Reviewing Sustainable Agriculture
The good, the weak and the sensible

We review here a number of important books and reports which take up aspects of the discussions and  pledges  of Agenda 21.  The UK government has published its strategy, which met with disappointment at the lack of  specific policies and targets.  With impeccable timing, the David Pearce team produced their blueprint for measuring economic development, while at IIED, an excellent report shows—with examples—that with political will, sustainable agriculture could be achieved in Britain.

Publication of Sustainable Development, the UK Strategy  follows a brief consultation period, and fulfils the government’s commitment under the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit).  It has been met with some scepticism, though there may be room for improvement, as Secretary of State for the Environment Gummer points out that “year by year we shall need to revise and refine our policies”.  Unfortunately, he—like much of the report—over-emphasises economic growth, where more far-sighted and less ideologically-committed governments—including Japan, Holland and Scandinavian countries—see environmental investment as part of economic recovery, both stimulating progress and saving money, not as a threat to the economy.
    The report is often at odds with expert testimony, noting, for example, that the UK has achieved a great deal over the past 20 years in conservation of wildlife habitats and biodiversity of hedgerows, trees and forests the coastline and other areas of outstanding natural beauty ... urban parks and green belts. This is in direct  contradiction with the submission of the  Council for the Protection for Rural England (CPRE), Preparing for the  Future, which notes problems of lost grassland, wetlands, and hedgerows, as well as the substantial increase in fertilisers and pesticides and their major impact on wildlife and consequent water pollution problems.
    By sleight of hand, the UK Strategy turns ad hoc responses into policies. It reports, for example, on falling pesticide use, but this is largely a result of the use of more biologically active substances and not of a government strategy—in terms of area of application, pesticide use increased between 1988-90 and remained static between 1990-92.  It sites programmes addressing low input systems and commitment to agricultural research:  but research budgets have been cut and advice to farmers is now largely available only through agrochemical sales staff or private consultants.  The LINK programme, for example, sited as a lynch pin in addressing low input systems, has had only £9 million of investment over four years, of which the government is putting in half.  MAFF’s Research Strategy for 1994 shows a total budget of £128 million in 1993-94.  Of £55 million on research to protect the public, about one third is for the safe use of pesticides, and not for reduction policies.  There is some emphasis on minimum use of pesticides and alternative methods of pest control: but in stating a strategy to achieve this, we find it will be only through rigorous approval and review of products, and safe guidance to users and through research and developments.
    The UK strategy has important omissions.  Most glaring is the failure to address people’s participation and the rural development aspects of Agenda 21:  globally, there is now recognition that ‘sustainable agriculture and rural development’ cannot be separated.  Successful sustainable agriculture must be based on farmer and community participation in change, and not viewed merely as technical solutions to reduce pollution.  A further major omission is the failure to set targets or timetables, and mechanisms for monitoring or  measuring progress. 

The future
The government’s strategy is based on a number of factors.  It supports a liberal world trade in agricultural products, and for internationally competitive and environmentally sensitive UK agriculture. Many environmentalists will be alarmed at this commitment to international trade as the base for environmental policies.  A recent paper, Trading off the Future, usefully summarises the qualifications that always existed in the free trade arguments, and argues that GATT rules must contain explicit provision for trade-related policies for environmental sustainability.  Failure to value environmental externalities, in effect, mounts to environmental subsidies.
    Further reform of CAP is mooted, particularly reducing levels of support. The strategy is not specifically linked to environmental considerations, although the Biodiversity —The UK Action Plan notes the need for the “greening of CAP and . . .  closer linkages between agriculture and environmental policies and objectives.”   The government is committed to protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land from development, it does not mention its views on other, more fragile areas.  While it notes the need to facilitate farmers’ access to reliable and up-to date information on good environmental practice based on sound science, it adopts a fundamentally top down approach without suggesting means of supporting farmer-based sustainable agriculture.

A better way ahead
To find the answer to this, time is far better spent reading the IIED report by Jules Pretty and Rupert Howes, Sustainable Agriculture in Britain:  Recent Achievements and New Policy Challenges.  This paper draws on emerging evidence from Britain, Third World countries and the USA to suggest that an economically and environmentally viable alternative to both industrialised and organic agriculture does exist.  It is based on the integration of natural processes into agricultural production, combined with a reduction of off-farm inputs (agrochemicals, chemical fertilisers etc.).  This is not a return to low technology, low output, but  includes a wide spectrum of systems, involving use of pesticides, antibiotics and fertilisers. Conventional practices are not rejected, but innovative, resource-conserving practices are emphasised.
    Successful examples in the UK show crop yields on integrated or sustainable regimes to be 78-105% of  conventional production, although much of this is under controlled conditions.  Successes generally involve the substitution of labour, knowledge and management skills for the former high use of external inputs.  Equally important is  the motivation of and communication between large numbers of independent farmers.  Many techniques depend on a group of neighbouring farms adopting the same practices. Other support comes through group and community action and the report provides a good overview of such actions.  Few modern agricultural programmes have given sufficient weight to institution building, and the inclusion of useful examples from France and Australia where this has been reinforced or initiated is welcome.  The important lesson is that for extension staff, facilitating organisation and liaisons to solve problems is preferable to a role as providers of information.
    While not prescribing a particular policy for agricultural reform, the paper sets out an agenda consisting of 18 options for policy reform, providing a far more useful basis for a sustainable development strategy for the UK than the government’s action plan.

Measuring sustainable development
The government cannot plead ignorance to excuse the failure to adopt targets and measures of sustainability.  Blueprint 3 is a direct sequel to David Pearce’s influential book on trade and environment, Blueprint for a Green Economy.   The most valuable section is Part I, which looks at the conditions for sustainable development and suggests how to measure economic progress towards sustainability in the UK economy. 
    Chapter 8 on agriculture and the environment argues that to reverse the unsustainable trends, public support of agriculture should be given to environment-enhancing activities rather than intensive production.  However while providing a useful overview of problems and indicating the failure to evaluate the costs of pesticide use, soil erosion and the impact of over-production, is disappointingly short on the mechanisms for delivery—for this one must read Pretty and Howes.  It is, however, clear that the present policies—including recent ‘environmental’ reforms—are sending the wrong signals to farmers.
    The concluding chapter places existing UK reforms as weak, and discusses the political and institutional changes necessary to implement even weak sustainable development.  A complete rethink is necessary and the report draws comfort from the strategies of a number of local authorities, concluding that new options will require far-reaching reform of the country’s existing political and institutional structure.  (BD)

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 23, March 1994, page 22-23]