V, Bateman, I ] and Harley, D ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Real and hypothetical willingness
to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison’, Journal
oj Agricultural Economics 4 8 ( 1 ) , pp 12 3 —1 3 8
Fowler, C and M ooney, P ( 1 9 9 0 ) The Threatened Gene: Food, Policies and the Loss oj
Genetic Diversity. T h e Lutterw orth Press, Cambridge
Fuglie, K, N arrod , C and Neumeyer, C ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Public and private investment
in animal research’ in Fuglie, K and Schim m elpfenning, D (eds) Public-Private
Collaboration in Agricultural Research. Iowa State University Press, D es M oines,
Iowa
Fukuoka, M ( 1 9 8 5 ) The Natural Way o f Farming (translated by F R M etreaud).
Japan Publications Inc, Tokyo and N ew York
Fukuyama, F ( 1 9 9 5 ) Trust: The Social Values and the Creation o j Prosperity. Free Press,
N ew York
Funes, F ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Cuba and sustainable agriculture’. Paper presented to S t James’s
Palace conference: Reducing Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture, 15 January
Funes, F, G arcia, L , Bourque, M , Perez, N and R osset, P ( 2 0 0 2 ) Sustainable
Agriculture and Resistance. Food F irst Books, Oakland, California
2 3 2 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Gadgil, M and Guha, R ( 1 9 9 2 ) This Fissured Land: An Ecological History o f India.

O xford University Press, New Delhi
Gadgil, M ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Grassroots conservation practices: revitalizing the traditions’
in Kothari, A, Pathak, N , Anuradha, R V andTaneja, B (ed s) Communities and
Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage P ublic­
ations, N ew Delhi
Gam betta, D (ed ) ( 1 9 8 8 ) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Blackwell
Scientific, O xford
Gapor, S A ( 2 0 0 1 ) Rural Sustainability in Sarawak. The role of adat and indigenous knowledge
in promoting sustainable sago production in the coastal areas o f Sarawak. P h D thesis,
University o f H ull, H ull
Garkovich, L, Bokemeier, J and Foote, B ( 1 9 9 5 ) Harvest o f Hope. University o f
Kentucky Press, Lexington
G arnett, T ( 1 9 9 6 ) Crowing Food in Cities: A report to highlight and promote the benefits of
urban agriculture in the UK. S A F E Alliance and N ational Food Alliance, London
Garreau, J ( 1 9 9 2 ) Edge City — Life on the New Frontier. A nchor Books, N ew York
G ebhard, F and Sm alla, K ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T ran sform atio n o f Acinetobacter sp. strain
B D 4 I 3 by transgenic sugar beet D N A ’, Applied and Environmental Microbiology
6 4 ( 4 ) , pp 15 5 0 - 1 5 5 4
G ebhard, F and Sm alla, K ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘M o n ito rin g field releases o f genetically
m odified sugar beets for persistence o f transgenic plant D N A and horizontal
gene transfer’, FEMS Microbiology Ecology 2 8 , p p 2 6 I —2 7 2
G eertz, C ( 1 9 9 3 ) Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. Fontana
Press, London
Georghiou, G P ( 1 9 8 6 ) ‘T h e magnitude o f the problem ' in N ational Research
C o u n cil, Pesticide Resistance, Strategies and Tactics. N a tio n a l A cadem y Press,
W ashington, D C
G him ire, K and P im b ert, M ( 1 9 9 7 ) Social Change and Conservation. Earthscan,
London
Gianessi, L P and Carpenter, J E ( 1 9 9 9 ) Agricultural Biotechnology: Insect Control
Benefits. N ational Center fo r Food and Agricultural Policy, W ashington, D C
G ibbons, D S ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Resource m obilisation for maximising M F I outreach and
financial self-sufficiency’. Issues Paper N o 3 for B ank-P oor 1 9 9 6 , 1 0 —12
D ecem ber, Kuala Lum pur
Gram een Bank at www.grameen.com or www.grameen-info.org
G iono, J ( 1 9 3 0 ) Second Harvest. H arvill Press, London ( 1 9 9 9 edition)
G iono, J ( 1 9 5 4 ) The Man Who PlantedTrees. Peter Owen, London ( 1 9 8 5 edition)
G oin, P ( 1 9 9 2 ) Humanature. University o f Texas Press, H arrisonberg, Virginia
G oldschm idt, W ( 19 7 8 ) (first published in 1 9 4 6 ). As You Sow: Three Studies in the
Social Consequences o f Agri-Business. Allanheld, M onclair, New Jersey
G om ez-Pom pa, A and Kaus, A ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘Tam ing the wilderness m yth’, Bioscience
4 2 ( 4 ) , p p 2 7 I —2 7 9
Grainger, M (ed ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) The Natural History Prose Writings o f John Clare. Clarendon
Press, O xford
 R efer en ces 233

Gray, A ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Indigenous peoples, their environments and territories’ in Posey

D (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and Spiritual Values o j Biodiversity. I T Publications and
U N E P, London
Gray, A and Raybould, A ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Reducing transgene escape routes’, Nature 3 1 2 ,
pp653—654
G reene, C and D o b b s, T ( 2 0 0 1 ) Organic wheat production in the US. E co n o m ic
Research Service (U S D A ), wheat yearbook. U SD A , W ashington, D C , p p 3 I—
37
G reenThum b, ‘Tales from the field’ ( w w w .cityfarm er.org/tales62.htm l)
Gren, I M ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘Costs and benefits o f restoring wetlands: two Swedish case
studies’, Ecological Engineering 4 , p p l 5 3 —1 6 2
Grimes, B ( 1 9 9 6 ) Ethnologue. Languages oj the World. I2 th Edition. Sum m er Institute
o f Linguistics, Dallas, Texas
G rootaert, C ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Social capital: the missing link’. W orld Bank Social Capital
Initiative W orking Paper N o 5, W ashington, D C
Grove, R H ( 1 9 9 0 ) ‘C olonial conservation, ecological hegemony and popular
resistance: towards a global synthesis' in M acKenzie, J M (ed ) Imperialism and
the Natural World. M anchester University Press, M anchester.
G ro ve-W h ite, R , M acnaughton, P, Mayer, S and W ynne, B ( 1 9 9 7 ) Uncertain
Worlds: GMOs, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. C S E C , Lancaster University,
Lancaster
H aberm as, ] ( 1 9 8 7 ) Theory o j Communicative Action: Critique oj Functionalist Reason.
Volume II. Polity Press, Oxford
H am ilton, N A ( 1 9 9 5 ) Learning to Learn with Farmers. P h D thesis, Wageningen
Agricultural University, T h e Netherlands
H am ilton, P ( 1 9 9 8 ) Goodbye to Hunger: A study o j jarm ers’perceptions o f conservation
farming. A B L H , N airobi, Kenya
Handy, C ( 1 9 8 5 ) Understanding Organisations. Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth
Hanley, N and O glethorpe, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Toward policies on externalities from
agriculture: an analysis for the European U nion’. Paper presented at American
Agricultural E conom ics Association Annual M eeting, Nashville, Tennessee
Hanley, N , M acM illan , D, W right, R E, Bullock, C, Sim pson, I, Parrison, D and
Crabtree, R ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating
the benefits o f environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland’, Journal o j Agricultural
Economics 4 9 ( 1 ) p p l—15
Hardin, G ( 1 9 6 8 ) ‘T h e tragedy o f the com m ons’, Science 1 6 2 , p p I 2 4 3 —1 2 4 8
H arp, A, Boddy, P, Shequist, K, H uber, G and Exner, D ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Iowa, U SA : An
effective partnership between the Practical Farm ers o f Iowa and Iowa State
University’ in T h ru p p , L A (ed ) New Partnershipsjor Sustainable Agriculture.VJR.1,
W ashington, D C
H arrin g ton , G ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Future o j the Pig Industry — Local and Global. Silco ck
Fellow ship fo r L ivestock R esearch R e p o rt 7, H arp er Adam s U niversity
College, N ew port
Harrison, P F and Lederberg, J (eds) ( 19 9 8 ) Antimicrobial Resistance: issues and options.
N ational Academy Press, W ashington, D C
2 3 4 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Hartridge, O and Pearce, D ( 2 0 0 1 ) Is UK Agriculture Sustainable? Environmentally

Adjusted Economic Accounts. C S E R G E , University College, London
H asselstrom , L ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘A ddicted to W o rk ’ in V itek, W and Jackson, W (eds)
Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place.Ya.le University Press, New Haven
and London
H avelaar, A M , de W it, M A S , van Kuningeveld, R and van K em pen,
E ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘H ealth burden in the Netherlands due to infection with therm o­
philic Cam pylobacter species’, Epidemiological Injection 1 2 5 , p p 5 0 5 —5 2 2
Heap, 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘International survey o f herbicide resistant weeds’ at: www.weed
scien ce.o rg /sum m ary/countrysum .asp
H effernan, W , H enrickson, M and G ronkski, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) Consolidation in the Food
and Agriculture System. R ep o rt to the N ational Farm ers U nion. University o f
M issouri, Colum bia ( www.nfu.org)
H eim lich, R E , W iebe, K D, Claasen, R , Gadsbv, D and H ouse, R M ( 1 9 9 8 )
Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits. Resource E conom ics
Division. Econom ic Research Service, U SD A . Agricultural Econom ics R eport
N o 7 6 5 . U SD A , W ashington, D C
H eissw olf, S ( 2 0 0 1 ) Building social capital in horticulture: Factors impacting on the
establishment and sustainability o j farmer groups. Q M 7 4 2 Extension D issertation.
Rural Extension Centre, Gatton College, University o f Queensland, Queensland
H enao, J and Baanante, C ( 1 9 9 9 ) Nutrient depletion in the agricultural soils o j AJrica.
IF P R I B rief 6 2 , IF P R I, W ashington, D C
H eong, K L, Escalada, M M , Huan, N H and M a i.V ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘U se o f com m un­
ication media in changing rice farmers’ pest management in the M ekong Delta,
V ietnam ’, Crop Management 1 7 ( 5 ), p p 4 I 3 —4 2 5
H erdt, R ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Enclosing the global plant genetic com m ons’. Paper presented
at Institute for International Studies, Stanford University. T h e R ockefeller
Foundation, N ew York
H ilb e c k , A, Baum gartner, M , Fried , P M and Bigler, F ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘E ffe cts o f
transgenic Bt corn-fed prey on m ortality and development time o f immature
Chrysoperla carnea Neuroptera: Chrysopidae, Environmental Entomology 2 7 , p p 4 6 0 —4 8 7
H inchcliffe, F ,T h o m p so n , J, Pretty, J, G uijt, I and Shah, P (ed s) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Fertile
Ground: The Impacts o j Participatory Watershed Development. I T Publications, London
H o d d ino tt, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) Operationalising Household Food Security in Development Projects.
IF P R I, W ashington, D C
H o llin g , C S ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘C ross-scale m orp h ology , geom etry and dynam ics o f
ecosystems’, Ecological Monographs 2 ( 4 ) , p p 4 4 7 —5 0 2
H olling, C S and M effe, M ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Com m ons and control and the pathology
o f natural resource managem ent’, Conservation Biology 1 0 ( 2 ), p p 3 2 8 —3 3 7
H oskins, W G ( 1 9 5 5 ) The Making o j the English Landscape. Penguin Books, London
H ouse o f Lords Select Com m ittee on Science and Technology ( 1 9 9 8 ) Seventh
Report: Resistance to antibiotics and other microbiological agents. H M S O , London
H ouse o f Lords Select Com m ittee on the European Com m unities ( 1 9 9 9 ) E C
Regulation o j Genetic Modification in Agriculture. H M S O , London
Howard, A ( 1 9 4 0 ) An Agricultural Testament. Faber, London
 R e fe re n ce s 2 3 5

H ealth and Safety Executive ( H S E ) ( 1 9 9 8 a ) Pesticides Incidents Report 1 9 9 7 /

