• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Interpretations of Sustainabil...
 Categories of Sustainability...
 Casuses of Unsustainability
 Potential Contributions of FSRE...
 Limitations of FSRE
 References














Title: Sustainability in perspective : strengths and limitations of FSRE in contributing to a sustainable agriculture
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080821/00001
 Material Information
Title: Sustainability in perspective : strengths and limitations of FSRE in contributing to a sustainable agriculture
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Harrington, Larry
Publisher: CIMMYT Asian Regional Economics Program
Publication Date: 1992
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080821
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 187950232

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Interpretations of Sustainability
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Categories of Sustainability Issues
        Page 4
    Casuses of Unsustainability
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Potential Contributions of FSRE in Fostering Sustainable Agriculture
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Limitations of FSRE
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    References
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
Full Text
97. //

/6, -7o7


Sustainability in Perspective:
Strengths and Limitations of FSRE
in Contributing to a Sustainable Agriculture

Larry Harrington


II

N


CIMMYT Asian Regional Economics Program,
P.O. Box.9-188, Bangkok 10900, Thailand


July, 1992





















Sustainability in Perspective:
Strengths and Limitations of FSRE
in Contributing to a Sustainable Agriculturel


Larry Harrington2




















1. Prepared for the 12th Annual Farming Systems Symposium, Michigan State
University, 13-18 September, 1992.

2. CIMMYT Asian Regional Economics Program. Opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of CIMMYT.








Acknowledgements


The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments from Dan Buckles,

Hari Gurung, Sam Fujisaka, Peter Hildebrand, Rob Tripp and Derek Byerlee on an

earlier draft of this paper. Any remaining errors are, unfortunately, the responsibility

of the author. This paper was partially based on research conducted at Cornell

University in 1989-90, with the support of CIMMYT. Opinions expressed, however,

are not necessarily those of Cornell University or CIMMYT.








Introduction


Issues of sustainability are commanding more attention from agricultural
scientists. Yet few themes can match sustainability for the broad range of questions

that it touches and, as a consequence, the sense of perplexity that it all too often

engenders. The notion of sustainability encompasses population growth and pollu-

tion, deforestation and land degradation, agroecology and energy cycling, erosion and

intergenerational equity, not to mention biodiversity, global warming and the ultimate

fate of mankind. It is a formidable topic.


This paper introduces some of the issues related to sustainable agricultural

development. It then initiates a discussion on alternative ways that FSRE can help

address these issues. It contends that FSRE can indeed help through "direct contribu-

tions", defined as farm- or community-level interventions that aim to directly reverse

processes of resource degradation, or foster increased agroecosystem diversity.

However, it argues (given the low levels of adoption typical of techniques developed

through FSRE) that benefits from these "direct contributions" are likely to be limited.

The paper proceeds to introduce the concept of "preventive" contributions to sustain-

able agriculture. "Preventive" contributions are those that address fundamental

causes of unsustainability, e.g., poverty and population pressure on resources, or that

avert resource degradation in fragile areas by increasing productivity, income and

employment in favored areas. It is suggested that FSRE may not be well suited to

make "preventive" contributions. Reasons given include an "anti-growth" rhetoric

found in some of the FSRE literature, the limitations of a microlevel focus when

addressing problems that are regional or even global in nature, and (once again) a

perceived lack of impact at the farm level.








Interpretations of Sustainability


"Sustainability" and sustainable agriculture have been conceptualized and

defined in numerous ways. One recent definition that seems useful was proposed by

Crosson (1992): "A sustainable agricultural system is one that can indefinitely meet

demands for food and fiber at socially acceptable economic and environmental costs".

Many other definitions may be found in the literature (e.g., see Barbier and

McCracken 1988). Most of these, however, appear to fall into one or more of three

distinct categories: agroecology, ethics, and sustainable growth.1


Agroecology. Some definitions focus on sustainability in terms of system resilience or

the ability of an agricultural system to "maintain its productivity when subject to stress

or perturbation" (Conway 1986). Sustainability in the agroecological sense is en-

hanced through system diversity. A diversity of enterprises over time and space fos-

ters recycling of nutrients, an increased efficiency in the use of moisture, nutrients and

sunlight; and a reduction in the incidence of pests, weeds and diseases (Altieri 1987).

The ecological wisdom and efficiency embodied in indigenous technical knowledge,

and the dangers inherent in the loss of this knowledge, is a recurring theme (e.g.,

Crews and Gliessman 1991).


