Transformative alternatives: opportunities and conflicts in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transformative alternatives: opportunities and conflicts in socio-technical transitions in agriculture. The case of cotton production in Argentina Valeria Arza CONICET y CENIT/UNTREF, varza@fund-cenit.org.ar June, 2014

Part I Challenges for agricultural innovation: Opportunities for alternative systems 2

Challenges of agricultural production In the context of…  Current malnutrition (1/7 is undernourished )  Population growth  Competing demands for natural resources  Need to reverse unsustainable practices of industrial agriculture  Climate change Three challenges: To match food increasing demand 1. To do so sustainably 2. To adapt/mitigate climate change 3. 3

4

Cribb, J. 2011, The Coming Famine, Risks and solutions for the food challenge of the 21st century http://www.holysee.embassy.gov.au/files/hyse/Global%20Food%20Security%20Oct11.PDF 5

FAO, 2013 6

Agricultural innovation policy goals  Multiple innovation pathways ◦ Agriculture is multifunctional:  Production side: food, feed, fiber, fuel  Social side: employment, 90% of farms< 2ha  Cultural side: tradition  Resource management side: water supply, soil formation, wildlife. ◦ Innovation is multidimensional:  Social: e.g. employment, democratization, opportunities for poor farmers  Human: e.g. equity, health  Economic: e.g. yields, production diversification, access  Environmental: e.g. biodiversity 7

Pathways to sustainable innovation  Actions aiming at maintaining improved values of human wellbeing, social equity and environmental quality over indefinite periods of time. 8

Several types of agricultural systems can be conceived  Industrial (non-GM) agriculture  Industrial (GM) agriculture  Traditional agriculture  Organic agriculture  Fair trade agriculture  Agroecological agriculture 9

Worldwide GM production Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers 10

Worldwide GM production Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers 11

Worldwide GM production Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers 12

The benefits of GM crops: increase profitability 1. Herbicide tolerant:  Simplify weed management  Packaged with complementary technologies: general spectrum herbicides, & mechanization  Package is cheaper in larger scale  Increase (large) farms’ profitability 2. Insect resistant:  Effective on certain specific pests  Simplify pest management  Reduce the use of pesticides  Increase farms’ yields and profitability 13

The drawbacks of GM crops on dimensions of sustainable innovation Human well-being  Production concentration  Not suitable for family agriculture  increase profitability gap  Proprietary technology: managed Deskilling and losing farmer’s know-how in integrated by 6 largest biotech firms. weed/pest management Access through top-down technology transfer Closed technology: low opportunities for No attention to Social Equity democratization staple crops Increased use of agrochemicals (health) Environmental 14 quality

Agroecology  Convergence of ecology and agronomy.  Involves different practices: biological control, cultivar mixtures, habitat management techniques, crop rotations, soil fertility improvement practices, mixed crop and livestock management, intercropping, etc..  Combines cutting edge technologies with old practices (insights from traditional systems).  Addresses problems using management solutions. 15

The benefits of agroecology  Emphasis on on-farm bio-diversity and soil nutrition ◦ Resiliency  improves productivity ◦ Ecological services  improves costs  Bottom-up approaches to innovation ◦ Open technologies  potential for participation and democratization of access and design ◦ Farmers’ capability enhancement, knowledge intensive activity 16

The benefits of agroecology  Empirical studies show that it may simultaneously increase of productivity , human well being, and key environmental services (Pretty, 2008)  Pathway to sustainable innovation 17

The drawbacks of agroecology  Low potential for practices standarisation  Non-propietary technology  low incentive for private investment in technology development  Labour intensive practices difficult to be scaled-up for large farms  Transitions periods to achieve good economic outcomes maybe larger than acceptable for poor farmers  Improved product quality may not be appropriated by farmers if marketed in conventional chains  Skilled intense practices, requires farmers’ commitment and intense use of extension services 18

