Rural resilience and vulnerability: The rural as locus of solidarity and conflict in times of crisis
XXVth Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology 29 July – 1 August 2013
eProceedings
Laboratorio di studi rurali SISMONDI, Pisa (Italy) ISBN 978 8 8908 9600 2
XXVth ESRS Congress
243
29 July – 1 August 2013 in Florence, Italy
Are we confusing innovation for development? A critical reflection of the meaning of agricultural modernization Karlheinz Knickel1
Abstract – In this paper different understandings of (agricultural) modernization are explored. The background for the analysis and discussion is the increasing scarcity of natural resources, issues about resource distribution, new challenges like climate change and, more generally, the far-reaching uncertainty regarding future developments. This exploratory paper contrasts alternative trajectories of agricultural modernization and relates them to the multiple mechanisms that bring about rural prosperity and resilience. More future-oriented understandings of modernization are sketched out. The conclusions focus on issues that are particularly relevant for decision-makers: the links between farm modernization, rural development and resilience, and the implications for agricultural knowledge systems and the new European Innovation Partnerships. The paper seeks to foster discussions that help overcome simplistic viewpoints of what 'modernization' entails.1
Well-being – encompassing human wellbeing, animal welfare and a high quality natural environment; ‐ Resilience – comprising a sustainable use of natural resources, economic systems and lifestyles that respect planetary boundaries, and adaptive capacity; ‐ Equity – relating to a more equitable sharing of the world's resources; this in particular in view of the fulfilment of basic needs. In a development perspective that is conceived in this way, there are discernible connections between agricultural change and the manifold mechanisms that underlie rural prosperity and resilience; connections that we need to keep in mind when discussing the bio-based economy, biotechnology and or, more generally, the modernization of agriculture. ‐
DISCOURSES AND TERMS
TODAY'S CHALLENGES
Terms like "sustainable growth", "sustainable competitiveness", "sustainable intensification" or "the bio-based economy" tend to obscure reasoning and motivations, and hinder a differentiated debate and thus common understanding and consensus building. Focus in this paper is on a few broad areas that are interrelated and that tend to play a significant role in any discourse about 'modernization': ‐ Innovation, modernization, progress; ‐ Economic development, growth, prosperity … vulnerability, subsistence; ‐ Development, resilience, well-being, quality of life … equity, sufficiency. The discussion of agricultural modernization time and again relates to these different spheres. Often it follows the same simple innovation-is-progress logic: technological innovation means progress, fosters economic development and growth, and contributes to overall well-being. References are hardly ever made to the limitations of 'modern' agricultural systems, the increasing scarcity of natural resources, the related distributional questions and alternative trajectories of agricultural modernization. The idea of 'development' that is elaborated in this paper goes further. In the context of this paper, 'development' is a rather central future-oriented concept describing a pathway that connects three different spheres:
What are perceived as today's main challenges are, at least partly, subjective. For this paper, five main challenges are central: (1) Sustainable food production and the particular need to increase access to food in developing countries. Currently, roughly one billion people suffer from hunger and chronic malnutrition. However, hunger can hardly be addressed through further intensification in industrialized countries. One reason is that the poor simply cannot afford costly food from capital-intensive agriculture. (2) Environmental sustainability and resource use efficiency, including low carbon production systems. Major transformations are needed in the industrialized world because we are in many ways exceeding planetary boundaries. Improvements in resource use efficiency alone won't be sufficient. The ecological and carbon footprint of any system change matters. (3) Quality of life of farmers, consumers and society at large, including high food quality and environmental integrity. Lifestyles embossed by material consumption and our excessive resource needs are mainly driven by trivial motivations, which tend to be manipulated for the sake of commerce. Resource use intensities, in turn, are connected with equity issues and livelihoods in the global south. (4) Adaptation to climate change is becoming a major challenge. Climate change is already causing hunger and conflict in particular in dry areas like the Sahel zone. Those who suffer most tend to be those who haven't produced much greenhouse gas emissions. The global scale of problems shows that resource and emission-intensive lifestyles in rich coun-
1 Dr Karlheinz Knickel, Independent Sustainability Strategies and Innovation Professional, Frankfurt (Main), Germany (
[email protected]).