H S E , Sudbury
H S E ( 1 9 9 8 b ) Pesticide Users and their Health: Results o f H S E ’s 1 9 9 6 / 7 Feasibility Study
( w w w .open.gov.uk/hse/hsehom e.h tm )
H u b b e ll, B J and W e lsh , R ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T ra n sg e n ic cro p s: en g in eerin g a m ore
sustainable future?’ Agriculture and Human Values 1 5 , p p 4 3 —5 6
H u m p h rie s, J ( 1 9 9 0 ) ‘E n clo su res, co m m o n rig h ts and w om en: the p ro lit-
erianization o f fam ilies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries’,
Journal o j Economic History 5 0 ( 1 ) , p p I 7 —4 2
H unter, M L J r ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘R efinin g norm ative concepts in conservation’, Conserv­
ation Biology 1 4 ( 2 ) , p p 5 7 3 —5 7 4
H u tch eo n , L ( 1 9 8 9 ) The Politics o f Postmodernism. R outledge, Lond on
H uxley, E ( I 9 6 0 ) A New Earth: An Experiment in Colonialism. C h atto and W indus,
L on d on
H yde, J, M artin , M A, Preckel, P V and Edwards, C R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘T h e econom ics
o f B.t. co rn : ad option and im p lications’. D ep artm en t o f A gricultural E c o n ­
om ics, Purdue University ( w w w .agcom .purdue.edu/A g C o m / P u b s / l D - 2 I 9 /
I D - 2 I 9 .h t m l )
I A T P ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Farm er-m anaged watershed program ’ ( www.iatp.org)
IS A A A ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘IS A A A in B r ie f’ ( www.isaaa.org)
Iyengar, S and Shukla, N ( 1 9 9 9 ) Common property land resources in India: some issues
in regeneration and management. G u ja ra t In stitu te o f D ev elo p m en t R esearch ,
A hm edabad
Jacobs, J ( 1 9 6 1 ) The Life and Death o f Great American Cities. R and om H ouse, London
James, C ( 2 0 0 1 ) Global status o j commercialised transgenic crops, 2 0 0 0 . IS A A A Briefs
N o 2 1 - 2 0 0 1 ( w w w .isaaa.o rg /b riefs/B rief 2 I .h t m )
Jarass, L and O berm air, G M ( 19 9 7 ) More Jobs, Less Tax Evasion, Cleaner Environment.
U n iversitat R egensburg, G erm any ( w w w .su k .fli-w iesb ad en .d e/p erso n en /
ja r a s s /m an u sk rip t5.h tm l)
Jennings, F ( 1 9 8 4 ) The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire. W W N o rto n and Co, N ew York
Jesse, L C H and O brycki, J J ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Field deposition o f Bt transgenic co r n pollen:
lethal effects on the m onarch bu tterfly’, Oceologia 1 2 5 , p p 2 4 I —2 4 8
Jodha, N S ( 1 9 8 8 ) ‘Poverty debate in India: a m in ority view’, Economic and Political
Weekly, N ovem ber, p p 2 4 2 1—2 4 2 8
Jodha, N S ( 1 9 9 0 ) ‘C o m m on property resources and rural p o o r in dry regions
o f In d ia’, Economic and Political Weekly 2 1 , p p l 1 6 9 —1 181
Jod ha, N S ( 1 9 9 1 ) Rural common property resources: a growing problem. Sustainable
A griculture Program m e G atekeeper Series N o 2 4 , IIE D , L on d on
Joh n so n , B and D u chin , F ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘T h e case fo r the global co m m on s’ in H arris
J ( e d ) Rethinking Sustainability: Power, Knowledge and Institutions. U n iversity o f
M ichigan Press, Ann A rbor
Joh nson, B ( 2 0 0 0 ) Problems ojplant conservation in agricultural landscapes: can biotechnology
help or hinder? U npublished report. English N ature, Peterborough
Jones, K ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Integrated pest and crop m anagem ent in Sri L anka’. Paper for
C onferen ce on Sustainable A griculture: N ew Paradigm s and O ld Practices?
Bellagio C onferen ce C entre, Italy, 2 6 —3 0 A pril 1 9 9 9
2 3 6 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Juina, C and Gupta, A ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Safe use o f biotechnology’, IF P R I2 0 2 0 Vision Focus

2 , B rie f 6 o f 10. International Food Policy Research Institute, W ashington,
DC
Just, F ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘D o soft regulations m atter?’ Paper presented to Expert M eeting:
T h e Externalities o f Agriculture: W h a t do we Know? European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen, M ay 1 9 9 8
Kaeferstein, F K, M o tarjen i, Y and Bettcher, D W ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘F oodborne disease
c o n tro l, Emerging Infectious Diseases 3, p p 5 0 3 —5 1 6
Kang, B T , W ilson , G F and Lawson, T L ( I 9 8 4 ) Alley Cropping: A Stable Alternative
to Shifting Agriculture. IIT A , Ibadan
Kaplan, D ( 1 9 7 3 ) ‘Som e psychological benefits o f gardening’, Environment and
Behaviour 5, p p I 4 5 —161
Kato, Y, Yokohari, M and Brown, R D ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Integration and visualisation o f
the ecological value o f rural landscapes in maintaining the physical environ­
m ent o f Japan’, Landscape and Urban Planning 3 9 , p p 6 9 —8 2
K atz, E G ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Social capital and natural capital: a comparative analysis o f
land tenure and natural resource management in Guatem ala’, Land Economics
7 6 (1 ), ppl 1 4 -1 3 2
Keeny, D and M uller, M ( 2 0 0 0 ) Nitrogen and the Upper Mississippi River. Institute
o f Agriculture and Trade Policy, M inneapolis
Kellert, S and W ilson, E O ( 1 9 9 3 ) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater,
W ashington, D C
Kenmore, P E , Carino, F O , Perez, C A, Dyck, V A and G utierrez, A P ( 1 9 8 4 )
‘Population regulation o f the brown planthopper w ithin rice fields in the
Philippines’, Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics 1 (1 ), p p l 9 —3 7
K enm ore, P E ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘R ic e IP M and farm er field sch oo ls in A sia’. Paper
for Conference on Sustainable Agriculture: New Paradigms and O ld Practices?
Bellagio Conference Centre, Italy, 2 6 —3 0 April 1 9 9 9
Khan, Z R , Pickett, J A, van den Berg, I and W oodcock, C M ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Exploiting
chemical ecology and species diversity: stem borer and Striga control for maize
in A frica’, Pest Management Science 5 6 ( 1 ) , p p l—6
Khare, A ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Community-based conservation in India’ in Kothari, A, Pathak,
N , Anuradha, R V and Taneja, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) Communities and Conservation: Natural
Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage, N ew D elhi
King, F H ( I 9 I I ) Farmers o f Forty Centuries: Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and
Japan. R odale Press, Pennsylvania
K iss, A and M eerm an, F ( 1 9 9 1) Integrated Pest Management in African Agriculture.
W orld Bank Technical Paper 14 2 , W orld Bank, W ashington, D C
Klijn, J and Vos, W (eds) ( 2 0 0 0 ) From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Kline, D ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘A n Amish Perspective’ in V itek, W and Jackson, W (eds) Rooted
in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. Yale University Press, N ew Haven and
London
Kloppenberg, J ( 19 9 1) ‘Social theory and the d e/recon stru ction o f agricultural
science: a new agenda for rural sociology’, Sociologia Ruralis 3 2 ( I ), p p 5 1 9 —5 4 8
 R e fe re n ce s 2 3 7

K loppenberg, ] and Burrows, B ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Biotechn ology to the rescue: twelve

reasons why biotechnology is incom patible with sustainable agriculture’, The
Ecologist 2 6 ( 2 ) , p p 6 1 —6 7
K nig ht, J ( 1 9 9 2 ) Institutions and Social Conflict. C am bridge U niversity Press,
Cambridge
Knutson, R , Penn, J and Flinchbaugh, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) Agricultural and food Policy, Fourth
E dition. Prentice H all, U pper Saddle River, N ew jersey
K oohafkan, P and Stew art, B A ( 2 0 0 1 ) Water Conservation and Water Harvesting in
Cereal-Producing Regions of the Drylands. FAO, Rom e
Kothari, A, Pande, P, Singh, S and Dilnavaz, R ( 1 9 8 9 ) Management o f National Parks
and Sanctuaries in India. Indian Institute o f Public Adm inistration, N ew Delhi
Kothari, A, Pathak, N , Anuradha, R V and T aneja, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) Communities and
Conservation: Natu ral Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage, N ew Delhi
Kovaleski, S F ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Cuba goes green: government-run vegetable gardens sprout
in cities across island’ at: w w w .cityfarm er.org/CubaG reen.htm l
Krebs, ] R , W ilso n , J D, Bradbury, R B and Siriwardena, G M ( 1 9 9 9 ) T h e
second silent spring?’ Nature 4 0 0 , p p 6 1 1—6 1 2
Krishna, A and U phoff, N ( 1 9 9 9 ) Operationalising social capital: explaining and measuring
mutually beneficial collective action in Rajasthan, India. C ornell University, C ornell
K rop otkin , P ( 1 9 0 2 ) Mutual Aid. E xtend ing H o rizo n Books, Boston ( 1 9 5 5
edition)
Kurokawa, K ( 1 9 9 1) Intercultural Architecture. The Philosophy o f Symbiosis. Academy
Editions, London
Lacy, W B ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Empowering com m unities through public work, science and
local food system s: revisiting dem ocracy and globalisation’, Rural Sociology
6 5 ( 1 ) , p p3—2 6
Lai, R ( 1 9 8 9 ) ‘A groforestry systems and soil surface management o f aTropical
A lfisol. I: So il m oisture and crop yields’, Agroforestry Systems 8, pp7—2 9
Lam pkin, N ( 1 9 9 6 ) Impact of E C Regulation 2 0 7 8 / 9 2 on the development o f organic
farming in the European Union. W elsh In stitute o f Rural Affairs, University o f
W ales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed
Lam pkin, N and M idm ore, P ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Changing fortunes for organic farming
in Europe: policies and prospects’. Paper presented for Agricultural E co n ­
om ics Society Annual Conference, M anchester, U K
L am p k in, N and Padel, S (e d s ) ( 1 9 9 4 ) The Economics o f Organic Farming: An
International Perspective. C A B International, W allingford
Landers, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘P olicy and organisational d im ensions o f the process o f
transition toward sustainable intensification in Brazilian agriculture’. Paper
presented for Rural W eek, T h e W orld Bank, 2 4 —2 6 M arch, W ashington, D C
Landers, J N , D e C Barros, G S-A , M anfrinato, W A, Rocha, M T and Weiss,
J S ( 2 0 0 1) ‘Environmental benefits o f zero-tillage in Brazil —a first approxim­
ation’ in G arciaTorres, L , Benites, J and M artin ezV ilela, A (eds) Conservation
Agriculture —A Worldwide Challenge. Volume I . X U L , Cordoba, Spain
Lane, C ( 1 9 9 0 ) Barabaig Natural Resource Management: sustainable land use under threat
o f destruction. U N R IS D Discussion Paper 12, Geneva
238 A g r i- C u ltu r e

Lane, C ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘T h e state strikes back: extinguishing customary rights to land

in Tanzania’ in Never Drink from the Same Cup. Proceedings o f the Conference
on Indigenous Peoples in A frica. C D R / I W I G I A D ocum ent 7 2 , Denm ark
Lane, C and Pretty, J ( 1 9 9 0 ) Displaced Pastoralists and Transferred Wheat Technology in
Tanzania. Sustainable Agriculture Program m e Gatekeeper Series S A 2 0 . IIE D ,
London
L ang ,T , Heasman, M and P itt, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) Food, Globalisation and a New Public Health
Agenda. International Forum on G lobalization, San Francisco
Lang, T , B arling, D and C araher, M ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘F o o d , so cial p o licy and the
environm ent: towards a new m od el’, Social Policy and Administration 3 5 ( 5 ) ,
p p 5 3 8 —5 5 8
Lawrence, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Stages o f adult learning’. M im eo. Queensland Departm ent
o f Primary Industries, Australia
Leach, M and M earns, R ( 1 9 9 6 ) The Lie o f the Land. Routledge, London
Lease, G ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘In trod u ction: N ature under fire’ in Soule, M E and Lease,
G (ed s) Reinventing Nature? Response to Postmodern Deconstruction. Island Press,
W ashington, D C
Leopold, A ( 1 9 3 2 ) ‘Game and W ild life Conservation’ in River and Other Essays,
quoted in Oelschlaeger, M ( 19 9 1) The Idea o f Wilderness. Yale University Press,
N ew Haven, p p 2 I 6 —2 1 7
L eop o ld , A ( 1 9 4 9 ) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. O xford
University Press, London and New York ( 1 9 7 4 edition)
Lewis, G M ( 1 9 8 8 ) ‘R h etoric o f the western interior: modes o f environmental
d escrip tion in A m erican p ro m o tio n al literatu re o f the 1 9 th cen tu ry ’ in
Cosgrove, D and D aniels, S ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Iconography o f Landscape. Cam bridge
University Press, London
Lewis, O ( 1 9 6 4 ) Pedro Martinez. Alfred K nopf, N ew York
Lindqvist, R , Andersson,Y, Lindback, J, Wegscheider, M , Eriksson, Y,Tidestrom ,
L, Lagerqvist-W idh, A, Hedlund, K -O , Lofdahl, S, Svensson, L and Norinder,
A ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘A one-year study o f food borne illnesses in the m unicipality o f
Uppsala, Sweden’, Emerging Infectious Diseases (Centre for Disease C o n tro l) 7 (3 ),
June 2 0 0 1 Supplem ent, p p l—10
L i W enhua ( 2 0 0 1 ) Agro-Ecological Farming Systems in China. M an and the Biosphere
Series Volum e 2 6 . U N E S C O , Paris
Lobao, L ( 19 9 0 ) Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure and Socio-Economic
Conditions. State University o f N ew York Press, N ew York
Lobao, L M , Schulman, M D and Swanson, L E ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘Still going: recent debate
on the G oldschm idt H ypothesis’, Rural Sociology 5 8 ( 2 ) , p p 2 7 7 —2 8 8
L ob stein .T , M illstone, E , L a n g .T and van Zwanenberg, P ( 2 0 0 1 ) The lessons of
Phillips. Questions the UK government should be asking in response to Lord Phillips' Inquiry
into BSE. Centre for Food Policy, T ham es Valley University, London
Long, N and Long, A ( 1 9 9 2 ) Battlefields o f Knowledge. Routledge, London
Lopez, B ( 1 9 8 6 ) Arctic Dreams. Imagination and Desire in a Northern Landscape. Harvill,
London
Lopez, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) About this Life. Journeys on theThreshold o f Memory. H arvill, London
 R efer en c es 2 3 9

