The country of Malawi experienced severe drought conditions in 2005, and was able to avoid catastrophic famine only through a large influx of foreign food aid. The following year, amidst social and political pressures to ensure that the same situation would not recur, the government of Malawi decided on direct subsidization of synthetic fertilizer and hybrid seed for poor farmers. The subsequent harvest of 2006 produced record-breaking agricultural yields, providing Malawi even with excess grain to sell on the world market[1]. The country's rapid transition from the brink of starvation to surplus has been heralded as a monumental success that should be expanded and applied to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa[2]. This "Green Revolution" for Africa is not without criticism, however. The use of chemically synthesized agricultural additives has been shown to degrade the environment and to have problematic effects on social and political relationships in the region[3]. Despite its apparent productivity, the path chosen in Malawi may not have been the optimal means for attaining self-sufficiency in food production. The ethical arguments supporting the government's choice may have been inadequate in comparison to other arguments, which can be shown to support an alternative approach to agricultural production in Africa.
Hidden Costs
Initially it appears to be indisputable that a surplus of maize in a near-starving country is a good thing. Yet the shift required in the production process to create the surplus may jeopardize future food security. The industrial agricultural model adopted in Malawi has been linked by a growing body of research to hidden economic, environmental and social costs, which become evident only over time[4]. The productivity of a natural, organic agricultural system is dependent on the vitality of its soil. By contrast, synthetic or inorganic fertilizers make possible a good harvest even from the most infertile soils. The application of synthetically derived fertilizers diminishes soil fertility, however, by depleting soil micronutrients and eradicating its subsurface microbiology. Farmers who start growing crops with inorganic fertilizers are soon left with inert soil[5]. Their ability to cultivate a harvest then depends on a continuous supply of externally produced fertilizers, producing a national dependency on the global market for fossil fuels[6]. Linking farmers' costs in Africa to the price of petroleum, given the historic and anticipated continued volatility of this market, is not sound policy.
The application of mineral fertilizers generates runoff harmful to the environment[7]. In the United States, excess nutrients in the Mississippi River contribute to eutrophication, hypoxia and the destruction of coastal and riparian ecosystems; and two thirds of it has agricultural origins[8]. Monocropping is the preferred method of farming when the use of fertilizers and pesticides is intended, for the chemical applications are characteristically variety-specific. The farm must often be reshaped to fit the application of the chemicals, which is accomplished primarily by eliminating native and non-native alternative varieties[9]. The reduction of biodiversity on the farm implies the reduction of biodiversity at the market, however. This limitedness can have negative effects on health and nutrition. A further problem caused by the application of inorganic fertilizer is the intensification of water consumption. The diversion of water for industrial agriculture is a global phenomenon that readily causes scarcities of water for general use. Compounding this problem is the consequent human resort to polluted water sources, which practice contributes to disease and health crises[10].
Like the environmental issues, the social issues resulting from adoption of the industrial agricultural model are varied and complex. Malawian farmers are inevitably incorporated into the market economy because the new technologies derive from it. In discussing the value of "place" to humans, Peter Cannavo observes that markets and their maximum yield imperatives transform "place-based" cultural landscapes in unanticipated and often devastating ways, as larger farms and other landholdings are created where small ones existed before[11]. Large-scale economies lead almost invariably to a consolidation of land ownership and a concentration of production, driving out small producers and undermining rural communities[12]. Many farmers find they are unable to survive in an increasingly competitive market economy; they are likely to be pushed off their lands through aggressive buy-out strategies. The majority of African farmers are small-scale producers still living in traditional social networks: adopting large-scale agricultural development will disrupt these relationships in severe and abrupt ways.
Justificatory Arguments
Even the most ardent proponents of the Green Revolution refrain from describing it as sustainable, although they offer different justifications for why an unsustainable path is acceptable. These justificatory arguments are of two main types.
The first type employs short-term ends-justify-the-means considerations: the detrimental impacts on the natural world and traditional societies are either insignificant in themselves or outweighed by the urgency of pervasive hunger. Those sharing this perspective include both deniers and believers: the former are those who fail to perceive or evaluate social repercussions; and the latter, those who tend to see technology as the remedy for all ills[13]. The undeniable fact that chemical fertilizers have helped Malawi to increase its food production is asserted: the country is now able to feed itself and was previously unable to do so. This change has been an incontrovertible success, so it is argued.
Yet shortsightedness pervades such an argument. When their proponents are pressed by questions concerning future productivity, their answers are inadequate – and reducible to, "we will cross the proverbial bridge when we get there". Proponents of Africa's Green Revolution acknowledge that the use of inorganic fertilizers is unsustainable, yet they claim it is a temporary stopgap measure intended to buy time for the development of infrastructure requisite to sustainable development[14]. How farmers will eventually overcome their addiction to petroleum-based fertilizers is an issue left to future determination. In addressing the preservation of nature in a context of human hunger, the environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston III derides the "mask" of either-or choices as short-sighted. Instead of confronting and solving difficult social choices, he says we opt for "more cake, just as unequally cut"[15]. Examining the emphasis placed on the "earnings model" for poorer nations, Rolston argues that by focusing on economic growth alone, we tend to see the "sacrifice" of still more nature as the only way to increase agricultural productivity[16].
The second type of justificatory argument employs lesser-of-two-evils considerations: Malawian agricultural change is a classic case of unavoidable yet problematic tradeoffs. The government of Malawi found itself with a choice between two "evils": permit the continuation of old farming techniques and allow the citizenry to starve; or promote the implementation of a new industrial agricultural model and jeopardize future harvests. Those who argue in terms of a trade-off between two harms clearly concede that inorganically-based agriculture has critically negative, even if unintended socio-ecological consequences; but nonetheless, such consequences are secondary and unavoidable. In the context of impending widespread human starvation, an imperfect model is necessarily the preferred choice.
Perhaps this type of argument differs from the other less in subjective content than in pertinent information. Malawi clearly needed somehow to ensure that its citizens did not starve; and the framers of both the ends-justify-the-means and the lesser-of-two-evils arguments believe that adopting the industrial agricultural model was the only practical option. Yet critics of the Green Revolution for Africa hold that other methods of agricultural production are capable of meeting productivity demands without causing socio-ecological destruction. In particular, agroecology is an innovative agricultural approach informed by the science of ecology[17] that is based on system sustainability rather than productivity alone[18]. The integration of agricultural productivity with ecological principles[19] asserts that environmental and social objectives need not be mutually exclusive[20]. The model reframes agricultural productivity in terms of the mutual preservation of both nature and humankind: the domination of nature by advanced engineering and the sacrifice of nature for humanitarian cause are both viewed as ethically problematic premises.
The nature-based framework of agroecology is antithetic to the ends-justify-the-means and the lesser-of-two-evils arguments. The former type of argument is seen to use a faulty accounting calculus. If the future effects of our actions cease to be discounted and their secondary impacts are evaluated, the calculus changes: conventional agriculture proves to be economically inefficient once the true costs of soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and water contamination are included in the analysis[21]. Similarly, the lesser-of-two-evils argument is seen to employ a fallacious unavoidability assumption. If demonstrably viable alternative agricultural models actually exist, then debating a choice between two dire options means operating within an erroneous dichotomy.
Agroecological Benefits
Ecologically based farming systems have been shown to raise yields while simultaneously reducing costs by using less water and fewer chemicals. Studying the remediation of hunger in Africa, Raj Patel and others have documented the use of a push-pull farming system developed in Kenya, which is able to build soil fertility, keep away pests, save water, and produce higher yields[22]. This example provides evidence of valuable indigenous knowledge not to be neglected or discarded. Instead, genuine development, which entails both participative justice and ecological sustainability, should affirm and strengthen indigenous farming systems grounded in local and traditional experiential knowledge[23].
