From GFM@age2.age.uiuc.edu Wed Mar 9 23:53:57 1994 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 19:56:08 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: SANET-MG@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: DISCUSSION: Sust. ag. definition Saneters- Below is my analysis and discussion of various definitions of sustainable agriculture that have been offered in published literature (1978- 1992). Given that all definitions are politically motivated to some degree, my concern is not so much with coming up with the one, true, universal definition. I am more concerned with finding common ground among diverse constituencies which might help develop a formidable and lasting coalition to promote an agriculture that is worth sustaining. This is part of a chapter that will appear later this year in volume titled "Sustainable Agriculture in the American Midwest: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future" published by the University of Illinois Press, edited by myself and W. R. Edwards. Sustainable Agricultue needs to be a part of a sustainable society, and various ideas about that are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. I am basically sympathetic with the ideas of Herman Daly and John Cobb (For the Common Good) who argue for a steady state economy that improves qualitiatively. We also need to figure out in qualitative and quantitative terms, the human carying capacity of ecological systems on local and global scales. Best Regards, Greg McIsaac Sustainability of Agriculture Wes Jackson, geneticist and co-founder of the Land Institute, was probably the first to use the term "sustainable agriculture" in recent times (Jackson, 1978). Since natural ecosystems have stood the test of time, Jackson argued, they should serve as models for sustainable agriculture. His proposal for a sustainable agriculture in the North American plains consists of perennial seed crops modeled after the prairie ecosystem. Permanent ground cover would decrease soil erosion; tillage and planting would occur infrequently and require little energy. He initiated a research program to develop perennial seed bearing crops for human and animal consumption as well as for energy production. As the concept of sustainability became more widely accepted, several complementary and competing definitions and strategies for sustainable agriculture have been offered. Gordon Douglass (1984) described three major themes in the sustainable agriculture literature: sustainability as food sufficiency, as stewardship of the earth, and as community. According to Douglass, these themes seem to be promoted by three different constituencies. Those who argue for sustainability as food sufficiency tend to see the sole or primary function of agriculture as providing abundant food for growing populations. The U.S. Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture have a long history of research and eduction geared to increased agricultural productivity (Busch and Lacy, 1983), and representatives of these institutions commonly frame the discussion on sustainability in terms of increased productivity (Holt, 1988; Hoeft and Nafziger, 1988; Ruttan, 1989). The second group, who Douglass identifies with "stewardship," argue from an ecological point of view for maintaining the Earth's biological systems by preserving wild land and biodiversity, closing energy and nutrient cycles, and slowing and eventually stopping human population growth. Some who might fit into this category might argue against the anthropocentric overtones of the term "stewardship." Those concerned with sustainability as community see agriculture as an important cultural activity which provides meaning, cultivates moral responsibility, and continues traditions of caring for the earth and future generations (Burkhardt, 1989). Various professional societies and interest groups have offered definitions of sustainable agriculture which address all three elements identified by Douglass. For example, the American Society of Agronomy developed the following definition of sustainable agriculture: A sustainable agriculture is one that, over the long term, enhances the environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends; provides for basic human food and fiber needs; is economically viable; and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (Francis and Youngberg, 1990). Economist Pierre Crosson (1992) contends that "a sustainable agriculture is one that can indefinitely meet the needs for food and fiber at socially acceptable economic and environmental costs." Crosson views knowledge as the key for attaining sustainability and calls for a concerted research effort to expand agricultural production while becoming less dependent on fossil fuels and more friendly to the environment. Like economist Richard Norgaard, ecologist Stephen Gliessman (1990) argues for a coevolutionary approach to understanding sustainable agriculture: Agricultural systems develop as a result of the coevolution that occurs between culture and environment, and a truly sustainable agriculture values humans as well as the ecological components...Our understanding of ecosystem level processes should interface with the even more complex aspects of the social, economic and political systems within which agroecosystems function. (Gliessman, 1990) Gliessman proposes that the sustainability of agricultural systems can be assessed, like natural ecosystems, by examining their energy flows, nutrient cycles, population regulation mechanisms and dynamic equilibria. Qualitative and quantitative indicators of agricultural sustainability may emerge from careful analysis of regional and site specific social and agro-ecological relationships over time. Furthermore, Patricia Allen, working in collaboration with Stephen Gliessman and others (1991), argues that much of the discussion of sustainable agriculture has been overly focused on farm-level production and profitability. They propose that "sustainable agriculture is one that equitably balances concerns of environmental soundness, economic viability and social justice among all sectors of society." Such a definition would bring issues such as urban poverty and hunger into the discussion of sustainable agriculture. Interestingly, Donald Holt (1989), Director of the Illinois Agricultural Experiment and generally an advocate of the productivity paradigm, suggested that any proposals for increasing agricultural sustainability should be assessed for its impacts on low income groups. Since the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on food, any efforts to increase agricultural sustainability that increases food prices will harm the poor disproportionately. This claim should be carefully assessed for accuracy, since malnutrition in the US is still unacceptably widespread in spite of high agricultural productivity. However, an important point relative to the discussion of different conceptions of sustainable agriculture is that those emphasizing sustainable agriculture as community and those emphasizing food sufficiency through increased productivity both claim at times to act in the best interest of least advantaged members of society. Unfortunately, the environmental movement in the US has been justifiably criticized for its lack of attention to the agendas and concerns of racial minorities and low income groups (Bullard, 1990). Furthermore, there is some anthropological evidence to suggest that in some ways environmentalism may be part of an attempt (perhaps unconscious) by an upwardly mobile middle class to separate itself from what it considers lower and inferior classes of people who are in need of reform (Frykman and Lofgren, 1987). However, there appears to be a growing movement toward environmental justice (Bullard, 1990) and if those emphasizing preservation of ecosystems are willing to expand their agenda to accommodate (or even champion) concerns of the least advantaged members of the society, then the three groups identified by Douglass will have this common goal sustainable agriculture. Perhaps focusing on the needs of the least advantaged members of society can be a constructive starting point for the diverse constituencies that claim interest in the sustainability of agriculture to build a formidable and lasting coalition. However, creating a decision making process that can fairly resolve disputes over equity is one of the most profound challenges facing agriculture (Allen et al., 1991). A Possible Consensus There appears to be some agreement that sustainability ought to be understood through a coevolutionary perspective in which humans should not cause irreversible changes in ecological processes or degradation of the natural resource base. Furthermore, sustainable agriculture should encourage and preserve cultural traditions which equitably balance social justice, environmental soundness and economic viability among all sectors of the society. This concept may become elaborated or change radically as our understanding of ecological processes and social impacts change. In the meantime, we can minimize our collective impact on the environment by implementing cultural, organizational and technological changes, such as reducing consumption, carefully examining the bases and consequences of our value systems, and developing technologies for utilizing renewable resources in an efficient and sustainable manner. References Allen, P, D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy and S. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(1):34-39. Burkhardt, J. The morality behind sustainability. 1989. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2:113-128. Busch, L and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 303pp. Crosson, P. R. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture. Resources, Winter: 14-17. Dahlberg, K.A. 1991. Sustainable agriculture - fad or harbinger? Bioscience 41(5):337-339. Douglass, G.K. (ed) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. 1984. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Francis, C.A. and G. Youngberg. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture - an overview. In: Francis, C.A., C.B. Flora, and L.D. King (Eds.) Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, John Wiley and Sons, New York. p 1-23. Frykman, J., and O. Lofgren. 1987. Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropology of Middle Class Life. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 321 p. Gliessman, S.R. 1990. Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag. New York. 380 pp. Hoeft, R.G. and E.D. Nafziger. Sustainable Agriculture. Better Crops with Plant Food 72(2):9-11. Holt, D. 1989. Love affair with LISA. Better Crops with Plant Food. 73(3):4-7. Jackson, W. 1978. Toward a sustainable agriculture. Not Man Apart, December, p 4-6. Jackson, W. 1990. Making sustainable agriculture work. In: Clark, R. Our Sustainable Table. Northpoint Press, Berkley, CA. pp132- 141. Norgaard, R. 1988. Sustainable development: A co-evolutionary view. Futures: the journal of forecasting and planning (6): 606-20. Ruttan, V. W. 1989. Sustainability is not enough. Better Crops with Plant Food 73(2):6-9. Schneiderman, H.A. and W.D. Carpenter. 1990. Planetary patriotism: sustainable agriculture for the future. Environmental Science and Technology 24(4):466-473. Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming A New Economic Vision. University of Nebraska Press, and Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco, 311 pp. Thompson, P.B. 1988. Ethical dilemmas in agriculture: the need for recognition and resolution. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3)4-15. From GFM@age2.age.uiuc.edu Wed Mar 9 23:53:04 1994 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 19:56:08 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: SANET-MG@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: DISCUSSION: Sust. ag. definition Saneters- Below is my analysis and discussion of various definitions of sustainable agriculture that have been offered in published literature (1978- 1992). Given that all definitions are politically motivated to some degree, my concern is not so much with coming up with the one, true, universal definition. I am more concerned with finding common ground among diverse constituencies which might help develop a formidable and lasting coalition to promote an agriculture that is worth sustaining. This is part of a chapter that will appear later this year in volume titled "Sustainable Agriculture in the American Midwest: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future" published by the University of Illinois Press, edited by myself and W. R. Edwards. Sustainable Agricultue needs to be a part of a sustainable society, and various ideas about that are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. I am basically sympathetic with the ideas of Herman Daly and John Cobb (For the Common Good) who argue for a steady state economy that improves qualitiatively. We also need to figure out in qualitative and quantitative terms, the human carying capacity of ecological systems on local and global scales. Best Regards, Greg McIsaac Sustainability of Agriculture Wes Jackson, geneticist and co-founder of the Land Institute, was probably the first to use the term "sustainable agriculture" in recent times (Jackson, 1978). Since natural ecosystems have stood the test of time, Jackson argued, they should serve as models for sustainable agriculture. His proposal for a sustainable agriculture in the North American plains consists of perennial seed crops modeled after the prairie ecosystem. Permanent ground cover would decrease soil erosion; tillage and planting would occur infrequently and require little energy. He initiated a research program to develop perennial seed bearing crops for human and animal consumption as well as for energy production. As the concept of sustainability became more widely accepted, several complementary and competing definitions and strategies for sustainable agriculture have been offered. Gordon Douglass (1984) described three major themes in the sustainable agriculture literature: sustainability as food sufficiency, as stewardship of the earth, and as community. According to Douglass, these themes seem to be promoted by three different constituencies. Those who argue for sustainability as food sufficiency tend to see the sole or primary function of agriculture as providing abundant food for growing populations. The U.S. Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture have a long history of research and eduction geared to increased agricultural productivity (Busch and Lacy, 1983), and representatives of these institutions commonly frame the discussion on sustainability in terms of increased productivity (Holt, 1988; Hoeft and Nafziger, 1988; Ruttan, 1989). The second group, who Douglass identifies with "stewardship," argue from an ecological point of view for maintaining the Earth's biological systems by preserving wild land and biodiversity, closing energy and nutrient cycles, and slowing and eventually stopping human population growth. Some who might fit into this category might argue against the anthropocentric overtones of the term "stewardship." Those concerned with sustainability as community see agriculture as an important cultural activity which provides meaning, cultivates moral responsibility, and continues traditions of caring for the earth and future generations (Burkhardt, 1989). Various professional societies and interest groups have offered definitions of sustainable agriculture which address all three elements identified by Douglass. For example, the American Society of Agronomy developed the following definition of sustainable agriculture: A sustainable agriculture is one that, over the long term, enhances the environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends; provides for basic human food and fiber needs; is economically viable; and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (Francis and Youngberg, 1990). Economist Pierre Crosson (1992) contends that "a sustainable agriculture is one that can indefinitely meet the needs for food and fiber at socially acceptable economic and environmental costs." Crosson views knowledge as the key for attaining sustainability and calls for a concerted research effort to expand agricultural production while becoming less dependent on fossil fuels and more friendly to the environment. Like economist Richard Norgaard, ecologist Stephen Gliessman (1990) argues for a coevolutionary approach to understanding sustainable agriculture: Agricultural systems develop as a result of the coevolution that occurs between culture and environment, and a truly sustainable agriculture values humans as well as the ecological components...Our understanding of ecosystem level processes should interface with the even more complex aspects of the social, economic and political systems within which agroecosystems function. (Gliessman, 1990) Gliessman proposes that the sustainability of agricultural systems can be assessed, like natural ecosystems, by examining their energy flows, nutrient cycles, population regulation mechanisms and dynamic equilibria. Qualitative and quantitative indicators of agricultural sustainability may emerge from careful analysis of regional and site specific social and agro-ecological relationships over time. Furthermore, Patricia Allen, working in collaboration with Stephen Gliessman and others (1991), argues that much of the discussion of sustainable agriculture has been overly focused on farm-level production and profitability. They propose that "sustainable agriculture is one that equitably balances concerns of environmental soundness, economic viability and social justice among all sectors of society." Such a definition would bring issues such as urban poverty and hunger into the discussion of sustainable agriculture. Interestingly, Donald Holt (1989), Director of the Illinois Agricultural Experiment and generally an advocate of the productivity paradigm, suggested that any proposals for increasing agricultural sustainability should be assessed for its impacts on low income groups. Since the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on food, any efforts to increase agricultural sustainability that increases food prices will harm the poor disproportionately. This claim should be carefully assessed for accuracy, since malnutrition in the US is still unacceptably widespread in spite of high agricultural productivity. However, an important point relative to the discussion of different conceptions of sustainable agriculture is that those emphasizing sustainable agriculture as community and those emphasizing food sufficiency through increased productivity both claim at times to act in the best interest of least advantaged members of society. Unfortunately, the environmental movement in the US has been justifiably criticized for its lack of attention to the agendas and concerns of racial minorities and low income groups (Bullard, 1990). Furthermore, there is some anthropological evidence to suggest that in some ways environmentalism may be part of an attempt (perhaps unconscious) by an upwardly mobile middle class to separate itself from what it considers lower and inferior classes of people who are in need of reform (Frykman and Lofgren, 1987). However, there appears to be a growing movement toward environmental justice (Bullard, 1990) and if those emphasizing preservation of ecosystems are willing to expand their agenda to accommodate (or even champion) concerns of the least advantaged members of the society, then the three groups identified by Douglass will have this common goal sustainable agriculture. Perhaps focusing on the needs of the least advantaged members of society can be a constructive starting point for the diverse constituencies that claim interest in the sustainability of agriculture to build a formidable and lasting coalition. However, creating a decision making process that can fairly resolve disputes over equity is one of the most profound challenges facing agriculture (Allen et al., 1991). A Possible Consensus There appears to be some agreement that sustainability ought to be understood through a coevolutionary perspective in which humans should not cause irreversible changes in ecological processes or degradation of the natural resource base. Furthermore, sustainable agriculture should encourage and preserve cultural traditions which equitably balance social justice, environmental soundness and economic viability among all sectors of the society. This concept may become elaborated or change radically as our understanding of ecological processes and social impacts change. In the meantime, we can minimize our collective impact on the environment by implementing cultural, organizational and technological changes, such as reducing consumption, carefully examining the bases and consequences of our value systems, and developing technologies for utilizing renewable resources in an efficient and sustainable manner. References Allen, P, D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy and S. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(1):34-39. Burkhardt, J. The morality behind sustainability. 1989. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2:113-128. Busch, L and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 303pp. Crosson, P. R. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture. Resources, Winter: 14-17. Dahlberg, K.A. 1991. Sustainable agriculture - fad or harbinger? Bioscience 41(5):337-339. Douglass, G.K. (ed) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. 1984. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Francis, C.A. and G. Youngberg. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture - an overview. In: Francis, C.A., C.B. Flora, and L.D. King (Eds.) Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, John Wiley and Sons, New York. p 1-23. Frykman, J., and O. Lofgren. 1987. Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropology of Middle Class Life. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 321 p. Gliessman, S.R. 1990. Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag. New York. 380 pp. Hoeft, R.G. and E.D. Nafziger. Sustainable Agriculture. Better Crops with Plant Food 72(2):9-11. Holt, D. 1989. Love affair with LISA. Better Crops with Plant Food. 73(3):4-7. Jackson, W. 1978. Toward a sustainable agriculture. Not Man Apart, December, p 4-6. Jackson, W. 1990. Making sustainable agriculture work. In: Clark, R. Our Sustainable Table. Northpoint Press, Berkley, CA. pp132- 141. Norgaard, R. 1988. Sustainable development: A co-evolutionary view. Futures: the journal of forecasting and planning (6): 606-20. Ruttan, V. W. 1989. Sustainability is not enough. Better Crops with Plant Food 73(2):6-9. Schneiderman, H.A. and W.D. Carpenter. 1990. Planetary patriotism: sustainable agriculture for the future. Environmental Science and Technology 24(4):466-473. Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming A New Economic Vision. University of Nebraska Press, and Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco, 311 pp. Thompson, P.B. 1988. Ethical dilemmas in agriculture: the need for recognition and resolution. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3)4-15. From GFM@age2.age.uiuc.edu Wed Mar 9 23:52:22 1994 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 19:56:08 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: SANET-MG@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: DISCUSSION: Sust. ag. definition Saneters- Below is my analysis and discussion of various definitions of sustainable agriculture that have been offered in published literature (1978- 1992). Given that all definitions are politically motivated to some degree, my concern is not so much with coming up with the one, true, universal definition. I am more concerned with finding common ground among diverse constituencies which might help develop a formidable and lasting coalition to promote an agriculture that is worth sustaining. This is part of a chapter that will appear later this year in volume titled "Sustainable Agriculture in the American Midwest: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future" published by the University of Illinois Press, edited by myself and W. R. Edwards. Sustainable Agricultue needs to be a part of a sustainable society, and various ideas about that are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. I am basically sympathetic with the ideas of Herman Daly and John Cobb (For the Common Good) who argue for a steady state economy that improves qualitiatively. We also need to figure out in qualitative and quantitative terms, the human carying capacity of ecological systems on local and global scales. Best Regards, Greg McIsaac Sustainability of Agriculture Wes Jackson, geneticist and co-founder of the Land Institute, was probably the first to use the term "sustainable agriculture" in recent times (Jackson, 1978). Since natural ecosystems have stood the test of time, Jackson argued, they should serve as models for sustainable agriculture. His proposal for a sustainable agriculture in the North American plains consists of perennial seed crops modeled after the prairie ecosystem. Permanent ground cover would decrease soil erosion; tillage and planting would occur infrequently and require little energy. He initiated a research program to develop perennial seed bearing crops for human and animal consumption as well as for energy production. As the concept of sustainability became more widely accepted, several complementary and competing definitions and strategies for sustainable agriculture have been offered. Gordon Douglass (1984) described three major themes in the sustainable agriculture literature: sustainability as food sufficiency, as stewardship of the earth, and as community. According to Douglass, these themes seem to be promoted by three different constituencies. Those who argue for sustainability as food sufficiency tend to see the sole or primary function of agriculture as providing abundant food for growing populations. The U.S. Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture have a long history of research and eduction geared to increased agricultural productivity (Busch and Lacy, 1983), and representatives of these institutions commonly frame the discussion on sustainability in terms of increased productivity (Holt, 1988; Hoeft and Nafziger, 1988; Ruttan, 1989). The second group, who Douglass identifies with "stewardship," argue from an ecological point of view for maintaining the Earth's biological systems by preserving wild land and biodiversity, closing energy and nutrient cycles, and slowing and eventually stopping human population growth. Some who might fit into this category might argue against the anthropocentric overtones of the term "stewardship." Those concerned with sustainability as community see agriculture as an important cultural activity which provides meaning, cultivates moral responsibility, and continues traditions of caring for the earth and future generations (Burkhardt, 1989). Various professional societies and interest groups have offered definitions of sustainable agriculture which address all three elements identified by Douglass. For example, the American Society of Agronomy developed the following definition of sustainable agriculture: A sustainable agriculture is one that, over the long term, enhances the environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends; provides for basic human food and fiber needs; is economically viable; and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. (Francis and Youngberg, 1990). Economist Pierre Crosson (1992) contends that "a sustainable agriculture is one that can indefinitely meet the needs for food and fiber at socially acceptable economic and environmental costs." Crosson views knowledge as the key for attaining sustainability and calls for a concerted research effort to expand agricultural production while becoming less dependent on fossil fuels and more friendly to the environment. Like economist Richard Norgaard, ecologist Stephen Gliessman (1990) argues for a coevolutionary approach to understanding sustainable agriculture: Agricultural systems develop as a result of the coevolution that occurs between culture and environment, and a truly sustainable agriculture values humans as well as the ecological components...Our understanding of ecosystem level processes should interface with the even more complex aspects of the social, economic and political systems within which agroecosystems function. (Gliessman, 1990) Gliessman proposes that the sustainability of agricultural systems can be assessed, like natural ecosystems, by examining their energy flows, nutrient cycles, population regulation mechanisms and dynamic equilibria. Qualitative and quantitative indicators of agricultural sustainability may emerge from careful analysis of regional and site specific social and agro-ecological relationships over time. Furthermore, Patricia Allen, working in collaboration with Stephen Gliessman and others (1991), argues that much of the discussion of sustainable agriculture has been overly focused on farm-level production and profitability. They propose that "sustainable agriculture is one that equitably balances concerns of environmental soundness, economic viability and social justice among all sectors of society." Such a definition would bring issues such as urban poverty and hunger into the discussion of sustainable agriculture. Interestingly, Donald Holt (1989), Director of the Illinois Agricultural Experiment and generally an advocate of the productivity paradigm, suggested that any proposals for increasing agricultural sustainability should be assessed for its impacts on low income groups. Since the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on food, any efforts to increase agricultural sustainability that increases food prices will harm the poor disproportionately. This claim should be carefully assessed for accuracy, since malnutrition in the US is still unacceptably widespread in spite of high agricultural productivity. However, an important point relative to the discussion of different conceptions of sustainable agriculture is that those emphasizing sustainable agriculture as community and those emphasizing food sufficiency through increased productivity both claim at times to act in the best interest of least advantaged members of society. Unfortunately, the environmental movement in the US has been justifiably criticized for its lack of attention to the agendas and concerns of racial minorities and low income groups (Bullard, 1990). Furthermore, there is some anthropological evidence to suggest that in some ways environmentalism may be part of an attempt (perhaps unconscious) by an upwardly mobile middle class to separate itself from what it considers lower and inferior classes of people who are in need of reform (Frykman and Lofgren, 1987). However, there appears to be a growing movement toward environmental justice (Bullard, 1990) and if those emphasizing preservation of ecosystems are willing to expand their agenda to accommodate (or even champion) concerns of the least advantaged members of the society, then the three groups identified by Douglass will have this common goal sustainable agriculture. Perhaps focusing on the needs of the least advantaged members of society can be a constructive starting point for the diverse constituencies that claim interest in the sustainability of agriculture to build a formidable and lasting coalition. However, creating a decision making process that can fairly resolve disputes over equity is one of the most profound challenges facing agriculture (Allen et al., 1991). A Possible Consensus There appears to be some agreement that sustainability ought to be understood through a coevolutionary perspective in which humans should not cause irreversible changes in ecological processes or degradation of the natural resource base. Furthermore, sustainable agriculture should encourage and preserve cultural traditions which equitably balance social justice, environmental soundness and economic viability among all sectors of the society. This concept may become elaborated or change radically as our understanding of ecological processes and social impacts change. In the meantime, we can minimize our collective impact on the environment by implementing cultural, organizational and technological changes, such as reducing consumption, carefully examining the bases and consequences of our value systems, and developing technologies for utilizing renewable resources in an efficient and sustainable manner. References Allen, P, D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy and S. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(1):34-39. Burkhardt, J. The morality behind sustainability. 1989. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2:113-128. Busch, L and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 303pp. Crosson, P. R. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture. Resources, Winter: 14-17. Dahlberg, K.A. 1991. Sustainable agriculture - fad or harbinger? Bioscience 41(5):337-339. Douglass, G.K. (ed) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. 1984. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Francis, C.A. and G. Youngberg. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture - an overview. In: Francis, C.A., C.B. Flora, and L.D. King (Eds.) Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, John Wiley and Sons, New York. p 1-23. Frykman, J., and O. Lofgren. 1987. Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropology of Middle Class Life. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 321 p. Gliessman, S.R. 1990. Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag. New York. 380 pp. Hoeft, R.G. and E.D. Nafziger. Sustainable Agriculture. Better Crops with Plant Food 72(2):9-11. Holt, D. 1989. Love affair with LISA. Better Crops with Plant Food. 73(3):4-7. Jackson, W. 1978. Toward a sustainable agriculture. Not Man Apart, December, p 4-6. Jackson, W. 1990. Making sustainable agriculture work. In: Clark, R. Our Sustainable Table. Northpoint Press, Berkley, CA. pp132- 141. Norgaard, R. 1988. Sustainable development: A co-evolutionary view. Futures: the journal of forecasting and planning (6): 606-20. Ruttan, V. W. 1989. Sustainability is not enough. Better Crops with Plant Food 73(2):6-9. Schneiderman, H.A. and W.D. Carpenter. 1990. Planetary patriotism: sustainable agriculture for the future. Environmental Science and Technology 24(4):466-473. Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming A New Economic Vision. University of Nebraska Press, and Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco, 311 pp. Thompson, P.B. 1988. Ethical dilemmas in agriculture: the need for recognition and resolution. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3)4-15. From janetb@ncatfyv.uark.edu Tue Mar 1 15:18:02 1994 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 11:21:36 -0500 (EST) From: Janet Bachmann To: Farmer to Farmer Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: susag definitions Definitions of sustainable agriculture - At a conference on the topic in Ohio in 1988, Bob Rodale said: It is a question. He was quoted several times on that definition during the remainder of the conference! Check on the book *Sustainable Agricultural Systems*, edited by Clive Edwards, Patrick Madden and others. Rodale's presentation is one of many chapters - (and I found the quote: ". . . sustainability is not basically a method; rather it is a question about permanence.") The book was available from SWCS, 7515 N.E. Ankeny Road, Ankeny, IA 50021-9764 for $40. Hardcover, 696 pages. From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU Thu Mar 31 09:23:07 1994 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 20:36:20 -0800 From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: Wes Jackson and Aldo Leopold (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 30 Mar 94 17:06:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sustag Subject: RE: Wes Jackson and Aldo Leopold (fwd) One of the problems which has plagued many definitions of sustainable agriculture is the tendency to conflate moral and ethical judgments and ideas with questions of practice. Sustainability of agriculture depends on the physical/biological constraints on actual production, and the social/cultural constraints which define what kinds of production will be acceptable. What we judge to be ethically desirable in our society is a distinct set of concerns which do not necessarily affect sustainability. For example it is quite possible to have a sustainable agricultural system, which includes long-distance trade, reduces species diversity, degrades habitat, is in many aspects a monoculture, and is embedded in a hierarchical, centralized, bureaucrat, xenophobic, system which oppresses minorities and features huge disparities of wealth. Imperial China being a notable example. It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of sustainability with those of social morality or societal ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely coercive system could be based on the necessity of sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it works. It is also false and unfair to sustainability as a vehicle to further a moral agenda. This puts opponents in the position of advocating starvation, by creating a false connection between the technical/social issue of sustainable possibility and a set of moral tenants. This does not mean that we can not examine outlooks, ideas and ethical constructs for their impact on the environment and sustainability. For example it is easy to see how the notion that humans have dominion over the earth, which is an adversary to be conquered, could lead to the complete and devastating deforestation of an area. However, to then attempt to *derive* an ethical system from the natural system and its preservation, is fallacious. It would be quite possible to determine and maintain a low/sustainable forest yield, with a high level of diversity, using slave labor for the survey and public executions for those who over harvest. The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and other concerns confined to the appropriate context. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Thu Mar 31 20:01:32 1994 Date: 31 Mar 94 10:33:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sanet-mg Subject: Sustainable Agriculture and Ethics One of the problems which has plagued many definitions of sustainable agriculture is the tendency to conflate moral and ethical judgments and ideas with questions of practice. Sustainability of agriculture depends on the physical/biological constraints on actual production, and the social/cultural constraints which define what kinds of production will be acceptable. What we judge to be ethically desirable in our society is a distinct set of concerns which do not necessarily affect sustainability. For example it is quite possible to have a sustainable agricultural system, which includes long-distance trade, reduces species diversity, degrades habitat, is in many aspects a monoculture, and is embedded in a hierarchical, centralized, bureaucrat, xenophobic, system which oppresses minorities and features huge disparities of wealth. Imperial China being a notable example. It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of sustainability with those of social morality or societal ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely coercive system could be based on the necessity of sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it works. It is also false and unfair to sustainability as a vehicle to further a moral agenda. This puts opponents in the position of advocating starvation, by creating a false connection between the technical/social issue of sustainable possibility and a set of moral tenants. This does not mean that we can not examine outlooks, ideas and ethical constructs for their impact on the environment and sustainability. For example it is easy to see how the notion that humans have dominion over the earth, which is an adversary to be conquered, could lead to the complete and devastating deforestation of an area. However, to then attempt to *derive* an ethical system from the natural system and its preservation, is fallacious. It would be quite possible to determine and maintain a low/sustainable forest yield, with a high level of diversity, using slave labor for the survey and public executions for those who over harvest. The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and other concerns confined to the appropriate context. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From GFM@age2.age.uiuc.edu Thu Mar 31 20:03:20 1994 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 10:33:19 CST From: Greg McIsaac To: JONATHAN HASKETT , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: DISCUSSION: Sustainable Agriculture and Ethics Johathan Haskett writes: > > > One of the problems which has plagued many definitions > of sustainable agriculture is the tendency to conflate > moral and ethical judgments and ideas with questions > of practice. Sustainability of agriculture depends on the > physical/biological constraints on actual production, and > the social/cultural constraints which define what kinds > of production will be acceptable. What we judge to be > ethically desirable in our society is a distinct set of > concerns which do not necessarily affect sustainability. > For example it is quite possible to have a sustainable > agricultural system, which includes long-distance trade, > reduces species diversity, degrades habitat, is in many > aspects a monoculture, and is embedded in a hierarchical, > centralized, bureaucrat, xenophobic, system which > oppresses minorities and features huge disparities of > wealth. Imperial China being a notable example. > > It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of > sustainability with those of social morality or societal > ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely > coercive system could be based on the necessity of > sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it > works. This stikes me as an arguement for considering the ethical and technical questions together, not subdivided as you suggest below. > > The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be > subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and > other concerns confined to the appropriate context. > > Jonathan Haskett > jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov > > What is the approriate context and who decides that? Johnathan, you make some good points. There are biological/technical issues which can indeed be answered independently of the social/moral/ethical questions. It seems thats what has been going on in the US for most of this century and the results have not been all good. I highly recommend the books of Donald Schon, a practical philosopher at MIT who critiques the notion of technical rationality, which seems to be part of what you are suggesting, and has been the ruling philosophy for much of the higher education system in the US. My field, engineering, promoted a notion of itself of that of an applied science, objectively applying science to solve technical problems. The problem with this approach is that the problems that engineers and scientist attempt to address are fundamentally value laden (otherwise they wouldn't bother to address them if there was no value to them). So the value laden dimension of the problem definition and proposed solutions need to be addressed together with the technical/scientific. At every step of a technical and scientific project there are choices to make. Those choices can be guided by ethics, convenience, self interest, tradition, etc.. I think a large part of the sustainable agriculture movement is to make those choices explicit, ethical, and ecological. Respectfully, Gregory McIsaac PS: Schon argues that the notion of technical rationality which has guided higher education in the US was founded on a positivist philosophy which has been largely discredited. It attempts to separate the questions of truth from questions of goodness. The philosopher Bruce Wilshire in his book "The Moral Collapse of the University" observes that this separation leads to a "tedious breeze of words and formula." Questions of truth are important, but are dangerous when divorced of questions of goodness. From EUH6JPM@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU Thu Mar 31 20:05:24 1994 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 09:24 PST From: Patrick Madden To: JONATHAN HASKETT Cc: SANET-MG Subject: Re: Sustainable Agriculture and Ethics Jonathan, while I agree with your (obvious) point that sustainability can be pursued in unethical ways, your solution ("The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be subdivided into its constituent part, with the ethical and other concerns confined to the appropriate context") is the wrong way to go. It promotes the same reductionist approach that has produced a plethora of "solutions" that have subsequently become new or magnified "problems." What is needed, in my personal view, is an integrative approach that recognizes the ethical and ecological implications of everything we do in science, in business and as consumers. More holism rather than more reductionism is needed. Patrick Madden > > > > One of the problems which has plagued many definitions > of sustainable agriculture is the tendency to conflate > moral and ethical judgments and ideas with questions > of practice. Sustainability of agriculture depends on the > physical/biological constraints on actual production, and > the social/cultural constraints which define what kinds > of production will be acceptable. What we judge to be > ethically desirable in our society is a distinct set of > concerns which do not necessarily affect sustainability. > For example it is quite possible to have a sustainable > agricultural system, which includes long-distance trade, > reduces species diversity, degrades habitat, is in many > aspects a monoculture, and is embedded in a hierarchical, > centralized, bureaucrat, xenophobic, system which > oppresses minorities and features huge disparities of > wealth. Imperial China being a notable example. > > It is therefore quite dangerous to conflate issues of > sustainability with those of social morality or societal > ethics. I can see how the justification for an extremely > coercive system could be based on the necessity of > sustainability, with examples to demonstrate that it > works. > > It is also false and unfair to sustainability as a vehicle > to further a moral agenda. This puts opponents in the > position of advocating starvation, by creating a false > connection between the technical/social issue of sustainable > possibility and a set of moral tenants. > > This does not mean that we can not examine outlooks, ideas > and ethical constructs for their impact on the environment > and sustainability. For example it is easy to see how the > notion that humans have dominion over the earth, which is > an adversary to be conquered, could lead to the complete > and devastating deforestation of an area. However, to then > attempt to *derive* an ethical system from the natural system > and its preservation, is fallacious. It would be quite possible > to determine and maintain a low/sustainable forest yield, > with a high level of diversity, using slave labor for the > survey and public executions for those who over harvest. > > The discussion of sustainability therefore needs to be > subdivided into its constituent parts, with the ethical and > other concerns confined to the appropriate context. > > Jonathan Haskett > jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov > > From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Mon Apr 4 21:54:45 1994 Date: 4 Apr 94 17:48:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sanet-mg Subject: EtRE:Ethics and Ssuustainability Several objections raised to my previous post about ethics and sustainable agriculture. One objection was that I was advocating a reductionist approach. I will plead guilty to this charge with the proviso that reductionism should be applied where it is useful, where it can clarify and enhance understanding. Reductionism is a fallacy where the behavior of system is not decomposible into constituent parts but only emerges at a given level of organization. Conditioning in dogs cannot be observed once the dog is dissected. However, reductionism can play a vital role in delimiting causal relationships. Thus I contend that there is no necessary causal relationship between agricultural sustainability and the equitable distribution of wealth, or a bioregional orientation, or an attitude of stewardship towards the land. While I regard all these things as desirable, I believe that it can be demonstrated that agricultural sustainability is separable \ from them as well as a whole host of other desirable social concepts. At the same time it is also possible to demonstrate that there is a causal relationship between having an understanding of a people's traditional cultural norms and their acceptance, adoption, and dynamic adaptation of introduced technologies and methods. These things only become sustainable in a social context. Agriculture, like maize, only continues with human intervention so the human aspect is not separable from any analysis of sustainability. It is important to be clear when and how this relationship comes into play. Different societies will adopt different things or adapt the same thing differently. The danger is that deciding a priori what the desirable social features of sustainability are may preclude observation and understanding when we encounter social norms which are substantially different from our own. Our survival depends on the sustainability of agriculture it is therefore vital that our research be unbounded and not confined by pre-existing assumptions. We must be free to follow the most promising avenues of inquiry and technique, be the wholist or reductionist. I will attempt to answer other objections in subsequent posts. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU Sun Apr 10 12:11:48 1994 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 10:03:03 -0700 From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: Re: More on Ethics and Sustainability (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 16:19:49 CST From: Frank Kutka To: SUSTAG@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: More on Ethics and Sustainability (fwd) Jonathan Haskett's explanation of his view of sustainability clears up a lot of my questions about his philosophy, but points to a basic problem in the use of the word sustainable. Like the words Christian or Democrat, which have nice connotations to many but which really say very little, sustainable has become that which everyone was already doing, and now almost ceases to be meaningful. We must always state what it is that sustainable means to us when we bother to use the word. Johnathan's assertions about how research shall proceed, though rational sounding, are actually as loaded with philosophical presuppositions as are his bioregionalist counterparts. He sees sustainable farming as needed to feed us indefinitely, because we really matter, and that entities that do not actually impact the production of food are irrelevant, another hidden value judgement. I am sick of hearing about how rational it is to ignore things whose immediate economic value is uknown, or that are of little economic value. Economics is itself a religion which says that getting more money makes sense and that we should all do this to find happiness! Another wolf in rationalist clothing. If money, and numerical production, and even more people than now are what matters to one, then of course the condition of stream fishes will not matter to one's vision of sustainable agriculture. However, I expand the sustainable notion to include not only the elimination of resource degradation, but also of environmental degradation. Why? Because I like birds and bugs and fish and wildflowers, and they matter to me. I could never live in a so-called "rationalist" world of endless row crops and neat little ditches in between, and why should I have to? This is why I say that farming in China is not sustainable just because it is old, because it has devoured all other life forms in eastern Asia and skinned a lot of once verdant land. It is not "rational" to try to micromanage entire continental ecosystems which run themselves pretty well (unless one wants lots of work and to ultimately fail), nor is it "rational" to throw things aside because an immediate monetary value could not be seen. The beauty of the land, and any rights that nonhumans have to exist and to share that land, are a part of the joy of living in the countryside. When farmers become nothing more than irritated, control-mad businessmen and speculators, living in an artificial landscape, then the soul and joy of farming will be gone, and we would be left with only the problems and drudgery: in this case, what has been "sustained"? Peace, Frank J. Kutka, part-time Junior Scientist and farmer (218) 720-4262 fkutka@sage.nrri.umn.edu University of Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institue 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth MN 55811 USA From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Sun Apr 10 12:14:56 1994 Date: 4 Apr 94 17:48:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sanet-mg Subject: EtRE:Ethics and Ssuustainability Several objections raised to my previous post about ethics and sustainable agriculture. One objection was that I was advocating a reductionist approach. I will plead guilty to this charge with the proviso that reductionism should be applied where it is useful, where it can clarify and enhance understanding. Reductionism is a fallacy where the behavior of system is not decomposible into constituent parts but only emerges at a given level of organization. Conditioning in dogs cannot be observed once the dog is dissected. However, reductionism can play a vital role in delimiting causal relationships. Thus I contend that there is no necessary causal relationship between agricultural sustainability and the equitable distribution of wealth, or a bioregional orientation, or an attitude of stewardship towards the land. While I regard all these things as desirable, I believe that it can be demonstrated that agricultural sustainability is separable \ from them as well as a whole host of other desirable social concepts. At the same time it is also possible to demonstrate that there is a causal relationship between having an understanding of a people's traditional cultural norms and their acceptance, adoption, and dynamic adaptation of introduced technologies and methods. These things only become sustainable in a social context. Agriculture, like maize, only continues with human intervention so the human aspect is not separable from any analysis of sustainability. It is important to be clear when and how this relationship comes into play. Different societies will adopt different things or adapt the same thing differently. The danger is that deciding a priori what the desirable social features of sustainability are may preclude observation and understanding when we encounter social norms which are substantially different from our own. Our survival depends on the sustainability of agriculture it is therefore vital that our research be unbounded and not confined by pre-existing assumptions. We must be free to follow the most promising avenues of inquiry and technique, be the wholist or reductionist. I will attempt to answer other objections in subsequent posts. Jonathan Haskett jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov From jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov Sun Apr 10 12:15:46 1994 Date: 7 Apr 94 14:23:00 EDT From: JONATHAN HASKETT To: sanet-mg Subject: More on Ethics and Sustainability I will try once again to set out my position clearly. At this point in the development of human society the sustainability of agriculture is necessary for the survival of the vast majority of people. Research which aims to understand sustainability in agriculture is therefore vital to the goal of maintaining sustainability. It is necessary that to the extent possible this research proceed free of idealogical presuppositions, which determine a priori what will be researched and indeed what will be discovered. The danger of imposing such ideas on research into biological systems is amply demonstrated by the example Lysenko. It is therefore necessary to be able to distinguish what is an inherent and important facet of the system from what is not. Given limited resources, if ideaology drives research people can starve. Sustainability in agriculture means that within a certain set of boundary conditions (i.e. no glacial advance over the area of interest, etc.) that the system can continue to produce food indefinitely. It follows from this that the system cannot as it proceeds degrade the vital resource base on which it depends, otherwise it is falling not flying. It is possible and in fact necessary to be able to determine what sustainability depends on, and within the issue of sustainability where the causal links are. The foundation of sutainability in agricultural is the set of biological/physical possible processes involved in the production of food. If a given process is impossible or undermines the resource base on which it depends, then it cannot be part of sustainable agricultural system. Sustainability is further bounded by a subset of the biologically/physically possible, which might be referred to as the socially/culturally possible. Not everything which is biologically/phyiscally possible is socially/culturally possible, for example, an agriculture based on the production of insects for human consumption, is physically possible but not currently socially possible in the United States. It is important to recognize that these two components the physical/biolgical and the social/cultural are not equal in terms of determining sustainability. There is a flow of restriction going from one to the other. Biological possibility is necessary for social possibility but not the other way around, as long as you distinguish "what can happen" from "what will happen". In terms of sustainability of the agricultural system determining biological/physical possibility is necessary but not sufficient, sustainability can only be achieved by satisfying the additional requirement that the process by socially/culturally possible as well. There are of course complex interactions between the two components and a study of sustainbility which ignores these interactions will be fatally flawed. Such a study of interactions must be able to distinguish between connection and mere proximity as well as causality and mere correlation, and of course things which exist but which nevertheless have neglible impact on the system behavior of interest, which is the indefinite production of food. It is in this last arena that the problems have occurred in sustainble agriculture research. These have taken the shape of assertions which use the desirability of sustainability to advance an ethical agenda which may or may not be desirable but which does not follow from sustainaibilty nor is it a prerequisite for sustainability. The argument then becomes, either you accept my ethical position or your not in favor of sustainaility (i.e. you are in favor of starvation). This is rehtorical equivalent of putting a roll of quarters in your boxing glove. For example, I have seen it asserted a priori that bioregionalism is a necessary prerequisite for sustainability. If it is a prerequisite then it better be a component of a research program on sustainability. In fact examples can be provided which demonstrate that it is not a prerequisite. A sustainable system might have bioregional features or it might not. There are many aspects of bioregionalism which are consistent with some peoples ethics. These aspects include local control, decentralized democracy, a sense of "place", understanding of the local flora and fauna. All these may be ethcially desirable, but they are distinct from the issue of sustainability. Bioregionalism might come into the study of sustainability where it becomes an issue of energy use. When one is discussing whether reduction in the use of transportation energy enhances sustainability. Or whether indepence from remote food sources enhances sustainability. This is an important distinction, because if one accepts a priori that bioregionalism is a part of sustainability then when catagorically excludes the study of those instances in which sustainabilty without bioregionalism was attained, and what can be learned from such instances. In the arena of ethical argument these distinctions are also important. Following from the bioregional example. Let us say that I am making the argument that bioregionalism could also lead to xenophobia and the repression of local minorities by local elites (essentially the whole "States Rights/Segregation" issue in the US). My opponent in debate then cites sustainability as a trump card for the necessity of bioregionalism and since sustainbility has been conflated with his ethical agenda, I have no choice but to accept his point of view. This has the simultaneous effect of truncating sustainable agricultural research and forcing the acceptance of an ethical position on false grounds. Thus the question "is this agricultural system sustainable?" should be examined separately from the question "what are the ethical implications of agricultural research, and the concomittant ethical responsibilities of scientists engaged in such research?" Jonathan Haskett