Losey, J E , R ayor, L S and C arter, M E ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘T ran sg enic pollen harm s

m onarch larvae’, Nature 3 9 9 , p p 2 I4
M abey, R ( 1 9 9 6 ) Flora Britannica. Sinclair Stevenson, London
M acR ae, R J, H enning, J and H ill, S B ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘Strategies to overcome barriers
to the development o f sustainable agriculture in Canada: the role o f agri­
business’, Journal o f Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, p p 21—51
M A F F ( 1 9 9 9 ) Reducing Farm Subsidies —Economic Adjustment in Rural Areas. W orking
Paper 2 . E con om ic and Statistics Group o f M A F F , London
M affi, L ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Linguistic diversity’ in Posey, D (ed) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and Spiritual
Values o f Biodiversity. I T Publications and U N E P, London
M alla, Y B ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Sustainable use o f communal forests in N epal’, Journal of World
Forest Resource Management 8, p p 5 I —7 4
M angan, J and M angan, M S ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘A com p arison o f two IP M training
strategies in C hina: the im portance o f concepts o f the rice ecosystem for
sustainable pest management’, Agriculture and Human Values 15, p p 2 0 9 —2 2 1
M a n n in g , R E ( 1 9 8 9 ) ‘T h e nature o f A m erica: visions and revisions of
wilderness’, Natural Resources Journal 2 9 , p p 2 5 —4 0
M ason, C F ( 1 9 9 6 ) Biology o f Freshwater Pollution. 3rd edition. Addison, W esley
Longm an, Harlow
M ason, C F ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘H abitats o f the song thrush Turdus philomelos in a largely
arable landscape’, Journal of Zoology, London 2 4 4 , p p 8 9 —9 3
M a tte so n , P C , G allagh er, K D and K enm ore, P E ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘E x ten sio n o f
integrated pest m anagem ent fo r planth oppers in A sian irrigated rice’ in
D enno, R F and Perfect, T J (ed s) Ecology and the Management o f Planthoppers.
Chapman and H all, London
M aturana, H R and Varela, F J ( 19 9 2 ) The Tree o f Knowledge. The Biological Roots of
Human Understanding. Revised E dition. Sham bhala, Boston and London
Maxwell, S and Frankenberger, T ( 1 9 9 2 ) Household food security: concepts, indicators,
measurements. IFAD, Rom e
M cBey, M A ( 1 9 8 5 ) ‘T h e therapeutic aspects o f gardens and gardening: an
aspect o f total patient a r e ’, Journal of Advanced Nursing 10, p p 5 9 I —5 9 5
M cG in nis, M V (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Bioregionalism. Routledge, London and N ew York
M cG loughlin, M ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Ten reasons why biotechnology will be im portant to
the developing world', AgBioForum 2 ( 3 —4 ), pp 1 6 3 —1 7 4 ( www.agbioforum.
o r g /D e fa u It/m cgloughlin.htm )
M cK ean, M A ( 1 9 8 5 ) ‘T h e Japanese experience with scarcity: management of
traditional com m on lands’, Environmental Reviews 9 ( 1 ), p p 6 3 —8 8
M cK ean, M A ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘M anagement o f traditional com m on lands ( Iriaichi) in
Japan’ in Bromley, D W (ed ) Making the Commons Work. Institute for C ontem p­
orary Studies Press, San Francisco, California
M cN eely , J A and Sch err, S J ( 2 0 0 1 ) Common Cround, Common Future. How
ecoagriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity. IU C N and Future
Harvest, Geneva
M cPartlan, H C and D ale, P J ( 1 9 9 4 ) ‘A n assessment o f gene transfer by pollen
from field-grown transgenic potatoes to non-transgenic potatoes and related
species’, Transgenic Research 3, p p 2 I 6 —2 2 5
240 A g r i- C u ltu r e

M ead, P S, Slutsker, L and D ietz, V ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Food related illness and death in

the U S ’, Emerging Infectious Diseases 5, p p 6 0 7 —6 2 5
M iles, G ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘T o hear an old voice’ in C ronon, W , M iles, G and G itlin ,
J (ed s) ( 1 9 9 2 ) Under an Open Sky. Rethinking America’s Western Past.W W N o rton
and Co, N ew York, p p 52—7 0
M illstone, E and van Zwanenberg, P ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Politics o f expert advice: from the
early history o f the B SE saga’, Science and Public Policy 2 8 ( 2 ) , p p 9 9 —1 12
M in a m i, K , Se in o , H , Iwama, FI and N ish io , M ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘A gricultural land
conservation’. O E C D W orkshop on Agri-Environm ental Indicators. York,
2 2 - 2 5 Septem ber. O E C D , Paris C O M / A G R / C A ./ E N V / E P O C ( 9 8 ) 7 8
M inor, H C, M o rris, C G , M ason, H L, Hanty, R W , Stafford, G K and Fritts,
T G ( 1 9 9 9 ) Corn.- 1 9 9 9 Missouri Crop Performance. U niversity o f M issou ri-
Columbia Special R ep ort 5 2 1 , University o f M issouri, Columbia
M o lin a , F S ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T h e w ilderness world is respected greatly: the Yoeme
(Y aqu i) truth from the Yoeme com m unities o f A rizona and Sonora, M exico’
in M affi, L (ed ) Language; Knowledge and the Environment. Sm ithsonian Institution
Press, W ashington, D C
M onarch Butterfly Research Symposium ( 19 9 9 ) ‘Butterflies and B.t. corn pollen’.
Chicago, 2 November 1 9 9 9 ( www.fooddialogue.com/m onarch/newresearch.
htm l)
M ooney, J D and Reiley, A C ( 1 9 3 1) Onward Industry. H arper, New York
M oorehead, A ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Fatal Impact: An Account o f the Invasion o f the South Pacific.
Penguin Books, London
M uir, J ( 1 9 1 1 ) My First Summer in the Sierra. H oughton M ifflin , Boston (reprinted
in 1 9 8 8 by Canongate Classics, Edinburgh)
M uir, J ( 1 9 9 2 ) The Eight Wilderness-Diseovery Books. Diadem Books, London and
Seattle
Murphy, B ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultivating Havana: Urban agriculture and food security in Cuba. Food
First Developm ent R ep o rt 12. Food First, California
Myers, N ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘L iftin g the veil on perverse subsidies’, Nature 3 9 2 , p p 3 2 7 —
328
Myers, N , M itterm eier, R A, M itterm eier, C G , de Fonseca, G A B and Kent,
] ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘B iodiversity h o tsp o ts lo r conservation p rio rities’, Nature 4 0 3 ,
p p 8 5 3 -8 5 8
N abhan, G P and S t A ntoine, G ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘T h e loss o f floral and faunal story’ in
K ellert, S R and W ilso n , E O (e d s) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press,
W ashington, D C
Naess, A ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘D eep ecology and ultimate premises’, Society and Nature 1 (2 ),
p p l0 8 - 1 1 9
Narayan, D and P ritchett, L ( 19 9 6 ) Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social
Capital in Rural Tanzania. Policy Research W orking Paper 17 9 6 . T h e W orld
Bank, W ashington, D C
Nash, R ( 1 9 7 3 ) Wilderness and the American MiW.Yale University Press, New Haven
N ational Audit O ffice (N A O ) ( 1 9 9 8 ) BSE: The Cost of a Crisis. N A O , London
N a tio n a l Landcare P rogram m e ( 2 0 0 1 ) C anberra, Australia ( www.dpie.gov.
au/land care)
 R e fe re n ce s 2 4 1

N ational Society o f A llotm ents and Leisure Gardeners ( www.nsalg.co.uk)

Newby, H ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Countryside in Question. H utchinson, London
N orse, D, Li Ji and Zhang Zheng ( 2 0 0 0 ) Environmental Costs of Rice Production in
China: Lessons from Hunan and Hubei. Aileen Press, Bethesda
N R C ( 2 0 0 0 ) O ur Common Journey: Transition towards sustainability. Board on
Su stainable D evelopm ent, P olicy D iv ision , N atio n al R esearch C o u n cil.
N ational Academy Press, W ashington, D C
N uffield Council on Bioethics ( 1 9 9 9 ) Genetically Modified Crops: The Social and Ethical
Issues. N uffield Council on Bioethics, London
O ’R io rd a n .T ( 1 9 9 9 ) Dealing with scientific uncertainties. Unpublished report. School
o f Environm ental Sciences, University o f East Anglia, Norw ich
O akerson, R J ( 1 9 9 2 ) Analysing the com m ons: a framework’ in Bromley D W
(e d ) ( 1 9 9 2 ) Making the Commons Work. Institute for C ontem p orary Studies
Press, San Francisco
O rganization for E con om ic Cooperation and Developm ent ( O E C D ) ( 1 9 9 7 a )
Evaluating economic instruments fo r environmental policy. O E C D , Paris
O E C D ( 1 9 9 7 b ) Helsinki Seminar on Environmental Benefitsfrom Agriculture. O E C D /
G D ( 9 7 ) 1 10, Paris
O E C D ( 2 0 0 0 ) Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results. The stocktaking
report —land conservation. O E C D , Paris C O M / A G R I / C A ./ E N V / E P O C ( 9 9 )
1 2 8 /R E V I
Oelschlaeger, M ( 19 9 1) The Idea o f Wilderness. Yale University’ Press, N ew Haven
Oerlem ans, N , Proost, J and Rauw host, J ( 19 9 7 ) ‘Farm ers’ study groups in the
N etherlands' in van Veldhuizen, L, W aters-Bayer, A, R am irez, R , Johnson,
D A andThom pson, J (eds) Farmers’Research in Practice. I T Publications, London
O fw at ( 1 9 9 2 —1 9 9 8 ) Annual returns from water companies — water compliances and
expenditure reports. O ffice o f W ater Services, Birmingham
O kri, B ( 1 9 9 6 ) Jovs o f Sto ry Telling’ in Birds o f Heaven. Penguin, H arm onds-
worth
O lson, M ( 1 9 6 5 ) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory o f Groups.
Harvard Press, London
O lson, M ( 1 9 8 2 ) The Rise and Decline o f Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social
Rigidities. Yale University Press, New Haven
O p lin g er, E S, M a rtin k a , M J and S c h m itz , K A ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘P erform an ce o f
transgenic soyabeans in the northern U S ’. University o f W isconsin (www.
biotech-info.net/soyabean_perform ance.pdf)
O rr, D W ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Ideasclerosis: part two', Conservation Biology 1 4 ( 6 ), p p I 5 7 I —
1573
O rr, D W ( 2 0 0 2 ) The Nature of Design. Oxford University Press, Oxford
O ster, G , T h o m p so n , D, Edelsberg, J, Bird, A P and C o ld itz, G A ( 1 9 9 9 )
‘Lifetim e health and econom ic benefits o f weight loss among obese people’,
American Journal o f Public Health 8 9 , p p I 5 3 6 —1 5 4 2
O strom , E ( 1 9 9 0 ) Governing the Commons: The Evolution o f Institutions for Collective
Action. Cam bridge University Press, N ew York
O strom , E ( 1 9 9 8 ) Social capital: a fa d or fundamental concept? Centre for the Study
o f Institutions, Population and Environmental Change, Indiana University, U S
2 4 2 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Pain, D J and Pienkowski, M W (eds) ( 1 9 9 7 ) Farming and Birds in Europe. Academic

