Can organic agriculture help farmers?

Can organic agriculture help farmers?

C. Any Sulistyowati , Institute of Development Studies
and Technological Assistance, Bandung, anyapd@lead.or.id

In the last few decades, organic agriculture has emerged as
one of the initiatives to address the crisis of modern
agriculture. Through its aim to conserve soil and biodiversity,
it poses an alternative model for a more environmentally friendly
agriculture, while, at the same time, ensuring healthy food
production by using chemical-free fertilizers and pesticides.
However, within the current macro economic system, I doubt that
it can fulfill its mission.

The characteristics of the organic agriculture production
system are biological diversity in time and space; reducing
nutrient losses by effectively containing leaching, run-off, and
erosion and improved nutrient recycling; encouraging local
production according to the natural conditions and economic
settings; sustaining desired net output by preserving the natural
resources and reducing costs and increasing the efficiency and
economic viability of small and medium-sized farms.

Organic farming minimizes soil degradation, uses legumes,
organic manure, compost and other effective recycling mechanisms
and promotes the diverse agricultural system. It is not
necessarily traditional agriculture with preindustrial
technology. The technique can be tailored to different localities
depending on their environmental and socioeconomic setting. It
combines the principle of traditional conservation farming with
modern technology.

Until recently, organic agriculture has remained an
insignificant practice in the middle of mainstream capital-
intensive-modern agriculture. It is being implemented as a local
initiative on a small scale and productivity is low compared to
conventional agriculture.

Although various research had shown advances in organic
agriculture in terms of energy efficiency and its more
environmentally friendly features, it is very difficult to move
from conventional agricultural practices to organic ones. This is
especially so when the institutional setup, market forces,
policies and research efforts are biased against it.

For example, it is difficult for a rice farmer in Java to
apply organic farming techniques when neighboring plots that use
the same irrigation system still apply conventional agricultural
methods to meet the production target in the area.

Although the quality of organic rice is better, it is
difficult for farmers to compete with the price of subsidized
hybrid rice. It worsens when farmers lose access to land due to
industrialization or get into a debt trap with a middleman.

The benefit is also distributed unevenly. A small section of
society gets the most benefit, e.g. the rich who have money and
awareness, the certification bodies and organic traders.
The business sectors have responded quickly to this market.

They started producing organic inputs (fertilizer and
pesticide) as soon as criticism arose about the impact of
chemical inputs on the environment. Under the Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), they can sell new patented
products at a very high price.

In comparison, the price of methyl paration, the most popular
pesticide used worldwide is US$7 per liter, while effective
biological patented pesticides may cost $150 per liter for
Javelinb or more than $400 per liter for Avermecb (Peter Rosset,
1997).

This new pesticide might be good for the environment, but not
for the farmers in Third World countries whose income might be
less than $600 a year, especially with the low and fluctuating
price of agricultural products under the current market system.
This shows that organic agriculture within existing macro
economic conditions would not solve the problems of poor farmers
in developing countries.

Another example is the organic farmers in Costa Rica who grow
organic bananas under contract. They face the problem that the
company that promised to buy their product sometimes refuses to
buy at the price they had promised.

The other problem is although the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) defined an international
standard for organic agriculture, there are still many claims
under the label of "organic". For example, in the Netherlands, I
visited a "monoculture organic radish farm"! This kind of
monoculture farm cannot be considered organic, because it does
not employ the principle of diversity. And there are a lot of
other similar kinds of products in the market!

There are some other problems related to standards. First,
organic farming is not always feasible for poor farmers due to
the complicated regulations and high prices. Secondly, it has
been used as a mechanism of developed countries to protect their
domestic market.

Current macro conditions therefore reduce the potential of
organic agriculture to solve the modern agricultural crisis;
because it legitimates the claims of the multinational firms that
make a sizable profit from selling organic inputs. It also
facilitates the use of an organic standard by a developed country
as a protection mechanism for its own agriculture.

This effort does not necessarily address the root of the
global crisis of modern agriculture -- which is rooted in the
unequal sharing of the benefits among beneficiaries, both from a
social and economic aspect, and in the implementation of
technology that is against the principle of natural balance.