Four agronomists took a closer look at regenerative agriculture. Is it the good versus the bad and the ugly? They don't think so, says James Sumberg (IDS Emeritus Fellow) on behalf of Professor Ken Giller, Assistant Professor Renske Hijbeek, and Senior Researcher Jens Andersson from Wageningen University.
Now more than ever, we need serious reflection and debate about desirable futures for agriculture and food production. It is of such importance that this debate must be open and accessible to all.
But how should an inclusive debate about agriculture and food futures be framed, particularly when the social, environmental and economic stakes are so high?
What is very clear to us is that framing the debate about agriculture in terms of simple dichotomies – that suggest a battle of ‘right’ against ‘wrong’, ‘good’ against ‘evil’ – does no justice to either the seriousness of the challenge, or the enormous variation in agricultural environments and production systems.
Simple agricultural dichotomies have no place in this debate
One of the most common of these framing dichotomies pits ‘family’ against ‘industrial’ farms, while another contrasts ‘alternative’ with ‘conventional’ farming methods. The implication is that all farms can be meaningfully classed as either ‘family’ or ‘industrial’, and all farming methods or systems are either ‘alternative’ or ‘conventional’. But it is obviously not that simple. What most often happens is that a category like ‘conventional’ becomes a large bucket into which anything and everything that is not organic, agro-ecological, biodynamic or permaculture is thrown. This bucket then includes the vast majority of all farm enterprises, farm families and farmed land, and will contain tremendous diversity in terms of scale, social organisation, crops grown, techniques used, commercial orientation, productivity and so on. So, while the dichotomy is seductive, it is empty, intellectually dishonest, and provides absolutely no analytical purchase. It therefore has no place, and certainly no central place, in public, policy or scientific debate.
A similar argument can be made around the labelling of some agricultural techniques or systems as ‘sustainable’ or ‘climate smart’ with the (most often) unstated understanding that everything else is necessarily ‘unsustainable’ or ‘not climate smart’. Again, these simplistic dichotomies result in extremely large and diverse residual categories, being the outcome of neither robust nor systematic methods of determining what should be considered ‘in’ or ‘out’.
In a paper just published in Outlook on Agriculture, we take a critical look at the recent increased interest in ‘regenerative’ agriculture – one half of another simplistic dichotomy. The focus on regeneration is motivated primarily through a crisis narrative around declining soil health and loss of biodiversity. Interestingly, the techniques that were previously hailed as ‘sustainable’ and ‘climate smart’, including organic, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, high intensity grazing and so on, have now all become ‘regenerative’.
There is a serious lack of evidence as to how quickly or effectively, or in what contexts, these ‘regenerative’ techniques actually address the (assumed to be universal) soil health and biodiversity crises. Nevertheless, the label ‘regenerative’ is proving to be very attractive to wide range of high profile international agri-corporations, NGOs and development organisations. The regenerative agriculture bandwagon is very much on the move, despite the fact that as a framing device it is most unlikely to enlighten public debate.
We hope that the new paper will encourage agricultural researchers and others to be more active in public debates on the future of agriculture and food, and in the struggle against the continuing tyranny of seductive yet empty labels.
James Sumberg is an IDS Emeritus Fellow, Ken Giller is Wageningen University Professor, Renske Hijbeek is Wageningen University Assistant Professor, and Jens Andersson is Wageningen University Senior Researcher
But how should an inclusive debate about agriculture and food futures be framed, particularly when the social, environmental and economic stakes are so high?
What is very clear to us is that framing the debate about agriculture in terms of simple dichotomies – that suggest a battle of ‘right’ against ‘wrong’, ‘good’ against ‘evil’ – does no justice to either the seriousness of the challenge, or the enormous variation in agricultural environments and production systems.
Simple agricultural dichotomies have no place in this debate
One of the most common of these framing dichotomies pits ‘family’ against ‘industrial’ farms, while another contrasts ‘alternative’ with ‘conventional’ farming methods. The implication is that all farms can be meaningfully classed as either ‘family’ or ‘industrial’, and all farming methods or systems are either ‘alternative’ or ‘conventional’. But it is obviously not that simple. What most often happens is that a category like ‘conventional’ becomes a large bucket into which anything and everything that is not organic, agro-ecological, biodynamic or permaculture is thrown. This bucket then includes the vast majority of all farm enterprises, farm families and farmed land, and will contain tremendous diversity in terms of scale, social organisation, crops grown, techniques used, commercial orientation, productivity and so on. So, while the dichotomy is seductive, it is empty, intellectually dishonest, and provides absolutely no analytical purchase. It therefore has no place, and certainly no central place, in public, policy or scientific debate.
A similar argument can be made around the labelling of some agricultural techniques or systems as ‘sustainable’ or ‘climate smart’ with the (most often) unstated understanding that everything else is necessarily ‘unsustainable’ or ‘not climate smart’. Again, these simplistic dichotomies result in extremely large and diverse residual categories, being the outcome of neither robust nor systematic methods of determining what should be considered ‘in’ or ‘out’.