Press L td , L ond on
Palmer, I ( 1 9 7 6 ) The New Rice in Asia: Conclusions from Four Country Studies. U N R IS D ,
Geneva
Pannell, D ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Salinity policy: a talc o f fallacies, m isconceptions and hidden
assum ptions’, Agricultural Science 1 4 ( 1 ) , p p 3 5 —3 7
P earce, D and T in c h , R ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T h e tru e p rice o f p e s tic id e s’ in V orley,
W and Keeney, D (ed s) Bugs in the System. E arth scan , Lond on
P earce, D W and T u rn e r, R H ( 1 9 9 0 ) Economics o j N atural Resources and the
Environment. H arvester W h eatsh eaf, N ew York
Peiretti, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘T h e evolution o f the no till cropping system in A rgentina’.
Paper presented to Conference on the Im pact o f G lobalisation and Inform ation
on the R ural E nvironm ent, 1 3 —15 January, H arvard University, Cam bridge,
M assachusetts
Peluso, N L ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Reserving value: conservation ideology and state protection
o f resources’ in D u P u is, E M and Vandergeest, P (ed s) Creating Countryside.
T em ple U niversity Press, Philadelphia
P erelm an, M ( 1 9 7 6 ) ‘E ffic ie n c y in agriculture: the eco n o m ics o f energy’ in
M erril, R (e d ) Radical Agriculture. H arp er and Row, N ew York
Peter, G , Bell, M M , Jarnagin, S and Bauer, D ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘C om in g back across the
fence: m asculinity and the transition to sustainable agriculture’, Rural Sociology
6 5 (2 ), p p 2 1 5 - 2 3 3
Petersen, C , D rinkw ater, L E and W agoner, P ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Rodale Institute’s Farming
Systems Trial: The First 1 5 Years. R od ale In stitu te, Pennsylvania
Petersen, P, Tardin, J M and M aro ch i, F ( 2 0 0 0 ) 'P articip ato ry developm ent o f
non-tillage system s w ith ou t herbicides fo r fam ily farm ing: the experience o f
the cen ter-sou th region o f Parana’, Environmental Development and Sustainability
I ,p p 2 3 5 -2 5 2
Peterson, W L ( 1 9 9 7 ) Are iMrge Farms More Efficient? S t a f f Paper P 9 7 - 2 . D e p a rt­
m ent o f Applied E co n o m ics, U niversity o f M in nesota, M in nesota
P H L ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘P u b lic H e alth L a b o ra to ry S e rv ice — facts and figu res’ (www.
p h ls.co .u k / f a c ts / )
P icardi, A C and Siefert, W W ( 1 9 7 6 ) ‘A tragedy o f the com m on s in the Sah el’,
Techology Review 14 , p p 3 5 —5 4
P ick ett, J A ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘P est co n tro l th at helps co n tro l weeds at the sam e tim e’,
BBSRC Business, A pril. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research C ouncil
(B B S R C ), Sw indon
P im e n tel, D , Acguay, H , B ilto n e n , M , R ic e , P, Silva, M , N e lso n , J, L ip n er,
V, G iord ano, S, H arow itz, A and D ’Am ore, M ( 1 9 9 2 ) ‘Environm ental and
e co n o m ic co st o f pesticide use’, Bioscience, 4 2 ( 1 0 ) , p p 7 5 0 —7 6 0
P im entel, D, Harvey, C, Resosudarm o, P, Sinclair, K, Kunz, D, M cN air, M , Crist,
S, Sh p ritz, L, F itto n , L , Saffou ri, R and Blair, R ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘Environm ental and
e c o n o m ic c o sts o f so il e ro sio n and c o n se rv a tio n b e n e fits’, Science 2 6 7 ,
p p l 1 1 7 —1 1 2 3
Pingali, P L and Roger, P A ( 1 9 9 5 ) Impact o j Pesticides on Farmers’ Health and the Rice
Environment. Kluw er A cadem ic Press, T h e N etherland s
 R efer en ces 243

Pinstrup-A ndersen, P ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Developing appropriate policies’, IF P R I 2 0 2 0

Vision Focus 2 , B rie f 9 o f 10. International Food Policy Research Institute,
W ashington, D C
P in stru p -A n d ersen , P and C o h en , M ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘W orld food needs and the
challenge to sustainable agriculture’. Paper fo r C onference on Sustainable
Agriculture: N ew Paradigms and O ld Practices? Bellagio Conference Centre,
Italy, 2 6 - 3 0 April 1 9 9 9
Pinstrup-A ndersen, P, Pandya-Lorch, R and R osegrant, M ( 1 9 9 9 ) World Food
Prospects: Critical Issues for the Early 21st Century. IF P R I, W ashington, D C
P in to , Y M , K ok, P and B au lcom be, D C ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘G en etically engineered
resistance to R Y M V disease is now a reality’ in D F ID ( 1 9 9 8 ) Plant Science
Research Programme. Abstract from Annual Programme ReportJor 1 997. University
o f W ales, Bangor
Perform ance and Innovation U n it ( P IU ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Rural Economies. P IU , Cabinet
O ffice, London
Platteau, J -P ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘M u tu al insurance as an elusive concep t in tradition al
com m unities’, Journal o j Development Studies 3 3 ( 6 ) , p p 7 6 4 —7 9 6
Poffenberger, M and Zurbuchen, M S ( 19 8 0 ) The economics o j village life in ZSa/i.The
Ford Foundation, New Delhi
Poffenberger, M and M cG ean, B (eds) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Village Voices, Forest Choices. Oxford
University Press, N ew D elhi
Popkin, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T h e nutrition transition and its health im plications in lower-
incom e countries’, Public Health Nutrition 1 (1 ), pp5—21
Portes, A and Landolt, P ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘T h e downside o f social capital', The American
Prospect 2 6 , pp 1 8 —2 1
Posey, D (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and Spiritual Values oj Biodiversity. I T Publications and
U N E P , London
P ostel, S and C arpenter, S ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Freshw ater ecosystem services’ in Daily,
G (ed ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, W ashington, D C
Potrykus, I ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘V itam in-A and iron-enriched rices may hold key to com ­
bating blindness and malnutrition: a biotechnology advance’, Nature Biotechnology
17, p37
Potter, C ( 1 9 9 8 ) Against the Crain: Agri-Environmental Reform in the USA and European
Union. CA B International, W allingford
Pretty, J N ( 1 9 9 1 ) ‘F arm ers’ extension practice and techn ology adaptation:
Agricultural revolution in 17th —19th century Britain’, Agriculture and Human
Values V III, pp 13 2 - 14 8
Pretty, J N (1 9 9 5 a ) Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and PracticeJo r Sustainability and Self-
Reliance. E arth scan , L on d on ; N atio n al A cadem y Press, W ash ing ton, D C ;
A ctionA id, Bangalore
Pretty, J N ( 1 9 9 5 b ) ‘P articipatory learning for sustainable agriculture’, World
Development 2 3 ( 8 ) , p p I 2 4 7 —1 2 6 3
Pretty, J N ( 19 9 8 ) The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural
Europe. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London
2 4 4 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Pretty, J N ( 2 0 0 0 a ) Towards Sustainability in English Agriculture: The Multifunctional Role

fo r Agriculture in the 21st Century. T h e Countryside Agency, Cheltenham
Pretty, J N ( 2 0 0 0 b ) ‘Can su stainable agriculture feed A frica ’, Environment,
Development and Sustainability I , p p 2 5 3 —2 7 4
Pretty, J N ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘T h e rapid emergence o f genetically-modified crops in world
agriculture’, Environmental Conservation 2 8 ( 3 ) , p p 2 4 8 —2 6 2
Pretty, J N and P im b ert, M ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘Beyond conservation ideology and the
wilderness m yth’, Natural Resources Forutn 1 9 ( 1 ), p p5—14
Pretty, J N and Shah, P ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘M aking soil and water conservation sustainable:
from coercion and control to partnerships and participation’, Land Degradation
and Development, 8, p p 3 9 —5 8
Pretty, ] N and Frank, B ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Participation and Social Capital Form ation in
Natural Resource M anagem ent: Achievements and Lessons’. Plenary Paper
fo r In ternational Landcare 2 0 0 0 C onference, M elb ou rne, Australia, 2 —5
M arch 2 0 0 0
Pretty, J N and H ine, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘T h e promising spread o f sustainable agriculture
in Asia’, Natural Resources Forum (U N ) 2 4 , p p I 0 7 —121
Pretty, J N and Ball, A ( 2 0 0 1 ) Agricultural Influences on Emissions and Sequestration of
Carbon and Emerging Trading Options. C R S O ccasional Paper 2 0 0 1-0 3 , University
o f Essex, Colchester
Pretty, J N and H ine, R ( 2 0 0 1 ) Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A
Summary of New Evidence. Final R ep ort from the SA FE -W orld Research Project,
Feb 2 0 0 1 . University o f Essex, Colchester
Pretty, ] N and W ard, H ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘S o cial capital and the environm ent’, World
Development 2 9 ( 2 ) , p p 2 0 9 —2 2 7
Pretty, ] N and Buck, L ( 2 0 0 2 ) ‘Social capital and social learning in the process
o f natural resource m anagem ent’ in B arrett, C (ed ) Understanding Adoption
Processesf o r Natural Resource Management Practicesf o r Sustainable Agricultural Production
in Sub-Sahara Africa. CA B International, W allingford
Pretty, ] N , T h o m p so n , J and Kiara, J K ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘A gricultural regeneration in
Kenya: the catchment approach to soil and water conservation’, Ambio X X I V ( I ) ,
pp7—15
Pretty, ] N , Brett, C, Gee, D, H ine, R , M ason, C F, M orison, J I L , Raven, H ,
Raym ent, M and van der, Bijl G ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘A n assessment o f the total external
costs o f U K agriculture’, Agricultural Systems 6 5 ( 2 ) , p p l 13—1 3 6
Pretty, J N , B rett, C , G ee, D, H in e, R , M aso n , C, M o riso n , J, R ay m en t,
M , van der Bijl, G and D obbs, T ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Policy challenges and priorities for
internalising the externalities o f m odern agriculture’, Journal o f Environmental
Planning and Management 4 4 ( 2 ) , p p 2 6 3 —2 8 3
Pretty, J N , M ason , C F, N edw ell, D B and H ine, R E ( 2 0 0 2 ) A Preliminary
Assessment o f the Environmental Damage Costs o f the Eutrophication o f Ereshwaters in
England and Wales. R ep o rt for the Environm ent Agency. University o f Essex,
Colchester
Pretty, J N , M orison, J I L and H ine, R E ( 2 0 0 2 ) ‘Reducing food poverty with
sustainable agriculture’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, in press, p p l—18
 R efer en ces 2 45

Princc, H ( 1 9 8 8 ) ‘A rt and agrarian change, 1 7 1 0 —18 15 ’ in Cosgrove, D and

