Thought starterPrepared for the Forum Standing Committee

23 June 2009

Future of IFCSSaving IFCS

Submitted by M. Philippe Chemin, Direction de la prévention des pollutions et risques, Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable, France

Summary

The rejection by the ICCM2 of the integration of the IFCS into it leads to an entirely new situation for this mature institution. Its traditional field being now occupied by SAICM, few space is remaining free to operate all the more there is no more abundant financial support. This paper explores how the IFCS can continue to bring significant support to the chemicals risk reduction actions.

The idea would be first, to acknowledge the limitations of the science in the chemical risk evaluation and, therefore, to add to what science provides other value elements like prevention, precaution, social utility, environmental justice…; secondly, to acknowledge as well that the best way to reduce chemicals risks is to stop using chemicals. Alternatives to chemicals should therefore be put on the spot to assess their capacity to respond to our essential needs. Agriculture, construction and sanitation are the domains where these alternatives can provide the most benefits for people and help dramatically reducing the impacts on the health and the environment of industrial society productions.

Shifting to alternatives to chemicals will render useless the need (and the associated cost) to evaluate the risk from chemicals no longer in use.

Following this proposal, the IFCS can no longer be named IFCS: International Forum on Alternatives to chemicals (IFAC) is one of the possibilities for a new name.

This renewed and novel Forum would work in the same efficient and cheap spirit and manner as to the IFCS and provide ,evidences and advices to the ICCM.

Saving IFCS1/21

The second Conference on the international chemicals management (ICCM2) “managing board” of the Strategic approach (SAICM), was held mid-May in Geneva. The Conference, in spite of the pressure from non industrially developed countries decided not to positively respond to the request that was expressed last September in Dakar, on the integration of the Forum as a subsidiary/advisory body of the ICCM. This is disappointing to the extent that SAICM has been built, quoting the text, to respond to the needs of these countries that have difficulties to properly manage chemicals. But when these countries ask the Forum to be maintained, which would answers their expectations, a categorical refusal is opposed to them, motivated by the fact that money has to go to SAICM, which now performs, they say, what IFCS used to do.

Then, the IFCS has to face an entirely new situation: its future is at stake. In order to continue to bring a significant contribution to chemical risk reduction at global level without overlapping with SAICM, it is proposed, as follow: 1/ to recognize the limits of the “scientific” approach of risk evaluation and, then, the necessity not to ground decisions on science only; 2/ to be aware of the multiple benefits alternatives to chemicals can offer and to promote and implement them.

1/ To acknowledge the limits of “scientific” approach on which, however, chemical risk evaluation is mainly founded and try to go beyond, in particular by taking into account other valuable elements. This evaluation :

is long and costly; if not conclusive, leads to additional studies, which are also

long and costly. If it is possible to come to a conclusion, this latter may often be challenged by new pieces of knowledge;

is often debatable, risk management/reduction measures are delayed, in spite, sometimes, of strong evidence (example of asbestos, lead…);

is incomplete and questionable:o To consider each substance or group of substances

individually only allows to report on a small part of reality. Interactions with other substances should also be considered, as well as other relevant factors (populations health, climate conditions …) and limits of the extrapolation of results from animal tests to human beings;

o Some categories of population that are particularly exposed (especially children: the increase of cancers is of 1% since 1974 in the USA) are insufficiently ? studied;

o Paracelsus’ allegation “the dose makes the poison” is no longer true. We now know that "The dose of the mixture makes the poison, but differently for genetically different individuals and differently at different times during growth and development (always mindful that lower doses may be more poisonous than higher doses), and differently depending upon the subject's prior history of exposure to this mixture and their degree of adaptation (or sensitization) acquired as a result of that history."

Saving IFCS2/21

To sum it all up, the simple idea that it's OK to put biologically active chemicals into the workplace, into products, or into the environment because "the dose makes the poison" is a dead letter. It is an idea whose time has gone. It is false, misleading, utterly without merit.

