A Fork In The Road For Food And Farming

The future of food and agriculture will likely involve a combination of both technological and agro-ecological approaches. However, the relative emphasis on each approach will depend on a variety of factors, including government policies, consumer preferences, and the availability of resources

The struggle to pick the right pathway for food and farming future hinges more or less on the Shakespearean dilemma – to be or not to be.

For several decades now, the split has become clearly more visible. When I say split, and especially at a time when climate change has worsened, moving from Global Warming to Global Boiling, the debate over food futures too trudges along – moving clearly into two camps. With the industry strengthening its claims about the immense possibilities of technology savvy climate smart agriculture, the civil society has demonstrated the immense potential of time-tested agro-ecological practices (or call it unbranded pro-nature technologies) that are not only climate resilient but also environmentally safe and healthy.

The debate therefore is clearly divided on which of the two pathways future agriculture must take. While it is fear of missing out (FOMA) factor that is keeping a large section of the policy makers imbibed with digitalisation pathway that will eventually strengthen corporate control over farming in the years to come, it is the immense potential of agro-ecology (AE) on the other hand that can lead to climate change mitigation, build on food sovereignty and thereby usher in an inclusive economic growth.

The choice therefore is clearly before us to make.

To believe that artificial intelligence (AI), application of satellite imageries, drones, robotics, and the emphasis on precision farming is something that is unavoidable and therefore the nation cannot afford to miss the Agricultural Revolution 4.0 that the world is heading towards, actually emanates from the anxiety of the fear of the unknown. That of course is one of the dominant schools of thought. It is backed by Big Media which is in the hands of Big Agriculture. Every conclave or a leadership summit that the media organises ends up showcasing the tremendous opportunities that emerging technologies will hopefully provide. It deliberately blacks out the tremendous potential of the traditional ways of farming that can help initiate a constructive debate on the pathway the world must adopt.

Meanwhile, a shocking proposal coming from the scientists from the University of Arizona suggests building a “doomsday vault” on the moon “filled with millions of seed, spore, sperm and egg samples from Earth’s species, hidden in a network of tubes on the moon to provide a genetic backup for the planet in the event of a doomsday scenario.” Quoted in a CNN dispatch, these scientists believe their concept could preserve life from Earth in the event of destruction of the planet.

How will the scientists and engineers help build a “doomsday vault” on moon is a matter of technical detail, but the mere thought that the Earth is a volatile environment and therefore a close call is possible for which we need to be prepared, I think the best way should also be to take appropriate preventive steps now so that we can avoid the planet from becoming uninhabitable. It surely is a subject that is good enough for a series of conclaves and conferences, but first look at the transformative pathway that agriculture is still grappling with. Should it be adopting an ecological roadmap to redesign the frame work by harnessing ecosystem benefits in a transition towards sustainable food and farming systems or bow to technological prowess that the agribusiness industry claim can meet the enhanced food requirement by 2050?

As I said earlier, the Shakespearean dilemma persists.

Nevertheless, given the climate catastrophe that stares ahead, and knowing that roughly 34 per cent of the green house gas emissions are coming from farming systems, the emphasis is rightly on how to reduce emissions from agriculture, including livestock. Even the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has laid out 10 elements of agro-ecology that can combine science with the traditional, practical and local knowledge of producers, there has in any case been a tremendous burst in recent time in the scientific, economic and political discourse over the importance of reverting back to agro-ecology as the way forward. I will certainly put my vote for a resilient farming system that comes with minimum negative externalities. Farming has to be in the control of producers, and at no stage should be allowed to go in the hands of a few food barons.

Let me substantiate. Contributing 24.64 per cent of global milk production, India is the world’s largest producer of milk. With 221 million tonnes of milk production, it has attained an impressive annual growth of 5 to 6 per cent, which is more than double of the world’s average. With roughly 80 million farmers (mostly women) engaged in dairy production, and involving 300 million cattle and livestock, the emphasis should be on how to reduce the risks and make the dairy sector economically viable. On the contrary, I am amazed when policy makers appear more than keen to bring dairy under the new policy coming in the name of BioE3, which takes a different technological pathway in the name of employment generation and economic growth. We are told that a StartUp in Bangalore has successfully been selling artificially produced plant-based milk, and has now begun to export. While it will be sometime before we can get to know the health consequences, but what I fail to understand is how can artificial milk production be adding to employment generation?

Backed by government policy, promoting plant-based milk will certainly be at the cost of existing employment in dairy sector. As has been normally seen, sooner or later, such kind of StartUps will be acquired by companies that see a profit. Is that the development pathway that India needs to promote? More so, at a time when the country is faced with a worsening employment crisis, destroying much of the dairy livelihoods in the process doesn’t make economic sense. The point I am trying to make here is that the society at large needs to deliberate on such visible shifts considering the enormous social and economic costs involved. A few people sitting in the board room of companies cannot be allowed to take decisions that impact people and the environment.

Agro-ecology provides a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity, as an article in Nature Sustainability journal had said. What is however missing in the entire debate is how to provide farmers engaged in agro-ecology or in digitalisation with enhanced income. Leaving it to market forces, as was mentioned at a recent conference in New Delhi, shows that the policy makers and the industry leaders have yet to acknowledge the missing dimension – the need to provide farmers with an assured income.

To say that the technological innovations being proposed will lead to higher income for farmers is a very clever way of skirting the real livelihood issues. Every technology that has been pumped into agriculture all these years has come with the promise of increasing farm incomes. But if that had truly been the case, farm incomes wouldn’t have been at the bottom of the pyramid. While the input providers and the output buyers in the supply chain reel in profits, farmers have left in the lurch. Any transition in agriculture cannot be without ensuring farmers with a living income.

(The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)