Idiots or savants? Reality for small farmers is complex

There’s a prevailing meta-narrative in some circles that sees smallholder farmers, noble peasants, as all-knowing and all-wise. Just give them control over their resources, this story goes, and they’ll feed themselves, conserve their environment, produce a surplus for those who do not farm, and all will be well with the world.

There’s an equally prevalent counter-narrative that says that the reason poor farmers are poor is that they haven’t had access to the fruits of scientific research and technological developments. Sell them seeds and fertilizers and spiffy new crops and varieties and they’ll grow their way out of poverty.

Neither narrative is wholly true, nor wholly untrue, and seldom is that brought out as clearly as in a recent report on the Agence France Presse wire, about the plight of farmers in southern Ethiopia. Some bought into a get-rich-quick scheme, growing biofuels for an American-Israeli company. They are going hungry, and they are still poor. Others ignored the offer. They remain poor, but they do have food to eat.

For smallholder farmers, as for everyone else, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

It’s a complicated story, that’s for sure, and AFP does its best to provide a balanced view. More and more, though, I am becoming certain that the best way to improve food security and earnings is to reverse the neglect of thoughtful extension services, which can combine the best technological advances with the most useful local knowledge to come up with locally sensitive solutions.

Nibbles: Chickens, Realpolitik, Apples, Kew, Maize, Local food

Pollan for president

In an open letter in the New York Times magazine, slow food pundit Michael Pollan urges the next US president, the Farmer in Chief, to

Reform the entire food system: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on.

His main point is that the US should wean from oil, and resolarize the farm. I can see where he is coming from, but does he really want all that backbreaking drudgery again? Yikes.

Pollan also says that the government should encourage farmers to

grow as many different crops and animals as possible. Because the greater the diversity of crops on a farm, the less the need for both fertilizers and pesticides.

Fair enough, but at what cost? Pollan says that we do not know, because we haven’t tried. Well, I would agree that organic agriculture can be very productive, but kicking out fertilizers all together is a foolish idea.

It is a long article, and it has a long list of policy objectives: “Perennialize” commodity agriculture; Enhance national security by decentralization of the food system; Four-Season Farmers’ Markets; And, create a Federal Definition of “Food.” (I believe the goal is to make it illegal to call junk, food).

Pollan is a bit too much of a romantic to my taste. But then I am not much of a visionary. The US certainly should change some of its bad food habits. Our times call for a presidents who withstands the Agro-Industrial Complex (and who does not fear Iowa’s voters). If anything, Mr. President should take Pollan’s most daring advice: rip a section of the White House lawn, and farm and govern by example.