Organic agriculture could feed the world, but will it? A state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of 100% organic food and organic agriculture, is a dream, or is it a pipe-dream? And if a dream, then when might it manifest? Two scenarios are presented, extrapolating from the rate of growth of the organics sector achieved over the past decade. Under a geometric rate of growth, Otopia could be achieved in 39 years, whereas under an arithmetic rate of growth, Otopia would take 544 years to be achieved

Paull, John

English

Organic agriculture could feed the world, but will it? A state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of 100% organic food and organic agriculture, is a dream, or is it a pipe-dream? And if a dream, might it manifest in four decades or 54 decades? The stated goal of the organic movement is the adoption worldwide of organic agriculture. That task has a long path to travel, with organic agriculture currently accounting for 0.8% of agricultural land worldwide. Two roads to Otopia are extrapolated from the rate of growth of global organics exhibited over the past decade. If an arithmetic rate of growth  - think simple interest - continued indefinitely then a state of Otopia would take 544 years (2553). Under a geometric growth scenario - think compound interest - Otopia would be reached in 39 years (2048)

Organic Eprints

INNOVATIVE SCIENCEISSUE 1: AGRICULTURE AND FOOD EDITIONTHE FUTURE OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: OTOPIA OR OBLIVION?Paull, John (2010) The Future of Organic Agriculture: Otopia or Oblivion? Innovative Science Editions, I: 11-14Organic agriculture could feed the world, but will it? A state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of 100% organic food and organic agriculture, is a dream, or is it a pipe-dream? And if a dream, might it manifest in four decades or 54 decades? Two roads to Otopia are extrapolated from the current state of global organics. A meta-study of organic versus chemical agriculture by a research team from the University of Michigan, and headed by Catherine Badgley, found that if the world made a switch to organic agricul-ture then the global food supply could increase. And importantly the increases would be greatest in areas of greatest need. Allied with increases for most of the world’s farmers, Badgley’s team showed that yields would reduce in areas of the least need, for example USA, where there is overproduction from industrialized agriculture that is now heavily subsidized by US taxpayers. Ancien regime organic agriculture fed the world for ten millennia. Ghengis Khan, Beethoven, Socrates, Michelangelo - select your own heroes or villains up to and including the nineteenth century - and all the great and ungreat ﬁgures of history, had a diet of de facto organic food. Since the development of the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen ﬁxa-tion a century ago we have witnessed the relentless colonization of the agricultural space by synthetic fertilizers. Then, chemical warfare agents developed in WWI, and more especially in WWII, have been repurposed for agriculture, sending de facto organic agriculture into a near-terminal decline. Yet, that terminus has not been reached. Through a series of agri-cultural innovations, including the development of organic standards, the certiﬁcation of the production process, the implementation of traceability pathways, and the labelling of organic food, the decline of de facto organic has been met with the rise of certiﬁed organic. Oblivion now appears unlikely with the certiﬁed organic sector often popularly described as “the world’s fastest growing food sector”.ORGANIC VS. CHEMICAL AGRICULTUREThe reaction against synthetic fertilizers and pesticides dates at least back to Rudolf Steiner who delivered a series of lectures, in what is now Poland, in 1924. From that series of eight lectures delivered AGRICULTURE11 INNOVATIVE SCIENCE: AGRICULTURE AND FOOD EDITIONover 10 summer days, bio-dynamic agriculture has developed into a worldwide phenomenon. The British agriculturalist Lord Northbourne introduced the term “or-ganic agriculture” in his 1940 book “Look to the Land”. He presented the idea that the agricultural space is a contested space: “organic versus chemical farming”. In 1972, three decades on from Northbourne, all streams of agri-culture that eschewed synthetic fertilizers and pesticides - includ-ing biodynamic, organic, bio and ecological - were united in France under the umbrella of the newly formed International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). This development laid the grounds for sharing, extending, and the harmonizing of local inno-vations, including innovations of agricultural practice, of standards, of certiﬁcations, of labelling, and of training and advocacy into the international arena.The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has estimated that there are 150 dead zones in the oceans due to fertilizer and pes-ticide runoff. These dead zones are silent witnesses to the wisdom of those early organic pioneers. Since the ﬁrst articulation of organic standards, the exclusion of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides has been extended to excluding irradiated food and genetically modiﬁed organisms (GMOs) from the certiﬁed organic food stream. Most recently there has been the call, and in several countries the action, to exclude engineered nanoparticles from organic food pro-duction. Nanoparticles are of a size from 1 to 100 billionths of a metre. That is small enough to pass through bio-barriers, including the skin, animal membranes in general, and the blood/brain barrier. Excluding nanotechnology from certiﬁed organic food is a logical pro-gression for an agricultural methodology that aims to exclude cryptic technologies - that is, techno-stuff that you have no way of knowing is present or not - from the dinner plate.ORGANIC TIMELINEWiller  and  Kilcher  in  IFOAM’s The World  of  Organic Agriculture, Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009, record a worldwide total of 32,221,311  organically  managed  agricultural  hectares.  