NACLA Report on the Americas, marzo 2002 v35 i5 p29(6)
For an agriculture that doesn't get rid of farmers. (Report on Science
and Technology). Miguel Altieri.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2002 North American Congress on Latin America,
Inc.
Among the forms of knowledge--sciences--developed
in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans were sophisticated
agricultural systems. The Incas, the Mayas and the Aztecs all developed
systems capable of feeding large and concentrated populations. The European
conquerors partly dismantled the indigenous systems and tried to substitute
European farming techniques. More recently, would-be modernizers in
Latin America have fostered the spread of U.S.-style agriculture, which
favors large farms, expensive equipment like tractors and the purchase
of ever--growing amounts of pesticides, fertilizers and, most recently,
genetically modified seeds. Proponents say such "scientific"
agriculture is the only way to feed the world's growing population,
while critics charge that the only real beneficiaries are the corporations
that make farm supplies and equipment. Now, scattered throughout the
developing world, experiments are underway with an alternative approach
known as agroecology. Miguel Altieri, author of Agr oecology: The Science
of Sustainable Agriculture, is one of the leading advocates of this
new approach. The Chilean--born Altieri is a professor of insect biology
at the University of California--Berkeley, but he spends almost half
the year in Latin America, working with hundreds of farmers and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) that want to try agroecological methods. NACLA
Report editor JoAnn Kawell recently spoke with Altieri about agroecology
and its possible economic, social--and political--implications for Latin
America.
What is agroecology?
Miguel Altieri: We could say that agroecology is basically just a set
of principles on how to design systems for small farmers. The main motivation
for agroecology is that previous development projects have failed, top-down
development projects have failed, and we need an alternative. What agroecology
does is try to blend traditional knowledge, the farmer's knowledge,
and the principles of modern agricultural science.
The focus is on peasant agriculture, small farmers.
That's the important form of agriculture in Latin America--there are
only 16 million small farmers in Latin America and they control only
20% of the land, but they are the ones who are producing the food that
people eat there, because everyone else is growing for export. You go
to Chile--what are the big farmers doing? Producing wine, or grapes,
or peaches, or apples for export, nothing for the local populations.
Go to Brazil, what are the big guys doing? Growing soybeans for the
export market. To do what? To feed the cattle in Europe. It doesn't
have anything to do with the food security of the region. So the ones
who are maintaining the food security, genetic diversity and the cultural
diversity of the land are the peasants--the corporate model of biotechnology
is an agriculture without farmers.
Agroecology projects are very underfunded projects, conducted by little
NGOs helping here and there, but they have been able to reach about
4.5 million farmers throughout the developing world, farming about nine
million hectares [one hectare = 2.5 acres]. We've participated in a
study which shows that by using agroecological methods you can increase
yields of poor farmers in marginal environments about 100% while at
the same time conserving the soil resource base and biodiversity.
But if agroecology emphasizes traditional methods, and these are so
productive, why are Latin American farmers still poor and still hungry?
MA: Basically, the problem is the inequity of access to land. We're
talking about 16 million peasant family units. That's about 75 million
people; that's the population where the poverty's concentrated, and
the average farm size is between 1.2 and 1.5 hectares. You can't demand
too much from that little land, especially marginal land. About 80%
of the small farmers, the peasants, in Latin America are concentrated
in the marginal lands: hillsides, semi-desert areas, etc. Obviously
the agricultural potential of those areas is very low, they should be
used for other purposes, like forest or grasslands. The main way to
revive and have a productive peasant agriculture would be, first, land
reform and second, appropriate support for these farmers, in terms of
agroecological technologies, credit, and social services that come along
with rural development.
But all the efforts that were made, starting with the Green Revolution
and all the extension programs have bypassed the peasantry. More than
80% of Latin American peasants did not adopt high yielding varieties,
or the pesticides or the fertilizers promoted by the Green Revolution.
The reason wasn't that these people were ignorant; it had an ecological
basis, because these technologies would increase the risk for them.
Can you explain what the Green Revolution was?
MA: The Green Revolution started, in the late '40s, early '50s, as an
attempt by the Rockefeller Foundation to modernize Mexican agriculture.
Rockefeller put together a team of people to go to Mexico to report
on how to modernize. When they came back they recommended that the way
to do this would be to bring technology from the North, from the United
States, Iowa-type, Ohio-type agriculture, using hybrid crops and making
use of the technology package that implies, to push yields. There was
one professor from Berkeley, Carl Sauer, who passed away many years
ago, who was on that team: He'd done a lot of research on Mexican agriculture,
and he wrote a minority report, saying, basically, "if a bunch
of agressive American agronomists are going to go to Mexico and bring
Ohio-type agriculture to small farmers, this is what's going to happen."
He predicted the impacts of the Green Revolution, the breakdown of cultures,
the breakdown of the traditional systems, the erosion of the traditional
varieties--they kind of fi red him, and the Green Revolution proceeded.
Give us some examples of places where traditional systems are still
in use.
MA: Traditional systems are almost intact in small areas-microcosms--which
total about 3 million hectares in Latin America, mainly in Mesoamerica,
the Andean region and the lowland tropics. One system in Mesoamerica
would be the chinampas, there are about 40-60 hectares left in an area
near Mexico City. A chinampa is a raised field that is surrounded by
water canals, it's a system that was developed by the Aztecs and has
withstood the test of time. It's an integrated agricultural/aquaculture
system.
Meaning it produces both crops and fish?
MA: Right. The raised fields are built with the mucky sediment from
the bottom of the canals, it's very rich in organic matter; some of
the nutrients from the raised fields fall into the water and enrich
the water for the fish, a lot of algae and weeds start growing there,
and before they suffocate the fish, the farmers put that organic matter
back on the raised field as mulch. It's a self-sustaining system, and
they've been able to obtain anywhere from three to six tons per hectare,
which is pretty comparable to any average maize [corn] field in the
United States.
What kind of crops do they grow in the chinampas?
MA: They now grow about 20 different crops, but originally it was mostly
maize. Now they have mostly commercial crops like flowers that they
sell in Mexico City. But the [chinampas] system is collapsing. One,
because of urban sprawl, and also because of the water quality. Mexico
City uses the water and returns it contaminated, and so the systems
are breaking down, not because the systems don't work, but because of
external forces.
How about systems in the Andes?
MA: The most traditional system in the Andes is the terraces, the andenes.
The main crop is potatoes, and there are places where the terrace system
is still in place where the productivity of potatoes is very high. The
diversity of potatoes is also very high, they don't grow one variety
of potato, they grow 60 or 70 varieties in one terrace and that provides
resistance to environmental problems, like drought or frost or disease,
because one variety might suffer, but many others would survive.
That diversity exists not so much as a result of the ecology; cultural
rituals maintain diversity; for example, a work ritual called the minka:
Farmers from one area work in another area, and they get paid in potatoes
by the farmers who are hosting the minka. Or when people marry, they
get different kinds of potatoes as gifts. The survival of these many
varieties is important not just for the survival of the farmers but
also for the survival of agriculture, because it ensures genetic diversity.
In order to maintain that genetic diversity, it's important to maintain
cultural diversity, because if you destroy these rituals, the way people
are relating, you break down the genetic diversity.
Is there a particular area where you've been working on terraces?
MA: In the Huancayo and Cajamarca areas of Peru There are still microcosms,
not the whole area, but there are still small areas. NGOs, including
Peru's CIED [Center for Research, Education and Development], have reconstructed
hundreds of hectares of andenes.
How about tropical agriculture systems?
MA: In the lowland tropics, in the Amazon for example, but also in southern
Mexico, you will find agro-forest systems, which are basically home
gardens, huertos familiares, which could be less than half a hectare
surrounding the household where you would have anywhere between 80 and
200 different trees, herbs, shrubs and a few domestic animals. These
systems have a huge amount of diversity and are key for food security.
The image that most people have of tropical agriculture
is that it's mostly slash and burn agriculture. Is that accurate?