Ethics. Other definitions focus on sustainability in terms of equity, including inter-

generational equity and the rights of non-human species (Batie 1989). The emphasis


1. A fourth interpretation, focusing on the sustainability of rural institutions and communities, is
sometimes advanced. It should be noted that the three interpretations of sustainable agriculture are
presented here in a somewhat stylized form. Moreover, there is considerable overlap between them.
Nonetheless, I find that distinguishing among these interpretations helps avoid confusion when ad-
dressing sustainability issues.






is on stewardship; or the proper care and protection of resources (Barker and

Chapman 1988). This conceptualization is founded on the belief that future genera-

tions have the right to an environment and a resource base no worse than that en-

joyed by the current generation. Proponents of this interpretation are less likely to

condone the environmental costs of meeting growing demand for agricultural

products.


Sustainable Growth. A third major view of sustainability focuses on the need for

continued growth in agricultural productivity, while maintaining the quality of re-

sources devoted to agriculture (CGIAR 1990). It implies that renewable resources

should not be used more rapidly than they can be continuously generated, and that

nonrenewable resources should be used with optimal efficiency (Barbier and

McCracken 1988). Proponents of this interpretation, while concerned about resource

quality, are less likely to tolerate threats to food security. Food security, however, is

seen as global in nature and as something can be fostered by widespread and equita-

ble economic progress, and the growth of trade (Crosson 1992, Graham-Tomasi

1991).


Despite obvious differences, the three interpretations have much in common.

All are concerned with equity, with the quality of resources devoted to agricultural

production, and with meeting future demands for agricultural products1. Differences,

though not trivial, lie mostly in emphasis.





1. The importance of system resilience in the agroecology approach is compatible with a concern with
food security. Few things are less secure than a food system susceptible to collapse. In the ethics
interpretation, a major threat to future food security.is current ongoing resource degradation. In the
sustainable growth interpretation, concern for meeting changing demand for food and fiber is para-
mount.







Categories of Sustainability Issues


An immense number of issues are regularly raised in relation to the sustain-

ability of agriculture. For simplicity, researchers should aim to group sustainability

issues into classes or categories. The following categories were recently suggested

(Harrington 1991):


Internal vs External. External issues of sustainability are those associated with

changes in farmers' external circumstances. Global warming and future climate

change, future availability and prices of fertilizers and other purchased inputs, and

changes in global biodiversity are examples. These issues are largely beyond the

farmers' direct control. In contrast, internal issues are directly associated with farm-

ing system operations and farmers' decision making, e.g., soil erosion, nutrient deple-

tion, buildup of pests and diseases, salinization, environmental pollution from agricul-

tural chemicals, etc.1


Reversible vs Irreversible. Sustainability problems may be divided into those that are

reversible (e.g., loss of soil nutrients and organic matter, buildup of pests and dis-

eases) and those that are (for all practical purposes) irreversible (e.g., species extinc-

tion, massive soil erosion). The permanent effects of irreversible problems cause

special concern. When future demands for a resource are uncertain and the effects of

irreversible change are not well known, the present generation may perceive a value

("option demand") in maintaining an option for future uses of that resource (Johnston

1. Not all issues can be unquestionably classified as either internal or external -- there is considerable
grey area. Farm operations undoubtedly do contribute (in a relatively subordinate way) to global
warming. Moreover, most internal issues are conditioned to a certain extent by farmers' external
circumstances. Nonetheless, the distinction helps by highlighting the relative importance of farm-level
decisions in addressing sustainability problems.







1988). Irreversibility has been most studied in relation to species extinction (Bishop

1978, Krutilla and Fisher 1975).


Public Health vs Agricultural Productivity. A few of the issues often included under

the rubric of sustainable agriculture have little to do with sustaining agricultural

productivity as such. Rather, they deal with the effects of agricultural practices (e.g.,

pesticide use) on pubic health. These are important questions and adjustments in

agricultural practices can be effective in addressing them. However, it is useful to

distinguish them from other problems that threaten future agricultural productivity

and food security.


