Climate Change and Agriculture - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 458

on people's livelihoods and well-being. Numerous studies have found significant
multipliers from agricultural growth to other sectors of the economy as well (sum-
marized in Pinstrup-Andersen and Watson, 2011). Drought and heat resistant crops
are particularly well positioned to help farmers adapt to climate change (Butt et al.
2005; Kamara et al. 2006; La Rovere et al. 2010). Increasing labor productivity in
rural areas spills over to the landless as well in increased wages and work oppor-
tunities. India's policy initiatives to introduce high-yielding varieties with comple-
mentary investments in irrigation and transportation networks during the Green
Revolution increased the real incomes of smallholders by 90 percent and of the
landless by 125 percent (ILO, 2005). Further, increased agricultural productivity
lowers food prices, which will benefit the landless poor. Although investments in
labor-using technology increase wages for the landless, investment in labor-saving
technologies can be used to free up women's time for other activities, promoting
greater gender equality and empowerment.
Among the proposals to make agriculture more sustainable is the organic movement
(see Larsson, this volume). There are several areas, however, where organic production
is not synonymous with sustainable production. In practice organic farming focuses
farmers' attention on restoring soil fertility better than traditional methods in develop-
ing countries, leading to a lessening of soil mining and improvements in crop produc-
tivity. This is not, however, a complete restoration. Gosling and Shepherd (2005) find
that organic management has benefitted from previous investments in soil fertility on
modern systems, drawing down phosphorous and potassium from the soil. By disal-
lowing chemical fertilizers it becomes more costly in time and land to properly fertilize
crops and replace the nutrients used in farming. This can lead to—and in Gosling and
Shepherd's (2005) opinion has led to—soil mining. Any removal of nutrients from the
soil that is not replaced—either naturally or by substitutable manmade capital—is, by
definition, unsustainable. Hole, et al. (2005) show that organic production has been no
better at preserving biodiversity than modern agriculture with targeted land set-asides.
Though there is great political support for organic agriculture, it is not clear that sus-
tainability is enhanced by ideological approaches (Edwards-Jones and Howell 2001;
Milestad and Darnhofer 2003).
The definitions of organic agriculture currently used by the United States and EU
governments reflect ideology and politics. Sustainability, on the other hand, requires
pragmatic approaches, which may well include technical change that protects the
environment, reduces risks, and increases yields. There is no reason in principle that
a sustainable approach cannot blend the best of practices to improve nutrient cycling,
nitrogen fixing, soil regeneration, and protecting the natural predators of unwanted
pests as developed by today's organic farming. Sustainable approaches would likely
incorporate nutrient additives that include both green fertilizer and limited inorganic
fertilizers, limited and timely pesticide applications, and scientific plant breeding
advances that are safe for human consumption and biodiversity (Dima and Odero 1997;
Pretty and Hine 2001; Pinstrup-Andersen and Watson 2011; Newell-McGloughlin, this
volume).