Subject: Do we really need to "define" sustainable agriculture?

From: [email-masked] (Ikerd, John)
Date: 27 Jan 1995 22:11:49 -0000

I know the following will not be pleasing to everyone on the
          network.  Hopefully, there is room for a wide range of
          different opinions and perspectives under the sustainable
          agriculture unbrella.  The following in being discussed as
          an approach to the definitional issue in implementation of
          the SARE Natonal Training Program for Extension and other
          professionals who work with farmers.  However, your
          response and comments are welcome, redardless of whether
          you have an interest in this particular program.

                              John Ikerd.
          ------------------------------------------------------------

               ON DEFINING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

                           John Ikerd
                     University of Missouri

     Among those working in sustainable agriculture, there seems
to be a growing consensus that we need to spend less time trying
to define sustainable agriculture and more time working to
achieve it.  In fact, the public mandate to carry out the
National Training Program, commonly referred to as Chapter 3,
requires that we move ahead with professional development
programs addressing the sustainable agriculture issue.  But, can
we work toward a sustainable agriculture without defining it?  We
can, if we agree that the basic goal of a sustainable agriculture
is agricultural sustainability, with the words agricultural and
sustainability both used in the generic sense.  Most of our
definitional disagreements stem from differing opinions
concerning the "means" by which a sustainable agriculture can or
should be achieved rather than the "goal" toward which those
means are directed.

     "Sustainability is a question rather than an answer," as the
late Robert Rodale was fond of saying.  Sustainability is a
direction rather than a destination, like a star that guides the
ships at sea but remains forever beyond the horizon.  The
"question of sustainability" can be asked of any ongoing activity
or process.  It can be asked of "conventional" agriculture and of
any proposed "alternative" agriculture: Is it sustainable? 
Asking the question need not, and should not, presuppose the
answer.

     Reaching agreement on the goal of sustainability will not be
simple, but it should be achievable.  First, we must agree on
what is to be sustained, for whom, and for how long?  But, if we
can agree on the answers to these questions we should be able to
move forward toward the common goal of agricultural
sustainability.  I believe most of those who support the
sustainable agriculture issue are working to sustain what?:
"agriculture," for the benefit of whom?: "humanity," for how
long?: "forever."  Agriculture, by its very nature, is an effort
to shift the ecological balance so as to favor humans relative to
other species in production of food and physical protection. 
Thus, if we sustain "agriculture" we are sustaining it for the
ultimate benefit of humankind.  I believe there is a general
consensus also that we want to sustain agriculture for the well
being of people, both of this generations and for all generations
to follow, forever.  I have seen no definition of sustainable
agriculture that places a time horizon on how long agriculture
should be sustained.

     We cannot prove through empirical studies that one approach
to agriculture is sustainable or that another is not.  It would
quite literally "take forever" to collect the data for such a
study. Thus, we must rely on the science of logic.  What are the
logical prerequisites for agricultural sustainability?  I believe
there is a growing consensus in support of three fundamental
prerequisites: A sustainable agriculture must be ecologically
sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. 
Furthermore, I contend that these three dimensions of
sustainability are inseparable, and thus, are equally critical to
long run sustainability.

     Most who are concerned about sustainability recognize an
interconnectedness of humanity with the other biophysical
elements of our natural environment.  Through agriculture, we may
tip the ecological balance in our favor.  But if we attempt to
tip it too far or too fast, we will destroy the integrity of the
natural ecosystem, of which both we and our agriculture are a
part.  If we degrade our natural resources and poison our natural
environment, we will degrade the productivity of agriculture and
ultimately will destroy human life on earth.  Nearly everyone
seems to agree that a sustainable agriculture must be
ecologically sound.

     There may be less agreement regarding the contentions that a
sustainable agriculture must also be economically viable and
socially responsible.  The social sciences of economics and
sociology are fundamentally different from the physical
agricultural sciences and the natural science of ecology. 
However, agriculture, by its nature, involves self-conscious
attempts by humans to change or "manage" natural ecosystems. 
Humans are unique among species in that we make purposeful,
deliberate decision that can either enhance or degrade the health
of the ecosystems of which we are a part.  Thus, and question of
sustainability must take into account the purposeful, self-
conscious nature of individual and collective human actions which
are driven by the economic and social motives of people.  
 
     Sustainable systems must be economically viable, either by
nature or through human intervention.  In many cases, farmers
have economic incentives to adopt ecologically sound systems of
farming.  A healthy agroecosystem tends to be a productive and
profitable agroecosystem.  However, inherent conflicts exist
between short run interests of individuals and long run interests
of society as a whole.  In such cases, society must provide
economic incentives for individuals to act in ways consistent
with long run societal interests.

     "Human nature" is a fundamental part of "nature."  Even when
our physical survival is ensured and our basic needs are met, the
nature of we humans is to act in our own economic self interest. 
We need not "maximize profit," but people cannot persist in
actions that are inconsistent with economic survival, regardless
of any personal desire to do so.  Enterprises that lack economic
viability will lose control over use of ecological resources to
their economically viable competitors.  In other words, farmers
who can't survive financially ultimately will lose their farms to
their economically viable "neighbors."  Agriculture cannot be
sustained if the only economically viable "neighbors" are those
who degrade the agroecosystem in pursuit of short run profits.

     A fundamental purpose of public policy is to resolve
conflicts between the short run interests of individuals and the
long run interest of society as a whole.  Ecologically sound
systems of farming can be made economically viable through the
public policy making process.  However, society ultimately must
pay the costs of such policies, either through availability and
prices of food and fiber, or through government taxing and
spending.  By one means no another, farming systems must be made
economically viable as well as ecologically sound if they are to
be sustainable.  Neither is more important than the other; both
are necessary and neither is sufficient.

     The ultimate consensus that a sustainable agriculture must
be socially responsible is still emerging.  However, to argue
that an economically viable and ecologically sound system of
agriculture can be sustained in the absence of social justice, is
to ignore the fundamental nature of humans.  At their very core,
such arguments beg the question of sustainability for whom, or at
least for how many?  No set of ecologic possibilities can sustain
the maximum population that humankind might possibly choose to
procreate on this earth.

     The history of human civilization provides little evidence
to support a hypothesis that either regional or global population
will automatically adjust to some optimum sustainable level.  To
the contrary, overpopulation seems more likely to result in
destruction and degradation of the natural resource base. 
Evidence suggests that this degradation will continue to a point
where only a fraction of the population can be sustained which
might have been sustained if overpopulation had been avoided.  No
set or ecological constraints will prevent starving people from
consuming the seeds that might have produced a bountiful harvest,
if the harvest comes only after the people are dead.

     Human societies that lack economic equity and social justice
are inherently unstable, and thus, are not sustainable over time. 
Such system will be characterized by reoccurring social conflicts
which may do irreparable damage to both the economic and ecologic
systems that must support them.  In an age of nuclear weapons and
other forms of mass destruction, one instance of societal failure
can destroy the ecosystem of an entire region.  Even without war;
deserts, droughts, floods, and famines are more frequently the
ultimate result of failed social systems than of any naturally
occurring ecosystem phenomena.  Agriculture is a creation of
human society.  Under nearly all circumstances, a society has the
ability to bribe, coerce, or force its agriculture to change if
it fails to meet accepted standards of social responsibility.  

     A socially responsible agriculture; one that equitable meets
basic human food and fiber needs, provides economic opportunity,
supports self-determination, and ensures social equity for both
current and future generations; is no less critical to long run
sustainability than is an ecologically sound and economically
viable agriculture.  We must have social incentives to create
economic rewards for ecological protection.  An important
dimension of human nature is our ability to learn, discover new
options, and to choose new and different responses.  This ability
to change our stimulus-response patterns is unique to the human
species.  Sustainability is not possible unless we develop our
"collective" will to exercise this uniquely human social trait.

     Some may question the wisdom of placing the burdens of
global sustainability on American agriculture.  One might
logically conclude that American agriculture is but one part of
global agriculture, and that agriculture is but one small part of
the larger global ecosystem.  If risks arising from lack of
sustainability within American agriculture can be counteracted
elsewhere within global agriculture, or within the rest of the
global ecosystem; the system as a whole will be sustainable. 
This conclusion is valid, but only within some fairly narrowly
defined limits.

     As an analogy, the human body is a system.  The basic
functions of some body organs, such as the liver and kidneys, is
to handle wastes generated by other body functions.  Some parts
of the body, such as the heart and lungs, may adjust their
activity to accommodate stresses placed on them by other parts of
the body.  Generation of waste is a normal function of any living
organism, and some level of stress is necessary for a healthy
body.  However, the body as a whole is limited in its ability to
assimilate wastes and adsorb stress.  When its critical limits
are exceeded, the over-stressed organ, a subsystem of the body,
begins to die.  When a critical organ or part of the body dies,
the whole body dies.  The system ceases to function.

     When agriculture production in a particular field is not
autonomously sustainable, it places stress on the farming system
as a whole.  When a farm is not autonomously sustainable, it
places stress on the community of which it is a part.  When an
agricultural sector is not sustainable, it places stress on a
nation; and a nation that is not sustainable places stress on the
rest of the world.  Some lack of autonomous sustainability at all
levels should be considered normal, even necessary, for a
healthy, interdependent global society.  However, stresses that
any one element of a system places on the system as a whole
should be monitored and controlled, in the same sense that
stresses on the human body need to be monitored and controlled.

     It is no less important to monitor and control the social
stress an agricultural system places on farm families and others
in rural communities than it is to monitor the economic stress
agriculture puts on food consumers or the ecological stress
agriculture puts on its natural environment.  An agricultural
system that destroys a critical element of an agroecosystem
system will kill the system as a whole.  We should be willing to
ask of any proposed agricultural technology, enterprise, or
activity: Is it socially responsible?  Competent, well-informed
scientists will disagree on the answers.  Such is the nature of
the social sciences.  And, simply asking: "Is it socially
responsible?", should not presuppose either a positive or
negative answer.  Questions of social responsibility ultimately
must be answered by society, by families, communities, and others
affected collectively by agricultural decisions.  However, it is
logically imperative that we recognize ecological soundness,
economic viability, and social responsibility all as essential
and thus equally critical to the sustainability of agriculture.

     Finally, how do we turn these fundamental concepts into
practical approaches to agricultural sustainability?  I suggest
that we do so by asking of every decision we confront:  Will the
consequences be ecologically sound, economically viable, and
socially responsible?  We can then set about gathering
information and assembling knowledge that will allow us to draw
conclusions concerning the answers to this three-part question. 
We can never know for sure whether our conclusions or decisions
are right or wrong.  Sustainability is about "forever."  However,
we will at least be asking the right questions.  And, by focusing
our efforts on gathering the right information and pursuing the
right knowledge, we should at least improve the odds of finding
the right answer.

     The foregoing thesis does not define sustainable
agriculture, instead it defines an approach to working for
agricultural sustainability.  The usefulness of any definition is
often more apparent in what is excluded than in what is included. 
A definition that excludes nothing is useless.

     So what does the proposed approach to sustainability
exclude?  First, it excludes those who do not accept agriculture
as a legitimate human activity, without excluding those who
question the sustainability of agriculture as it is currently
practiced.  It also excludes those who see organic farming as the
only means of achieving agricultural sustainability, without
excluding those who view organic farming as an approach worthy of
study or active pursuit.  It excludes those who refuse to
consider ecological soundness, economic viability, or social
responsibility as equally important dimensions of sustainability;
those who contend that if a system is ecologically sound, social
values and economic incentives will adjust; those who contend
that if a system is profitable, it's sustainable, period; and
those who contend it is not necessary to provide economic
incentives for farmers or other individuals to meet the long run
needs of society.

     This approach also excludes those who see other living
species as having as much right to the earth's resources as
humans, without excluding those who see human survival and well
being as critically interrelated with the other biological and
physical elements of the global ecosystem.  Thus, it excludes
those who feel that animals have rights in the same sense that
humans have rights, without excluding those who are dedicated to
humane treatment of animals and animal well-being in general.

     The proposed approach excludes those who see agriculture as
separable from the rest of the ecosystem, those who would set
aside spaces for farming separate from spaces for wildlife or
>from  spaces for living.  It excludes those who fail to see food
production and human population as consequences of interdependent
actions within the same systems context.  It excludes those with
a blind faith in technological fixes, without excluding those who
see human intervention, through new technology and by other
means, as an essential element of agriculture.  It excludes those
who feel that agriculture should produce food but need not
productively employ people or otherwise contribute positively to
the quality of human life.  It excludes those who fail to see the
intentional self-conscious actions of people as an essential
dimension of agroecosystems.

     The approach excludes those who refuse to question the
sustainability of conventional agriculture, without excluding
those who feel that a conventional farming system can evolve so
as to fulfill the ecologic and social prerequisites for long run
sustainability.  And, it excludes those who have prejudged
conventional agriculture as being unsustainable, without
excluding those who firmly believe that an alternative paradigm,
or fundamentally different model of farming, offers the best hope
for sustaining agriculture in the future.  The proposed approach
includes a wide range of alternative means of pursuing
agricultural sustainability, but at the same time, excludes those
approaches which tend to be narrow or exclusive.

     Hopefully, the general approach to agricultural
sustainability suggested here can provide some common direction
to our programs for providing professional development
opportunities for those in Extension and other public and private
agencies who work directly with farmers.  There is an apparent
need to develop a consensus among these groups regarding the
general approach to sustainable agriculture that is to be taken
by this educational program.  Hopefully, the thesis presented
here can begin a dialogue that eventually will define an
acceptable education approach without continually debating the
definition of sustainable agriculture.