Causes of Unsustainabilit



Researchers aiming to help farmers overcome a particular problem should

have a good understanding of the causes of that problem. This is a principle of FSRE

(Tripp and Woolley 1988). Unfortunately, causes of sustainability problems can be

exceedingly complex. "Internal" sustainability problems can typically can be traced to

an interaction between the characteristics of a resource base, and the pattern and

methods of utilization of those resources (Jodha 1989). Patterns of utilization that

degrade resources have been linked to population pressure on resources (PPR)1,

poverty and marginalization, insecure property rights, and certain kinds of public

policy.2 Population growth and public policies are also major factors in "external"


1. But see the discussion on poverty and marginalization, below.

2. Factors often directly associated with internal problems of water and land degradation -- high
discount rates, abuse of common property resources, deforestation attributable to commercial logging,
low adoption of land conserving practices -- can usually be traced to one or more of the four funda-
mental causes listed.






sustainability problems. A summary of causes of unsustainability, drawn from the

discussion presented below, is shown in Fig. 1.


Population Growth. Population growth and PPR are routinely seen as major causes

of many classes of sustainability problems. Increased population causes increased

demand for food and fiber, which must be met through expanded cropped area or
higher yields. Larger populations also require expanded employment, much of which

in developing countries must be found in agriculture, or agriculture-related industries.

Moreover, world population is increasing more rapidly than expected, and is likely to

level off at over 11 billion people by the end of the next century, instead of the 10.2

billion people estimated earlier (United Nations Population Fund 1990). Conse-

quently, controlling population growth is widely perceived as a key element in foster-

ing sustainable agriculture (Mellor 1988, Heilbroner 1980, Blake 1990).


Poverty and Marginalization. Although population growth is undoubtedly a major
factor in "external" problems (global warming, depletion of nonrenewable resources,

loss of biodiversity), it is not clear that PPR on its own must necessarily lead to land

degradation. There are instances where land-conserving technology is only feasible

when labor becomes abundant, e.g., Asian wet rice culture. Blaikie and Brookfield

(1987) cite examples where severe land degradation has taken place in the total

absence of PPR, indeed, when population was falling. They suggest that PPR be-

comes an important cause of unsustainability when it is part of a particular dynamic

sequence, whereby fragile lands are occupied and cultivated by marginalized farmers

with few resources. A downward spiral of poverty, resource degradation and margin-

alization proceeds, each problem exacerbated by the others.


A study conducted in Nepal, for example, identified interactions among health,

income, agricultural productivity and land quality, with reductions in one leading to









Fig. 1. Poverty, income growth
and problems of sustainability







reductions in the others. As farmers became poorer, they were observed by be less

willing to invest in land-saving technologies and more likely to abuse common proper-

ty resources for near-term gain. As land productivity declined, poverty became more
widespread (IFPRI 1989).


Poverty is affected by opportunities for employment as well as distribution and

quality of land resources and other assets (Poleman 1989). Policies that redistribute

assets (e.g., land reform) or foster employment-creating economic growth can thus

reduce poverty and help relieve pressure on the agricultural resource base (Lipton
1989). A major role for agricultural research in addressing sustainability questions

may be to contribute to widespread economic growth and generation of alternative

forms of employment.


Finally, poverty and marginalization themselves contribute to continued

population growth. Increased incomes, together with education for women and the

availability of information on family planning, have been shown to be effective in

reducing population growth rates (Poleman 1989, United Nations Population Fund

1990). Issues of economic growth, income distribution, employment, poverty and

population growth -- these are all interrelated, and as a group strongly affect the

sustainability of agriculture.


Property Rights, Common Property Resources and Externalities. Common property

resources (CPR), including forests and pastures, are extremely important in many

developing countries, especially for the very poor. There is little doubt, however, that

CPR are under threat from neglect, overexploitation, underinvestment and even

expropriation (Jodha 1991). Much of this can be attributed to uncertain property

rights. That is, there often is a lack of clear rules, clearly enforced, regarding rights





and responsibilities of individuals and groups when using common property. While

privatization of CPR is often suggested, this has been known to place these resources

in the hands of the relatively wealthy (Anderson and Thampapillai 1990). Actions

(policies, institutional changes) to foster user groups and community management of

CPR are often preferable (Lurie 1991). These actions, in effect, clarify property

rights in an equitable fashion. Externalities, especially the ability of certain farmers to

impose off-site costs on others, have also been blamed for sustainability problems.

For example, the off-site costs of soil erosion in the US are thought to be twice as high

as on-site costs. In Asia, a common externality is the siltation of irrigation infrastruc-

ture from erosion in the sloping uplands (UACP 1987).