By  their calculation, that represents 0.8% of the total worldwide agriculture THE FUTURE OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE:OTOPIA OR OBLIVION?The stated goal of the organic movement is the adoption worldwide of organic agriculture. That task has a long path to travel, with organic agriculture currently accounting for 0.8% of agricultural land worldwideContinued page 13hectares. Their ﬁgure is a total of hectares reported by organic certi-ﬁers as certiﬁed organic or organic in-conversion. Farms that are de facto organic for whatever reason, perhaps remoteness, are not included in the Willer & Kilcher ﬁgure, so their ﬁgure is a lower bound estimate of organically managed land. IFOAM have reported the global total of organic hectares in annual reports since 2000 (Figure 1). Over that nine year period the total or-ganic hectares has tripled from 10.6 million to 32.2 million hectares. That is an impressive rate of growth. However the timeline is too short to declare that the style of growth exhibited is either arithmetic or geometric growth. As Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, and also perhaps your high-school economics teacher, these two styles of growth produce dramatically different outcomes when tracked over a longer time frame.IFOAM reported a total of 10,550,311 organic hectares in 2000, and 32,221,311 organic hectares in 2009. Based on these IFOAM statistics, organic agriculture has grown at the rate of 13.2% per annum- if we take that growth to be geometric (i.e. growing year on year like compound interest). On the other hand, using the same IFOAM data, organic agriculture has grown at a rate of 22.8% per annum - if we take the growth to be arithmetic (i.e. growing like simple interest since 2000).ORGANIC SCENARIOSWhat is clear is that the worldwide growth of organic agriculture has a certain momentum; just what kind of momentum it has, however, is unclear. Here I examine two futures, two scenarios if you prefer. In Scenario 1, organic agriculture continues to grow geometrically at 13.2% per year (Figure 2). Under this scenario organic agriculture will represent 2.8% of agriculture in 10 years (2019), 9.6% in 20 years (2029), 33.0% in 30 years (2039), and 100% in 39 years (2048). In Scenario 2, organic agriculture continues to grow arithmetically at 22.8% per year (Figure 2). Under this scenario, organic agriculture will account for 2.6% of agriculture in 10 years (2019), 4.5% in 20 years (2029), 6.3% in 30 years (2039), and 8.1% in 40 years (2049). If this rate of increase were to continue, a state of Otopia, 100% organic agriculture, would be achieved in 544 years (2553). As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reiterates in reference to their own work, “scenarios are not predictions”. Sce-narios are mathematical extrapolations from the present based on some modelling hypothesis. We would need a crystal ball to really see into the future. Scenarios, nevertheless, can be used to generate insights. The future is not merely some place we are sailing into, it is the fruit of the present, and it is under construction now.ORGANIC TARGETSMany countries have set targets for conversion to Organic Agricul-ture. Brazil has set the goal to be 20% organic by 2012. France has set a goal of 20% organic by 2020. The Indian state of Kerala has set the bar even higher with the aim of 100% by 2012.Liechtenstein has already achieved 29.7% of its agricultural land as organic. Austria has 13.4% of its agricultural land as organic, and the ﬁgure is 11.0% for Switzerland. Australia, with 37% of the world’s organic hectares is 2.7% organic.There are also some signiﬁcant achievements in reaching toward a crop-speciﬁc Otopia. Mexico coffee production is 30% organic, and its coconut production is 67% organic, according to the latest IFOAM statistics. And the Dominican Republic is 70% of the way to becom-ing a banana-Otopia. The sciences driving organic agriculture and chemical agriculture have rarely coincided. Organic agriculture has drawn substantially from the ecological sciences, while chemical farming has drawn substantially from the toxicological sciences, and more recently from genetic modiﬁcation and nanotechnology. Organic and chemical agricultures are competing paradigms, and as such they engage science differently. A current spat is the effort to proprietise the work of the ﬁrst 10 thousand years of agriculturalists by tweaking the fruits of that enterprise via GM technologies and proceeding to claim patent rights over an organism. This is seen as bio-piracy by some including the organic sector and rests on philo-sophical differences including the question: is it right or proper or in the common interest for a company to have a patent over a life form? Humans are the only species that, as a general modus operandi, spray their food with poisons prior to consumption. There are eco-issues with this for the farm, the farmer, and the planet. Because “no farm is an island”, and what goes on the farm doesn’t stay on the farm, this becomes everyone’s issue. Organic versus chemical farming is a “clash of fundamentalisms”. These two agriculture paradigms are underpinned by different values and different approaches to science. Organic agriculture looks to en-gaging the precautionary principle, to dancing with biodiversity, and to seeking eco-harmony. Chemical agriculture is weighted towards engaging the postcautionary principle, to waging a “war on weeds”, and to vesting faith in techno-ﬁxes. These are two different paths, leading to two different futures.The stated goal of the organic movement is the adoption worldwide of organic agriculture. That task has a long path to travel, with or-ganic agriculture currently accounting for 0.8% of agricultural land worldwide. If an arithmetic rate of growth of 22.8% pa were to con-Figure 1. The growth of worldwide Organic Agriculture (sources: IFOAM reports dated from 2000 to 2009).13 INNOVATIVE SCIENCE: AGRICULTURE AND FOOD EDITIONtinue indeﬁnitely then what Liechtenstein has already achieved, a 30% organic share, would take 160 years to achieve worldwide, and a state of Otopia would take 544 years (2553). Under a geomet-ric growth scenario - think compound interest - Otopia would be reached in 39 years (2048). Can we afford four more decades of chemical agriculture, let alone 54 decades?REFERENCESBadgley C., Mogtader, J., Quintero, E., et al. (2007). Organic agri-culture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2), 86-108.Willer, H. & Kilcher, L. (2009). The World of Organic Agriculture, Sta-tistics and Emerging Trends 2009, International Federation of Or-ganic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Bonn, Germany & Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.ABOUT THE AUTHORJohn Paull is an environmental scientist with a special interest in Organics, based at the Fenner School of Environment and Society, the Australian National University, Canberra. His research interests include the following topics: agroecology, organic farming and ag-riculture, organic food, ﬁbre and forestry, biodynamic agriculture, human ecology, memetics of food and agriculture, cryptic agrifood technologies, GM, nanotechnology, climate change and agriculture, and food processing and delivery technologies. During 2008 he was a visiting scholar at Oxford University researching the past and future of Organics.NEW BOOK PUBLICATION FROM THE AUTHORThe Value of Eco-Labelling: Price Premiums & Consumer Valua-tions of Organic, Natural and Place of Origin Food Labels by, John Paull, 2009, VDM Verlag, Saarbrucken, DE.ISBN: 3639154959, Available at: www.amazon.deThis book does three things well. Firstly, it clearly demonstrates that eco-labels and geo-labels have value for consumers. Secondly, it provides a wealth of speciﬁc actionable research results for both food producers and marketers. And thirdly, it provides an efﬁcient, elegant,  and  replicable  methodology  for  researchers  to  measure such value, to pursue this growth area further, and to generate multi-factor results. Consumers are increasingly concerned, and with good reason, to know the provenance of their food - where it came from and how it was produced. An eco-label is an environmental claim on a product. A geo-label is an geographical claim on a product. Such labelling can jointly serve food producers, marketers and consumers. Which eco-labels and which place-of-origin labels add value to food items? Just how much value do they add? And for which consum-ers? “The Value of Eco-Labelling” demonstrates that a knowledge of the somehow and the somewhere of food can add measurable, quantiﬁable, monetary value for consumers. The study sets out to establish the value to consumers of particular eco-labels and geo-labels. “The Value of Eco-Labelling” reports the values of selected eco-labels (Organic, Certiﬁed Organic, Natural and Eco) as well as particular geo-labels (country-of-origin labelling (CoOL) and regional provenance labelling). The analysis includes China, and the back-ground includes data on the dramatic rise of Chinese organic food production. The interaction effects of multiple food labelling claims are identiﬁed. Based on a raft of demographic measures, “The Value of Eco-Labelling” identiﬁes just which consumers are responsive to which claims. This book reveals an effective methodology for quanti-fying consumer value. “The Value of Eco-Labelling” presents a trea-sure trove of data, analysis, insights and surprises. This book will be essential reading for food producers, marketers and certiﬁers, as well as for agricultural departments, organizations, advisers, policy makers, consumer advocates and researchers. Figure 2. Two global scenarios for the future of Organic Agriculture. Scenario 1 assumes continuing compounding growth at 13.2% pa, and reaching Otopia in 39 years. Scenario 2 assumes continu-ing arithmetic growth at 22.8% pa, and reaching Otopia in 544 years. [Dark blue: Scenario 1 (geometric growth), Red: Scenario 2 (arithmetic growth)]14 INNOVATIVE SCIENCE: AGRICULTURE AND FOOD EDITION