The corresponding idea, that if we just study long enough we will discover, for each chemical, a dose that is "safe" for an whole population of workers, consumers, and the general public, is also false, misleading and dangerous. It is dead wrong, because there are not enough laboratories in the world to carry out the adequate ? investigations on all 100,000 chemicals now in use, nor enough peer-reviewed journals to report the results. There are just too many variables to be simultaneously taken into account . This means that relatively few chemicals will ever be adequately tested.

This kind of evaluation, grounded on experimental science, was initiated more than thirty years ago, and that has now become a classical tool, even intrinsically reducing and letting a vast space to uncertainty, is however well integrated into public policies and practices of industrially developed countries. It make every change of mentality or paradigm very problematic.

Risk evaluation of substances does not enable to know and quantify all kind of damages it can produce. Should effects from chemicals be not suspected or studied, they are ignored by risk evaluation. They will be considered as significant once damages for the health and the environment are evidenced. For more than twenty years, risks evaluators have established to which level populations and wild animals could be exposed to thousands of substances without understanding that some of them imitated or interfered with hormones. The best risk evaluation of these times gave the answer: “no problem”, although there were significant problems. So long as we use risk assessment as our chief guide for allowing chemical exposures, we can expect a never-ending series of unpleasant surprises as today's "safe" dose is discovered tomorrow to be unsafe.

The decision to use a chemical is essentially grounded on the interpretation of date issued from experimental science, although the stakes for public health and the environment can not suffer the irreducible uncertainty it lets remaining: isn’t, all in all, the best means to prevent all kind of damages to search what are the alternatives to a product, a technology, after having, of course, established what is acceptable in term of risks. In other words, the “scientific” risk evaluation cannot provide more than it can, therefore, it can only be a value element among others in the evaluation: “science should be on tap not on top” 1. This signifies that the evaluation does not necessarily require a large amount of science and scientific experts.

1 “Science should be on tap, not on top - subjectivity and interests in the framing of science”, in “On science and precaution in the management of technological risk”, an ESTO Project Report Prepared for the European Commission - JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies Seville by Andrew Stirling, may 1999. This work served as a basis for the report « Early warnings, late lessons: the precautionary principle 1896 - 2000 » of the European Environment Agency.

Saving IFCS3/21

A novel approach, with the aim of a true efficacy – in the sense of a sensible and quick improvement of the current state of the health and of the environment -, would combine environmental justice, elements coming from prevention, precaution, social utility, alternative solutions. The “evaluation” of chemicals would then substitute to the scientific “risk evaluation” of chemicals.

2/ To promote and implement alternatives to chemicals to reduce risks from chemicals. The SAICM Dubai declaration calls for the examination of such alternatives (cf. paragraph 17.).

Alternatives to (synthetic) chemicals have, at least, the following characteristics:

they are already available and well-tried; they are cheap because already existing and easy to technically

implement and use; they can be easily handled by their potential beneficiaries (no

dependency on heavy and sophisticated technological systems and on their advocates);

they are little or not dependent from raw materials, synthetic chemicals and fossil fuels (oil and gas);

they are mainly based on the couple “local production / local consumption” (this reinforce the character of moderate energy consumption: much fewer raw materials or intermediate or finished products travelling several thousand kilometres to their final destination).

Among various domains to which these non-chemical low-tech alternatives are relevant, three of them appear to be essential ones: agriculture (food production), construction, public and private sanitation (including water treatment, recycling of organic material). See Annex I. Remind that the IFCS is already committed in that way: its VIth session in Dakar, it was debated on the issues on integrated pests management, integrated vectors management, as well as substitution and non-chemical alternatives. At ICCM2, the minister of the environment of Venezuela declared that his government was supporting the agro-ecology (see annex II for presentation of the agro-ecology).

Therefore, the IFCS could become the formal and recognised place, fully open to these new approaches that consider various value elements and alternatives to chemicals leaving to SAICM/ICCM the charge to promote the “good” use of chemicals.