Public Policy. Policies can contribute to unsustainability in two ways: directly, and

indirectly through their effects on population growth, poverty, common property

resources and externalities. Here are some examples of direct policy effects:


Deforestation and subsequent soil erosion have been linked with policies that

directly favor commercial logging (low tax rates or overt subsidies, public road con-
struction in forested areas, poor enforcement of forestry regulations) (Repetto and

Gillis, 1988). Policies that directly restrain farmer adoption of erosion-controlling

practices include subsidies on external inputs, interventions that increase interest

rates, and policies that reduce the security of land tenure (Anderson and Thampapil-

lai, 1990). Subsidies on external inputs, together with modes of market development

that foster monoculture, can also lead to reduced system diversity. The list could be

made much longer: policies directly affect depletion of groundwater (water pricing,

water diversions); soil organic matter management (fertilizer subsidies, taxes on live-

stock or dairy enterprises); pest and disease buildup (product pricing that favors

continuous grain cultivation, pesticide pricing, lack of extension interventions for

integrated pest management); and so on.







As powerful as these direct policy effects may be, policies that indirectly affect

the sustainability of agriculture may ultimately prove to be more influential. Given

the fundamental causes of unsustainability described above, any and all policies that

affect economic growth, income distribution, employment generation, population

growth, and poverty alleviation can be said to indirectly affect the sustainability of

agriculture. As might be expected, there are too many of these to list.


Potential Contributions of FSRE in Fostering Sustainable Agriculture


FSRE can help foster the development of a sustainable agriculture in a

number of ways. Four well-defined alternatives ("direct", "adaptive", "policy-
oriented", and "preventive" contributions to sustainable agriculture) are discussed

below. Among these alternatives, there are areas in which FSRE has particular

strengths. In other areas, however, the contributions of FSRE are likely to be, at best,

meager.


Direct Contributions. FSRE can help farmers halt processes of resource degradation

through farm- or community-level interventions. Direct contributions include work

on (and this is an incomplete listing): alleycropping, agroforestry, reduced tillage

systems, legume intercropping, the use of cover crops or green manures, crop-live-

stock integration (and other interventions to increase system complexity), water

management practices to reduce problems of salinity and sodicity, community forest

management and/ or reforestation, etc. Numerous observers have remarked that

FSRE provides a natural basis for generating technologies that safeguard resource

quality and foster system resilience (Francis and Hildebrand 1989, Hart and Sands

1990, etc.). They undoubtedly had in mind these "direct contributions" of FSRE.







Adaptive Contributions. FSRE can help enhance productivity in areas where re-

source degradation has already taken place, i.e., to "adapt" to a degraded environ-

ment. The focus here is on improving productivity under difficult conditions, with

only a secondary emphasis on maintaining resource quality. Adaptive strategies may

be helpful with regard to both "internal" and "external" sustainability problems.

Farmers themselves, of course, adapt to resource degradation through farming sys-

tems adjustments, e.g., replacement of deep-rooted planted by shallow-rooted plants,

replacement of cattle by small ruminants, replacement of maize, wheat or rice by

sorghum, millet or cassava, etc. (Jodha 1989). FSRE can help farmers find additional

options for adaptation. For example, the introduction of drought-tolerant germplasm

can help farmers adapt to conditions of reduced soil moisture-holding capacity due to

erosion, or changes in rainfall patterns. Adaptive and direct contributions can be
used together when processes of land degradation persist.


Policy-Oriented Contributions. The influence of policies in determining the sustain-

ability of agriculture was discussed above. Some of these policies influence sustain-

ability indirectly, through effects on poverty, employment and population growth.

Other policies more directly foster deforestation, soil erosion, external input use and

reduced system diversity.


FSRE, of course, is unlikely to effect national macroeconomic policy. None-

theless, FSRE practitioners can and should call attention to lower-level policies that

can be specifically linked to resource degradation. For example, LISA proponents in

the USA called attention to base acreage policies that were fostering monocropping

and soil erosion (Faeth et al 1991), with the consequence that these policies were
modified. Knowledge of farmers' circumstances obtained through FSRE techniques

can help in the design of institutional innovations for common property resource






management. At the very least, FSRE practitioners should aim to utilize their inti-

mate knowledge of farming systems to make explicit some of the costs associated with

resource degradation and pollution when comparing alternative technologies and

options for farmers (World Resources Institute, 1989).



