Transformative alternatives: opportunities and conflicts in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transformative alternatives:

• pportunities and conflicts in

socio-technical transitions in agriculture.

The case of cotton production in Argentina

Valeria Arza

CONICET y CENIT/UNTREF, varza@fund-cenit.org.ar June, 2014

Challenges for agricultural innovation: Opportunities for alternative systems

Part I

2

Challenges of agricultural production

In the context of…

 Current malnutrition (1/7 is undernourished )  Population growth  Competing demands for natural resources  Need to reverse unsustainable practices of industrial

agriculture

 Climate change

Three challenges:

1.

To match food increasing demand

2.

To do so sustainably

3.

To adapt/mitigate climate change

3

4

Cribb, J. 2011, The Coming Famine, Risks and solutions for the food challenge of the 21st century http://www.holysee.embassy.gov.au/files/hyse/Global%20Food%20Security%20Oct11.PDF

5

FAO, 2013

6

Agricultural innovation policy goals

 Multiple innovation pathways

• Agriculture is multifunctional:

 Production side: food, feed, fiber, fuel  Social side: employment, 90% of farms< 2ha  Cultural side: tradition  Resource management side: water supply, soil formation, wildlife.

• Innovation is multidimensional:

 Social: e.g. employment, democratization, opportunities for poor farmers  Human: e.g. equity, health  Economic: e.g. yields, production diversification, access  Environmental: e.g. biodiversity

7

Pathways to sustainable innovation

 Actions aiming at maintaining improved

values of human wellbeing, social equity and environmental quality over indefinite periods of time.

8

Several types of agricultural systems can be conceived

 Industrial (non-GM) agriculture  Industrial (GM) agriculture  Traditional agriculture  Organic agriculture  Fair trade agriculture  Agroecological agriculture

9

Worldwide GM production

Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers

10

Worldwide GM production

Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers

11

Worldwide GM production

Nature; 2013: GM crops: A story in numbers

12

The benefits of GM crops: increase profitability

• 1. Herbicide tolerant:

 Simplify weed management  Packaged with complementary technologies: general spectrum herbicides, & mechanization  Package is cheaper in larger scale  Increase (large) farms’ profitability

• 2. Insect resistant:

 Effective on certain specific pests  Simplify pest management  Reduce the use of pesticides  Increase farms’ yields and profitability

13

The drawbacks of GM crops on dimensions of sustainable innovation

Social Equity Human well-being Environmental quality

 Proprietary technology: managed

by 6 largest biotech firms. Access through top-down technology transfer

Deskilling and losing farmer’s know-how in integrated weed/pest management Increased use of agrochemicals (health)

14

No attention to staple crops

 Not suitable for family agriculture increase profitability gap

 Production concentration

Closed technology: low

• pportunities for

democratization

Agroecology

 Convergence of ecology and agronomy.  Involves different practices: biological control,

cultivar mixtures, habitat management techniques, crop rotations, soil fertility improvement practices, mixed crop and livestock management, intercropping, etc..

 Combines cutting edge technologies with old

practices (insights from traditional systems).

 Addresses problems using management

solutions.

15

The benefits of agroecology

 Emphasis on on-farm bio-diversity and soil

nutrition

• Resiliency  improves productivity
• Ecological services improves costs

 Bottom-up approaches to innovation

• Open technologies  potential for

participation and democratization of access and design

• Farmers’ capability enhancement, knowledge

intensive activity

16

The benefits of agroecology

 Empirical studies show that it may

simultaneously increase of productivity , human well being, and key environmental services (Pretty, 2008)

Pathway to sustainable innovation

17

The drawbacks of agroecology

 Low potential for practices standarisation  Non-propietary technology  low incentive for

private investment in technology development

 Labour intensive practices difficult to be scaled-up

for large farms

 Transitions periods to achieve good economic

• utcomes maybe larger than acceptable for poor

farmers

 Improved product quality may not be appropriated

by farmers if marketed in conventional chains

 Skilled intense practices, requires farmers’

commitment and intense use of extension services

18

International policy discourse

 Increasingly supporting sustainable

alternatives (as complementary systems to industrial agriculture)

• To guarantee environmental sustainability

(IAASTD, 2009)

• To guarantee food quality and consumers’

choice (EC, 2002/3/4)

• To improve social outcomes of agricultural

activities (Argentinean Agricultural Plan 2020, 2010)

 Can they co-exist?