The IFCS would first proceed to an exhaustive inventory of alternatives to chemicals, in particular on the vital domains that are agriculture, construction and public and private sanitations. It would examine their contribution to chemical risk reduction and the dependency to bulk materials (in which some are not renewable, like phosphate), to fossil fuels (as well non-renewable), to sophisticated technologies (that the interested people cannot easily appropriate, master), to experts of every kind… The IFCS would

Saving IFCS4/21

report to the ICCM in order to show their essential contribution to the 2020 goal.

The IFCS would work to the reinforcement of the collaboration between WHO, FAO and UNEP (in the spirit of the Libreville declaration on health and environment in Africa, for instance – 29 August 2008).

Always, money is lacking. It is a matter of political will to choose where to use it according to the imperative/fundamental/vital/crucial/… needs to answer. The lack of money, which is the consequence of the decision taken by rich contributing countries, does no longer enable the Forum to continue as it used to work. The IFCS working method – as an efficient and economical body - is, in this context, an advantage. The larger expenses are dedicated to the Forum sessions. A back-to-back meeting with the ICCM would significantly reduce the costs. Contributions from non-industrialised countries could also be solicited. At the ICCM2, Madagascar (a significant donor to SAICM) called for them to take their destiny into their own hands in contributing to SAICM. These countries could also contribute to the IFCS, which should answer their expectations first.

This proposal would lead to a change of the name of the Forum. I would suggest something like:

- International Forum on Alternatives to Chemicals (IFAC);- International Conference on Alternatives to Chemicals (ICAC);- World Assembly on Alternatives to Chemicals (WAAC).

Saving IFCS5/21

Annex I

Alternatives to chemicals

AgricultureTo illustrate that domain, one will recall that, during the opening ceremony of the third PrepCom in Vienna (September 2005), M. Suwit Wibulpolprasert, Thai president of the Intergovernmental Forum of Chemical Safety (IFCS) at that time, reported that he visited 20 rice farmers in village in Thailand who got together to go back to old ways of farming. He asked them how sure they are that this will have enough yield for food and cash: "we have been advised from government to change out life to cash crop farming for several decades, only thing we got was poverty, social disruption, we have to buy chemicals which increase price, and sell product at uncontrollable price: we all went into bankruptcy, and had to send people to factories, prostitution, etc. we cannot accept this to go on. Minister of Health has come to test chemicals, and every year they come back to us and we say that we have too many pesticides in our crops. We've learned a lesson to go back to our old ways of rice farming to respect the environment, and our culture: less synthetic chemicals and in 3 years we have more than 100 families not using synthetic chemicals at all, also went back to original seeds, and production is higher already. Health has improved. We are exporting the rice, and we expect to expand to more than 1000 families: we have achieved all this without support from any national or IGO: we've learned no matter how much committed, they only know industrialised and cash crop way of farming, they have not been farmers”: that was he said to me. He hopes this story will be in our minds throughout this meeting to achieve the 2020 goal: we need to reach the people who are really affected by chemicals.

ConstructionNon-chemical materials that are locally available can be used to build living quarters, insulation, flooring and interior decoration… are a non-chemical alternative for construction. They are either renewable (wood, hemp, cork, wood cellulose, sawdust, wool), or non-renewable but abundantly available (dry or baked clay, stone, lime). Employing these materials avoids the use of synthetic chemical products and enables the construction of safe homes, notably in their capacity the ensure comfortable room temperatures both summer and winter and an acceptable humidity level which avoids mould and diseases relating to damp: asthma, rhinitis, pharyngitis and eczema.

Public and private sanitation (comprising water treatment)1.3 billion people have no access to drinkable water (more than 20 % of the world’s population) and 2.4 billions have no toilets or sanitation system (37 % of the world’s population). Figures which, in spite of facilities installed, are increasing because of demographic growth and accelerated urbanization. We believe it is necessary to tackle public hygiene problems including those that are created by sewage and consider the possible solutions.

