In short, all practices that rely on external or toxic chemical inputs – such as fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds, heavy machinery based on burning fossil fuels, large-scale monocropping and highly concentrated livestock farming are unsustainable .
Numerous studies confirm that these industrial farming methods have become an increasing biodiversity loss and poisoning in nature Since its launch in the 1960s.
However, it is genetic diversity that makes food systems resilient to factors such as pests, pathogens, extreme weather and climate collapse. If we can still restore it, can we really continue to destroy our living planet’s immune system unknowingly?
Chemicals
Per year, the world lost about 24 billion tons of fertile soil. Extensive use of mineral fertilizers is a major cause of this alarming soil depletion. It takes one ton of natural gas to produce one ton of ammonia (nitrogen fertilizer) – that’s a lot of fossil fuel.
The application of nitrogen fertilizers also produces emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a climate-harmful greenhouse gas that is 310 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Exceed four million tons of chemical pesticides Used annually in industrial agriculture to remove weeds and pests from crops. But its collateral damage to nature and wildlife, such as insect deaths, doesn’t seem to matter.
Important pollinators like bees lose their sense of navigation, while bumblebees lose their sense of smell. Herbicide not only destroys the target weeds, but also all nearby plants. Some pesticides that have been banned in the European Union (EU) for decades are still used in other parts of the world.
greenwash
To this day, the pace out of this disruptive model of industrial food production has been slow. Powerful political influence from companies, investors and those benefiting from chemical input sales is prolonging real change.
Take a look at the solutions on the table UNFSS And the 2021 United Nations Climate Conference (COP26) confirmed their refusal to abandon the idea of turning these crises into capital.
either call climate intelligence agriculture, naturally active production, digital agriculture, regenerative agriculture or carbon agricultureUltimately, they’re all just a “greener” version of intensive agriculture.
repackaged as nature-based solutions (NbS), their primary goal remains to increase productivity without giving up lucrative chemical inputs.
productivity
America’ Outcry Against the EU’s farm-to-table (F2F) at the G20 Agriculture Ministerial Meeting in September 2021, revealed Fear Agrochemical enterprise lose profits.
In their logic, the EU strategy could lead to massive productivity losses that could lead to more global hunger.At UNFSS, the US also used this argument to gain support for its “sustainable productivity growth for food security” alliance That should hit the EU’s sustainability ambitions.
Such a powerful coalition would distract and prolong a much-needed decision-making process.
In fact, the F2F strategy is a major move towards intensive agriculture. The goal is to reduce pesticide use by 50 percent, reduce overfertilization by at least 20 percent, and increase organic farming by 25 percent by 2030. No wonder, tUS research to weaken the F2F policy process did not include a shift to a chemical-free production system.
power shift
Agroecology is often submerged in the pot of market-based NbS because the fundamental differences in application and effectiveness are not officially recognized. There is no shortage of good reporting, practice or research, but no shortage of political will to commit to radical change.
Because agroecology is not only a transition to ecological farming practices, but also a transfer of power from large agrochemical companies to small communities—communities that account for 70 percent of the world’s hungry.Therefore, it Redesign agricultural system go through”reshuffle Create wealth and regain control for small communities.
Agroecology increases the resilience of crops to climate shocks and maximizes biodiversity through diversification practices such as crop rotation, intercropping and mixed farming. It treats pests and weeds by replacing chemical inputs with an integrated approach, and recycles waste for long-term soil fertility.
it achieves human rights Free small communities from harsh environments and provide them with food and nutrition dependencies Regarding expensive chemical inputs – this means that the logic and structure of industrial agriculture tends to trap them in a poverty spiral.
More importantly, agro-ecological farms maintain productivity Over time, as they keep their life support systems healthy and still perform well under environmental stress.
And the productivity of industrial farms has sometimes become more volatile, as in 2012 learn Shown: From 1961 to 2008, in 24% to 39% of the world’s major crop growing areas, yields on intensive farms either did not increase, stagnated, or even collapsed.
hope
UNFSS and COP26 in 2021 are once again more “bullshit, bullshit, bullshit” about the old failure stories of sustainable intensification agriculture.
But the evidence is clear: A flawed system cannot keep restarting until it destroys itself and everyone around it.
Ending Hunger and Stopping Climate Collapse Isn’t About Productivity, It’s About Redistributing Profits, Regulating Businesses strength, and realize human rights.
This productivity dilemma can be overcome if agroecology develops as a new food system.
Fingers crossed 2022 brings new hope to civil society movements around the world and will give them a greater voice for activism.
this author
Astrud Lea Beringer is a political writer and advocacy expert on food sovereignty, farmers’ rights, and environmental justice.
