Lower yields, really?
Faced with the damage caused to biodiversity by "productivist" agriculture, it is tempting to think that the solution lies in lower yields, resulting from a reduced use of mineral fertilizers and plant protection products. But this would be a mistake: to limit the expansion of cultivated areas and ensure the food and nutritional security of populations, we must find ways of ecological intensification, aiming to produce more with fewer inputs while paying farmers properly.
The negative impacts of conventional agriculture on flora, fauna, and even the quality of soil, air, and water are endlessly listed. Criticism extends to human health, due to the harmfulness of certain pesticides. It is true that the extraordinary efficiency of conventional production methods, which have, for example, enabled wheat yields in France to increase fivefold in fifty years, has reached its limits due to the effects on biodiversity and the climate, and consumer concerns about food safety. This model is doomed. But what are the alternatives?
As the discussions held at the beginning of February within the framework of the Afterres 2050 university showed, certain prospective projects, such as those of IDDRI and Solagro, are resolutely turning their backs on agriculture described as productivist.[1]They are based on a reduction in yields of the main crops of around 30-35 %, down to the levels currently achieved in organic farming, thanks to a drastic reduction in the use of chemical inputs. This is also one of the axes of the report recently published by the English think tank Chatham House, with the support of the United Nations Environment Programme.[2].
Three levers
According to the report's authors, three levers must be activated to reduce biodiversity loss caused by agricultural activity. First, we must rebalance our diet by eating more plant-based products, while reducing losses and waste within the food chain, in order to reduce the need for cultivated land: a development that is all the more desirable given that we consume too much meat and that livestock farming emits large quantities of greenhouse gases. It is also necessary to set aside some of the land currently devoted to agriculture and avoid converting new land, to increase natural areas. Finally, according to Chatham House, it is necessary to cultivate in a more environmentally friendly way, by restricting the use of synthetic inputs and "by replacing monoculture with polyculture", which assumes accepting the idea that the yields obtained under these conditions will always be lower than in conventional systems.
This reasoning places a central role on changing demand. Changing food consumption, both in quantity and quality, would make it possible to limit cultivated areas, thus expanding protected areas, and reducing yields. Unfortunately, the arguments put forward do not stand up to the facts.
Eat healthier? Yes, but...
In reality, the widespread adoption of more balanced diets, in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organization, would not be enough to prevent an overall increase in demand and, in the event of a decline in yields, an increase in cultivated areas. According to the prospective study carried out by INRAE for Pluriagri[3], global food demand, expressed in calories, could increase by 47 % between 2010 and 2050 if diets remained on their trend and by 38 % in the case of healthier diets, of varying composition depending on the region. In this second scenario, cultivated areas would decrease on average by 3 % with "high" yields and increase by 12 % with "low" yields, but nevertheless increasing[4]The hypothesis of a drop in yields has not been studied, but it would in all likelihood lead to an explosion in additional areas dedicated to agriculture, in the order of several hundred million hectares.
These results can be explained essentially by two factors. On the one hand, according to INRAE projections, the expansion of the world population more than compensates for the average decrease in per capita consumption due to a more balanced diet. On the other hand, in many developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the adoption of healthier diets has resulted in an increase in per capita consumption, particularly of animal products, because their current underconsumption, according to official standards, is responsible for serious nutritional deficiencies. This clearly shows that the reasoning often used in rich countries cannot be extended to the entire planet.
Land tensions
Regardless of the diet, in countries south of the Sahara, a significant increase in cultivated areas seems inevitable. INRAE projections for Pluriagri estimate this at between 32 % (trend diets) and 53 % (healthy diets) in the event of high yields, i.e., with an acceleration in the rate of technical progress. Conversely, a deceleration in productivity would increase cultivated areas in the region by between 84 and 113 %, depending on the diet. (painting)With the expansion of crops encroaching on grasslands and forests, this would result in enormous losses of biodiversity and a worrying increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
And agricultural income?
