Do we need to pay an organic premium?

Farmers are encouraged to convert to organic agriculture, not only by the possibility of creating a safer, more diverse environment, but also  by the promise of a financial ‘premium’ which may increase the price that consumers have to pay for their produce, by up to 16%.  The organic premium is said to compensate farmers for the cost of the less intensive production systems that they use, as well as the costs of certification.

This means that essential, nutritious, pesticide-free foodstuffs – fruit, vegetables, grain and meat - that is produced organically, is marketed primarily to the affluent middle classes.  This is a policy that blatantly discriminates against poorer families, despite the fact that children and the elderly are more susceptible to the damaging effects of pesticide residues that are found in some common non-organic foods (PAN UK). 

Can this organic premium continue to be justified?

Surely high input-using, conventional farmers are now at a disadvantage, compared to organic farmers, considering that the costs of oil or methane gas-based inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides, also the cost of imported animal feed, have increased dramatically over the past few years.

Meanwhile, the sales of organic produce are said to have slumped by 23% from an all-time high of almost £2bn in 2008. If organic certification organisations, such as Ecocert and the Soil Association want to help farmers both in Europe as well as in lesser developed countries, increase demand for their produce, they should abolish this premium and adopt a more equitable pricing and marketing policy which ensures fair access by even the poorest of consumers.

Rio+20: Meeting urban food demands sustainably- can the Private Sector embrace Agroecology?

According to the UN’s latest Sustainable Development report, our population trajectory means that from now until 2030, the world will need to build the equivalent of a city of one million people in developing countries, every five days!  

How will all these billions be fed without destroying our planet? 

Delegates to the Rio+20 will try to address this massive problem by focusing on two key themes:

(a) defining a ‘green economy’

(b) creating an institutional framework for ‘sustainable development’

It is hoped that this will enable nations to promote sustainable economic growth alongside increased food production, using agro-ecological methods.

What is a ‘Green Economy?’

UNEP says that in a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

Nevertheless, there is little agreement amongst Rio+20 delegates on the definition or functional parameters of a green economy, particularly on the role of the private sector and market forces.  

La Via Campesina is campaigning against private sector involvement in food production on the grounds that it relies on fossil fuels, promotes monocultures and exploits farmers – they are calling for a system which is based on food sovereignty and does not wreck the environment. 

Meanwhile, several multinational food processing companies are expanding the numbers of smallholder farmers in their supply chains.  This has the potential of enabling smallholder farming families to become self-reliant in terms of food and financial capital.  The question is, can the private sector embrace the sustainable farming methods, i.e. agroecology, as required by a green economy?  

In an effort to increase public trust in their concern for farmers’ livelihoods and the environment, many food processing companies are implementing voluntary standards such as Organic, Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified, Social Accountability, 4C, and Forest Stewardship Council. 

As a result, certification of agricultural products is now a growth industry - in 2011 there were 426 different, sustainability labels.  The voluntary standards behind each of these labels emphasise many different aspects of sustainable agriculture, from reducing the use of toxic agro-chemicals, protecting rainforests, conserving water and safe-guarding bio-diversity - to protecting the rights of workers and farmers, as well as orang-utans and other endangered species.  With such an array of special interests to choose from and with so little information readily available it’s easy for consumers to get confused.  So here are some links to help:

• 4C
• Ecocert 
• Ethical Tea Partnership
• Fairtrade
• International Organic Standards (IFOAM)
• Rainforest Alliance
• Social Accountability
• Soil Association
• Sustainable Agriculture Network
• UTZ Certified

..... so we can judge for ourselves.

BBC's Sport Relief raises £50 million for Slum Dwellers in Africa...

This is a fantastic effort by the British public.


But wouldn't it have been better if we had paid farmers a fair price for their crops, such as cocoa, coffee and cotton? Farming families would then have been able to stay on their land, instead of being forced to relocate into miserable slums.


But I guess that wouldn't have been so much fun...

Bill Gates calls for more funds for agricultural innovation

"Given the central role that food plays in human welfare and national stability, it is shocking—not to mention short-sighted and potentially dangerous—how little money is spent on agricultural research. In total, only $3 billion per year is spent on researching the seven most important crops. This includes $1.5 billion spent by countries, $1.2 billion by private companies, and $300 million by an agency called the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Even though the CGIAR money is only 10 percent of the spending, it is critical because it focuses on the needs of poor countries. Very little of the country and private spending goes toward the priorities of small farmers in Africa or South Asia."  Read more...

Africa's smallholder farmers living on the brink...

Decades of under-investment in small-scale food production is being blamed for up to 100, 000 unnecessary deaths from starvation in the Horn of Africa, in 2011.  2.4 billion dollars is being spent on trying to mitigate the impacts of this disaster rather than on developing rural livelihoods during the period before the drought.


Thirty international relief agencies are now calling on richer nations to pledge their support for the Charter to End Extreme Hunger which, among other things, urges G8 nations to 'fulfill urgently and rapidly the pledges made to the l'Aquila Food Security Initiative' in 2009. This initiative commits USD20 billion over three years for sustainable development and safety nets for vulnerable populations.


But what will these billions be spent on?  High tech research in international institutions or funding local Extension Workers to promote the wide range of simple best practices that already exist, to all small-scale farmers?


Best practices to mitigate the impacts of climate change for Africa's farmers include;

• the provision of OPVs that have good pest resistance, drought tolerance and storage qualities
• training farmers in the selection and storage of good seed
• adjusting soil pH by adding lime where necessary
• water harvesting by building ridges, contour bunds, pot holes and small earth dams
• planting winter thorn trees, Faidherbia albida, within arable lands to increase organic matter, improve soil fertility and feed livestock
• alley cropping with Gliricidium sepium to increase organic matter, promote vegetable production and provide goat fodder
• planting pigeon pea as a climate change tolerant, nutritious food crop
• planting indigenous fruit trees
• training farmers in record-keeping and linking them with markets

While it is clear that the amount needed to bring about sustainable development in Africa's rural areas would be a fraction of the cost of disaster relief - the unglamorous nature of the above interventions mean that international donors may prefer to wait until the next disaster...