Q&A: The Two Faces of Agriculture

Like the Roman god Janus, whose two faces look in opposite directions, agriculture can either protect the planet’s biodiversity, or decimate it with the irrational use of chemical inputs and the reduction of soil fertility.

If you’re gonna quote Janus at me, you better be using decimate correctly too. At first blush IPS’s interview with Achim Steiner — head of UNEP — seems to be toeing the old “agriculture is the enemy of biodiversity” party line. On second blush too. Here’s Steiner:

The increasing importance of agriculture caused by a growing global population means that the spaces vital to many species of flora and fauna are increasingly limited. In that sense, agriculture poses a danger to biodiversity.

In the end, though, he gets to the point I hope he was trying to make all along.

We can stop that process of erosion and annihilation of species if we apply other models to make optimal use of those 20 centimetres of the earth’s crust necessary to produce the food that we need.

With those alternative models, agriculture offers great potential for protecting plants and animals.

Farmers can be excellent managers of natural resources and of different ecosystems. The challenge of this century is how to compensate farmers so that they continue producing the necessary goods for humanity and, at the same time, help conserve and protect ecosystems, which are also crucial for our survival.

The interview swings back and forth a few more times, offering the idea that farmers can protect endangered flora and fauna. But not a word about the need to protect endangered wild relatives, or crops, or livestock. Ho hum.

Science does food security

You’ll remember Jeremy waxing lyrical a few days back about a Science paper on “the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.” That paper now finds itself part of a special issue on food security. 1

In the 12 February 2010 issue, Science examines the obstacles to achieving global food security and some promising solutions. News articles introduce farmers and researchers who are finding ways to boost harvests, especially in the developing world. Reviews, Perspectives, and an audio interview provide a broader context for the causes and effects of food insecurity and point to paths to ending hunger. A special podcast includes interviews about measuring food insecurity, rethinking agriculture, and reducing meat consumption.

A lot of it is behind a paywall, but something that isn’t is Radically Rethinking Agriculture for the 21st Century. That radical rethink, in case you’re wondering, consists of using more biotechnology and saline water. Right.

UK to spend GBP15 million on food security

The UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBRSC: does that name give you any clues about their priorities?) has committed GBP15 million “to establish training for food security research and development”. So, what’s involved?

  • “Transferring the UK’s world-leading bioscience research from the lab bench to the field will underpin this fast-growing sector.”
  • “The AgriSkills Forum recognises the need to address skills in the agri-food sector in a holistic manner and we look forward to working closely with BBSRC to compare notes and ensure that any potential synergies are encouraged to be realised.”
  • “Farming remains at the heart of tackling the challenge of feeding a world of nine billion people by 2050. What the farming industry needs in order to meet this challenge is strong agricultural and horticultural research in the UK. … This BBSRC scheme will help to ensure that research done by highly skilled scientists can benefit farmers by being translated into new technologies, practices and advice they can use on a commercial scale to produce more and impact less.”
  • “We need an increased number of individuals with specific very high level skills if we are to meet the challenge of future food security that has been laid out for us.”

I wonder what they’ll come up with for people who eat food. h/t Charles Spillane.