The agroecological approach may nonetheless require some system redesign. Existing practices may include some harmful techniques, for which there may be no immediate receptivity to substitution by one or two sustainable practices[24]. The surrounding ecosystem cannot simply be disaggregated, moreover, into discrete components themselves responsive to some modern adjustments. The agroecological view is that a farm should be managed as a functional system, and farm policy should be guided by an understanding of the structure and function of natural ecosystems[25]. In particular, synthetically derived fertilizers are to be avoided: a farmer should instead plant nitrogen-fixing cover crops to improve soil health and reduce soil and water erosion[26]. Because it requires a significant degree of technical proficiency, however, agroecology is not readily transferrable, particularly to areas where modern technical training is scarce. It may meet with resistance also because it is a value-laden science that proposes ecologically informed concepts as solutions to socio-environmental problems[27]. Such concepts require long-term vision and awareness. Adopting them as part of a comprehensive national program has proven difficult insofar as it entails collaboration among diverse constituencies, substantial time and effort, and perhaps even the sacrifice of short-term gains[28]. These factors may conflict with cultural and political elements of farmers' land-use decisions, but attempting a conversion to agroecology remains worthwhile. If as active participants farmers provide input into the project, including the adoption of complicated principles that provide payoffs only over an extended period of time, a significant level of success could result[29]. Although complex, the agroecological approach is transferrable and has been demonstrated to help impoverished populations improve their indigenous farming practices as an alternative to chemical-intensive agriculture[30]. Extension courses offered through town meetings, national radio broadcasts, and farmer field schools have proven useful in helping to achieve the transfer of agroecological techniques[31].
Perhaps it is wrong for those of us in the West, who enjoy reliably abundant and generally affordable food in consequence of our agricultural productivity, to criticize the Malawian government for trying to feed its population and avert famine. Such criticism may be thought a form of paternalism, in which the freedom of another person is limited "for that person's own good"[32]. Addressing such paternalism, Kristin Shrader-Frechette explores how such apparent control of others' affairs may be justified. When it is "necessary to preserve a more extensive range of freedom…[and a] greater autonomy" for others, intervention by external parties may be justified[33]. This consideration is relevant to the agricultural experience of Malawi, insofar as experience with industrial agricultural side effects is lacking. In the absence of this practical knowledge, whether "genuine and free informed consent" exists is dubious[34]. Shrader-Frechette asserts, "it is wrong to put economically, physically, or politically vulnerable people at risk… because such people are often unable to engage in genuinely free transactions or decisions"[35]. Since Malawi's decision to implement synthetically-based agriculture was made under dire social, political and economic duress, it is ethically justifiable to criticize the decision without being wrongly paternalistic.
The possibility of mass famine cannot be neglected; but those skeptical of raising any objections in the case must themselves acknowledge that the conventional agricultural paradigm is fundamentally unsustainable. It represents a genie-out-of-the-bottle scenario: once this development path has been adopted, it becomes nearly impossible to reverse course. A sense of urgency arises; for repairing damage done can be a more difficult matter than preventing damage altogether[36]. In light of the complexity, diversity, and integration of the natural world[37], the precautionary principle, according to which any decision should be made with thoroughness proportional to the potential danger of relevant effects, should be invoked[38].
The potential for agroecological development remains largely untapped and underdeveloped. To encourage and facilitate its expansion seems reasonable and promising, especially since it has been empirically proven to yield the benefits of increased yield and decreased cost. An environmentally destructive, non-systems-based agricultural approach should be exchanged for an environmentally constructive, systems-based alternative. Producing enough food to avoid famine in the short term is indubitably a praiseworthy accomplishment; but analysts should refrain from assessing the case strictly on the basis of short-term results. Whether future generations and their narratives will pronounce the Malawi story a success remains to be seen. A full appraisal of the hidden costs of the current agricultural model, together with a thorough inquiry into the viability of the agroecological model, should be conducted, and the results included in any economic projections – before governments and policymakers move forward with their decision making. The continent of Africa should not embark upon the path of its agricultural development without consideration of long-term consequences.
E-mail:
