When it comes to nurturing ourselves and the future generations that will inhabit our planet, there is little room for doubt that on a global scale we are ‘biting the hand that feeds us’. Eighty percent of global deforestation and 11 percent of anthropogenic carbon emissions come from agriculture, and conventional agricultural practices are the main causes of water pollution, loss of biodiversity and land degradation, among other environmental impacts.
So what could change things? Advocating for alternative practices like organic farming is an obvious piece of the puzzle, but polarizing debates pitting organic against conventional practices can miss the nuances needed to facilitate large-scale shifts of direction and emphasis. Food systems are complex and take generations to change.
In this article, we will begin to look at some of the questions that should asked about the role organic agriculture could play in the long-term transition to a more sustainable way of feeding the planet.
what is organic agriculture?
First, it is important to recognize that organic farming is not just about ‘what we don’t do’, like avoiding synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides, but also about contributing positively to the environment through benefits such as soil health. , water conservation, biodiversity and community well-being. IFOAM – Organics International defines organic agriculture as:
“A production system that supports the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It is based on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than on the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all those involved ”.
While foods labeled “organic” first gained a foothold on the world market in the 1960s, organic farming is an ancient practice. A large number of farmers around the world, particularly small farmers and subsistence farmers in less developed parts of the world, have been using organic methods for generations. This approach is often used out of necessity, even without organic certification, which can be time-consuming and prohibitively expensive to obtain, in the international marketplace.
For families and communities that have lived in the same place for generations, practices that deplete the soil and degrade ecosystem services cannot be sustained year after year, especially if external agricultural inputs are not readily available or accessible, or if their effects Adversities are evident to farmers and their communities.
What are the land use challenges for organic agriculture?
Organic farming practices are already being applied much more widely than the 1.5 percent of global farmland that is currently certified organic: while it is currently impossible to determine the true acreage of land under organic farming, an estimated millions of small farmers around the world are currently using these practices, without official recognition.
But one of the biggest challenges to further expand is the yield-to-land ratio. Currently, several meta-analyzes have concluded that organic agricultural yields are an average of 19 to 25 percent lower than those of conventional agriculture, although there is a wide range of estimates depending on the crop and conditions; Some crops, such as rye, raspberries and green beans in a 2014 study across the US, often have higher yields under organic management.
“Yields do matter,” says Verena Seufert, assistant professor at the Free University of Amsterdam. “I spoke to organic farmers in India who told me that they are considering going back to conventional farming because their yields are too low and prices are higher. [that organics can carry in the market] in context they don’t compensate for that. “
Also from a broader perspective, which takes into account other challenges such as reducing emissions and recovering biodiversity, it may make sense to try to reduce the amount of land on which food is grown. While organically cultivated land, on average, emits less greenhouse gases than conventionally cultivated land, this pales in comparison to the carbon sequestration potential of, say, an intact tropical forest, which can absorb up to 600 kilograms (1,323 pounds) of carbon per hectare per year. “A natural ecosystem can support biodiversity and contribute to climate mitigation much better than any agricultural land,” says Seufert. “From that point of view, it makes sense to produce large quantities of products from your agricultural land so that you can, ideally, in theory, leave more land to nature.”
However, Seufert notes that there are likely ways to close that gap, such as dedicating more research funds to organic agriculture, which has received very little such investment in recent decades. For example, when it comes to crop improvement, he says that about 95 percent of the crop varieties used on organic farmland were actually bred for conventional farming, even though they need different characteristics to thrive.
Other mixed land uses, such as agroforestry, which integrates trees and shrubs with crops or pastures and sometimes takes place within existing forests, also have significant potential to increase food production while simultaneously increasing food production. they maintain critical ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration.
How do we make organic products more affordable?
Consumer pressure has played, and continues to play, an important role in the growth of the organic movement thus far. But while there is still the option to buy ‘conventional’ products for less money, only some sectors of the population can justify the more expensive option. In the U.S. in 2019, for example, certified organic foods and beverages cost an average 7.5 percent more than their conventional counterparts. These price differentials may well diminish in the coming years: the global market for organic products is projected to grow more than 16 percent by 2025, which means better economies of scale, but they are unlikely to disappear completely under economic conditions. current.
Governments could play a bigger role in correcting the balance and often save money in other areas by doing so. In the basins around Paris, for example, the municipal drinking water provider supports farmers in the transition to organic farming. “They invest a lot, but of course they are also doing it for their own sake so that they can provide good quality drinking water and lower their other costs,” says Louise Luttikholt, CEO of IFOAM – Organics International.
Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, a government-led initiative has led to organic food accounting for 89 percent of meals served in the city’s canteens. That has been achieved by training staff to prepare food differently, reducing food waste and purchasing at scale, rather than increasing food budgets.
In the big picture, realigning our economic systems to take into account impacts such as pollution, environmental degradation and carbon emissions would likely go a long way toward changing what is seen as the ‘affordable’ option. In other words, we need a clearer way of knowing the true cost of our food, both organic and conventional.
“Many of the communities in our world have accepted that the externalities of agriculture can be placed elsewhere,” says Luttikolt. “And that is the context in which farmers are producing; In many cases, we are even offering them subsidies to help pollute our environment. So we have to start doing some serious total cost accounting to look at the context in which we as a society currently allow farmers to produce. “
What other benefits of organic products should we take more into account?
The fact that 17% of all food produced (more than 900 million tons) is thrown away each year indicates the magnitude of inefficiencies and imbalances in our current global food system. “We already have more than enough calories produced for everyone [on the planet] be satisfied, ”says Luttikholt. “And that’s because in the last half century or so, the focus on agriculture has been solely on productivity. So we are producing a lot of calories, but they are not reaching the right people in the right places. ”
It is also important to look not only at calories, but also whether the food that is produced and distributed actually nourishes people nutritionally and culturally adequately. With around 815 million people undernourished worldwide, and a similar number classified as obese, our food systems are currently not tackling that problem as well.
That’s one way organic farming can help. Practices such as crop rotation, which organic farmers generally need to employ to prevent soils from being depleted of necessary nutrients, “almost automatically contribute to a healthier diet because there is no single product focus for human consumption.” He says. Luttikholt, “and we see that in communities where more diverse foods are offered, people tend to eat more diverse diets.”
Looking at the role of organic products in the overall change in the food system, Seufert urges not to return to the polarizing arguments of “organic versus conventional”, and argues that a more nuanced, integrated and pragmatic approach is required. “Organic is a tool in our toolbox, and we are going to need a variety of tools to fix our food systems.”
And organic farming has a broader impact on the food system than initial statistics might suggest. “It has really influenced the debates about what sustainable agriculture looks like, and it is also a kind of pilot test for alternative practices that are then adopted by conventional farmers,” he says. “In a way, it is an experimental place for different ways of doing agriculture, which then has greater repercussions beyond the organic field.”