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.