|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
To follow on from Keith Reed's e-mail, I do think that how we can change agriculture to meet the objective of poverty reduction is important for the debate. Several of the contributors so far, as well as the authors of the introductory notes, have mentioned sustainability and environmental considerations, which I believe are essential for the contribution that agriculture can make to poverty reduction. Past experience shows that without effective soil and water systems and without biological diversity, agriculture - and the communities that depend on it - will not succeed in the long term. In this sense, I also think that Simon Maxwell's statement that environmental considerations seem more likely to constrain agricultural growth than to accelerate it, is not very helpful for the debate: "growth at all costs" is a seductive but dangerous fallacy. Environmental considerations are not an add-on or extravagance but an essential element for lasting agricultural growth. For instance, biodiversity within and around agricultural systems provides numerous ecosystem services that are essential for agricultural productivity, including nutrient cycling, pest and disease regulation, and pollination. This importance of biodiversity for both direct agricultural productivity and broader livelihood security has been illustrated in both developing and developed countries. Studies in the US have shown that providing habitat for pollinators, particularly honey bees, is essential to maintaining yields. In the Himalayas, habitats rich in native flowering plants and free of pesticide use have been found to increase pollination services and hence, food security of rural communities. Biodiverse systems also strengthen resilience by providing farmers with a range of crops that reduces their dependence on market prices, as illustrated by the many examples of successful agroforestry projects. Moreover, it is mostly the poor who suffer from environmental degradation and who are most dependent on environmental resources. This is another reason why pro-poor agricultural growth should be based on environmental principles. The very definition of agricultural growth should encompass measurable poverty reduction achieved in an environmentally sustainable manner. There are plenty of good examples that prove that such an approach is feasible in practice (e.g. Farm Africa's report 'Reaching the Poor A Call to Action' contains many useful case studies). What we need now is to learn from these examples and join up the thinking on the environmental impacts of agriculture in developing countries. This should also happen inside DFID, where environment issues should not be left to the Environment Team, but mainstreamed into all teams. Responding to what Alex Duncan said in the introduction to this debate, I think what we need is not new institutions, but new thinking in the old institutions and strategies to ensure adequate implementation of new policies. Of course, the environment is only one part of how agriculture can help reduce poverty, but I believe that it is extremely important and should be seen as an integral part of agricultural planning, not just as a "luxury" some can afford or as a marketing tool, i.e. a means of satisfying certain consumer groups (e.g. organic markets). Alexandra González-Calatayud Trade Policy Officer Environmental Policy Department RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1767 680551 Fax: +44 (0)1767 685145 Email: <address removed> The RSPB works for a healthy environment rich in birds and other wildlife; it depends on the support and generosity of others to make a difference. ... ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe growth-and-poverty <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.