A call for diversity in farming systems

A new report by IPES-Food argues now is the time to shift from industrial agriculture to a system that draws on many different farming methods.

|
David Scrivner/Iowa City Press-Citizen/AP/File
A farmer displays his cereal rye cover crop in Wellman, Iowa.

A new report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) examines the mounting evidence in support of a transformation of today’s food and farming systems. The report, titled From Uniformity to Diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems, explores the potential for a change to occur within the current food system, calling for a shift from a food system based on industrial modes of agriculture to a system centered around diversified agroecological farming.

The report acknowledges the role that current food and farming systems play in supplying large volumes of foods to global markets. It also notes the numerous negative outcomes associated with industrial agriculture, which include the widespread degradation of land, water, and ecosystems; high Greenhouse Gas emissions; losses in biodiversity; unrelenting hunger and micro-nutrient deficiencies accompanied by rapid increases in obesity and diet-related diseases; and livelihood stresses for farmers worldwide.

According to the authors, shifting current practices can ameliorate some of the specific outcomes of industrial agriculture, however, it will not provide long-term solutions to the numerous problems it creates. The report “identifies the major potential for diversified agroecological systems to succeed where current systems are failing, namely in reconciling concerns such as food security, environmental protection, nutritional adequacy and social equity.” In addition, the report questions “what is keeping industrial agriculture in place, and what would be required in order to spark a shift towards diversified agroecological systems.” Emile Frison, author of the report, asserts that “the way we define food security and the way we measure success in food systems tend to reflect what industrial agriculture is designed to deliver - not what really matters in terms of building sustainable food systems.”

Key findings from the report include the need for a “fundamentally different model of agriculture based on diversifying farms and farming landscapes, replacing chemical inputs, optimizing biodiversity and stimulating interactions between different species, as part of holistic strategies to build long- term fertility, healthy agro-ecosystems and secure livelihoods.”

However, diversified systems produce varied outputs, making it difficult to measure success and implications for global production volumes of staple crops, and food security. The report recognizes the difficulty in evaluating food system success and recommends developing new methods for measuring food system success. Other recommendations include shifting public support towards diversified agroecological production systems, backing short supply chains & alternative retail infrastructures, supporting movements that unite diverse constituencies around agroecology, mainstream agroecology, and holistic food systems approaches into education and research agendas, and creating food planning processes and united food policies at multiple levels. According to Frison, the “time is ripe for a radical change in our agriculture. While the problems of industrial agriculture have been denounced for some time, there is now sufficient compelling evidence showing that diversified agroecological systems can bring solutions on multiple fronts in a sustainable way.”

This article first appeared in Food Tank.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A call for diversity in farming systems
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/0604/A-call-for-diversity-in-farming-systems
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe