The future of agriculture:
Challenges for environment, health and safety.
Regulation of pesticides from a presentation made
by Louise O. Fresco, Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, to the OECD
Working Group on Pesticides,
I. Agriculture
between the global and the location specific By its very nature, agriculture
is location-specific, and it is this specificity of crops, soils and animals
that, over the centuries, has led to the great diversity and richness in
agriculture which we see today.
The principal change in the 20th century was the Green Revolution, during
which all countries experienced a massive increase
in yield per unit area and time, owing largely to greater control of
production factors. This resulted in a decrease in some of the
location specificity that had characterized
agriculture in the past and led to a more centralized or "blue print"
approach. While the mid-19th century marked the
beginning of a more scientific approach to agricultural production with
the introduction of fertilizers, it is the 20thcentury that must be
considered the century of science-based
agriculture. The 20th century might also be characterized as the "blue print
century", in which a more centralized or
engineering approach to agriculture, including the setting of production
targets, was a principal driver for increased
agricultural output.
I believe that the 21st century will be marked by a return to a more
location-specific, ecological approach to
agriculture. While the public eye is focused on globalization, globalization
does not necessarily mean homogenization or
centralized control. However, advances in science should allow
greater specificity. In addition, there is a strong counter current,
driven by both NGOs and civil society, towards
maintaining local-specificity. Evidence for this may be found in the
increased appreciation of local foods and the fact
that globalization is increasingly seen in the context of local
issues and not only of global concerns.
The other side of the globalization debate is the fact that inequality and
inequity still exist in the world.
More than 1,000 million people live on less than one dollar a day, and an estimated 800 million people are hungry. The World Food Summit in 1996 pledged to reduce by half the number of hungry people by 2015. It is clear that this goal will not be met. While there has been success in some countries, the current annual reduction of 8 million people a year will need to more than double to 20 million if the stated goal is to be met by 2015. The movement to reduce hunger will result in a parallel increase in employment and purchasing power and directly impact on trade and the movement of goods around the world.
There is a need to double food production in developing countries, and, some
80 % of this increase will need to be gained from
land that is already under production. It is clear that this increased
intensification of production cannot be met without chemical inputs.
The question is how to avoid the mistakes of the
past and to fully benefit from the lessons learned and experience gained to
date.
II.
Future Trends
In the next decade I foresee a number of trends as
a result of globalization:
1. One of the major economic trends will
be downward pressure on cereal prices. These are
projected to stagnate until 2020 despite increased demands. This, coupled
with decreasing farm subsidies, will result in a
need for greater efficiency at the farm level.
2. Government is no longer the
predominant player in food regulation. Vertical integration of
the food chain has been accompanied by a declining role for
government and an increasing role for food
retailers and the private sector. At the same, time consumer demands -
especially for “non-chemically contaminated food”,
are expected to boost to some 15-20% the market share of
organic food by 2020.
3. Trends to increased consumption of
animal protein, particularly in South East Asia, may be
correlated with increased income. This trend has resulted in greater
production of animal products, particularly
poultry and swine, at a rate of 12% annually in recent years and has placed
increased pressure on cereal markets.
4. A potential concern associated with
the increased production and movement of livestock
(largely swine and poultry) across the world is the transfer of epizootic
diseases from animals to humans. The increased
trading in livestock and food crops has also resulted in the creation of
niche products in off-season markets. However, it also raises a
series of trade related questions on market
access.
5. There is a trend to increasing urbanization
in many countries as people are unwilling to
remain on the land and to continue to be involved in agricultural
production. Agriculture in general is declining in
economic importance and hence in public opinion. It is alarming to note
that the number of students in agriculture faculties is declining
rapidly. The reduced numbers of people involved in
agriculture will also be a driver for increased mechanization of farming and
raises a new challenge of how to find technologies that are
ecologically sustainable, particularly
for developing countries.
6. Increasing public concern regarding
food safety must be met with a massive education
programme. One thing that has become clear is
that food safety and human health are generally
assigned higher priority than the environment in the public mind. It will be
interesting to see how this shift away from the
traditional focus on calories per hectare will evolve over the next 10
years.
7. The medicalization of agriculture is
expected to continue. Two examples that come to mind
include further investigating the use of nutriceuticals to improve
diets and a better understanding of the role of
protective factors, found in certain foods such as brassicas, in protecting
against certain types of cancer.
This leads me to believe that the sustainable intensification of
agricultural production will require a greater
reliance on precision agriculture and will be characterized by increased
attention to local needs and reduced labour
inputs. It will include greater attention to such concepts as fertilizing
plants rather than the soil, and a greater
reliance on the principles concerning ecological farming systems developed
through experience with integrated pest management (IPM). It will
also benefit from new sources of information such
as that available through global positioning systems including mapping of
soils, watersheds and ecological zones and using
this globalized information as the basis for local decisions.
III. Modern
Technology, especially genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Agriculture does not take place in a vacuum. There are other trends in the
area of research and sustainable development that
I would like to briefly consider.
Research on genetics is increasingly concentrated in a few countries and/or
companies and is characterized by a definite shift
away from the public to the private sector. This is paralleled by a shift
on the regulatory side to supranational bodies along with some
eroding of the national state, as there is more
autonomy at regional and sub-national levels. A major challenge will be
ensuring that the
activities at these different levels are not delinked.
Although agricultural development in the 20th
century was characterized by a centralized approach, it
was also evident that it was most successful where it was linked with
local ecological conditions. A case in point is
that an integrated approach to pest management has been shown to be
successful. A key reason for this success has been
as a result of helping farmers to understand the concept of critical
thresholds. The same principles can be applied to water and nutrient
management.
There is a need to further consider the role of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in a broader IPM approach. For
example, incorporating the gene for Bacillus thuringiensus (Bt) toxin into
plants has demonstrated little evidence of risk to
human health or the environment. However we must not be
complacent and the potential ecological effects of GMOs needs to
continue to be monitored. A more
important issue than risk at this point is the accessibility of this
technology to developing countries, which
frequently lack the necessary infrastructure.
The area planted to GMOs has tripled in the last three years. Some 75% of
this in developed countries. Most of the work has
been focussed on four crop groups – maize, soybean, cotton and canola – and
has involved traits relating to pest-tolerance and
herbicide-resistance.
What will happen in the next five years ? At present there are up to 500
different crop-trait combinations under field
testing, most of which are in Latin America. The major products under
development to date reflect the interest of developed countries and
involve herbicide-tolerance, pesticide-replacement
and shelf-life in horticultural crops. Little of the research underway is
relevant to the needs of developing countries.
I am concerned that GMOs will be treated like the Green Revolution: a
centralized engineering approach where it is
presumed that one solution will fit all the needs rather than considering
how they might best be integrated into
ecologically based systems of farming in different countries and regions
of the world. One possible solution might be to consider the
development of an international code of conduct on
genetic resources.
A further challenge is how to improve/strengthen cooperation and
coordination at the national and regional levels.
In order to be fully effective, multilateral agreements such at the
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
(PIC) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) require careful national coordination. The reality
is that, in many countries, there is often only
poo,r if any, inter or intra-ministerial cooperation particularly between
ministries of
environment and agriculture.
A good example of where such inter-ministerial cooperation might be
considered is the OECD work in the area of
development with that on environment and agriculture. The experience gained
by countries through the OECD Pesticides Working
Group would be relevant to developing countries with limited
resources and experience.
A principal challenge will be to ensure that these discussions at the
national and international level are open and
transparent and based on sound science. At present the increased
availability of information to countries has both
a positive and negative aspect. For example the internet represents a useful
tool for information dissemination, but it also
represents a potential problem in that the information is
lumped together. One sees good science next to nonsense, which readers are
not always in a position to distinguish. There is
a need for a neutral brokerage of the information available to maintain the
credibility of the science.
Recent estimates indicate that up to 30% of the pesticides in developing
countries are sub-standard.
The consolidation of the major pesticide manufacturers, where some 10
companies now control 80% of production, is
coupled with a trend to shift production, particularly of older off-patent
products, to developing countries. These smaller
manufacturers in non-OECD countries may not have the ability
to consistently meet established health and safety standards. This
potentially creates a new set of
problems and the need for greater monitoring of their output – for example
pesticides no longer permitted in OECD countries
may be used on food, which is then imported (the so-called "circle of
poison"). Many developing countries lack the critical mass to carry
out appropriate monitoring either of the quality
of the pesticides they receive or produce, or of the residues in the food
they plan to
export.
A key challenge for members of the OECD Pesticides Working Group to consider
in planning its future will be how to take the
experience gained over the last ten years to other areas. For example:
explore opportunities to improve national coordination in order to
ensure that the achievements here are carried to
other international fora such as the standard-setting processes within Codex
Alimentarius and related work under the Rotterdam and Stockholm
Conventions. This is particularly noteworthy in
the case of Codex as many developing countries consider that they lack the
expertise to effectively participate in the
standard setting process.
Based on the experience gained, consider developing tools to help countries
to work more efficiently and make better use of
the existing resources. These could include:
· development of a range of “easy to use” risk indicators , in particular
ways to combine information on hazard and exposure
that provide indications/trends of relative risk over time
for individual pesticides or total pesticide use nation-wide.
· criteria for the identification of chemicals that should be the subject of
targeted
environmental monitoring in order to facilitate comparison of monitoring
data across
countries. These could focus on the potential to persist in the environment,
to bioaccumulate or level of toxicity· focus on
methodologies for conducting lifecycle assessments of pesticides. This could
include promoting integrated policies across production, consumption
and disposal consistent with the principles and
approaches that characterize IPM.
It is also clear that, at the present time, there is little or no direct
link between the work of the OECD Pesticides
Working Group and development assistance, even though many of the issues
considered by the Working Group are also central
to developing countries.
Finally, we need to bear in mind that small countries, small farmers and
small companies have small voices. We need to
ensure that their voices are heard and that we maintain an open dialogue
with them. We are increasingly well positioned to
use the global advances in science and technology, such
as global positioning systems and genetic engineering, to develop
more and better defined strategies
for location specific agriculture. Now more than ever we should recognize
the need to act globally but
to think locally.
Future Harvest
 |
Previous Notes |
| Read Here | |
 |
 |
|