D aniels, S ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Iconography o f Landscape. Cam bridge University Press,
L ondon
Putnam, R D with Leonardi, R and N anetti, R Y ( 1 9 9 3 ) Making Democracy Work:
Civic Traditions in Modem Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Putnam , R ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘Bowling alone: A m ericas declining social capital’, Journal of
Democracy 6 ( 1 ), p p 6 5 —7 8
Royal Academy o f A rts ( 1 9 8 1) The Great Japan Exhibition. The Art of the Edo. Royal
Academy o f A rts, London
Rackham , O ( 1 9 8 6 ) The History o f the Countryside. D ent, London
R A F I-U S A ( 19 9 8 ) The Peanut Project. Farmer-focused Innovation fo r Sustainable Peanut
Production. R A F I, P ittsboro, N o rth Carolina
R aju , G ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Institutional structures for com m unity based conservation’ in
Kothari, A, Pathak, N , Anuradha, R V andTaneja, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) Communities and
Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage, New Delhi
Raybould, A F and Gray, A J ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘G M crops and hybridisation with wild
relatives: a U K perspective', Journal o f Applied Ecology 1 3 0 , p p l 9 9 —2 1 9
Raym ent, M , Bartram, H and Curtovs, J ( 1 9 9 8 ) Pesticide Taxes: A Discussion Paper.
Royal Society for the Protection o f Birds, Sandy, Beds
R C E P ( 1 9 9 6 ) Sustainable Use o f Soil. 19th R ep ort o f the Royal Com m ission on
Environm ental Pollution. Cm nd 3 1 6 5 . H M S O , London
Read, M A and Bush, M N ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘C ontrol o f weeds in G M sugar beet with
glufosinate ammonium in the U K ’, Aspects of Applied Biology 5 2 , p p 4 0 I —4 0 6
Reader, J ( 1 9 9 7 ) Africa: A Biography of a Continent. H am ish H am ilton, London
Rees, W E ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘W h y U rban Agriculture?’ Paper for ID R C D evelopm ent
Forum on Com m unities Feeding People (www. C itvfarm er.org/rees.htm l)
Reicosky, D C, Dugas, W A and T orb ert, H A ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Tillage-indu ced soil
carbon dioxide loss from different cropping systems’, Soil and'Tillage Research 4 1 ,
p p l 0 5 —1 1 8
R e ij, C ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘E v o lu tio n et im pacts des tech n iqu es de co n serv atio n des
eaux et des so ls’. C en tre fo r D ev elo p m en t C o o p e ra tio n Serv ices, V rije
Univeristeit, Amsterdam
Rengasamy, S, Devavaram, J, Prasad, R , Erskine, A, Balamurugan, P and H igh,
C ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Land Without a Farmer Becomes Barren (thaan vuzhu nilam thariso).
S P E E C H , E zhil Nagar, M adurai, India
R epetto, R and Baliga, S S ( 1 9 9 6 ) Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health
Risks. W R I , W ashington, D C
R ibaudo, M O , H oran, R D and Sm ith, M E ( 1 9 9 9 ) Economics o f Water Quality
Protectionfrom Nonpoint Sources: Theory and Practice. Agricultural E conom ic R ep ort
7 8 2 . E conom ic Research Service, U S Departm ent o f Agriculture, Washington,
DC
Rissler, J and M elon, M ( 1 9 9 6 ) The Ecological Risks o f Engineered Crops. M I T Press,
Cam bridge
R o b in s, N and Sim m s, A ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘B ritish asp iration s’, Resurgence 2 0 1 (Ju ly -
August), pp6—9
2 4 6 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Rola, A and Pingali, P ( 1 9 9 3 ) Pesticides, Rice Productivity and Farmers —An Economic
Assessment. IR R I, M anila and W R I , W ashington, D C
Roling, N G and Wagemakers, M A H (eds) ( 1 9 9 7 ) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture.
Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge
R oling, N G ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘T h e so ft side o f land: socio-econ om ic sustainability o f
land use systems’. Invited Paper fo rT h em e 3, Proceedings o f Conference on
G eo-Inform ation for Sustainable Land M anagement, IT C , Enschede, 17—21
August
R olin g, N G ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Gateway to the global garden. B eta/g am m a science for
dealing with eco lo g ical ration ality ’. E ig h th Annual H o p p er L ecture, 2 4
O ctober, University of Guelph, Canada
Roling, N G and Jiggins, J ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘T h e ecological knowledge system’, in Roling,
N R and W agem akers, M A (e d s) Social Learning f o r Sustainable Agriculture.
Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge
Rolston, H ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Nature is for real: is nature a social construct?’ in Chappell, T
(e d ) Philosophy of the Environment. Edinbugh University Press, Edinburgh
Rominger, R ( 2 0 0 0 ) Speech at opening o f U SD A ’s fifth farmers’ markets season
by D eputy Secretary R ich Rom inger, June 9 ( w w w.am s.usda.gov/farm ers
m a rk ets/ro m ig erfm ktI.h tm )
Rosegrant, M W , Leach, N and G erpacio, R ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘A lternative futures for
world cereal and meat consum ption’, Proceedings o f Nutrition Science 5 8 , p p 2 I 9 —
234
Rosset, P ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘A lternative agriculture and crisis in C uba’, LEEE Technology and
Society Magazine 16 ( 2 ), pp 19 —2 6
Rosset, P ( 1 9 9 8 ) Alternative agriculture works: the case o f C uba’, Monthly Review
5 0 ( 3 ) , pp 13 7 - 1 4 6
R osset, P (1999) The Multiple Functions and Benefits o f Small Farm Agriculture. Food
F irst Policy B rie f N o 4 . Food F irst/In s titu te for Food and D evelopm ent
Policy, O akland, California
Rowley, J (1 9 9 9 ) Working with social capital. R ep o rt for D ep artm en t for In ter­
national Development, London
Roy, S D and Jackson, P (1 9 9 3 ) ‘Mayhem in Manas: the threats to India's wildlife
reserves’ in Kemf, E (ed ) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Earthscan, London
Royal Society (1998) Genetically Modified Plantsfo r Food Use. Royal Society, London
R oyal S o ciety , U S N a tio n a l A cadem y o f S cien ces, B razilian A cadem y of
S cie n ces, C h in ese A cadem y o f S c ien ces, In d ian N a tio n a l A cadem y o f
Scien ces, M exican Academ y o f Scien ces, and T h ird W orld Academ y o f
Sciences (2000) Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture. Royal Society, London
Ryszkowski, C (1 995) ‘M anaging ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes’,
Nature and Resources 3 1( 4 ), pp27—36
Sam son, C (2002) Innu Naskapi-Montagnais. A Way o f Life that Does Not Exist. Canada
and the ‘Extinguishment o f the Innu’. IS E R Press, S t Johns, Newfoundland
Sanchez, P A (2000) ‘Linking climate change research with food security and
poverty reduction in the trop ics’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 82,
PP3 7 1-383
 R efer en ces 2 4 7

Sanchez, P A and Jama, B A ( 2 0 0 0 ) Soil fertility replenishment takes off in East and
Southern Africa. IC R A F , N airobi
Sanchez, P A, Buresh, R J and Leakey, R R B ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Trees, soils and food
security’, PhilosophicalTransactiotis o f the Royal Society o f London B 2 5 3 , p p 9 4 9 —9 6 1
S A R E ( 1 9 9 8 ) Ten Years o f SARE. C S R E E S , U SD A , W ash ington, D C (www.
sare.org)
Sarin, M ( 2 0 0 I ) ‘Disempowerment in the name o f participatory forestry? Village
forests management in Uttarakhand’, Forest, Trees and People Newsletter 4 4 , p p 26—
34
Saxena, D, Flores, S and Stotzky, G ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Insecticidal toxin in root exudates
from Bt corn’, Nature 4 0 1 , p 4 8 0
Scham a, S ( 1 9 9 6 ) I.andscape and Memory. Fontana Press, London
Schwarz, W and Schwarz, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) I.iving Lightly. Green Books, Bideford
Scoones, I ( 1 9 9 4 ) Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in
Africa. I T Publications, London
S c o o n e s, I ( 1 9 9 8 ) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework f o r Analysis. ID S
D iscussion Paper, 7 2 , University o f Sussex, Falmer
S co tt, ] ( 1 9 9 8 ) Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition
Have Failed. Yale University Press, N ew Haven
Scruton, R ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Conserving the past’ in Barnett, A and Scruton, R (eds) Town
and Country. Jonathan Cape, London
Segundad, P ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Malaysia — Kadazan’ in Posey, D (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and
Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. I T Publications and U N E P, London
Seidl, A ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘E con om ic issues and the diet and the distribution o f environ­
mental im pact’. Ecological Econonomics 3 4 ( 1 ) , p p5—8
Selm an, P ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘Landscape ecology and countryside planning: vision, theory
and practice’, Journal of Rural Studies 9 ( 1 ), p p l —21
Sessions, G (ed ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Sham bhala Publications,
Boston
Shah, A ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Participatory process o f organising effective comm unity-based
groups’. International W orkshop on Com m unity-Based N atural Resource
M anagement. W orld Bank, W ashington D C , 10—14 M ay 1 9 9 8
Shanin, T ( 1 9 8 6 ) The Roots o f Otherness. Russia’s Turn o f the Century. M acm illan,
London
Shankar, D ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Conserving a com m unity resource: m edicinal plants’ in
Kothari, A, Pathak, N , Anuradha, R V and Taneja, B (ed s) Communities and
Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage, New Delhi
Shelley, M ( 1 8 1 8 ) Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. R ep rinted in 1 9 6 3 ,
J M D en t & So n s Ltd, London
S h o rt, C ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘C om m on land and E L M S : a need for policy innovation in
England and W ales’, Land Use Policy 17, p p l 2 1—133
S h o r t, C and W in te r, M ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘T h e problem o f co m m on land: towards
stakeholder governance’, Journal o f Environmental Planning and Management 4 2 ( 5 ) ,
p p 6 I 3 —6 3 0
Shrestha, B ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Involving local com m unities in conservation: the case o f
N e p a l’ in K oth ari, A, P athak, N , A nuradha, R V and T an eja, B ( 1 9 9 8 )
248 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia.
Sage, N ew D elhi
Shrestha, K B ( 1 9 9 7 ) 'C om m unity forestry: policy, legislation and rules’. Paper
presented at national workshop on Com m unity Forestry and Rural Develop­
ment, 2 4 —2 6 July, Lalipur, N epal
Singh, K and Bhattacharya, S ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘T h e salt m iners’ cooperatives in the Little
R ann o f Kachchh in G ujarat’ in Singh, K and Ballabh, V ( 1 9 9 7 ) Cooperative
Management of Natural Resources. Sage, N ew Delhi
Singh, K and Ballabh, V ( 1 9 9 7 ) Cooperative Management o f Natural Resources. Sage,
New Delhi
Siriwardena, G M , Bailie, S R , Buckland, G T , Fewster, R M , M archant, J H and
W ilson, J D ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Trends in the abundance o f farmland birds: a quantitative
com parison o f sm oothed C om m on Birds Census indices’, Journal o f Applied
Ecology 3 5 , p p 2 4 - 4 3
Sm aling, E M A, Nandwa, S M and Janssen, B H ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘So il fertility in Africa
is at stake’ in Buresh, R J, Sanchez, P A and Calhoun, F (eds) Replenishing Soil
Fertility in Africa. So il Science Society o f America Publication N o 5 1 . SSSA ,
M adison, W isconsin
Sm all Farm V iability P ro ject ( 1 9 7 7 ) The Family Farm in California. G overnor’s
O ffice o f Planning and Research, Sacram ento, California.
Sm it, J, R atta, A and Nasr, J ( 1 9 9 6 ) Urban Agriculture: FoodJobs and Sustainable Cities.
U N D P , N ew York
Sm ith, S and Piacentino, D ( 1 9 9 6 ) Environmental taxation andfiscal reform: analysts
of implementation issues. Final R ep ort E V 5 V - C T 8 9 4 - 0 3 7 0 , D G X I, Brussels
Sm ith, B ( 1 9 8 5 ) European Vision and the South Pacific. Yale University Press, N ew
Haven and London (2n d edition)
Sm ith, B ( 1 9 8 7 ) Imagining the Pacific. Yale University Press, N ew Haven
Sm ith , L C and H addad, L ( 1 9 9 9 ) Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing
Countries: A cross-country analysis. Research R ep o rt I I I (M arch 2 0 0 0 ) . IF P R I,
W ashington, D C
So co rro Castro, A R ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘Cienfuegos, the capital o f urban agriculture in
C uba’ ( w w w .cityfarm er.org/cubacastro.htm l)
Soil Association ( 2 0 0 0 ) The Organic Food and Farming Report. Soil Association, Bristol
Sorrenson, W J, D uarte, C and P ortillo, J L ( 1 9 9 8 ) Economics o f no-till compared to
conventional systems on smallfarm s in Paraguay. So il Conservation P roject M A G -
G T Z , Eschborn, Germany
Soule, M E and Lease, G (eds) ( 1 9 9 5 ) Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern
Deconstruction. Island Press, W ashington, D C
Spinage, C ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Social change and conservation misrepresentation in Africa’,
O ijx 3 2 ( 3 ) , p p l —12
S P W D ( 1 9 9 8 ) Joint Forest Management Update. S o ciety fo r the P ro m o tio n o f
W astelands Development, New D elhi
Steinberg, T ( 1 9 9 5 ) Slide Mountain. O r the Folly o f Owning Nature. University o f
California Press, Berkeley
Steinbeck, J ( 1 9 3 9 ) The Crapes o f Wrath. M inerva, Lond on (republished in 1 9 9 0 )
 R efer en ces 249