MA: Well, slash and bum is very prevalent, mostly in the highlands,
but it's diminishing because of the problem of land access, and population
growth. Originally slash and burn was a very sustainable system. The
key thing is that in the tropics there's a lot of leaching of nutrients
from the soil, the nutrients are tied up in the biomass, that is in
the plants, so if you want to have fertile soil, you have to incorporate
vegetation into the soil; then that vegetation decomposes and releases
the nutrients. So what the farmers did originally was to clear a small
plot of land, burn it. That releases the nutrients in the vegetation.
The soil has enough fertility for about three years, then they would
abandon that piece of land, and come back maybe 15 years later to the
same piece of land so they could allow the forest to regenerate. That
system is considered sustainable. It's prevalent in Asia and Africa,
too. As long as you have long fallows [periods during which the fields
aren't cultivated] the system works ve ry well. That's a very ecologically
rational way of managing tropical agriculture. The problem is that the
fallows became shorter and shorter because of lack of access to land,
population growth, not so much because people are reproducing like crazy,
but because there's been a lot of movement of people into areas where
slash and burn is being used--for example, some of the problems in the
Brazilian Amazon, in Rondonia, it was mostly landless people that they
were bringing from the south to the Amazon; they were people without
a culture of tropical agriculture, they were doing slash and bum without
knowledge and without allowing long fallows. You can still find microcosms
of sustainable slash and burn--in southern Mexico for example, in Chiapas.
But in most areas I think that the fallows have shortened so much, that
the system's not sustainable any more.
You say that agroecology combines traditional and modern methods, can
you say something about the contribution of modern methods?
MA: That's an interesting question, because sometimes the only contribution
that modem science has is to show that what traditional farmers have
been doing is correct--we do the research and we find that what these
people developed were optimal systems. Let me give you a concrete example:
The waru warus, systems found about 4,000 meters above sea level that
exist in the Puno area of Peru and in Bolivia, in the Lake Titicaca
area. Waru warus are very similar to the chinampas--they are raised
fields surrounded by water that comes from Lake Titicaca. But the main
effect is that the water absorbs the heat during the day and releases
it at night; that changes the microclimate one or two degrees, enough
to offset frost, which is very common at that altitude. Those systems
disappeared because the Spanish thought the crops that they were growing,
like quinon, were pagan crops. And for other reasons related to the
Conquest, those cultures collapsed, and the waru warus were abandoned.
A few years ago some anthropologis ts, some archeologists, and some
people from NGOs there started doing some work reviving the systems.
There were archeological records that showed that the systems had existed.
Then they started interviewing the elderly of the communities, and they
started trying to revive the systems. There are now more than 200 hectares
of warn warus, which have been reconstructed. They're growing their
traditional crops again. The contribution of modern science was just
to find a way of reconstructing how this was done. No modern scientific
breakthrough has been made that makes it possible to grow crops at those
altitudes in the midst of frost.
But agroecology isn't entirely a preservation of traditional systems?
MA: No. It's possible to preserve the systems, if the farmers want,
because agroecology is participatory--that means farmers are at the
center of the research agenda. But in most places where we're working,
traditional systems do not exist anymore, they have been destroyed,
basically the work is to try to rescue what was there before, and if
it's not there, to use agricultural principles that governed how sustainable
agriculture was practiced in other areas with similar conditions.
What we have to do is empower the poor so they have the capability to
feed themselves. What needs to be done is, first, land reform. And second,
equip the farmers with agroecological knowledge and techniques. NGOs
alone can't do this; there have to be huge institutional reforms so
that the public apparatus supports what the peasants really need. One
example of a place where this is happening is in Brazil, in the state
of Rio Grande do Sul, where Governor [Olivio] Dutra, of the PT [Workers'
Party] has made agroecology public policy--the research institutions
and universities there had people who studied agroecology, these people
are now in power and using agroecology as a tool for family fanning.
In Brazil there are 4.3 million family farmers who control about 30%
of the land but produce 80% of the cassava and about 70% of the beans
and about 60% of the maize. Their responsibility in food security, as
in the rest of Latin America, is critical.