19

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and T echnology for Development (IAASTD)

 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)  Global Environment Facility (GEF)  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO)

 World Bank  World Health Organization (WHO)

 Agriculture is multifunctional: multiple goals for knowledge and policy

20

The CAP’s objectives include helping agriculture to fulfil its multifunctional role in society: producing safe and healthy food, contributing to sustainable development of rural areas, and protecting and enhancing the status of the farmed environment and its biodiversity

CEC (2003) Agriculture and Environment. Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture

21

Argentinean agricultural intensification and policy reaction

Part II

22

20.000.000 40.000.000 60.000.000 80.000.000 100.000.000

1900/01 1903/04 1906/07 1909/10 1912/13 1915/16 1918/19 1921/22 1924/25 1927/28 1930/31 1933/34 1936/37 1939/40 1942/43 1945/46 1948/49 1951/52 1954/55 1957/58 1960/61 1963/64 1966/67 1969/70 1972/73 1975/76 1978/79 1981/82 1984/85 1987/88 1990/91 1993/94 1996/97 1999/00 2002/03 2005/06 2008/09

Argentina agricultural production

• tons of crops-

GM Green revolution worlwide Late green revolution 23

Cultivated land total and soya (2006)

• Source. Aizen et al 2009

24

The expansion of the agricultural frontier

25

Consequences of intensification

1960/70s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Chaco farms (,000s) 26.3 17.6 15.7 14.4

• Avg. farm

size Chaco (hec) 193 303 376 392 Hectares w/ soya % 3% 15% 20% 49% 52%

• 1. Productive and economic concentration

26

Consequences of intensification

1960/70s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Rural pop Chaco (%) 53% 17% Forest

• ver soya

(hectares) 7 5 1.6

• 2. Rural displacement
• 3. Deforestation

27

Each dot represents

• ne of the 2513

municipalities that had a significant change in woody vegetation over the 10-yr period (2001–2010).

28

Source: Mitchell, et al, 2012 Biotropica

• 4. Increase in agrochemical use

Consecuences of intensification

29

• 4. Increase adoption of agrochemicals

Consecuences of intensification

30

Incidence of disease in town surrounded by fields using agrochemicals intensively

Red circles represent cancer cases in 2004. In 2009 there were 200 cases out of a population of 5000, around 20 times more than the national average.

Aiuto, María Inés (coord), (2009). 'Pueblos Fumigados: Informe sobre la problemática del uso de plaguicidas en las principales provincias sojeras de la Argentina', Grupo de Reflexión Rural.

31

Policy response: to promote alternative production practices

 T

• promote alternative practices (to

complement industrial agriculture)

 Add value at origin  Promote inclusion and employment  To improve environmental sustainability

32

Argentinean Agricultural Plan 2020

 Argentina has different types of policy

instruments to support:

 Model 1: Productivity through intensive agriculture  Model 2: Environmental and social values through alternative practices

• " ... Argentina will continue to grow even if we continue to

apply Model 1. But to produce a paradigmatic shift, we must push Model 2. This model will allow us to maximize existing worldwide opportunities” p.80

• Can these models co-exist?

33

Policy literature on co-existence

 Mostly discussed technical aspects

• How to segregate production
• How to avoid admixture (crop contamination)

 Use of manchinery  Minimum distances

• How to label and certify

 But,

• Co-existence involves more than regulating

technical co-production

34

Part III

The contribution of socio- technical transitions literature to analyse transformative alternatives

Multidimensional challenges upfront

35

Socio-technical transitions: the basics

 T

echnologies work in socio-technical configurations of heterogeneous elements that develop over time (Rip and Kemp 1998)

 ‘Socio-technical regimes’ are those

configurations that are widely reproduced, deeply embedded in institutions and economically significant (Geels, 2002)

36

Conceptual framework: socio- technical transitions

Regimes favour incremental change and path dependency for new technologies and practices (e.g. GM technology within industrial agriculture)

Geels, Frank W., (2002). 'Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study', Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 8. 1257-74. 37

regulation Political commitme nts

Conceptual framework: socio- technical transitions

Alternative technologies and practices may not fit well in the existing socio-technical regime (e.g. agroecological systems)