S tein er, R , M cL a u g h lin , L , F aeth , P and Janke, R ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘In co rp o ra tin g

externality costs in productivity measures: a case study using U S agriculture’
in Barbett, V, Payne, R and Steiner, R (eds) Agricultural Sustainability: Environmental
and Statistical Considerations. John W iley, New York, p p 2 0 9 —2 3 0
Stew art, L , H anley, N and Sim p so n , I ( 1 9 9 7 ) Economic Valuation o j the Agri-
Environment Schemes in the UK. R ep o rt to H M Treasury and the M in istry o f
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Environmental Econom ics Group, University
o f Stirling, Stirling
Sto ll, S and O ’R iordan, T ( 2 0 0 2 ) Protecting the Protected: Managing Biodiversity for
Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
S to tt, P ( 1 9 9 9 ) The organic myth. S c h o o l o f O rien ta l and A frican Stu d ies,
University of London, London
Stren, M and A lton, E W F W ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Gene therapy for cystic fibrosis', Biologist
4 5 ( 1 ) , p p 3 7 —4 0
S u ffo lk H o rse S o ciety , W oo d b rid g e, S u ffo lk ( w w w .su ffolk h orsesociety .
org.uk)
Suzuki, D ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Finding a new story’ in Posey, D (ed ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) Cultural and
Spiritual Values oj Biodiversity. I T Publications and U N E P, London
Suzuki, D and Oiwa, K ( 1 9 9 6 ) The Japan We Never Knew. Allen and U nw in,Tokyo
and London
Sw ift, M J, Vanderm eer, J, R am ak rish nan , P G , A nderson, J M , O n g , C K
and H aw kins, B A ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Biodiversity and agroecosystem fu n ctio n ’ in
M ooney, H A, Cushman, J H , M edina, E, Sala, O E and Schulze, E D (eds)
Functional Roles oj Biodiversity: A Global Perspective. S C O P E , John W iley and Sons,
Cheltenham
Swingland, I, Bettelheim , E , G race, J, Prance, G and Saunders, L (eds) ( 2 0 0 2 )
‘Carbon, Biodiversity, Conservation and Incom e’, Transactions o j the Royal Society
(Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences), in press
Swiss Agency for Environm ent, Forests and Landscape and Federal O ffice o f
Agriculture ( 2 0 0 0 ) Swiss agriculture on its way to sustainability. S A E F L and FO A ,
Basel
Swiss Agency for Environm ent, Forests and Landscape ( 1 9 9 9 ) The Environment
in Switzerland: Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Hunting ( w w w .adm in.ch/buw al/
e /th e m e n /p a r tn e r/la n d w irt/e k 2 Iu 0 0 .p d f)
Tall, D ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Dwelling; m aking peace with space and place’ in V itek, W and
Jackson, W (eds) Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. Yale University
Press, N ew Haven and London
Tanksley, S D and M cC o u ch , S R ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘Seed banks and m olecular maps:
unlocking genetic potential from the wild’, Science 2 7 7 , p p I 0 6 3 —1 0 6 6
Taylor, M ( 1 9 8 2 ) Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cam bridge University Press,
Cam bridge
Temple, R K G ( 1 9 8 6 ) China: Land oj Discovery and Invention. Patrick Stephenson,
W ellingborough
The Lancet ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘E d itorial’, 2 5 3 ( 9 1 6 7 ) , p 1 8 11
T h o m p son , E P ( 1 9 7 5 ) Whigs and Hunters. Penguin, H arm ondsw orth
2 50 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Thoreau, H D ( 1 8 3 7 —1 8 5 3 ) The Writings o f H D Thoreau, Volumes 1—6 (published

19 8 1—2 0 0 0 ) . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew Jersey
Thoreau, H D ( 1 9 0 2 ) Walden or Life in the Woods. Henry Frowde, Oxford University
Press, London, N ew York and T oronto
Thoreau, H D ( 1 9 0 6 ) The Writings oj I I D Thoreau (including A W in ter W alk’).
H oughton M ifflin , Boston
Thoreau, H D ( 1 9 8 7 ) Maine Woods. H arper and Row, N ew York
T h ru p p , L A ( 1 9 9 6 ) Partnerships f o r Sustainable Agriculture. W orld R esou rces
Institute, W ashington, D C
T ib b ie , A (e d ) The Journal; Essays; The Journey from Essex. C arcanet N ew Press,
M anchester
T ilm an, D ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Causes, consequences and ethics o f biodiversity’, Nature 4 0 5 ,
p p 2 0 8 -2 II
T ilm an, D ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘T h e greening o f the green revolution’, Nature 3 9 6 , p p 2 I I —
212
l inker, P B ( 2 0 0 0 ) Shades o f Creen: A Review o f U K Farming Systems. R A S E ,
Stoneleigh Park, W arwickshire
T onnies, F ( 18 8 7 ) Cemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Association). Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London ( 1 9 5 5 edition)
Turner, F J ( 1 9 2 0 ) The Frontier in American History. H o lt, R inehart and W inston,
N ew York
U N E P / W C M C ( 2 0 0 1 ) United Nations List o f Protected Areas. U N E P W orld
Conservation M onitorin g Centre ( w w w .w cm c.org.uk/)
U nited N ation s Population Fund ( 1 9 9 9 ) World Population Prospects — The 1 9 9 8
Revision. U nited N ations, N ew York
U p h o ff, N ( 19 9 2 ) Learningfrom Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development and
Post-Newtonian Science. C ornell University Press, Ithaca, N ew York
U p h off, N ( 1 9 9 3 ) ‘Grassroots organisations and N G O in rural development:
opportunity with diminishing stakes and expanding markets’, World Development
2 1 ( 4 ) , p p 6 0 7 —6 2 2
U p h off, N ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and
experience o f participation' in Dasgupta, P and Serageldin, I (ed s). Social
Capital: A Multiperspective Approach. W orld Bank, W ashington, D C
U phoff, N ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘W h a t can be learned from S R I in Madagascar about meeting
future fo o d needs’. Paper fo r co n feren ce: Su stainab le A g ricu ltu re N ew
paradigms and O ld Practices? Bellagio Conference Centre, Italy, 2 6 —3 0 April
U p h o ff, N ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘A groecological im plications o f the system o f rice intens­
ification ( S R I ) in M ad agascar’, Environmental Development and Sustainability
1 ( 3 - 4 ) , p p 2 9 7 —3 1 3
U p h off, N (ed ) ( 2 0 0 2 ) Agroecological Innovations. Earthscan, London
U S Senate Scien ce C o m m ittee ( 2 0 0 0 ) Seeds o f Opportunity: An Assessment o f the
Benefits, Safety and Oversight o f Plant Genomics and Agricultural Biotechnology. 1 06th
Congress, 2nd Session, Com m ittee Print I0 6 - B , 13 April, W ashington, D C
U S Departm ent of Agriculture (U S D A ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) N ational Agricultural Statistics
Service (N A SS). Data on planted acres of m ajor crops ( www.usda.gov/n ass/)
U SD A ( 2 0 0 0 ) Factbook. U SD A , W ashington, D C ( www.usda.gov)
 R efer en ces 2 5 1

U SD A ( 1 9 9 8 ) A Time to Ad. National Commission on Small Farms. U SD A , Washington,

DC
U SD A ( 2 0 0 1 a ) ‘Farm size and numbers data’. U SD A , W ashington, D C (www.
usda.gov)
U S D A ( 2 0 0 1 b ) ‘Farm sta tis tics’. U S D A , W ash in g ton , D C ( www.ers.usda.
g ov/statefacts)
van de Fliert, E ( 1 9 9 7 ) ‘From pest control to ecosystem management: how IP M
training can help?’ Paper presented to International Conference on Ecological
Agriculture, Indian E cological Society, Chandigarh, India, Novem ber 1 9 9 7
van der Bijl, G and Bleumink, J A ( 1 9 9 7 ) Naar een Milicubalans van tie Agrarische Sector
[Towards an Environmental Balance o f the Agricultural Sector]. Centre for
Agriculture and Environm ent (C L M ), U trecht
van der Ploeg, R R , Ehlers, W and Sieker, F ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Floods and other possible
adverse e ffe cts o f m eadow land area d ecline in fo rm er W est G erm an y ’,
Naturwissenscbaften 8 6 , p p 3 I 3 —3 1 9
van der Ploeg, R R , Hemsmeyer, D and Bachmann, J ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Postwar changes
in landuse in form er W est G erm any and the increasing num ber o f inland
flo o d s’ in M arsalek et al (ed s) Flood Issues in Contemporary Water Management.
Kluwer Academic P u b licatio n s,T h e N etherlands, p p l 15—123
van Veldhuizen, L, Waters-Bayer, A, Ram irez, R , Johnson, D A and T hom pson,
J (eds) ( 1 9 9 7 ) Farmers’ Research in Practice. I T Publications, London
van W eperen, W , Proost, J and Roling, N G ( 1 9 9 5 ) ‘Integrated arable farming
in the N etherlands' in Roling, N G and Wagemakers, M A E (ed s) ( 1 9 9 7 )
Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge
Vandergeest, P and D uPuis, E M ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Introd uction’ in D uPuis, E M and
Vandergeest, P (ed s) Creating Countryside: The Politics o j Rural and Environmental
Discourse. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
von der W eid, J M ( 2 0 0 0 ) Scaling up and Scaling Further Up. A S-P T A , R io de Janeiro
Vorlev, W and Keeney, D (ed s) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Bugs in the System: Redesigning the Pesticide
Industry f o r Sustainable Agriculture. Earthscan, London
W aibel, H and Fleischer, G ( 1 9 9 8 ) Kosten und Nutzen des chemischen Pflanzenschutzes
in der Deutsen Landwirtscbaft aus Cesamtwirtschaftlicber Sicht. Vauk-Verlag, Kiel
W all, P G , de Louvais, J, G ilb ert, R J and Rowe, B ( 1 9 9 6 ) ‘Food poisoning:
notifications, laboratory reports and outbreaks —where do the statistics come
from and what do they mean?’ Communicable Disease Report 6 ( 7 ) , R 9 4 - I 0 0
W altner-Toew s, D and Lang, T ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘A new conceptual base for food and
agricultural policy’, Global Change and Human Health 1 (2 ), p p2—16
Ward, H ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘State, association, and com m unity in a sustainable democratic
p o lity : towards a green asso cia tio n a lism ’ in C o en en , F, H u item a,
D and O ’T oole, L J (eds) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Participation and the Quality o f Environmental
Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
W eida, W J ( 2 0 0 0 ) A Citizen’s Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects
of Large Concentrated Dairy Operations.TUe Colorado College, Colorado Springs,
C O , and T h e G lobal Resource A ction Center for the Environment (G R A C E ),
Factory Farm P roject (www. factoryfarm .org)
2 5 2 A g r i-C u ltu r e