A major flaw in almost all published forecasts is that they provide no insight into the implications of the scenarios studied for farmers' incomes. The Chatham House report is no exception. However, all other things being equal, a decline in yields could only be offset by a reduction in production costs, an increase in agricultural prices, or the provision of additional revenue, for example from payments for environmental services.
A reduction in input purchases would reduce production costs, but the lack of accurate data makes it difficult to predict its impact on farm incomes. As for market prices, farmers have very little control over their level, even though premiums paid under fair trade—mainly for agricultural products exported to high-income countries—can increase their income. On the other hand, there are strong arguments in favor of payments for environmental services, financed by public subsidies or specific markets, such as those beginning to emerge for carbon storage in agricultural soils: however, adequate budgets must be allocated or farmers must be able to participate in these markets and benefit from them.
In any case, if falling yields were to result in lower farmers' incomes, the pressure for an increase in farm size – and therefore, in Africa, for increased clearing of savannah and forest – would increase accordingly.
Triple performance
The dogma of agriculture guided by maximizing technical and economic performance, without regard for the environment, is dead. There is no point in replacing it with a new one, which would lead to considering sustainable development only from the perspective of biodiversity, climate change, or health concerns. Sustainable development, let us remember, is based on the simultaneous pursuit of triple performance—economic, social, and environmental.
An increase in productivity is imperative, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, to increase agricultural incomes and reduce the cost of food, provided that its negative effects on natural environments are minimized. The objective of the agroecological transition should therefore not be to lower yields, but to find ways of a new, completely redesigned intensification of agriculture, making it possible to produce more with fewer inputs. The keys to this are known: a vigorous effort in research and innovation, accompanied by dissemination of the results obtained among farmers; the integration of sustainable development requirements into agri-food chains; and finally, remuneration for the environmental services provided by agriculture, via direct aid or specific markets. In the countries of the South, these reflections have considerable scope, because they are part of the overall perspective of policies aimed at combating poverty and reducing structural income gaps between cities and the countryside.[5].
[1] Martine Jullien, “Afterres Universities: Foresight in the Service of Decreasing Strategic Thinking?”, AGPB newsletter of 05/02/2021.
[2] Tim G. Benton et al., “Food system impacts on biodiversity loss. Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature”, Research Paper, Energy, Environment and Resources Program, Chatham House, February 2021.
[3] A. Tibi et al., 2020. “Place of European agriculture in the world by 2050: between climate issues and food security challenges”. Summary report of the Inrae study.
[4] Given the uncertainties, INRAE's simulations were carried out using two sets of projections. The "high" yield scenario is based on a sustained pace of technical developments and plants fully exploiting the increase in atmospheric CO2 content due to climate change. This extends the slowdown in average yield growth observed over the past two decades to 2050. Conversely, "low" yields assume more moderate technical progress and no CO2 exploitation by plants.
[5] Jean-Christophe Debar and Abdoul Fattath Tapsoba, “The convergence of agricultural and non-agricultural incomes: myth or reality?”, FARM Blog, January 11, 2021. https://fondation-farm.org/la-convergence-des-revenus-agricoles-et-non-agricoles-mythe-ou-realite/
Un commentaire sur “Baisser les rendements, vraiment ? ”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
+ Written on February 11, 2021 by: ludovic.larbodiere@iucn.org
Good morning
What is good in the North is not necessarily good in the South, and vice versa. I find your article interesting, particularly because it highlights the need for ecological intensification to reduce the expansion of agricultural land, and because it clearly highlights that the solutions in the South and the North will not necessarily be identical. Two caveats, however: – I cannot agree with your conclusion. An overall increase in productivity can very well take place through the adoption of practices that would reduce (moderately) productivity in developed countries while increasing it in developing countries and LDCs. Current productivity gaps can fully justify this. – And in terms of biodiversity, we cannot, as you do, ignore the biodiversity of agro-ecosystems. While intensification would indeed reduce changes in land use and biodiversity loss, particularly in forest, grassland, peat bog and wetland areas, it would significantly reduce biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, which represent the vast majority of human-inhabited areas. Therefore, ecological intensification of agricultural systems is needed, which would improve yields in the South and increase biodiversity in the North, while avoiding excessive land expansion. Ludovic LARBODIERE
+ Written on February 11, 2021 by: CAPO-CHICHI michael 3979
Let us eat what we produce, produce what we eat.