Preventive Contributions. FSRE -- and other forms of agricultural research -- can

indirectly avert or forestall resource degradation through activities that have other

primary objectives, e.g., employment generation or widespread economic growth. As

noted in earlier sections, land degradation has been found to be associated with

population growth, poverty, and lack of employment opportunities. Poverty is also a

major cause of continued population growth, which in turn is a factor in "external"

problems of unsustainability (Fig. 1). Development strategies that are efficient in

reducing poverty and generating employment (whether directly, or indirectly through

linkages with other sectors of the economy) can help forestall problems of land

degradation. Effective FSRE, with favorable impacts that cover large areas and

benefit large numbers of farm families, could play a leading role in such strategies.



There is a tendency to dismiss "preventive" contributions of agricultural re-

search as esoteric and unimportant. It is instructive, then, to note the "preventive"

contributions of Green Revolution technologies:



"Without modern varieties, production of rice and maize in the 90 countries with humid tropi-
cal lands may have been 20-30 million tons less than it is. To have made up this shortfall from
nonirrigated lands with traditional varieties and management practices would have required an
additional area under cultivation of the order of 20-40 million ha [probably an underestimate,
considering the rapid degradation of newly cleared land].

"There can be little doubt that, in the absence of the increment attributable to modern varieties
and improved management practices there would have been substantially more pressure on the
land frontier, In addition, since reduction in supply of these staples would have increased
prices, it may be assumed that marginal areas on the forest frontier would have become viable
prospects for short-run development with negative long-run effects on sustainability of the
resource base." (CGIAR 1985, chapter 14).







Green Revolution technologies are not typically celebrated as being environ-

mentally-friendly. There is no doubt that some problems have arisen in the areas

where they were introduced. Public health has been threatened by excessive pesticide

use (McCracken and Conway 1987), system diversity and system resilience may have

declined1, land degradation has certainly occurred (e.g., salinization of irrigated areas

of India and Pakistan), and reliance on external inputs has increased.



It is ironic, then, that Green Revolution technologies, for all of their faults,

have featured such powerful "preventive" contributions to sustainable agriculture. In

addition, their introduction has typically fostered widespread economic development

and increased employment (Sarma and Gandhi 1990, Shalla et al, 1990), with neutral-

to-favorable effects on income distribution2. These technologies have indirectly

(though perhaps unintentionally) addressed some of the fundamental longer-term

causes of unsustainability.



The challenge to FSRE is to match the "preventive" contributions of the Green

Revolution technologies. FSRE should aim to increase incomes and employment as

well as to foster system diversity and reduce the use of external inputs. This challenge

can only be met, however, if the effectiveness and impact of FSRE are dramatically

improved.



1. It should be noted, however, that reduced diversity has been partially compensated by the pest and
disease resistance, and tolerance to abiotic stresses, characteristic of many of the more recently re-
leased improved varieties of wheat, rice and maize. In addition, pest and disease resistant varieties are
important components of integrated pest management.

2. Some FSRE practitioners may be surprised that Green Revolution technologies have been found to
have had favorable effects on income distribution. In Pakistan, benefits mainly accrued to low-income
urban consumers and small, food-deficit farmers, who profited from lower food prices. Relative losses
were incurred by larger, food-surplus farmers in non-Green Revolution areas (Renkow 1989). There
is evidence that points to a similar pattern of income effects in Bangladesh, although the situation
appears more complex (Alauddin and Tisdell 1991).








Limitations of FSRE


The potential for FSRE to contribute to the development of a sustainable
agriculture appears limited in three ways. First, FSRE seems unlikely to be in the

forefront of the solution of "external" problems. In addition, FSRE is likely to prove

poorly suited to make "preventive" contributions, because of an "anti-growth" rhetoric

found in the parts of the FSRE literature, and because of inherent limitations of using

a microlevel focus when addressing problems that are regional or even global in

nature. Finally, even "direct" contributions of FSRE to the solution of "internal"

problems -- FSRE's strong point -- may produce only meager benefits unless FSRE

practitioners can improve their record on adoption, impact and effectiveness.