Weissman, ] (ed ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) City Farmers: Talesfrom the Field. G reenThum b, New York
W eissm an, J (e d ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) Tales from the Field. Stories by GreenThumb Gardeners.
G reen T hum b, N ew York
W esselink, W ( 2 0 0 1 ) ‘2 4 0 ha o f b e e f cattle’, Agrifuture — Europa Agribusiness
Magazine, Spring I , p p I 6 —18
W est, P C and Brechin, S R ( 1 9 9 2 ) Resident People and National Parks. University
o f Tucson Press, Arizona
W heeler, E B, W iley, K N and W inne, M ( 1 9 9 7 ) A tale o f two system s’ in In
Context 4 2 , p p 2 5 —2 7
W h ite T ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘D iet and the distribution o f environmental impact’, Ecological
Economics 3 4 ( 1 ) , p p I 4 5 —153
W h itlo ck , R ( 1 9 7 9 ) In Search o f Lost Gods. A Guide to British Folklore. Phaidon Press,
O xford
W orld H ealth O rganization ( W H O ) ( 1 9 9 8 ) Obesity. Preventing and managing the
global epidemic. W H O Technical R ep o rt 8 9 4 . W H O , Geneva
W H O ( 2 0 0 1 ) Food and Health in Europe. A Basis fo r Action. R egional O ffice for
Europe, W H O , Copenhagen
W H O Regional O ffice for Europe ( 2 0 0 0 ) Urban Agriculture in St Petersburg, Russian
Federation. W H O , Copenhagen, Denm ark
W illers, B ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘A response to “current normative concepts in conservation”
by C allicott et al’, Conservation Biology 1 4 ( 2 ), p p 5 7 0 —5 7 2
W illis, K, Garrod, G and Saunders, C ( 1 9 9 3 ) Valuation of the South Downs and Somerset
Levels Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Centre for Rural Econom y, University o f
Newcastle upon Tyne
W ilson, E O ( 1 9 8 8 ) ‘T h e current state o f biological diversity' in W ilson, E O
and Peter, F M (eds) Biodiversity. N ational Academy Press, W ashington, D C
W inrock International ( 2 0 0 0 ) Biotechnology and Global Development Challenges. Little
R ock, Arkansas
W ise, R , H a rt.T , Cars, O, Streulens, M , Helm uth, R , Huovinen, P and Sprenger,
M ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘A ntim icrobial resistance’, British Medical Journal 3 1 7 , p p 6 0 9 —6 1 0
W olfe, M ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘Crop strength through diversity’, Nature 4 0 6 , p p 6 8 I —6 8 2
W ood, S, Sebastien, K and Scherr, S J ( 2 0 0 0 ) Pilot Analysis o f Global Ecosystems.
IF P R I and W R I , W ashington, D C
W o o lco ck , M ( 1 9 9 8 ) ‘So cial capital and econom ic developm ent: towards a
theoretical synthesis and policy framework’, Theory and Society 2 7 , pp 15 1—2 0 8
W ordie,) R ( 1 9 8 3 ) ‘T h e chronology o f English enclosure 1 5 0 0 —1 9 1 4 ’, Economic
History Review 3 6 , p p 4 8 3 —5 0 5
W orld Bank ( 1 9 9 5 ) Pakistan: The AKRSP. A Third Evaluation. R ep ort N o 1 5 15 7 ,
W ashington, D C
W orld B a n k /F A O ( 1 9 9 6 ) Recapitalisation o f Soil Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa.
W orld Bank and FAO, W ashington, D C , and Rom e
W orld N eighbors ( W N ) ( 1 9 9 9 ) After Mitch: Towards a Sustainable Recovery in Central
America. W orld N eighbors, O klahom a City, U S
W orster, D ( 1 9 9 3 ) The Wealth o f Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological
Imagination. O xford University Press, N ew York
 R efer en ces 2 53

W P P R ( 1 9 9 7 ) Annual Report o f the Working party on Pesticide Residues: 1 9 9 7 . M A F F ,

London
Ya, T ( 1 9 9 9 ) ‘Factors In fluencing Farm ers’ A doption o f S o il C onservation
Program m e in the H indu Kush Himalayan ( H K H ) R egion’. Paper for Issues
and O p tio n s in the D esig n o f S o il and W ater C o n serv atio n P ro je cts:
A W o rk sh o p , U n iversity o f W ales, B a n g o r/U n iv e rsitv o f E ast A nglia,
Llandudno, Conwy, U K , 1—3 February 1 9 9 9
Young, J, Humphreys, M , A bberton, M , R obbins, M and W ebb, J ( 1 9 9 9 ) The
risks associated with the introduction o j GM jorage grasses and forage legumes. R ep o rt for
M A F F ( R G 0 2 I 9 ) research project. Institute o f Grassland and Environmental
Research, Aberystwyth
Zhu, Y, Chen, H , Fen, J, W ang, Y, Li, Y, Zhen, J, Fan, J, Yang, S, H u, L, Leaung,
H , M en g , T W , T eng, A S, W ang, Z and M u n d t, C C ( 2 0 0 0 ) ‘G en etic
diversity and disease control in rice’, Nature 4 0 6 , p p 7 I 8 —7 2 2
 Index

A bbotts H all project 1 7 7 - 8 , 2 2 2 stories imposed on landscape

A boriginal people 1 3 —14 23
adat system 3 6 —7 see also Aboriginal people
advisory policy measures 7 0
Africa Bangladesh 9 3 —4
exclusions 3 8 —9 beavers 9
soil health 8 8 —9 biodiversity 1 3 5 —6
stories 17 see also diversity
water harvesting 91 biological control m ethods 7 4 —5
see also individual country names bioregionalism 1 1 7
Agenda 21 7 3 biotechnology xv, 1 2 6 —4 5
agri-environmental schemes 6 5 —6 Black A ct 3 2 —3
Agricultural Revolution 31 Botswana 8
allergenic effects 1 3 6 —7 Bouffier, Elzeard 1 7 1 —2
allotm ents 1 8 5 bovine spongiform
antibiotics 6 4 —5, 1 3 7 encephalopathy (B S E ) 2 0 1
apomixis 1 3 2 box schemes I I I —13, 1 1 9 ,
Appiko movement 41 2 1 4 -1 5
aquaculture 9 3 —4 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 1 7 8 —9 see also com m unity-supported
A rakm but 13 agriculture
A rctic 8 - 9 B SE see bovine spongiform
Argentina 8 6 —7 encephalopathy
artistic representation 2 8 —9, 4 6 butterflies 135
Asia see individual country names;
So u th -E ast Asia carbon dividend 6 7 —9
A stor and Rowntree agriculture carnivores 1 7 3 —5
review 5 3 —4 Carpathians 1 7 4 —5
atmospheric pollution 5 8 catchm ent management groups
Australia 159
connectivity with nature 8 Cato, M arcus 6 —7
cotton cultivation 1 7 9 —81 Central America 4 9 —5 0 , 7 8 —8 0
land degradation 2 4 —5 Cherokee 2 5 —6

child m alnutrition 8 0 —1
China
early agricultural practice 7
ecological reconstruction
9 9 -1 0 0
integrated programme 73
Chipko movement 41
C IA L see Com ite de Investigacion
Agricultura T ropical
Clare, John 3 1 , 1 9 4
cognitive systems 14 9
collective action
cooperatives 1 5 8 —9
farm ers’ groups 1 1 9 —21
future 1 6 7 —8
history 6
India 3 4 —5
Pakistan 1 8 2 —3
personal benefits 1 6 2 —4
social capital 1 5 2 —3, 1 6 4 —7
social and human relationships
1 5 4 -5
C om ite de Investigacion
A gricultura Tropical
(C IA L ) 1 6 3
com m on property resources 10,
3 4 -5 , 1 5 7 -8
com m ons
exclusion from English 2 9 —3 2
food system 1 1 6
heritage 1—3
hierarchy 2 1 8 —19
India 3 3 —5
So u th -E ast Asia 3 5 —7
com m unity 1 0 8 —9 , 1 4 8
com m unity-supported agriculture
(C S A ) 1 1 7 - 1 9
set also box schemes
connectedness
humanity and nature xiii, 2 —3,
5 -1 4 , 11 5 -1 7
personal benefits 1 6 2 —4
In d e x 2 5 5
social capital 15 3
conservation
imposed 3 9 —41
soil and water 1 8 3 —4
‘T h in kin g like a M ountain’
1 7 5 -6
conservation tillage 6 8 , 69
C ook, Captain 2 3 —4
cooperatives 3 6 , 1 5 8 —9
corporations 1 4 0 —2
costs
externalities xiv, 5 6 —6 0 , 7 7
food production xv, 5 2 —4
food -borne illness 6 4
cotton 1 7 9 —81
countryside visits 6 6 , 1 1 6
Cree 9
crops, genetically m odified 12 8 ,
1 3 1 -2 , 134, 1 3 5 -6 , 1 4 2 -3
CSA see com m unity-supported
agriculture
Cuba 7 4 - 5
Cultural and Spiritual Values of
Biodiversity (Posey) 8 —9
culture, verbal 2 5 —6
deep ecology 12
degradation, land 2 4 —5, 85
development, group 1 6 4 —6
D i Agri Cultura (C a to ) 6
dialegic m asculinity 1 6 3
disconnection see connectedness
disease 6 3 —5
dispossession 3 7 —9
see also exclusions
diverscapes 2 3 , 1 1 0
diversity
dietary 8 4 , 2 0 4
dom estic animals 10 6 ,
210-11
Edo design 4 5 —6
human cultures 8 —9
256 lN R l:x

linguistic 2 0 —1 fens 1—2 , 3 2

zero-pesticide farm ing 9 3 fertilizers 6 3 , 2 0 2
dom estic animals 1 0 6 , 2 1 0 —11 field-schools 161
drainage, East Anglian fens 3 2 financial capital 5 5 , 1 9 8
Dream tim es 1 3 —14 fisheries 9 3 - 4 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 1 7 8 - 9
drinking water 6 6 —7 folklore 18—2 0
dualism 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 5 1 , 2 1 7 food consum ption 4, 5
food p o u n d /d o llar I I I , 2 1 3
East Anglian fen drainage 3 2 food poverty xv, 4 —5, 8 0 —1
ecology 12, 1 4 9 - 5 2 food production
econom ic policy instrum ents 71 history xi, 1 7 0 —I
Edo 4 5 —6 improvement mechanisms 8 3
efficiency, food production 10 2 , intensive 6 0 —3
1 0 4 -5 , 108 post 1 9 6 0 s 3 —4
Elzeard B ouffier 1 7 1 —2 real costs 5 2 —4
enclave thinking 13, 4 3 shaping effect 11
enclosure 2 9 —3 0 sustainable agriculture 8 2 —5
disconnectedness 3 food systems xiv, 1 1 6 —17, 1 2 2 —4
see also exclusions food -borne illnesses 6 3 —5, 2 0 1
England foodsheds 1 1 7
coasts 1 7 7 —8 forests
exclusion from com m ons Black A ct 3 2 —3
2 9 -3 2 Guatem ala 4 9 —5 0
see also U nited Kingdom India 3 9 - 4 1
environmental taxes 71 Japanese fishery connection
esperance 1 7 1 —2 1 7 8 -9
ethics 1 3 0 , 1 7 2 —3 jo in t and participatory
European farm systems 1 1 4 management 1 6 0 —I , 2 1 9
eutrophication 6 2 —3 forgetting 1 7 —18
exclusions free riders 9
English com m ons 2 9 —3 2 frontier concept 2 1 —3
India 3 3 - 5 , 4 0 - 1
protected areas 3 7 —41 gardens, urban 1 8 5 —7
explorers 2 3 —4 gender roles 1 6 2 —3
external inputs 1 1 3 gene flow 133
externalities xiv, 5 6 —6 0 , 7 7 , 1 9 9 genetic m odification ( G M )
agricultural applications
family farm s 1 0 6 —1 1 1 2 9 -3 0
family relationships 1 8 0 —I, 2 2 0 different technologies 1 3 1 —2
farm numbers 1 0 6 —8 medical applications 1 2 8 —9
farm er field-schools 161 regulation 1 4 4 —5
farm ers’ markets 1 2 1 —2 technique 1 2 7

G erm any 61
G M see genetic m odification
Green T h u m b movement 1 8 6 —7
group action see collective action
Guatem ala 4 9 —5 0
hierarchy o f com m ons 2 1 8 —19
Honduras 7 8 —8 0
horses 1 0 3 , 2 0 7 - 8
human capital 5 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 9 8
hunger 4, 8 0 —1
India
com m on property resources
1 0 ,3 4 - 5
exclusions 3 3 —5
forest rights 3 9 —41
traditional knowledge 1 9 2
water management 9 0 —1,
181-2
Indonesia 3 6 —7
industrialized agriculture
disconnectedness 3
diverscape contrast 4 7
food costs 5 2 —4
food -borne illnesses 6 3 —5
institutional policy measures 7 0
integrated pest management
“ 9 3 - 4 , 161
integrated programmes
challenges 7 2 —4
China 7 3 , 9 9 - 1 0 0
pest management 9 3 —4, 161
savings 1 1 5
Inuit 8 —9
irrigation 3 6 , 9 1 —2
see also water
Japan
Edo 4 5 , 1 9 7
forests and fisheries 1 7 8 —9
landscape painting 4 6
In d e x 2 5 7
tea-room s 4 6
wetlands 6 1 —2
JF M see joint forest management
Jodha, N S 3 4
join t forest management ( JF M )
1 6 0 - 1 ,2 1 9
Kenya 8 9 , 9 4 - 5 , 1 8 3 - 4 , 2 0 6
knowledge
plants and animals 2 0 , 1 0 3
traditional 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 1 , 103,
1 4 6 -8 , 192
land degradation 2 4 —5, 8 5
land ethic 1 7 2 —3
landscape
darker side xiv, 2 7 —9
intimacy 1 4 7 —8
m odernization 2 —3
m onetary value 6 5 —7
painting 2 8 , 4 6
shaping 4 2 , 4 5
stories and meanings 16—2 0 ,
2 3 -6
wilderness 14 —16
language 2 0 —3
leaching 6 2 —3
learning
farm ers’ groups 16 2
social 1 5 5 —7, 1 6 7
legal policy measures 7 0 —1
Leopold, Aldo 1 7 2 —4
Li W enhua 7
literacy, ecological 1 4 9 —5 2
livestock
dom estic breeds 1 0 6 , 2 1 0 —11
food -borne illness 6 4 —5, 2 0 3
product consum ption 5, 1 9 0
scale effects 1 0 5 —6
U nited Kingdom 2 0 9
U nited States 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 —9,
210
2 5 8 lN R l:x

M adagascar 9 6 —7 N ative Am ericans

m aize 5 0 , 9 4 beaver bosses 9
M alaw i 9 5 co n n ectio n with nature 21
M alaysia 3 6 —7 M u ir 4 2 -3
m alnutrition 8 0 —1 verbal culture 25 —6
m arkets, farm ers’ 1 2 1 —2 wilderness 14
m asculinity, dialegic and natural capital 55, 198
m on olegic 1 6 3 nature
M ayan civilization 4 9 com m on property resources
metis 1 4 9 - 5 0 1 5 7 -8
meadows 1—2 , 6 0 —1 connectedness with hum anity
m eanings o f landscape 1 6 —2 0 , xiv, 2 - 3 , 5 -1 4 , 1 1 5 -1 7
23 shaping and being shaped
m edicine 1 2 8 —9 1 0 -1 2
m em ories o f landscape 1 7 —18 them ed 12
M ensius 7 traditional knowledge 146—8
m icro finance institutions 1 6 0 N ew Y ork 1 8 6 -7
m icroorganism s 6 4 —5 , 1 3 4 , 2 0 3 newspapers 26
m odernism 4 6 —7, 1 5 0 —1 norm s 152—3
m od ernist agriculture see N o rth w o o d Farm 112—13
industrialized agriculture nu trient leaching and ru n -o ff
m onarch butterflies 1 3 5 6 2 -3
m onetary value n u trition transition 5, 189
agricultural landscapes 6 5 —7
externalities xiv, 5 6 —6 0 oak trees 19
wetlands and watercourses 6 2 O ffice o f the D irecto r G eneral
m on olegic m asculinity 1 6 3 o f W ater Services (O fw a t)
m onoscapes 200-1
m eaning 2 3 O m ani 25
m odernism 4 6 organic farm ing 114—15
pest proliferation 9 3 organization m em bership 116,
Mucuna pruriens (velvetbean) 214
4 9 -5 0 ownership
M u ir, Joh n 1 4 , 4 1 —3 genetic m od ification 1 4 1 —2
m u ltifu n ctionality 5 4 —6 , 7 7 , landscapes 2
1 1 3 -1 4 oyster fisheries 178—9

nam ing process 2 3 —4 paintings o f landscape 28, 46

national parks Pakistan 182—3
Indian forests 4 0 —1 p articip ation 155—7, 160—I
Yellow stone 4 3 peanut farm ing 1 2 0
see also protected areas personal change 162—4

pest management 9 3 —4 , 161
pesticides
alternatives 9 2 —5, 1 0 3 —4
biological 7 4 —5
health costs 5 7 , 5 9
market 2 0 6 —7
Peten forest 4 9 —5 0
‘pharm ing’ 1 2 8 —9
physical capital 5 5 , 1 9 8
place neutrality 1 1 0 —11
plants 18 - 2 0 / l 0 3
poachers 3 2 —3
policies, agriculture 7 0 —6, 1 2 2 —4
pollution 5 8
population, world 4 , 1 8 9
poverty
artistic representation 2 8 —9
food xv, 4 —5, 8 0 —1
productivity
livestock 2 0 8
m odern agriculture xi—xii,
1 0 4 -6
world food problem 3 —5
property rights 1 4 1 —2
protected areas
exclusions 3 7 —9
saving nature 4 1 —5
type distribution 4 4 , 1 9 6
see also national parks
push-pull (vutu sukuma) systems
9 4 -5 , 207
questionnaire, sustainable
agriculture 2 0 4 —5
rainforests 4 9 —5 0
reciprocity 1 5 2
regionalized food systems 1 2 2 —3
regulation, genetic m odification
1 4 4 -5
regulatory policy measures 7 0 —1
relationships
In d e x 2 5 9
family 18 0 - 1, 2 2 0
social and human 1 5 4 —5
renewable energy production
9 9 -1 0 0
repossession o f natural places
4 7 -5 0
reshaping see shaping
resistance 1 3 3 —4 , 1 3 7
resources
collective management 6
com m on property 10, 3 4 —5,
1 5 7 -8
ruin o f com m on 9 —10
responsibility 1 3 8 —9
rice production
genetic m odification 1 4 2 , 143
Japan 6 1 —2
M adagascan System o f
Intensification 9 6 —7
negative externalities 5 7
pesticide usage 9 2 —4
So u th -E ast Asia 3 5 —6
Vietnam 9 7 —8
Rodale Institute Regenerative
A griculture Resource
Centre 8 8
R om antic notion o f landscape
28, 29
rules 1 5 2 —3
ru n-off, nutrient 6 2 —3
sago 3 7
salinity farm ing 9 7 —8
salt marshes 1 7 7 —8
sanctions 1 5 2 —3
scale effects 1 0 5 —6, 1 0 8 —10
sem iochemicals 9 4
shallow ecology 12
shaping
landscape 4 2 , 4 5
nature 10 —12, 2 2
shrimp farm ing 9 8
260 lNDEX

single-code system s 4 7 System o f R ice Intensification

Slow F ood m ovem ent 1 2 3 —4 (S R I) 9 6 - 7
social capital
central ideas 1 5 2 —3 Tagore, R abind ranath 4 8
C o m ite de Investigacion Tanzania 3 8 —9
A gricultura T ro p ical 1 6 3 taxes, environm ental 71
definition 5 5 , 1 9 8 tea-room s, Japanese 4 6
m aturity 1 6 4 —7 The Man Who Planted Trees (G io n o )
social learning 1 5 5 —7 , 1 6 7 1 7 1 —2 , 2 2 1
soil conservation 1 8 3 —4 them ed nature 12
soil im provem ent 7 9 , 8 5 —9 ‘T h in k in g L ike a M o u n tain ’
soil organic m atter 6 8 1 7 3 -6
So u th -E a st Asia T h o reau , H en ry David 14, 15,
com m ons knowledge loss 3 5 —7 4 7 -8
see also individual country names tillage system s 6 8 , 6 9 , 8 6 —8
S R I see System o f R ice toxins, novel 1 3 5
In ten sification traditional knowledge
Sri Lanka 9 1 —2 horsem en 1 0 3
stakeholders, genetic India 1 9 2
m od ificatio n 1 3 7 —9 Kenya 1 8 - 1 9
stories, landscape 1 6 —2 0 , 2 3 —6 local com m unities 1 4 6 —8
subaks 3 6 N ative A m ericans 21
S u ffo lk Punch horse 1 0 3 , 2 0 7 —8 trees 1 8 —19
sustainable agriculture trust 1 5 2
Cuban national policy 7 4 —5
definition 5 6 , 8 2 U nilever 1 2 4
developing countries 7 8 —8 0 , U nited K ingdom
8 2 -5 agri-environm ental schemes
genetic m od ification 1 3 9 —4 0 6 5 -6
op p ortu nities fo r the future agricultural op erations 2 0 9
1 7 6 -7 , 1 8 7 -8 coasts 1 7 7 —8
policies 7 2 —6 exclusion from com m ons
questionnaire 2 0 4 —5 2 9 -3 2
renewable energy production external agriculture costs
9 9 -1 0 0 5 7 -6 0
secondary problem s xiii, U nited States
1 0 0 - 1 , 1 6 8 ,2 1 9 livestock 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 - 9 , 2 1 0
soil 8 5 - 9 localized food system s 1 2 2 —3
Sw iss national policy 7 5 —6 urban gardens 1 8 5 —7
system s 1 1 3 —15
Sw itzerland 7 5 —6 velvetbean 4 9 —5 0
synergism 9 5 —6 verbal culture 2 5 —6
 Ind ex 2 6 1

Verm uvden, C ornelius 3 2 wetlands 3 2 , 6 0 —3

V ietnam 9 7 —8 wilderness I I , 1 4 —16, 2 2 —3
vutu sukuma (p u sh -p u ll) system s wildlife 5 8 - 9 , 1 7 3 - 5
9 4 -5 , 207 wolves 1 7 3 —5
women
W altham Black A ct 3 2 —3 family relationships 1 8 0 —I
wastes 3 0 , 31 Kenya 8 9
see also com m ons nu trition 8 0 , 81
water personal benefits o f
conservation 1 8 3 —4 connectedness 1 6 3 —4
drinking 6 6 —7 world population 4
intensive food production
6 0 -3 Yaqui 21
m anagem ent 8 9 —9 2 , 1 8 1 —2 Yellow stone N ation al Park 4 3
users’ groups 3 6 , 1 5 9 —6 0 yew trees 19
W atershed A gricultural C oun cil Yoem e see Yaqui
67
watershed m anagem ent groups zero-p esticid e farm ing 9 2 —5
159 zero-tillage 6 8 , 6 9 , 8 6 —8
14 vision- and thought-provoking hook which puts the reader at ease’
Andy Ball, U niversity o f Essex, U K

‘I certainly think it bears out the desire to blend the story telling with the theory. The stories
bring a very human dimension to what can be a dry area’
David Beckingsale, D ep artm en t o f N atu ral Resources and Environm ent,
V ictoria, Australia

‘Terrific — very important. An extremely interesting and stimulating book’

Ted Benton, U niversity o f Essex, UK

‘An absorbing book with an excellent writing style, f u l l o f good argument and supported by
evidence. I like the broad reach and the coupling o f the developed and the developing world,
particularly in the context o f local knowledge, the commons [an d ] the connection o f consumers
to producers’
Phil Bradley, U niversity o f H ull, UK

‘Very good indeed. It manages to bridge academia and more general writing very well. I t ’s timely,
innovative, and the watercolours are a delight’
Lynda Brown, foodw riter, London, U K

‘Thought-provoking and readable, with interesting, sudden changes in the landscapes and locations
under discussion’
Edward C ross, Abbey Farm , N orfolk, UK

‘A book that you can read straight through rather than a reference book to look up what you
want to know. And a book that’s about land and community needs stories —I think the balance
is great’
Jan Deane, N orthw ood Farm , D evon, U K

‘Inspiring with a clear sense o f re-connectedness’

Amadou D iop, Kutztow n, Pennsylvania, U S

‘An excellent and very readable book’

T h om as Dobbs, South D akota State University, U S

A very interesting and timely read, written with some passion’

David F avis-M ortlock , Q ueen’s U niversity Belfast, N o rth ern Ireland

‘A seminal work akin to Rachel C arson’s effort in the 60s, with a good balance between story
telling and critical analysis’
Bruce Frank, U niversity o f Queensland, Australia
'What makes this book more readable and interesting than the typical writing on sustainable
agriculture is the endless examples from around the world viewed through the eyes o j the people
who do the work on the ground, told through their voices, and experienced through their
Jrustrations. An excellent primer on our food system’
Brian Halweil, W orldw atch In stitu te, U S

‘I love the use o j stories, and the descriptions o j their importance. IIo w we tell our story shapes
our actual behaviour on the earth and with one another’
H al H am ilton, Sustainability In stitu te, V erm ont, U S

‘Should he required reading J o r anyone involved in agriculture around the globe’

Justin Hardy, D ep artm en t o f A g ricu ltu re —W estern Australia, Australia

‘Most convincing — a tremendous amount o j work has gone into the documentation o j the
argument’
John Landers, Associacao de Plantio D ireto no C errad o, Brazil

‘A fabulous book’
T im Lang, T h am es Valley University, UK

‘A n original book, and f u l l o f good ideas’

Howard Lee, Im perial College at W ye, UK

‘Satisfying as a conceptual whole — a resounding message to those responsiblefor Welshjarm ing

to build a better future around their traditional distinctive cultural and spiritual relationship
with the land’
David Lort-P h illip s, Lawrenny farm , Wales

‘A n excellent analysis o f all the problems and potential solutions in relation to sustainable
agriculture’
Simon Lyster, T h e W ildlife Trusts, UK

‘Conveys the commonality o j issues and themes (and vulnerabilities) that are evident in the
ru ral sector — the diversity and convergence o j values, circumstances and practices and
Jrustrations which dejine the rural landscape and its occupants’
Joe M o rris, Cranfield University, U K

‘This book will be a great asset’

R oberto Peiretti, N o -T ill F arm ers Association, Argentina

‘The ideasJlow well, with a clear and direct prose. The illustrations are evocative and relevant’
M ichel P im b ert, IIIiD , UK