XXVth ESRS Congress
244
29 July – 1 August 2013 in Florence, Italy
tries can neither be sustained nor transferred to the world as a whole. (5) Fibre, other bio-materials and bioenergy production. The bio-based economy has been suggested as a smart way to overcome resource constraints and to make production systems more sustainable. While industry pressure is enormous, there is a very substantial risk that the related structural changes will further aggravate the concentration of power in upand downstream industries, and dependencies. Can the modernization of agriculture, as it has been interpreted and implemented in the past decades, in particular in the industrialized world, help us to address these challenges? How has modernization been understood, and are there different ways to understand it, and to direct and manage it? Are particular trajectories leading in a more desirable direction, and what are the underlying principles?
AGRICULTURAL MODERNIZATION Modernization is closely connected with the idea of (social) progress. Schultz (1964) was one of the first who analysed the role of agriculture within the economy, and his work has had far reaching implications on industrialisation policy, both in developing and developed nations. Linked to that was the assumption that institutionalized research, not research undertaken by farmers themselves, is the key factor for producing innovations and advances in agricultural productivity. The 'modernization' of European farming in the 20th century eliminated drudgery and was connected with major increases in the productivity of land and labour, leading to the satisfaction of European food demand and, at times, sizable surplus production, while freeing up a significant proportion of the workforce. On the negative side of specialisation, intensification and scale enlargement are monotonous production landscapes, a disproportionate use of natural resources (in particular fossil fuels and minerals like potassium and phosphorus), an increase in emissions and a standardization of food qualities. At another level, we can see a concentration of farming in lowland plains and or regions with better access to (imported) feed, fertilizers or markets and a marginalisation of less favoured areas. The increasing capital-intensity of farming that tends to go together with modern agriculture has made many farmers more vulnerable. Indebtedness and dependencies from banks and agro-industry are very high in countries where agriculture is perceived as particularly 'modern'. Those in the agricultural knowledge system – that is in research, education, advisory services, etc. – tend to emphasize the achievements of this development and to downplay the detriments.
combination have always remained important – despite contrasting views in particular in agricultural economics. In some parts of Europe a vast number of subsistence and semi-subsistence holdings persist. Redman (2012) describes subsistence farmers as "idiosyncratic and individualistic; focusing on the wider needs of the subsistence farming community". He demands that we "discuss intensification with creativity and imagination: knowledge intensive, renewable resource, appropriate technology, communication and co-operation intensive". Organic farming is an example of a particular style of farming that is connected with a specific management philosophy, farm organization and a highly developed set of management practices. It has seen very significant growth rates in the last 20-30 years. Many organic farms now combine initial principles with a sophisticated organization, marketing and use of technology. Eco-functional intensification is another example that is seen as a response to the increasingly important call for production increases while building on an improved understanding of the functioning of ecosystems. In the full paper, connections between alternative trajectories of modernization are related to the multiple mechanisms that bring about rural prosperity and resilience.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Technological change has major repercussions on the organization of production, the natural environment and, in the long term, farm and rural structures. Many farms considered 'modern' are highly path-dependent and vulnerable because of the large amounts of money invested in particular lines of production, production systems and technologies, and the resulting narrowing of management options. Adaptive capacity, the efficiency of the use of natural resources and favourable higher level system combinations like between crop and livestock production appear very much undervalued. By contrast, the use of knowledge and the science-base tend to be preoccupied with production cost reduction, short-term competitiveness and technological innovations. The new European Innovation Partnerships therefore need to pay particular attention to actually involving practitioners on a par with researchers.
REFERENCES Ploeg, J.D., van der (1994). Born from within: practice and perspectives of endogenous rural development, Van Gorcum, Assen. Redman, M. (2012). Romania: Sustainable intensification of small-scale farming?! ENCA Seminar, 20 November 2012, Brussels.
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?
Schultz, T. W. (1964) Transforming Traditional Agriculture, New Haven: Yale University Press.
It is often ignored in descriptions of the changes in European farming that agriculture is extremely diverse in farming practices, systems and strategies. Van der Ploeg (1994) was one of the first to emphasize the fact that there exist many different farming styles. Multiple job holding, pluriactivity and income
Note: The new transdisciplinary RETHINK project will in a set of comprehensive case studies in 14 countries (incl. Turkey and Israel) explore ambiguities and tensions in agricultural modernization pathways. For more information please contact the author.