+ Written on February 11, 2021 by: FV77380 3982
"...The dogma that only considers sustainable development from the perspective of biodiversity, climate change or health concerns..."
I imagine that it would already be good to deal with this as a priority because these problems will become major in a very few years. The recipes you propose raise questions: "The keys are known: a vigorous effort in research and innovation, accompanied by popularization of the results obtained among farmers; the integration of sustainable development requirements in the agri-food sectors..." These keys are indeed very well known since they are what led us to where we are today. While yields have been multiplied by 3 or 4, I doubt that farmers' incomes have followed the same evolution. It is the entire para-agricultural sector that has reaped the profits (equipment, seed, phytosanitary dealers), so it is this productivist agriculture that must be stopped. This just proves that the solutions for the future will not come from those responsible for the current model, nor from their loyal supporters...
+ Written on February 11, 2021 by: Pierre Jacquemot 3983
Four brief remarks on this interesting paper to contribute to the debate on the issue of yields.
1. With the promotion of agroecology, it is not the reduction of yields that is sought (a formulation that seems to me clumsy in the introduction, fortunately corrected later) but another way of doing agriculture in a critical situation. We can summarize its key principles according to four main categories: 1/ the preservation of natural resources and biodiversity; 2/ the limitation of negative externalities; 3/ the progressive generation of secure income; 4/ the valorization of endogenous knowledge that is often intelligently adapted to environmental constraints and that deserves to be understood in the multiple dimensions of the lives of its users. Its resources have been known for a very long time: certain practices such as different types of fallow land, mixed farming, tree/annual crop associations that affect the distribution of risks are anchored in peasant knowledge. Its advantages are therefore not limited to calculating yields. However, the difficulties of the agroecological transition are not hidden by its supporters. Their application by farmers faces obstacles of various kinds. The transition takes time, especially since there is never a single miraculous option in this area where solutions depend on the agroclimatic and socio-economic characteristics of each farm. On these subjects, it is useful to point out the importance of the knowledge already mobilized by French expertise, CIRAD of course, but also Agrisud, Avsf and GRET, all three of which, separately, have published very good agroecology manuals inspired by the field. 2. Faced with the fundamental challenge of regaining agricultural and food sovereignty in Africa, two certainties are essential. The first is that we must not adopt a rigid, doctrinal position. African farmers need better quality seeds and a greater variety. Biotech plants can provide relevant technical solutions in a global approach to diversifying agricultural practices and distributing uses, alongside agroecology, conventional agriculture, or organic farming. Diversity is a guarantee of sustainability. The potential of combining genetic engineering and ecological engineering is significant for building "ecologically intensive agriculture," a global approach to farm management that consists of strengthening the positive impacts of agricultural and livestock practices on the environment and reducing their negative effects, without compromising the economic profitability of farms. The second certainty is that the seed issue does not sum up the problem. Betting solely on the responsibility of the plant ignores the benefits that can be gained from controlling other factors (technical itineraries, crop rotation, land security, water management, etc.) that are also essential for rural incomes. 3. Many sub-Saharan farmers are diversifying risks and sources of income. They are already engaged in multiple activities, depending on the seasons, and their sources of income are diversifying, including in the non-agricultural rural sector. Migration temporalities respond to situations when they are critical. In the Sahelian regions, for example, the precarious fate of farmers is often linked to their spatial mobility. The alternation between a brief, useful rainy season and a long dry season frees up part of the family farming workforce for work elsewhere. 4. Lastly, the potential for extensification in sub-Saharan Africa is not without limits. More than half of the land available for agriculture on the African continent is said to be affected by these land degradation processes, thus severely penalizing yields. The actual unexploited land available, and likely to be exploited under environmentally sustainable conditions (by preserving forests, grasslands and habitats of ecological value) and with yields above an acceptable minimum, for crops of at least one of the following products: wheat, corn, cassava, cotton, peanuts, cocoa, coffee, tea, palm oil, soybeans, rapeseed, fruits, vegetables, sugar, cut flowers and agrofuels, would be approximately 50 million ha. These data still include land lying fallow, that is to say temporarily "rested", withdrawn from production, but also land used by populations for their survival (gathering, harvesting firewood, hunting), community forests or even areas reserved for ancestral rites which must obviously be excluded under penalty of putting the general ecosystem of the territories concerned in a critical situation. Taking the above factors into account further reduces the newly usable areas for agricultural activity. And that's without taking into account social and legal constraints. Nor are there security factors that hinder access to useful areas. Civil wars and political instability, particularly in the Sahel, the Central African Republic, and eastern DR Congo, exclude a large swathe of land from the expansion of agricultural capacity. Outside of the Sahara, the heart of the Congolese basin, and the protected areas of Kenya, Tanzania, and southern Africa, there are virtually no areas in Africa devoid of rights, even in areas that appear available and in large arid zones. As elsewhere, particularly in Asia, these areas are almost always subject to specific rights and uses, originally built around lineage, based on successive clearings by descendants.