What Dutra and the PT have seen is that the family farmers play a key
role in food security; they see that the revival of small farms in the
countryside is key to reversing poverty, because many people are migrating
to the cities, but the cities are becoming pockets of poverty. What
are they going to do with all those people? They want to revive agriculture
and add other industries that are going to add value to the agricultural
products, bring education, bring all the services that have to come
along; that's their strategy, that rural development plays a key role
in the development of the state. So it's not so much that the family
farmers represent a huge economic force; but they represent a social
and ecological and cultural force.
I think what they are doing is very wise--the public sector, which is
shrinking everywhere in Latin America, due to neoliberal policies, should
focus on the poor, because the rest are being taken care of by the corporations.
So for example in Chile, why is the national agriculture institute helping
big farmers? Why don't they work with small farmers? The corporations
have their own technical assistance. Agroecology is not just a development
method, but also a resistance to globalization, a tool for social movements
to become much more autonomous. Brazil's MST [Landless Rural Workers
Movement] is now using agroecology on land they've taken over. The Zapatistas
use agroecology--it is the technological flag of the resistance movement.
Is it possible for large scale commercial farms and small farmers to
coexist? Isn't Rio Grande do Sul a big commercial soybean producing
region?
MA: Yes, it is. And coexistence is possible. The MST is the strongest
movement in Brazil, including in Rio Grande do Sul; they are taking
over land there. So you will have large scale agriculture that's corrected
by land reform--and when it's corrected, then you will have the coexistence
of large, medium and small scale agriculture.
Do you see genetically modified crops as having any role at all in the
systems you are talking about in Latin America?
MA: Well, agroecology emerged as a critique of
top-down approaches like the Green Revolution, which bypassed the small
farmers, and did not really help them. And the same thing is going on
with biotechnology; it's top down, it's not participatory. What we're
saying is that in order for the technology to be useful, first of all
it has to be participatory, that is, the peasants get involved in the
research process and they bring their knowledge--they are the ones who
decide what is to be done, and all the other agencies, NGOs and research
centers should be just facilitating the process.
Biotechnology did not emerge at all as a response to the needs of the
poor; it emerged as a tool for some corporations to control the food
system. Because they are able to engineer crops that require the use
of their other products: like [Monsanto's] Roundup Ready soybeans; it's
patented and requires the use of one particular herbicide, Roundup [also
made by Monsanto]. So in that sense this technology has nothing to do
with the needs of the poor.
There are people arguing, well, but look, there are applications that
could be useful--but if a public organization, let's say a Bolivian
research center, developed a variety of potato that was going to be
distributed to the poor and was, say, viral resistant, when they were
ready to release it, then you are going to have to deal with about 20
corporations that are going to come down and claim property rights--because
the associated [genetic engineering] technology is patented; when you
put in the gene that has the particular feature you want, you have to
use patented technology to insert it and mark it. This is what happened
exactly with two varieties of papaya, one developed by a government
agency in Brazil and another by a public university in Costa Rica; they
could not release them because they had to negotiate the patents with
20 different corporations. That's what happened with Golden Rice, this
rice that is engineered to have the vitamin beta carotene; the Rockefeller
Foundation funded the research for ten years, and then when they were
ready to release Golden Rice they found out that there were complicated
issues with the patents, so that's why [the Swiss company] AstroZeneca
came in and bought it. What they're saying now is "we're going
to give Golden Rice to the poor for free," but we can't allow feeding
the poor in Latin America to be a question of whether corporations have
good will or not. Agroecology empowers people to become agents of their
own development.
But the other problem with biotech, with GMOs [Genetically Modified
Organisms] is that they are emerging at the expense of other agriculture,
because of genetic pollution, we are seeing it already with the local
maize varities in Oaxaca [Mexico]. When we grow transgenic crops that
have a special trait, the gene for that trait doesn't necessarily come
from other plants, it might be from a bacteria, from a frog, from anything.
You put that gene into a plant because you think it's going to express
one particular trait, like resistance to an herbicide, or to a pest;
well, that gene expresses itself throughout the plant and especially
in the pollen. So when the pollen is blown by wind or carried by pollinators
and goes through a normal process of crossing with wild relatives--that
is, plants that are botanically related to the crop--there's a high
probability of encountering wild relatives in Latin America because
there are many centers of origin [of domesticated plants] that are loaded
with wild relatives and local varieties--so there's going to be exchange
of genes. And the wild plants are going to acquire the trait--they could
become superweeds, and take over, or they might become less fit and
just disappear. So that's a danger.