38

If it does not fit well, develop a niche

 T

• consolidate and reproduce,

alternatives need to create emerging socio-technical configurations

• Market niche
• Technological niche
• Protected by policy or by civil society

 Protection allows gradual improvement

(e.g. in cost, performance, etc.), reproduction and replication

39

Conceptual framework: socio- technical transitions

When niches consolidate and replicate, they set up a reconfiguration of existing regimes or may even replace it

40

Many examples of successful niche developments

Henry Bell steamboat 1812 Tvind – Denmark 1978, it remains in

• peration

41

Great challenges

• New knowledge: how to codify, to diffuse, to train, etc.
• New markets and viable business models.
• To enrol influential actors to get political and economic

support

• To persuade the society that their practice is superior to

get cultural and social support.

• To adapt to or create new infrastructure.
• To adapt to or create new regulation.

42

Open conflicts

 Alternative practices may be incompatible

with existing ones (e.g. organic agriculture cannot tolerate agrochemical leakages).

 Niches’ and regime actors compete for

the same resources (for example land, political influence, etc.).

 Conflicts in co-existence are difficult to

solve without undermining the established regime.

43

Part IV

Case – study illustration GM cotton regime vs. agroecological cotton alternative niche in Argentina

44

Socio-technical regime in cotton production: GM industrial agriculture

 Farmers:  The majority are very poor  subsistence agriculture

 Cotton is their only commercial crop Size Area in hectares Percentage

• f farmers

Area sown with cotton (%) Small 0.1 to 10 60 9 Medium 10 to 100 34 41 Large Over 100 6 50

Chaco – Argentina, 2002 45

Socio-technical regime in cotton production: GM industrial agriculture

 Practices and technologies:

 Large farmers adopt full GM package based on off-farm

inputs and machinery

• GM cotton seeds are Monsanto’s.

 Also informally copied. Adoption 100%

• Small farmers adopt incomplete GM package:

copied GM seeds + glyphosate

 GM cotton did not work well for small

farmers

• Yields for large farmers 2,9 ton/hec
• Yields for small farmers 1 ton/hec

46

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 Rests on

ecological synergies between biological components within the farm

 Requires few external inputs and uses work intensively

 It was associated

to international fair-trade network

• f textile

production

Social and environmentally sustainable

Picture from the Cooperativa Agroecológica el Litoral 47

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 Economic performance

• Better yields: 1.2 to 2.9 ton hectare
• Better fiber quality
• Better output price: 1.53 against 0.95 in the

period 2006-2009

• Agroecological farmers received twice for

their work than farmers operating in the established regime of informal GM cotton

• Other values: gender equity, no child labour,

environmental recreation

48

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 Economic performance

Alternative practices (agroecological cotton) Established practices (GM informal)

Yields (ton/hec) 1,2 1,0 % of fibre 40 30 Fibre quality: A1 (high) to F4 (low) C1 y C2 D1 y D2 Price obtained in bulk 2006-2009 (AR$/kg) 1.53 0.95 Incme in 1,5 hec farms (AR$) 2754 1425 Direct costs (no labour ) for 1.5 hec (AR$) 210 400 Profitability in 1,5 hec farms (AR$) 2544 1025 Workdays for 1,5 hec farms 60 48 Equivalent wage for workday (AR$) 42 21 49

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 A niche could not consolidate, reproduce

and replicate

• In 2004: 320 farmers in the project. By 2010:
• nly 50 agroecological farmers remained.

 What went wrong?

50

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 A path breaking activity

• Knowledge: syncretic knowledge = science + informal

knowledge and practical experience by farmers and their ancestors.

• Productive and technical interactions: avoids off-farm

inputs, does not aspire to simplify human labour,

• Relation with the environment: takes advantage of

synergies in the ecosystem (instead of mastering techniques to make production of one of those components more efficient).

• Social and cultural wise: integrated into fair trade

principles: independence, self-esteem, horizontal negotiation; gender equality and the prohibition of child labour.

51

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton

 As a path breaking activity:

• To emerge and consolidate it faced a series of

challenges because it did not fit with several dimensions of the socio-technical regimes

• There were some incompatibilities with

regime practices and some antagonistic interests.This created conflicts

52

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton Lack of fit challenges

 Political: to enroll actors to create a

network to produce differentiated cotton

• products. The T

extile Solidarity Chain (TSC)

 T

echnical: to codify knowledge to create a technical protocol to be diffused and trained to farmers and monitored by leaders

53

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton Lack of fit challenges

 Managerial:

• The chain integrates all production and marketing
• stages. Staff only 3 people



Financial:

• They need to mediate the lapse between cotton

cultivation and fair-trade T

• shirts sale (14 months)

 Farmers have to wait too long



No markets for agroecological fibre

54

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton.

 Passive conflicts: incompatibility in practices

• Seed contamination. No GMO-free seed

 Further technical, managerial and political challenges

• Chemical leakages

 Makes market creation more difficult

• Monoculture

 Soil depletion, further technical challenges  Destruction of markets for staple crops

• Rural labour displacement

 Technical protocol too demanding on manpower

55

Socio-technical alternatives: agroecological cotton.

 Active conflicts: antagonistic interests

• Unbalanced information and propaganda

 Increases cultural and social challenges

• Twisting regulation using regimes’ political

influence

 Set of regulations undermining the rights of farmers to save seed enacted by law  Set of regulations ignoring restrictions of minimum distances allowed for agrochemical application which enacted by law.

56

Part V

Conclusions: Opportunities and conflicts for sustainable innovation

57

Conclusions

 Opportunities for alternative pathways to

sustainable innovation are outstanding

 International policy debates have been

highlighting the need of more sustainable approaches in agriculture

 Policy approaches a bit naive in anticipating

challenges

 Socio-technical transitions framework may

help

• It puts upfront socio-technical aspects

important for niche consolidation and diffusion 58

Conclusions

 Co-existence involves much more than

• rganizing and regulating technical co-

production

 Balanced creation of knowledge–e.g. to know what

we do not know yet

 New markets –e.g. that reward quality  Support institutions –e.g. extension services  Training –e.g. integrated weed/pest management

 The further away alternative practices are from

established ones, the greater the challenges ahead

59

Conclusions

 Passive conflicts: incompatibility of

practices hinder niche’s consolidation.

 Active conflicts: open conflict with

established actors who feel their interests are threatened

 Path breaking alternatives in multiple

dimensions have an arduous task ahead also in terms of solving successfully passive and active conflicts.

60

Conclusions

 Strong political support on several fronts

is needed to resist pressures by powerful lobby groups and to reverse existing contextual conditions that support the status quo (e.g. IPR regulation)

61

Thank you! Valeria Arza varza@fund-cenit.org.ar

62

Related Link

Documentary on Sustainable Development in Argentina (Marin, 2013) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9g3SGy 45NU

63

T echnical protocol Agroecological practices

• Cotton is grown in small farms of no more than three hectares.
• “Curtains” around the whole farm are advisable to protect it from the wind.
• Rotation is sought to be as long as possible: ideally, cotton is expected to return to the

same lot after three years.

• Cotton is never grown in monocultures; it must be combined with at least two other crops.

The greater the diversity of crops, the less the incidence of pest and diseases is.

• They must progressively decrease tillage and add organic matter to soils.
• The soil must be kept as covered as possible and only vertical tilling or superficial labours

are made.

• Pests are not fought with the use of chemical insecticides but the model relies instead on

the correct plant nutrition -own to healthier soils- and in the action of natural enemies.

• The model allows for the use of natural fertilizers
• Weed control is manual and between one and two hoeings are performed. This is the

reason why agroecological production requires more labour than the industrial model, which saves labour using herbicide tolerated by the GM plant.

• Harvest is also done manually using white cotton bags.

Fair Trade practices

• Cotton price is discussed among CAL members and must be agreed before planting
• CAL must provide technical assistance and training
• inputs must be financed by CAL
• equal gender opportunities in working conditions and rewards must be ensured
• child labour is prohibited
• attempts should be made to continuously improve environmental standards .

64

School yard, in Buena Vista. First picture: children planting flowers

• n the side of a welcome sign. Second picture: same sign with

farmer spreading agrochemicals only 25 metres away from the school yard

Agrochemical use and health

Picture from Cooperativa Agroecológica el Litoral 65