External Problems. FSRE seems unlikely to make major contributions to the solution

of major "external" problems -- global warming, depletion of nonrenewable resources

used as agricultural inputs, and global loss of biodiversity. This does not imply that

FSRE cannot make any contribution. The role of rice cultivation and livestock

management in the production of methane, a greenhouse gas, is well known (Pretty

and Conway 1989), and suitable interventions may be able to reduce methane emis-

sions. The prospect of scarcities (and higher prices) for fossil fuels and fertilizers used

in agriculture is a major force behind the interest in reduced tillage and external input

systems, and seems largely responsible for the widespread interest in energy account-
ing to evaluate alternative technologies (e.g., Crews, Mohler and Power, 1992).


Realistically, however, these issues are largely in the hands of national and

international policy makers who can (if they choose) agree through international

treaties (or internal policies of taxation and subsidies) to control carbon dioxide and








CFC emissions, protect tropical forests and foster the conservation and recycling of

nonrenewable resources. The most important role of FSRE is in helping farmers

prepare alternative adaptations to cope with the eventual onset of these "external"

problems -- not in attempting to single-handedly solve them.


Growth, Trade and FSRE. Within the literature on sustainable agricultural develop-

ment1, there is a strong current that views agricultural development based on special-

ization, commercialization and dependence on markets as thoroughly undesirable.

Concern is understandably voiced about the possible loss of ecologically efficient

indigenous technical knowledge as agriculture becomes commercialized (e.g., Crews

and Gliessman 1991). Some observers eloquently disagree with the very notion of

using external inputs in agriculture (Rodale 1989) while others, with less support, go

so far as to claim that impoverishment stems from links with markets (Altieri 1987,

Mansour 1980) and that what is needed is local autonomy and self-reliance. The very

need for increased production is sometimes questioned, given that poverty could con-

ceivably be erased entirely through redistribution (Durning 1990).


More often, however, it is recognized that agriculture will have to provide live-

lihoods for much larger populations in the future, and that a decrease in poverty is

needed to safeguard the resource base and help reduce population growth rates.

There will be a continued need for "preventive" contributions of agricultural research

-- new technology to increase the productivity of lands currently under production in

order to make unnecessary the clearing of new lands for agriculture. The question

remains, however, whether these ends can be most efficiently achieved through the

development of ecologically complex farming systems that feature intensive exploita-


1. Particularly among proponents of the "agroecology" and "ethics" interpretations of sustainable
agriculture.







tion of microenvironments (Chambers 1991) -- if at the same time suitable forms of

specialization and trade are discouraged.


Space considerations do not allow a full discussion of the potential roles of

diversification, specialization and trade in fostering agricultural development, poverty

alleviation and employment generation.1 FSRE practitioners might wish to reflect,

however, on whether "anti-growth" and "anti-trade" rhetoric and programs may, at the

margin, hinder employment generation and poverty alleviation through new agricul-

tural technology. Economic efficiency, specialization and trade may prove to be

entirely compatible with reduced external input use and application of indigenous

technical knowledge, if an effort is made to find areas of congruence.


Scope and Pace of Impact. The extent to which FSRE ends up assisting in the devel-

opment of a sustainable agriculture -- whether through "direct", "adaptive", "policy-

oriented" or "preventive" contributions -- depends entirely on the speed, extent and

incidence of farmer adoption of new technology developed through FSRE. This is

worrisome.


If one looks hard enough, it is possible to find a number of FSRE "success

stories", where continuous progress may be traced from diagnosis, through planning

and experimentation to final farmer adoption (Tripp ed. 1991). These successes are

all too rare, however. A conventional wisdom is emerging to the effect that FSRE has

not (and probably never will) repay the considerable investment made in its name






1. Useful references include Lipton 1989, Mellor 1988, Panayotou and Phantumvanit 1991, Poleman
1989, Popkin 1979, Ruttan 1990, Schuh 1989, etc.







(Tripp et al, 1990).1 Indeed, the perceived lack of impact of FSRE explains the

prominence of "impact" and "effectiveness" themes on the agendas of FSRE sympo-

sia!



Any number of reasons have been advanced for the poor record of FSRE:

defective links between research and extension; inadequate farmer participation; a

paucity of "on-the-shelf" technology suitable to be tailored to farmers' circumstances;

insensitivity to gender concerns, etc. Whatever the reason, appropriate correctives

must be taken, or FSRE runs the risk of fading into irrelevance. Any contribution of

FSRE to the development of a sustainable agriculture ultimately rests on our ability

to develop interventions that farmers find attractive.



