+ Written on February 12, 2021 by: Christian Couturier 3985
Hello, first of all thank you for talking about Afterres University.
I have two main remarks to your comment. 1. It is quite strange to present our work as aiming for degrowth (AGPM newsletter, which seems to be your source) or to present the decline in yields as an end in itself, or to present the consideration of climate and biodiversity as a sort of dogma that would replace that of "productivism". On the contrary, our work aims to integrate these different dimensions. You present sustainable development as the triple environmental, social and economic optimization, therefore a compromise between the 3. Another vision is to consider that the environment is the foundation. The social and then the economy are successively superimposed on it. See https://journals.openedition.org/developpementdurable/1133?lang=en. The "triple optimization" vision is implicitly based on a form of equivalence between the social, the economic and the ecological, therefore on a capacity for substitution, in other words the capacity of the economy to repair ecological damage. This vision has become obsolete given the reality of observable ecological damage. 2. Our work focuses on France and Europe. It is not permissible to extrapolate it in particular to Africa or South Asia. In particular, it is absolutely not stated in our work that productivity must decrease in these regions, contrary to what you imply. The real question that arises is whether European agriculture should maintain its exportist discourse without asking itself the question of its contribution to the destruction of the peasantry of the South. See rather the numerous writings of Jacques Berthelot on this subject, for example https://www.sol-asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Les-subventions-agricoles-des-EU-et-de-l%E2%80%99UE-aux-exportations-agricoles-vers-lOCI-17-novembre-2020.pdf Mr. Debar, we are open to discussion, do not hesitate to ask us questions because we are the primary source of our work... Sincerely.
+ Written on February 12, 2021 by: amor_chermiti@yahoo.com 3986
The article is very interesting; as are the comments and suggestions from various colleagues and friends. I also add the following points:
– the conclusions put forward for the countries of the North cannot be extrapolated to those of the South, and more particularly to many African countries; – Who are at the origin of the neglect of biodiversity, and more particularly to the aspects related to the production of seeds and plants more adapted to environmental conditions? It is time for the multinationals that hold the marketing markets for seeds and plants and phytosanitary products to review their thinking by taking into consideration in their research programs the respect for the environment, and consequently human, animal and plant health; – In many countries of the world, the ministries of agriculture, environment, trade and health are separate, is it not time to rethink these ideas by transforming these departments into a single pole relating to agriculture, environment and health. Trade automatically integrates agriculture from the moment when agriculture is no longer considered as a tool of production; but rather defined in terms of access to markets.
+ Written on February 14, 2021 by: jm bouquery 3987
Yield? Of what? Of whom? – The number of farmers is an adjustment variable.
Everyone has their own heroes or heroines, the "only factor that can ring twice" (at least) is scientific and technical progress, which can overcome its errors and shortcomings, with capital, whatever the governance. Warm and eternal respect to Berthelot. Aurochs horn.