International policy discourse  Increasingly supporting sustainable alternatives (as complementary systems to industrial agriculture) ◦ To guarantee environmental sustainability (IAASTD, 2009) ◦ To guarantee food quality and consumers’ choice (EC, 2002/3/4) ◦ To improve social outcomes of agricultural activities (Argentinean Agricultural Plan 2020, 2010)  Can they co-exist? 19

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and T echnology for Development (IAASTD)  Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)  Global Environment Facility (GEF)  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)  World Bank  World Health Organization (WHO)  Agriculture is multifunctional: multiple goals for knowledge and policy 20

The CAP’s objectives include helping agriculture to fulfil its multifunctional role in society: producing safe and healthy food, contributing to sustainable development of rural areas, and protecting and enhancing the status of the farmed environment and its biodiversity CEC (2003) Agriculture and Environment . Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture 21

Part II Argentinean agricultural intensification and policy reaction 22

Argentina agricultural production - tons of crops- 100.000.000 80.000.000 GM 60.000.000 Late green revolution 40.000.000 Green revolution worlwide 20.000.000 0 1900/01 1903/04 1906/07 1909/10 1912/13 1915/16 1918/19 1921/22 1924/25 1927/28 1930/31 1933/34 1936/37 1939/40 1942/43 1945/46 1948/49 1951/52 1954/55 1957/58 1960/61 1963/64 1966/67 1969/70 1972/73 1975/76 1978/79 1981/82 1984/85 1987/88 1990/91 1993/94 1996/97 1999/00 2002/03 2005/06 2008/09 23

Cultivated land total and soya (2006) Source. Aizen et al 2009 24

The expansion of the agricultural frontier 25

Consequences of intensification 1960/70s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Chaco 26.3 17.6 15.7 14.4 farms (,000s) Avg. farm 193 303 376 392 size Chaco (hec) Hectares 3% 15% 20% 49% 52% w/ soya % 1. Productive and economic concentration 26

Consequences of intensification 1960/70s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Rural pop 53% 17% Chaco (%) Forest 7 5 1.6 over soya (hectares) 2. Rural displacement 3. Deforestation 27

Each dot represents one of the 2513 municipalities that had a significant change in woody vegetation over the 10-yr period (2001–2010). Source: Mitchell, et al, 2012 Biotropica 28

Consecuences of intensification 4. Increase in agrochemical use 29

Consecuences of intensification 4. Increase adoption of agrochemicals 30

Incidence of disease in town surrounded by fields using agrochemicals intensively Red circles represent cancer cases in 2004. In 2009 there were 200 cases out of a population of 5000, around 20 times more than the national average. Aiuto, María Inés (coord), (2009). 'Pueblos Fumigados: Informe sobre la problemática del uso de plaguicidas en las principales provincias sojeras de la Argentina', Grupo de Reflexión Rural. 31

Policy response: to promote alternative production practices  T o promote alternative practices (to complement industrial agriculture)  Add value at origin  Promote inclusion and employment  To improve environmental sustainability 32

Argentinean Agricultural Plan 2020  Argentina has different types of policy instruments to support:  Model 1: Productivity through intensive agriculture  Model 2: Environmental and social values through alternative practices ◦ " ... Argentina will continue to grow even if we continue to apply Model 1. But to produce a paradigmatic shift, we must push Model 2. This model will allow us to maximize existing worldwide opportunities ” p.80 ◦ Can these models co-exist? 33

Policy literature on co-existence  Mostly discussed technical aspects ◦ How to segregate production ◦ How to avoid admixture (crop contamination)  Use of manchinery  Minimum distances ◦ How to label and certify  But, ◦ Co-existence involves more than regulating technical co-production 34

Part III The contribution of socio- technical transitions literature to analyse transformative alternatives Multidimensional challenges upfront 35

Socio-technical transitions: the basics  T echnologies work in socio-technical configurations of heterogeneous elements that develop over time (Rip and Kemp 1998)  ‘ Socio-technical regimes ’ are those configurations that are widely reproduced, deeply embedded in institutions and economically significant (Geels, 2002) 36