Dry toilets are an appropriate answer, in particular for developing countries and countries with economies in transition, targets of the Quick Start Programme (QSP). They offer notably the following advantages:

economising water; large reduction of the contamination of surface water and, from that,

reduction of the treatment of effluents in heavy sewage treatment plants (only grey waters, should be treated, as black water no longer exists, and they are easy to treat by sand filters, planter bed,

Saving IFCS6/21

lagooning), reduction of epidemics due to pathogenic micro-organisms in the faeces and, therefore, less medical treatments;

reduction of use of detergents and disinfectants, then reduction of the use of hazardous chemicals;

recycling of the matters in soils (composting): reduction of the use of synthetic fertilizers, enrichment of soils.

Saving IFCS7/21

Annex II

Agroecology

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology)A Community supported agriculture share of vegetables.

The term agroecology can be used in multiple ways, as a science, as a movement and as a practice[1]. Broadly stated, it is the study of the role of agriculture in the world. Agroecology provides an interdisciplinary framework with which to study the activity of agriculture. In this framework, agriculture does not exist as an isolated entity, but as part of an ecology of contexts. Agroecology draws upon basic ecological principles for its conceptual framework.

Contents 1 Ecological strategy 2 Various approaches to agroecology

2.1 Ecosystems agroecology 2.2 Agronomic ecology 2.3 Ecological political economy 2.4 Agro-population ecology 2.5 Integrated assessment of multifunctional agricultural

systems 3 History of agroecology

3.1 Pre-WWII 3.2 Post-WWII 3.3 Fusion of agronomy and ecology

4 Publications in agroecology 5 Applications of agroecology

5.1 How agroecologists might see organic and non-organic milk production

5.2 Agroecologists' view of no-till farming 6 Agroecology by region

6.1 Latin America and agroecology 6.2 Madagascar and agroecology

7 See also 8 References 9 Additional information

10 External links

Ecological strategy

Agroecologists study a variety of agroecosystems, and the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method of farming, whether it be organic, conventional, intensive or extensive. Furthermore, it is not defined by certain management practices, such as the use of natural enemies in place of insecticides, or polyculture in place of monoculture. Additionally, agroecologists do not unanimously oppose technology or inputs in agriculture but instead assess how, when, and if technology can be used in conjunction with natural, social and human assets[2]. Agroecology proposes a context- or site-specific manner of studying agroecosystems, and as such, it recognizes that there is no universal formula or recipe for the success and maximum well-being of an agroecosystem.

Saving IFCS8/21

Instead, agroecologists may study questions related to the four system properties of agroecosystems: productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability[3]. As opposed to disciplines that are concerned with only one or some of these properties, agroecologists see all four properties as interconnected and integral to the success of an agroecosystem. Recognizing that these properties are found on varying spatial scales, agroecologists do not limit themselves to the study of agroecosystems at any one scale: farm, community, or global. Additionally, agroecologists study these four properties through an interdisciplinary lens, using natural sciences to understand elements of agroecosystems such as soil properties and plant-insect interactions, as well as using social sciences to understand the effects of farming practices on rural communities, economic constraints to developing new production methods, or cultural factors determining farming practices.

Various approaches to agroecology

Agroecologists do not always agree about what agroecology is or should be in the long-term. Different definitions of the term agroecology can be distinguished largely by the specificity with which one defines the term “ecology,” as well as the term’s potential political connotations. Definitions of agroecology, therefore, may be first grouped according to the specific contexts within which they situate agriculture. Agroecology is defined by the OECD as “the study of the relation of agricultural crops and environment.” [4] This definition refers to the "-ecology" part of "agroecology" narrowly as the natural environment. Following this definition, an agroecologist would study agriculture's various relationships with soil health, water quality, air quality, meso- and micro-fauna, surrounding flora, environmental toxins, and other envirnomental contexts.