The Future of Organic Agriculture: Otopia or Oblivion?

The area of land devoted to organic agriculture has tripled from 10.6 million to 32.2 million hectares over the past decade. The stated goal of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) is the conversion of world agriculture to organic practices. However, a state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of 100% organic food and organic agriculture, is far from reality, with organics currently accounting for 0.8% of world agricultural land. The growth trajectory of organic agriculture of the past decade is presented, and then extrapolated under two future scenarios. If the current trend persists, under a scenario of geometric growth, Otopia could be achieved in 39 years, whereas under a scenario of arithmetic growth, Otopia would take 544 years to be achieved

ORA - Oxford University Research Archive

The future of organic agriculture: Otopia or oblivion?

Oxford University Research Archive

22  AUSTRALIAN Certified Organic MAGAZINE  Summer 2010 / Autumn 2011Otopia or Oblivion?The Future of Organic Agriculture:Feeding the WorldOrganic agriculture could feed the world, but will it? A state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of 100% organic food and organic agriculture is a dream, or is it a pipe-dream? And if a dream, might it manifest in four decades or 54 decades? Two roads to Otopia are extrapolated from the current state of global organics.A meta-study of organic versus chemical agriculture by a research team from the University of Michigan, and headed by Catherine Badgley, found that if the world made a switch to organic agriculture then the global food supply could increase. And importantly, the increases would be greatest in areas of greatest need. Allied with increases for most of the world’s farmers, Badgley’s team showed that yields would reduce in areas of the least need, for example the USA, where there is overproduction from industrialized agriculture that is now heavily subsidized by US taxpayers.Ancien Régime organic agriculture fed the world for ten millennia. Ghengis Khan, Beethoven, Socrates, Michelangelo - select your own heroes or villains up to and including the nineteenth century - and all the great and ungreat figures of history, had a diet of de facto organic food.Since the development of the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation a century ago we have witnessed the relentless colonization of the agricultural space by synthetic fertilizers. Then, chemical warfare agents developed in WWI, and more especially in WWII, have been repurposed for agriculture, sending de facto organic agriculture into a near-terminal decline.Yet, that terminus has not been reached. Through a series of agricultural innovations, including the development of organic standards, the certification of the production process, the implementation of traceability pathways, and the labelling of organic food, the decline of de facto organic has been met with the rise of certified organic. Oblivion now appears unlikely with the certified organic sector often popularly described as “the world’s fastest growing food sector”.Organic versus “Chemical” Agriculture The reaction against synthetic fertilizers and pesticides dates at least back to Rudolf Steiner who delivered a series of lectures, in what is now Poland, in 1924. From that series of eight lectures delivered over 10 summer days, bio-dynamic agriculture has developed into a worldwide phenomenon. The British agriculturalist Lord Northbourne introduced the term “organic agriculture” in his 1940 book Look to the Land. He presented the idea that the agricultural space is a contested space: “organic versus chemical farming”. In 1972, three decades on from Northbourne, all streams of agriculture that eschewed synthetic fertilizers and pesticides - including biodynamic, organic, bio and ecological - were united in France under the umbrella of the newly formed International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). This development laid the grounds for sharing, extending, and the harmonizing of local innovations, including innovations of agricultural practice, of standards, of certifications, of labelling, and of training and advocacy into the international arena.The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has estimated that there are 150 dead zones in the oceans due to fertilizer and pesticide runoff. These dead zones are silent witnesses to the wisdom of those early organic pioneers. Since the first articulation of organic standards, the exclusion of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides has been extended to excluding irradiated food and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the certified organic food stream. Most recently there has been the call, and in several countries the action, to exclude engineered nanoparticles from organic food production. Nanoparticles are of a size from 1 to 100 billionths of a metre. That is small enough to pass through bio-barriers, ORGANIC RESEARCH»  By Dr John PaullSummer 2010 / Autumn 2011  AUSTRALIAN Certified Organic MAGAZINE  23 including the skin, animal membranes in general, and the blood/brain barrier. Excluding nanotechnology from certified organic food is a logical progression for an agricultural methodology that aims to exclude cryptic technologies - that is, techno-stuff that you have no way of knowing is present or not - from the dinner plate.Organic TimelineWiller and Kilcher in IFOAM’s The World of Organic Agriculture, Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009, record a worldwide total of 32,221,311 organically managed agricultural hectares. By their calculation that represents 0.8% of the total worldwide agriculture hectares. Their figure is a total of hectares reported by organic certifiers as certified organic or organic in-conversion. Farms that are de facto organic for whatever reason, perhaps remoteness, are not included in the Willer & Kilcher figure, so their figure is a lower bound estimate of organically managed land.IFOAM have reported the global total of organic hectares in annual reports since 2000 (Figure 1). Over that decade the total organic hectares has tripled from 10.6 million to 32.2 million hectares. That is an impressive rate of growth. However the timeline is too short to declare that the style of growth exhibited is either arithmetic or geometric growth. As Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, and also perhaps your high-school economics teacher, these two styles of growth produce dramatically different outcomes when tracked over a longer time frame.IFOAM reported a total of 10,550,311 organic hectares in 2000, and 32,221,311 organic hectares in 2009. Based on these IFOAM statistics, organic agriculture has grown at the rate of 13.2% per annum- if we take that growth to be geometric (i.e. growing year on year like compound interest). On the other hand, using the same IFOAM data, organic agriculture has grown at a rate of 22.8% per annum - if we take the growth to be arithmetic (i.e. growing like simple interest since 2000).Organic ScenariosWhat is clear is that the worldwide growth of organic agriculture has a certain momentum; just what kind of momentum it has, however, is unclear. Here I examine two futures, two scenarios if you prefer.In Scenario 1, organic agriculture continues to grow geometrically at 13.2% per year (Figure 2). Under this scenario organic agriculture will represent 2.8% of agriculture in 10 years (2019), 9.6% in 20 years (2029), 33.0% in 30 years (2039), and 100% in 39 years (2048).In Scenario 2, organic agriculture continues to grow arithmetically at 22.8% per year (Figure 2). Under this scenario, organic agriculture will account for 2.6% of agriculture in 10 years (2019), 4.5% in 20 years (2029), 6.3% in 30 years (2039), and 8.1% in 40 years (2049). If this rate of increase were to continue, a state of Otopia, 100% organic agriculture, would be achieved in 544 years (2553).As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reiterates in reference to their own work, scenarios are not predictions. Scenarios are mathematical extrapolations from the present based on some modelling hypothesis. We would need a crystal ball to really see into the future. Scenarios, nevertheless, can be used to generate insights. The future is not merely some place we are sailing into, it is the fruit of the present, and it is under construction now.Organic TargetsMany countries have set targets for conversion to Organic Agriculture. Brazil has set the goal to be 20% organic by 2012. France has set a goal of 20% organic by 2020. The Indian state of Kerala has set the bar even higher with the aim of 100% by 2012.Liechtenstein has already achieved 29.7% of its agricultural land as organic. Austria has 13.4% of its agricultural land as organic, and the figure is 11.0% for Switzerland. Australia with 37% of the world’s organic hectares is 2.7% organic.Figure 1: The growth of worldwide Organic Agriculture (sources: IFOAM reports dated from 2000 to 2009).Figure 2: Projected organic share of agriculture 2009-2049.24  AUSTRALIAN Certified Organic MAGAZINE  Summer 2010 / Autumn 2011There are also some significant achievements in reaching toward a crop-specific Otopia. Mexico coffee production is 30% organic, and its coconut production is 67% organic, according to the latest IFOAM statistics. And the Dominican Republic is 70% of the way to becoming a banana-Otopia.The sciences driving organic agriculture and chemical agriculture have rarely coincided. Organic agriculture has drawn substantially from the ecological sciences, while chemical farming has drawn substantially from the toxicological sciences, and more recently from genetic modification and nanotechnology. Organic and chemical agricultures are competing paradigms, and as such they engage science differently. A current spat is the effort to proprietise the work of the first 10 thousand years of agriculturalists by tweaking the fruits of that enterprise via GM technologies and proceeding to claim patent rights over an organism. This is seen as bio-piracy by some including the organic sector and rests on philosophical differences including the question: is it right or proper, or in the common interest, for a company to have a patent over a life form? Humans are the only species that, as a general modus operandi, spray their food with poisons prior to consumption. There are eco-issues with this for the farm, the farmer, and the planet. Because “no farm is an island”, and what goes on the farm doesn’t stay on the farm, this becomes everyone’s issue. Organic versus chemical farming is a “clash of fundamentalisms”. These two agriculture paradigms are underpinned by different values and different approaches to science. Organic agriculture looks to engaging the precautionary principle, to dancing with biodiversity, and to seeking eco-harmony. Chemical agriculture is weighted towards engaging the postcautionary principle, to waging a “war on weeds”, and to vesting faith in techno-fixes. These are two different paths, leading to two different futures.The stated goal of the organic movement is the adoption worldwide of organic agriculture. That task has a long path to travel, with organic agriculture currently accounting for 0.8% of agricultural land worldwide. If an arithmetic rate of growth of 22.8% pa were to continue indefinitely then what Liechtenstein has already achieved, a 30% organic share, would take 160 years to achieve worldwide, and a state of Otopia would take 544 years (2553). Under a geometric growth scenario - think compound interest - Otopia would be reached in 39 years (2048). Can we afford four more decades of chemical agriculture, let alone 54 decades?Reprinted from: Paull, J., 2010, The Future of Organic Agriculture: Otopia or Oblivion? Innovative Science Editions, 1: 11-14Dr. John PaullUniversity of OxfordEmail:john.paull@anthro.ox.ac.uk»ORGANIC RESEARCH

Feeding the WorldOrganic agriculture could feed the world, butwill it? A state of Otopia, an organic Utopia of100% organic food and organic agriculture isa dream, or is it a pipe-dream? Andif adream, might it manifest in four decades or54 decades? Two roads to Otopia areextrapolated from the current state of globalorganics.A meta-study of organic versus chemicalagriculture by a research team from theUniversity of :Michigan, and headed byCatherine Badgley, found that if the worldmade a switch to organic agriculture then theglobal food supply could increase. Andimportantly, the increases would be greatestin areas of greatest need. Allied withincreases [or most of the world's farmers,Badgley's team showed that yields wouldreduce in areas of the least need, for examplethe USA, where there is overproduction fromindusl:!ialized agriculhue that is now heavilysubsidized by US taxpayers.Ancien Regime organic agriculture fed theworld for ten millennia. Ghengis Khan,Beethoven, Socrates, :Michelangelo - selectyour own heroes or villains up to andinclUding the nineteenth century - and all thegreat and ungreat figures of history, had adiet of de facto organic food.Since the development of the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation a centuryago we have witnessed the relentlesscolonization of the agricultural space bysynthetic fertilizers. Then, chemical warlareagents developed in WWI, and moreespecially in WWll, have been repurposedfor agriculture, sending de facto organicagriculture into a near-terminal decline.Yet, that tenninus has not been reached.Through a series of agricultural innovations,induding the development of organicstandards, the certification of the productionprocess, the implementation of traceabilitypathways, and the labelling of organic food,the decline of de facto organic has been metwith the rise of certified organic. Oblivionnow appears unlikely with the certifiedorganic sector often popularly described asuthe world's fastest growing food sector".Organic versus "Chemical"AgricultureThe reaction against synthetic fertilizers andpesticides dates atleast back to RudolfSteiner who delivered a series of lectures, inwhat is now Poland, in 1924. From that seriesof eight lectures delivered over 10 summerdays, bio-dynamic agricultme has developedinto a worldwide phenomenon.The British agriculturalist LordNorthbowne introduced the tenn "organicagriculture" in his 1940 book Look to theLand. He presented the idea that theagricultural space is a contested space:Uorganic versus chemical farming".In 1972, three decades on fromNorthboume, all streams of agriculture thateschewed synthetic fertilizers and pesticides- including biodynamic, organic, bio andecological - were united in France underthewnbrella of the newly fonned InternationalFederation of Organic AgricultureMovements (IFOAM). This development laidthe grounds for sharing, extending, and theharmonizing of local innovations, includinginnovations of agricultmal practice, ofstandards, of certifications, of labelling, andof training and advocacy into theinternational arena.The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) has estimated that thereare 150 dead zones in the oceans due tofertilizer and pesticide runoff. These deadzones are silent witnesses to the wisdom ofthose early organic pioneers. Since the firstarticulation of organic standards, theexclusion of synthetic fertilizers andpesticides has been extended to excludingirradiated food and genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) from the certified organicfood slIeam.Most recently there has been the call, andin sev(:!ral countries the action, to excludeengineered nanoparticles from organicfoodproduction. Nanoparticles are of a size from 1to 100 billionths of a metre. That is smallenough to pass through bio-barriers,22 AUS11lAUAN Cer1iIied Organic MAGAZH Sunvner 2010 / Autumn 20 11Figure 1: The growth of worldwide Organic Agriculture (sources: IFOAM reports dated from2CXXl to 2009).oHa2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year ReportedOrganic Targetsscenarios :if you prefer.In Scenario 1, organic agriculturecontinues to grow geometrically at 13.2% peryear (Figure 2). Under this scenario organicagricultun~will represent 2.8% of agriculturein 10 years (2019), 9.6% in 20 years (2029),33.0% in 30 years (2039), and 100% in 39years (2048).In Scenario 2, organic agriculture continuesto grow aritlunetically at 22.8% peryear(Figure 2). Under this scenario, organicagriculture will account for 2.6% of agriculturein 10 years (2019), 4.5% in 20 years (2029),6.3% in 30 years (2039), and 8.1% in 40 years(2049). Ifthis rate of increase were to continue,a state of Otopia, 100% organic agriculture,would be iichieved in 544 years (2553).As the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) reiterates inreference to their own work, scenarios are notpredictions. Scenarios are mathematicalextrapolations from the present based onsome mod.elling hypothesis. We would need acrystal ball to really see into the fuh.rre.Scenartos, nevertheless, can be used togenerate insights. The future is not merelysome place we are sailing into, it is the fruit ofthe present, and it is under construction now.Many countnes have set targets forconversion to Organic Agriculture. Brazil hasset the goal to be 20% organic by 2012.France has set a goal of 20% organic by 2020.The Indian state of Kerala has set the bareven higher with the aim of 100% by 2012.Uechte!nstein has already achieved 29.7%of its agricultural land as organic. Austria has13.4% of its agricultural land as organic, andthe figure is 11.0% for Switzerland. Australiawith 37% of the world's organic hectares is2.7% organic.100%~90% 3"3u 80% '§'<l: 70%'5~ 60%'" .c 50% '" u'c 40%'" ~ 30% 0'0 20% {j" 10% 'e a- 0%'"~ '" "'"- '" N ~ "' "- '" C;; '" "'"- '" :;: ~ "'"- '" 0 ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;N N N '" '" '" '" .,. .,. .,.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1\1 1\10 0 0 0N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NFigure 2: Projected organic share ofagriculture 2lX'l9-2049.Organic Scenariosorganic hectares in 2000, and 32,221,311organic hectares in 2009. Based on theseIFOAM statistics, organic agriculture hasgrown at the rate of 13.2% per annum- if wetake that growth to be geometric (i.e. growingyear on year like compound interest).On the other hand, using the sameIFOAM data, organic agriculture has grownat a rate of 22.8% per annlllTI - if we take thegrowth to be arithmetic (i.e. growing likesimple interest since 2000).What is clear is that the worldwide growth oforganic agriculture has a certain momentlun;just what kind of momentlllTI it has, however,is unclear. Here I examine MO futures, MO/5,000,000 Ha20,000,000 Ha25,000,000 Ha35,000,000 Ha10,000,000 Ha15,000,000 Ha'" ~ 30,000,000 Ha-gI~~ :;u ." :t" .~~o'0~8." a:including the skin, animal membranes ingeneral, and the bloodlbrain baIrier.Excluding nanotechnology from certifiedorganic food is a logical progression for anagricultural methodology that aims toexclude cryptic technologies - that is, techno-stuff that you have no way of knowing ispresent or not - from the clinner plate.Organic TimelineWiller and Kilcher in IFOAM's The World ofOrganic Agriculture, Statistics and EmergingTrends 2009, record a worldwide total of32,221,311 organically managed agriculturalhectares. By their calculation that represents0.8% of the total worldwide agriculturehectares. Their figure is a total of hectaresreported by organic certifiers as certifiedorganic or organic in-conversion. Farms thatare de facto organic for whatever reason,perhaps remoteness, are not included in theWiller & Kilcher figure, so their figure is alower bound estimate of organicallymanaged land.IFOAM have reported the global total oforganic hectares in arumal reports since 2000(Figure 1). Over that decade the total organichectares has tripled from 10.6 million to 32.2million hectares. That is an impressive rate ofgrowth. However the timeline is too short todeclare that the style of growth exhibited iseither arithmetic or geometric growth. AsThomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, andalso perhaps your high-school economicsteacher, these MO styles of growth producedramatically different outcomes whentracked over a longer time frame.\FOAM reported a total of 10,550,311Summer 2010 / Autumn 2011 AUSTRAliAN Certified Organic MAGAZINE 23fARMER10CONSUMERour 'One Stop' Organic Cereal Grainapd Flour SupplierKialla shecialises in supplying theartisa baker with a full range oforg'an' cereal grains and specialtyflours.ut~~ , rJ~r=-~ °1SPecial 9~\~"FOUR LEAF MILLING celebrates fourdecades in the business of speciality &quality grains. Awide range now offers thebest in rolled grains for muesli or porridge,specialist flours. flours for sourdough,yeasted, and flat breads, pasta, and more.We also provide baby cereals, and mixedgrains for soup or to make savourynibbles. All products are available in arange of sizes from distributors in allstates. Visit our web page for detailed infoand recipes!M\I!'I!II!IReprintedfrom: Paull, J., 2010, The Future of OrganicAgriculture: Otopiaor Oblivion? Innovative Science Edltions, 1: 11-14Dr. John PaullUniversity of OxfordEmail:john.paull@anthro.ox.ac.ukORGANIC RESEARCHThere are also some significant achievements in reaching toward a crop-specific Otopia.Mexico coffee production is 30% organic, and its coconutproduction is 67% organic,according to the latest IFOAM statistics. And the Dominican Republic is 70% of the way tobecoming a banana-Otopia.The sciences driving organic agriculture and chemical agriculture have rarely coincided.Organic agriculture has drawn substantially from the ecological sciences, while chemicalfarming has drawn substantially from the toxicological sciences, and more recently fromgenetic modification and nanotechnology.Organicand chemical agricultures are competing paradigms, and as such they engagescience differently. A current spat is the effort to proprietise the work of the first 10 thousandyears of agriculturalists by tweaking the fruits of that enterprise via GMtechnologies and proceeding to claim patent rights over an organism.TIlls is seen as bio-piracy by some including the organic sector and restson philosophical differences including the question; is it right or proper,or in the common interest, for a company to have a patent over a lifeform?Humans are the only species that, as a general modus operandi, spraytheir food with poisons prior to consumption. There are eco-issues withthis for the farm, the faJ1!1er, and the planet. Because "no fann is anisland", and what goes on the fann doesn't stay on the farm, this becomeseveryone's issue.Organic versus chemical fanning is a "clash of fundamentalisms".These two agriculture paradigms are underpinned by different valuesand different approaches to science. Organic agriculture looks toengaging the precautionary principle, to dancing with biodiversity, and toseeking eco-harmony. Chemical agriculture is weighted towardsengaging the postcautionary principle, to waging a "war on weeds", andto vesting faith in techno-fixes. These are two different paths, leading tot",JO different futures.Thestated goal of the organic movement is the adoption worldwide oforganic agriculture. That task has a long path to travel, with organicagriculture currently accounting for 0.8% of agricultural land worldwide. ITan aritlunetic rate of growth of 22.8% pa were to continue indefinitely thenwhat Liechtenstein has already achieved, a 30% organic share, would take160 ye~ to achieve worldwide, and a state of Otopia would take 544 years(2553). Under a geometric growth scenario - thinkcompound interest -Otopia would be reached in 39 years (2048). Can we afford four moredecades of chemical agriculture, let alone 54 decades? «+24 AUSTRAlLAN Certified Organic MAGAZINE Summer 2010 / Autumn 2011

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:88e294e1-565c-491f-8294-2bec6fdd237a/files/md27130f26230224f8c1e14342dd94f02

The Future of Organic Agriculture: Otopia or Oblivion?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints

ORA - Oxford University Research Archive

Oxford University Research Archive

Organic Eprints