1. In addition, an inherent contradiction in FSRE has been observed: highly skilled and motivated
scientists are needed to make FSRE a success, but these have a high opportunity cost; in contrast,
location-specificity restricts the benefits they can produce through any particular set of interventions
(Anderson 1990).








References


Alauddin, M. and C. Tisdell, 1991. The Green Revolution and Economic Develop-
ment. New York: St. Martin's Press. 322 pp.

Altieri, M., 1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 227 pp.

Anderson, J., 1990. "FSRE Impact Inquisition: Some Investor Issues". Present-
ed at the 1990 Asia Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium,
AIT, Bangkok, Thailand, November 18-23, 1990.

Anderson, J., and J. Thampapillai, 1990. "Soil Conservation in Developing
Countries: Project and Policy Intervention". The World Bank. Policy and
Research Series.

Barbier, E. and J. McCracken, 1988. "Glossary of Selected Terms in Sustainable
Economic Development". IIED Gatekeeper Series SA7. International Institute
for Environment and Development.

Barker, R. and D. Chapman, 1988. "The Economics of Sustainable Agricultural
Systems in Developing Countries". Agricultural Economics Working Paper 88-
13. Cornell University.-

Batie, S., 1989. "Sustainable Development: Challenges to the Profession of
Agricultural Economics". Presidential Address, AAEA Summer Meeting 1989,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 30- August 2, 1989.

Bishop, R., 1978. "Endangered Species and Uncertainty: The Economics of a
Safe Minimum Standard". American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
February, 1978. pp. 10-18.

Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield, 1987. Land Degradation and Society. New York:
Methuen. 296 pp.

Blake, R., 1990. "Promoting Agricultural Sustainability for Developing Coun-
tries: An Urgent Agenda". CIMMYT 1990 Annual Report. Sustaining Agricul-
tural Resources in Developing Countries: Contributions of CIMMYT Research.
Mexico City, D. F.: CIMMYT.

CGIAR, 1985. International Agricultural Research Centers: A Stud of Achieve-
ments and Potential. Washington, D. C.: CGIAR.

CGIAR, 1990. "Food -- Today and Tomorrow". Consultative Group on Interna-
tional Agricultural Research.

Chambers, R., 1991. "Complexity, Diversity and Competence: Toward Sustainable
Livelihood from Farming Systems in the 21st Century". Journal of the Asian
Farming Systems Association. Volume 1, No. 1, 1991, pp 79-89.

Conway, G., 1986. "Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Development".
Bangkok: Winrock International.









Crews, T. and S. Gliessman, 1991. "Raised field agriculture in Tlaxcala, Mexico:
An ecosystem perspective on maintenance of soil fertility". American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture. Volume 6, No. 1. pp. 9-16.

Crews, T., C. Mohler and A. Power, 1992. "Energetics and ecosystem integrity:
The defining principles of sustainable agriculture". American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture. Volume 6, No. 3, 1992. pp. 146-149.

Crosson, P., 1992. "Sustainable Food and Fiber Production:. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Chicago, 9 February, 1992.

During, A., 1990. "How Much is Enough?". World Watch. Vol.3, No.6. November-
December, 1990. pp. 12-19.

Faeth, P., R. Repetto, K. Kross, Q. Dai and G. Helmers, 1991. Paving the Farm
Bill: US Agricultural Policy and the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture.
Washington D. C.: World Resource Institute. 70 pp.

Francis, C. and P Hildebrand, 1989. "Farming Systems Research and Extension
in Support of Sustainable Agriculture". Farming Systems Research-Exten-
sion Newsletter. Number 2, 1989. Gainesville: University of Florida.

Graham-Tomasi, T., 1991. "Sustainability: Concepts and Implications for Agri-
cultural Research Policy", in Pardey, Roseboom and Anderson (eds.), Agri-
cultural Resource Policy: International Quantitative Perspectives. New York:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 81-101.

Harrington, L., 1991. "Measuring Sustainability: Issues and Alternatives".
Presented at the 11th Annual AFSRE Symposium, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, October 5-10, 1991.

Hart, R. and M. Sands, 1990. "Sustainable Land-Use Systems Research and
Development". Presented at the International Workshop on Sustainable Land
Use Systems Research, February 12-16, 1990, New Delhi, India.

Heilbroner, R., 1980. An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. New York: Norton.
191 pp.

IFPRI, 1989. "Environmental Policy for Agricultural Sustainability: An IFPRI
Research Thrust for the 1990's". Unpublished draft.