While the dichotomy is seductive, it is empty, intellectually dishonest, and provides absolutely no analytical purchase. It therefore has no place, and certainly no central place, in public, policy or scientific debatePushing back against the ‘regenerative agriculture’ bandwagon
In a paper just published in Outlook on Agriculture, we take a critical look at the recent increased interest in ‘regenerative’ agriculture – one half of another simplistic dichotomy. The focus on regeneration is motivated primarily through a crisis narrative around declining soil health and loss of biodiversity. Interestingly, the techniques that were previously hailed as ‘sustainable’ and ‘climate smart’, including organic, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, high intensity grazing and so on, have now all become ‘regenerative’.
There is a serious lack of evidence as to how quickly or effectively, or in what contexts, these ‘regenerative’ techniques actually address the (assumed to be universal) soil health and biodiversity crises. Nevertheless, the label ‘regenerative’ is proving to be very attractive to wide range of high profile international agri-corporations, NGOs and development organisations. The regenerative agriculture bandwagon is very much on the move, despite the fact that as a framing device it is most unlikely to enlighten public debate.
We hope that the new paper will encourage agricultural researchers and others to be more active in public debates on the future of agriculture and food, and in the struggle against the continuing tyranny of seductive yet empty labels.
James Sumberg is an IDS Emeritus Fellow, Ken Giller is Wageningen University Professor, Renske Hijbeek is Wageningen University Assistant Professor, and Jens Andersson is Wageningen University Senior Researcher
Related
James Sumberg
Great combine efforts of seasoned academics discussing on how the practice of regenerative agriculture can help to rehabilitate, as well as enhance the entire ecosystem of the farm by placing heavy premium on soil health with attention also paid to water management, fertilizer use, among other regenerative agro practices is in line with the UN SDGs. As a matter of fact, the pertinent question of how other agronomists around the world can be part of this building process of transforming soils (especially African soils) to grow more improved seeds and varieties of crops as that already aligns with the projected global role of feeding the whole world by the year 2050. I must congratulate the 4 veteran academic giants and other researchers around the world and in various platforms championing this good course of transformation by ending global hunger, extreme poverty and ensuring food security.
I am not a scientist but I do know logic thinking.
Thinking about health sooner or later you end up thinking about nutrition. Thinking about nutrition you'll end up with the soil. In other words as good as the soil is, so are the crops that grow on it and the food we eat, which will lead to a healthy life. Soil is the very fundament of live on earth. It is first grade logic. Those who think we can live without soils (think vertical farming) are fools. Apart from healthy food, a vibrant soil is a huge silo of CO2 and has a very positive impact on the micro-climate (global climate is the total of all micro-climates). In short we must do everything we can to learn about the science of vibrant soils.
A healthy vibrant soil and ditto SOM should be the goal of any farmer. Such soils do not need medicine nor the crops that grow on it. Like vibrantly healthy human beings sometimes they do become 'sick' and need some treatment. Farmers shouldn't feel guilty about that or being dogmatic. No farmer can afford to loose his yield because of dogmatic ideas.
Creating a vibrant soil and SOM is something that takes years to accomplish and still a lot of experimenting. There is no turn key solution yet and there will never be because every soil is different.
The advantages of a vibrant soil and SOM are huge and proofs that nature cannot be beaten or improved by artificial means. We can only optimise our relationship with nature.
Maarten, in fact James Sumberg et al. are trying to say that some S(oil)O(rganic)M(atter) guru's mustn't fool us. At the same time they don't deny soil management is crucially important.
In a way, they state that we can't expect miracle solutions, and yet people keep telling us there are.
I accept your first phrase, of course. Nevertheless, I'd like to learn how you distinguish real from fake prophets?
Prof. Wim van der Putten, you are a true expert from NIOO KNAW in the Netherlands. We would be much obliged if you would comment on the central thesis of this opinion and the underlying paper:
opposing regenerative agriculture to industrial farming is yet another false dichotomy that it is empty, intellectually dishonest, and provides absolutely no analytical purchase. It therefore has no place, and certainly no central place, in public, policy or scientific debate.
#4, Dick, I think that that 'strong' saying is in contradiction with this one: "It is of such importance that this debate must be open and accessible to all."
If you say "opposing regenerative agriculture to industrial farming is yet another false dichotomy that it is empty, intellectually dishonest, and provides absolutely no analytical purchase. It therefore has no place, and certainly no central place, in public, policy or scientific debate.", I think you exclude 'gourou's' and others with it.
So I wonder what is meant by 'this debate that must be open and accessible to all'.
#2 Maarten, " Soil is the very fundament of live on earth. It is first grade logic. Those who think we can live without soils (think vertical farming) are fools".
I think it is rather 'energy' that is (one) of the fundaments of life. One of the reasons that we, untill now, cannot live without soil, is, that it is impossible to capture enough energy for us to eat by another way. But it is solar energy that we eat in a digestible form.