The GM crops are novel crops--they don't exist in nature, they would
never exist in nature if humans had not manipulated them. They've manipulated
them by overcoming biological barriers; people say, "but people
have been domesticating and improving plants for a long time."
Yeah, they have, but through the normal co-evolutionary processes that
exist in nature. Here we have crossed biological barriers and found
ways to use viruses and other things that would serve as transporters
of these genes.
So what's happening in Oaxaca, the center of origin of maize, an area
with a lot of diversity of maize, and teosinte, which is a wild relative,
is that they were using GM corn for animal feed, supposedly. This GM
corn--called Bt corn--is resistant to insect pests. It started contaminating
other corn varieties because of exchange of genes [through pollination];
researchers in Oaxaca found the presence of GM material in traditional
varieties and wild relatives. We don't know what the consequences could
be, they could become superweeds, or they could disappear because they
lose fitness. What is more worrisome is that they'll contaminate everything
so that there's nothing we can do later on--regulation will come too
late, farmers are going to lose their traditional crops. Organic farmers
are also being contaminated; this is happening in Canada, with canola.
The farmers lose their organic certification, because organic crops
area' t allowed to have any contamination by GMOs. So this is imposing
itself--it's like M icrosoft--it's imposing itself all over the genetic
material of Latin America, and that's unacceptable. We need to contain
the purity of farming systems the way farmers want them--it's irreversible,
once you release the genes into the environment, it's irreversible.
More information about agroecology and Miguel Altieri's work in Latin
America can be found at: http://www.CNR.Berkeley.EDU/%7Eagroeco3/
http://www.agroeco.org/
|
War Club - Riotstage
Hear more War Cub music @
Mexica
Uprising MySpace
Add Mexica Uprising
to your
friends list to get updates, news,
enter contests, and get free revolutionary contraband.
Featured Link:
Academia Semillas del Pueblo
"If Brown (vs. Board
of Education) was just about letting Black people into a White
school, well we don’t care about that anymore. We don’t
necessarily want to go to White schools. What we want to do is
teach ourselves, teach our children the way we have of teaching.
We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain...We
don’t need a White water fountain. So the whole issue of
segregation and the whole issue of the Civil Rights Movement is
all within the box of White culture and White supremacy. We should
not still be fighting for what they have. We are not interested
in what they have because we have so much more and because the
world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American
way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead
to our own destruction. And so it isn’t about an argument
of joining neo liberalism, it’s about us being able, as
human beings, to surpass the barrier."
- Marcos Aguilar
(Principal, Academia Semillas del Pueblo)
Grow
a Mexica Garden
12/31/06
The
Aztecs: Their History,
Manners, and Customs by:
Lucien Biart
12/29/06
6 New Music Videos
Including
Dead Prez, Quinto Sol,
and Warclub
12/29/06
Kalpulli
"Mixcoatl" mp3 album
download Now Available
for Purchase
9/12/06
Che/Marcos/Zapata
T-shirt
Now Available for Purchase
7/31/06
M-1
"Til We Get There"
Music Video
7/31/06
Native
Guns "Champion"
Live Video
7/31/06
Sub-Comandante
Marcos
T-shirt Now Available for Purchase
7/26/06
11 New Music Videos Including
Dead Prez, Native Guns,
El Vuh, and Olmeca
7/10/06
Howard Zinn's
A People's
History of the United States
7/02/06
The
Tamil Tigers
7/02/06
The Sandinista
Revolution
6/26/06
The Cuban
Revolution
6/26/06
Che Guevara/Emiliano
Zapata
T-shirts Now in Stock
6/25/06
Free Online Books
4/01/06
"Decolonize"
and "Sub-verses"
from Aztlan Underground
Now Available for Purchase
4/01/06
Zapatista
"Ya Basta" T-shirt
Now Available for Purchase
3/19/06
An
Analytical Dictionary
of Nahuatl by Frances
Kartutten Download
3/19/06
Tattoo
Designs
2/8/06
|