Jodha, N. S., 1989. "Mountain Agriculture: Search for Sustainability". Pre-
sented at the International FSRE Symposium, Fayetteville, Arkansas, October
9-12 1989.

Jodha, N. S., 1991. "Rural Common Property Resources: A Growing Crisis".
International Institute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper Series
No. SA24.

Johnston, G., 1988. "The Role of Economics in Natural Resource and Environ-
mental Policy Analysis". Natural Resource and Environmental Policy Analysis:
Cases in Applied Economics. Boulder and London: Westview.







Krutilla, J., and A. Fisher, 1975. The Economics of Natural Environments:
Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Lipton, M., 1989. "New Strategies and Successful Examples for Sustainable
Development in the Third World". Reprint No. 170. IFPRI.

Lurie, T., 1991. "Saving the Forests: India's Experiment in Cooperation". The
Ford Foundation Letter. Spring/Summer 1991. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-5, 12-13.
Mansour, F., 1980. "Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Global Interdepend-
ence". African Development. 5(3):21-36.

McCracken, J., and G. Conway, 1987. "Pesticide Hazards in the Third World:
New Evidence from the Philippines". International Institute for Environment
and Development. Gatekeeper Series No. SA1.

Mellor, J., 1988. "Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries". Environ-
ment. Vol.30, No.9. November, 1988.

Panayotou, T. and D. Phantumvanit, 1991. "Rural Natural Resources Manage-
ment: Lessons from Thailand". TDRI Quarterly Review. Vol. 6, No. 1. March,
1991. pp. 17-21.

Poleman, T., 1989. "Hunger of Plenty? The Food/ Population Prospect Two
Centuries after Malthus". Cornell Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 89-30.
Cornell University.

Popkin, S., 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society
in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. 306 pp.

Pretty, J. and G. Conway, 1989. "Agriculture as a Global Polluter". Interna-
tional Institute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper Series No.
SAl1.

Renkow, M., 1989. "Differential Welfare Effects of Technical Change in Develop-
ing Countries: A Simulation Analysis". Presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Agricultural Economics Association, July 30-August 2, 1989,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Repetto, R. and M. Gillis (ed.) 1988. Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest
Resources. A World Resources Institute Book. Cambridge University Press.
432 pp.

Rodale, R., 1989. "Internal Resources and External Inputs". Rodale Institute.

Ruttan, V., 1990. "Constraints on Agricultural Production in Asia: Into the 21st
Century". CIMMYT 1989 Annual Report.

Sarma, J. and V. Gandhi, 1990. "Production and Consumption of Foodgrains in
India: Implications of Accelerated Economic Growth and Poverty Alleviation".
IFPRI Research Report No. 81. Washington, D. C.: IFPRI.







Schuh, G., 1988. "Sustainability, Marginal Areas and Agricultural Research".
Prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome,
September 22, 1988.

Senanayake, R., 1991. "Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Parameters for
Measurement". Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Vol. 1(4) 1991. pp. 7-28.

Shalla, G., G. Chadha, S. Kashyap and R. Sharma, 1990. "Agricultural Growth
and Structural Changes in the Punjab Economy: An Input-Output Analysis".
IFPRI Research Report No. 82. Washington, D. C.: IFPRI.

Tripp, R. and J. Woolley, 1989. The Planning Stage of On-Farm Research:
Identifying Factors for Experimentation. Mexico D.F. and Cali, Colombia:
CIMMYT and CIAT.

Tripp, R., P. Anandajayasekeram, D. Byerlee and L. Harrington, 1990. "FSR:
Achievements, Deficiencies and Challenges for the 1990's". Presented at the
1990 Asian Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium, AIT,
Bangkok, Thailand, November 1990.
Tripp, R. (ed.), 1991. Planned Change in Farming Systems: Progress in On-
Farm Research. New York: Wiley. 348 pp.

UACP, 1987. Farming Systems Research: Upland Agriculture and Conservation
Research Highlights, 1985-86. Ministry of Agriculture, Agency for Agricul-
tural Research and Development. Indonesia.

United Nations Population Fund, 1990. The State of World Population, 1990.
New York: UNFPA.

World Resources Institute, 1989. "Economics of Sustainable Agriculture: Agri-
cultural Policy and the Development and Adoption of Regenerative Technolo-
gies". Proposal to IFAD for support of a WRI project.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs