Ecological Impacts of Industrial Agriculture and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming (cont.)
The Barriers for the Implementation of Alternatives
The agroecological approach seeks the diversification and revitalization of medium size and small farms and the reshaping of the entire agricultural policy and food system in ways that are economically viable to farmers and the general public. In fact, throughout the world there are hundreds of movements that are pursuing a change toward ecologically sensitive farming systems from a variety of perspectives. Some emphasize the production of organic products for lucrative markets, some land stewardship, while others promote the empowerment of peasant communities. In general, however, the goals are usually the same; to secure food self-sufficiency, to preserve the natural resource base, and to ensure social equity and economic viability.
Some well-intentioned groups suffer from technological determinism, and emphasize the development and dissemination of low-input or appropriate technologies. Somehow, it is believed, these technologies in themselves have the capability of initiating beneficial social changes. The organic farming school that emphasizes input substitution (i.e. a biological insecticide substituted for a more toxic synthetic one), but leaves the monoculture structure untouched, epitomizes those groups that have a relatively benign view of capitalist agriculture. Such a perspective has unfortunately prevented many groups from understanding the structural roots of environmental degradation linked to monoculture farming.
The acceptance of the present structure of agriculture as a given condition restricts the real possibility of implementing alternatives that challenge such a structure. Thus options for a diversified agriculture are inhibited by, among other factors, the present trends in farm size and mechanization. Implementation of such mixed agriculture would only be possible as part of a broader program that includes land reform and farm machinery redesigned for polycultures. Merely introducing alternative agriculture designs will do little to change the underlying forces that led to monoculture production, farm size expansion, and large-scale mechanization in the first place.
Similarly, obstacles to changing cropping systems have been created by the government commodity programs in place these last decades. The programs rewarded those who maintained monocultures of grain by assuring these producers a particular price for their product. Those who failed to plant the allotted acreage of corn and other price-supported crops lost area from their allowed Abase,@ on which future subsidies would be paid. This reduced their potential income from the price-support program. Consequently the programs created a competitive disadvantage for those who used a crop rotation. Although the price-support system is being phased out, the pattern it helped to develop is very well established.
On the other hand, the large influence of transnational corporations (TNCs) in promoting sales of agrochemicals cannot be ignored as a barrier to sustainable farming. Most TNCs have taken advantage of existing policies that promote the enhanced participation of the private sector in technology development and delivery, putting themselves in a powerful position to scale up promotion and marketing of pesticides. Given such a scenario, it is clear that the future of agriculture will be determined by power relations, and there is no reason why farmers and the public in general, if sufficiently empowered, could not influence the direction of agriculture toward goals of sustainability.
Conclusions
The nature of the modern agricultural structure and contemporary policies have strongly influenced the context of agricultural technology and production, which in turn has led to numerous environmental problems. Given the realities of capitalism, resource-conserving practices are discouraged and in many cases such practices are not profitable for farmers. The expectation that a set of policy changes could bring a renaissance of diversified or small-scale farms may be unrealistic, because it negates the existence of economies of scale in agriculture and ignores the political power of agribusiness corporations and current globalization trends. A more radical transformation of agriculture is needed, one guided by the notion that ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political, cultural, and economic arenas that also constrain agriculture. Change toward a more socially just, economically viable, and environmentally sound agriculture will be the result of social movements in the rural sector in alliance with urban organizations.