Agro-chemical marketing masquerading as development aid

The ideological tug of war between proponents of "sustainable agriculture" and the "conventional" model of farming is intense.

The broad sustainable agriculture movement points to the excesses and ill-effects of the system of intensive, agro-chemical farming that in the last century or so has dramatically increased yields. They argue that it is time to step back and focus more on more natural, more environmentally friendly types of farming.

Among the parameters that sustainable agriculture emphasizes in addition to yield-productivity are topsoil, soil fertility and soil structure retention; reduction or avoidance of agro-chemical use and social and economic issues such as worker safety and farmer welfare. They argue that despite the revolution in agricultural productivity brought about by intensive conventional farming, it is a model that is unsustainable on the grounds of energy consumption, its polluting effects, how costly it is in terms of non-renewable inputs and so on. According to the sustainable school
of thought, continuing with intensive conventional farming will create many problems for the planet.

The conventional sector has generally been considered to put crop yield and profitability above all else, relying on an intensive model of production. Its defenders point to the great improvements in agricultural productivity that have come about for much of the world as a result of it. Even in cases where its shortfalls are conceded, it is often in the context of their being taken as being of much less significance than the benefits.

In between the two general extremes is the broad reality of farmers of all types who cannot be neatly pigeon-holed into one or the other category.

Despite being outgunned in terms of lobbying resources, the sustainable agriculture movement has in recent decades made great strides in arguing its case. People all over the world are more receptive than ever to arguments on how to reduce polluting activities; to issues of improved socio-economic justice, environmental concerns and food safety.

The response of the conventional agriculture sector has been to continue to argue its central role in the world economy and food supply chain. But they have also learned to address some of the issues of concern to their detractors, such as increased attention to issues of worker safety.

They have also learned to simply hijack some of the language and the terminology of the sustainable farming groups for their own purposes. The result is that it can sometimes be very difficult to pin down what "sustainable agriculture" means to whom. It is a term that sometimes
appears to be a victim of the success of its promoters, with even those the sustainable movement would bitterly oppose usurping it when convenient.

An example of this is the recent presentation in Germany of a "Green World" project by leading agro-chemical company Bayer CropScience.
************************

The project is to provide local traders intensive training by Bayer CropScience experts. They learn about sustainable agriculture, integrated farming methods, modern crop protection, and the safe, environmentally compatible use of Bayer CropScience products and then pass on this knowledge directly to their customers, the small-holder farmers.

"Since the summer of 2006, Bayer CropScience has been supporting small-holders in Kenya, helping them reach demanding quality and food-safety standards," said Hans-Joachim Wegfahrt, Managing Director of Bayer East Africa Ltd. The farmers produce more vegetables and maize than they need and so can then sell the surplus at local markets and, increasingly, for export. The company has also involved seed producers, exporters and the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture in the Green World project under the umbrella of the "food chain partnership". All the players are working to produce high-quality, safe food.

Incorrect use of crop protection products and the prevalence of non-approved products continue to be problematic. Counterfeit active ingredients and low-quality generics are increasingly reaching the Kenyan market. With projects like Green World, Bayer CropScience is contributing to greater protection for users, the environment and consumers alike. The training
programs include information on innovative products from Bayer CropScience, assistance with drawing up spraying schedules, and topics such as "good agricultural practice" and environmentally compatible production.

Wegfahrt explained: "We particularly want to help the smallest-scale farmers in Kenya." At the end of the intensive training program, Bayer CropScience invited small-holders to attend field days at which the Green World traders were able to pass on their new-found knowledge. These events each attracted up to 3,000 visitors. "The traders who took part in our training program were enthusiastic about passing on their knowledge," Wegfahrt commented. "This enthusiasm
is also evident among the small-holders."

In addition to boosting the country's export business, Green World is also aiming to improve the lives of people in Kenya. Bayer CropScience is collaborating with the German Society for Technical Cooperation, which launched an environmental project focusing on Kenyan small-holders at the same time, to maintain the country's village structures.

************************

Who can argue with any effort to assist small scale farmers grow more food? "To maintain village structures" also has a nice, traditionalist ring to it. On the face of it the "Green World" programme seems very progressive and is bound to impart a lot of valuable skills to farmers who need them.

Yet any skills transfer is really just secondary to making the farmers dependent on Bayer's products in their production system. It is naive to not recognize that agro-chemicals will for the foreseeable future continue to play an important role in African agriculture for many reasons, despite the issues of cost and the growing awareness about their environmental and human health dangers. As such the effort to teach more responsible handling of them by the farmers is commendable, although that will not be enough for those who believe any synthetic chemical use under any condition is unacceptable.

All the arguments on why small scale farmers best benefit from knowledge and improved
production techniques that free them rather than shackle them to expensive agro-chemicals come to mind in light of this thinly-veiled marketing effort masquerading as a development project.

The name given the scheme is "sustainably" fashionable, the identified concern for the villagers'
overall welfare is politically correct and seeking government support is smart.

Yet the question must be asked : is there not an inherent clash between the interests of the knight in shining armor in this example and the farmers' best interests?