If you鈥檝e listened to or watched the news of late, the photo (at left) might be a familiar apocalyptic vision. In California and throughout the world, the future of agriculture is emerging at the forefront of environmental debates.
While international discourse around 鈥渃limate smart agriculture鈥� and the 鈥渟econd Green Revolution鈥� appears uncontroversial, in fact these unfolding movements obscure the marginalization of small-scale subsistence food producers and the ways in which their knowledge, practices, and even lands are appropriated.
Drought is an apparition of humanity鈥檚 future, and water鈥攁 resource that is both finite and perpetually consumed鈥攊s a need we cannot innovate or improvise away. Even the much-discussed solution of seawater desalination through reverse osmosis is expensive, bears consequences on underwater and coastal ecosystems, and even then does not provide an infinite supply.
In September 2014, the People鈥檚 Climate March in New York City, in solidarity with rallies throughout the world, was the largest-ever protest related to anthropogenic climate change. The march brought attention to the Climate Summit of world leaders at the United Nations to discuss national initiatives to reduce the carbon emissions and global temperature increases. Agriculture was listed as one of the eight 鈥渁ction areas.鈥� In both drought and carbon emissions, agriculture is now understood to be 鈥渁 key driver and major victim of global warming鈥� (UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review of 2013: 2).
However, a less discussed factor related to agriculture and climate change has been the distress of small-scale rural farmers throughout the world as they contend with global trade in agricultural commodities, land grabs, national seed certification, and patent laws designed to comply with transnational mandates, as well as with the incredible volatility of food prices. In many countries, subsistence food producers, traditional crops, and 鈥渦nproductive鈥� rain- fed regions were marginalized in industrial agricultural trends of the past fifty years. Now these same farmers, crops, and regions are emerging into the global spotlight as a potential solution for our climate woes.
One way this is transpiring is through the (GACSA), which was launched at the UN Climate Summit. The concept was officially named five years ago as a way to As of January of this year, there were , a combination of nation-states (including the United States and France), organizations, and universities.
While 鈥渃limate smart agriculture鈥� might sound like an uncontroversial and noble pursuit, it is actually a contentious process that is being aggressively promoted and resisted. In their recent publications, and elaborate some of the key critiques: at present 鈥渃limate-smart agriculture鈥� does not have clear goals or criteria; the project is being used to promote new 鈥渄rought resilient鈥� transgenic seed varieties; and the Alliance could be a venue to facilitate carbon trading, which means that certain countries and farmers might be pressured to compensate for the excess emission of others.
The solutions being offered up right now are technical (such as for greenhouse gas accounting by the Food and Agriculture Organization [of the United Nations] and the World Bank). But they do not attempt to reorganize how decisions about our future are made and who gets to make them. In other words, new strategies to the problem of climate change and agriculture involve appropriating the 鈥渁grobiodiversity鈥� practices of small-scale farmers, yet the precariousness of the farmer鈥檚 situation or the power of industry in the global market of agricultural and labor commodities is overlooked. These 鈥渟olutions鈥� very well might further dispossess farmers of seeds and land.
At present the US-based Gates Foundation and Monsanto Corporation鈥攊n collaboration with transnational research institutes and some national leaders鈥攁re implementing a controversial 鈥渃limate smart鈥� 鈥溾�� on the African continent. A debate about the hybrid and transgenic crops they are promoting would certainly be significant, but I, along with many others, feel the most critical conversation we should be having is about why this small group, whose leadership is comprised largely of non-farmers, is making decisions that fundamentally shape the course of food production, land, development, and livelihood for the world鈥檚 second most populous continent?
Various forms of cultural appropriation are taking place here. For example:
- The appropriation of farmer-saved seeds (local, unpatented seed varieties)鈥攐r 鈥渆mbodied labor鈥濃�攆or industrial and patented hybrid or transgenic innovations;
- The appropriation of 鈥渁grobiodiversity鈥� practices鈥攐r 鈥渓iving labor鈥� 鈥� into corporate accumulation strategies;
- The appropriation of land and resources through public-private partnerships; and
- The appropriation of representations of farmers and crops of the Global South as the new bright face of the future.
For example, a fierce battle is currently being waged in India. The newly elected BJP government with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the helm is trying to implement an ordinance to undo a 2013 land acquisitions law, which came out of a civil society movement to protect small land holders from being displaced by development schemes. The new ordinance would enable corporations to dispossess farmers of irrigated land in order to incorporate it into agricultural development projects euphemistically named 鈥渇ood parks.鈥� Some of these parks might purport to grow 鈥渃limate resilient鈥� crops in the name of food security, but in fact they would threaten local forms of food production, farmer livelihoods, agricutural biodiversity, and existing cultural relationships to the land.
Things are happening fast. In mid-March 2015, there was a third Global Science Conference on Climate Smart Agriculture in Montpellier, France, which had informal meetings related to GACSA. This coming December, Paris will host the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is billed as 鈥�.鈥� One of its goals will be to 鈥渢o bolster business innovation in the climate change arena.鈥�
At the heart of this complex situation are concerns about traditional practices, power, and appropriation. However, this political moment, a time when national governments and organizational bodies are deciding whether and how to be involved, offers a crucial opportunity for civil society to actively engage with these key issues, bringing them front and center into the conversation about climate and agriculture.
Photo: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Public domain], via ).
References Cited
CIRAD Agricultural Research for Development. 2015. 鈥�.鈥� March 9.
Action Aid International Monday, September 22, 2014.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013. .
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2015. 鈥�.鈥�
Gillis, Justin. 2015. 鈥溾�� New York Times. April 11.
Grain. 2015. 鈥�.鈥� Against the Grain. April 30.
La Via Campesina. 2014. 鈥溾�� September 23 Press Release.
La V铆a Campesina, GRAIN, ETC Group. 2013. 鈥溾�� La Via Campesina. November 7.
Potter, Daniel. 2015. 鈥�?鈥� KQED Science. March 30.
SciDev.Net. 2015. 鈥�.鈥� March 25.
Talbot, David. 2014. 鈥�.鈥� MIT Technological Review, December 16.
United Nations. 2014. 鈥�.鈥�
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2013. 鈥�.鈥�
Vidal, John. 2010. 鈥溾�� The Guardian: September.
Further Reading
Blog
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Website
Conference of Parties Website
Blog
Stop Twitter Roll
The Guardian Blog
Priya Chandrasekaran is a Ph.D. candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the CUNY Graduate Center, and an IPinCH Associate.
Our Appropriation (?) of the Month features, written by IPinCH team members, explore the fine line between 'cultural appreciation' and 'cultural appropriation.鈥