A more common definition of the word can be taken from Dalgaard et al., who refer to agroecology as the study of the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment within agricultural systems. Consequently, agroecology is inherently multidisciplinary, including factors from agronomy, ecology, sociology and economics [5]. In this case, the “-ecology” portion of "agroecology is defined broadly to include social, cultural, and economic contexts as well.

Agroecology is also defined differently according to geographic location. In the global south, the term often carries overtly political connotations. Such political definitions of the term usually ascribe to it the goals of social and economic justice; special attention, in this case, is often paid to the traditional farming knowledge of indigenous populations [6]. North American and European uses of the term sometimes avoid the inclusion of such overtly political goals. In these cases, agroecology is seen more strictly as a scientific discipline with less specific social goals.

Fred Buttel [7] makes a more academic distinction of the various approaches within the field, separating it into five broad categories:

Ecosystems agroecology

This approach is driven by the ecosystems biology of Eugene Odum. This approach is based in the hypotheses that the natural systems, with its stability and resilience, provide the best model to mimic if sustainability is the goal. Normally, ecosystems agroecology is not actively involved in social science; however, this school is essentially based on the belief that large-scale agriculture is inappropriate. The work of Steve Gliessman is prototypical of this approach.

Saving IFCS9/21

Agronomic ecology

The basic approach in this branch is derived mostly from agronomy, including the traditional agricultural production sciences. This approach also does not actively involve social sciences in the agroecological analysis, but uses social sciences to understand the processes by which agriculture became unsustainable. Chuck Francis, Richard Hardwood, Ricardo Salvador, and Matt Liebman are exemplars of this approach.

Ecological political economy

The driving force behind this form of agroecology is a political-economical critique of modern agriculture. The school believes that only radical changes in political economy and the moral economy of research will reduce the negative costs of modern agriculture. The works of Miguel Altieri (ecosystem biologist)[citation needed], John Vandermeer (population ecologist), Richard Lewontin, and Richard Levins provide examples of this politically charged and socially-oriented version of agroecology.

Agro-population ecology

This approach is derived from the science of ecology primarily based on population ecology, which over the past three decades has been displacing the ecosystems biology of Odum. Buttel explains the main difference between the two categories, saying that “the application of population ecology to agroecology involves the primacy not only of analyzing agroecosystems from the perspective of the population dynamics of their constituent species, and their relationships to climate and biogeochemistry, but also there is a major emphasis placed on the role of genetics.”[7] David Andow and Alison Power are cited as examples of professionals espousing this view.

Integrated assessment of multifunctional agricultural systems

This approach focuses on the multifunctionality of the landscape, instead of focusing solely on the agricultural enterprise. Agriculture and the food system are considered parts of an institutional complex that relates to and integrates with other social institutions. Scholars adopting this highly integrated approach, mostly Europeans, do not consider any one discipline the leader of agroecology.

History of agroecologyPre-WWII

The notions and ideas relating to crop ecology have been around since at least 1911 when F.H. King released Farmer’s of the Forty Centuries. King was one of the pioneers as a proponent of more quantitative methods for characterization of water relations and physical properties of soils[8]. In the late 1920’s the attempt to merge agronomy and ecology was born with the development of the field of crop ecology. Crop ecology’s main concern was where crops would be best grown[9]. Actually, it was only in 1928 that agronomy and ecology were formally linked by Klages[8][10].

1928 was the first mention of the term agroecology, with the publication of the term by Bensin in 1928[11] . The book of Tischler (1965), was probably the first to be actually titled ‘agroecology'[12]. He analysed the different components (plants, animals, soils and climate) and their interactions within an agroecosystem as well as the impact of human agricultural management on these components. Other books dealing with agroecology, but without using the term explicitly were published by the German zoologist

Saving IFCS10/21

Friederichs (1930) with his book on agricultural zoology and related ecological/environmental factors for plant protection[13] and by American crop physiologist Hansen in 1939[14] when both used the word as a synonym for the application of ecology within agriculture[5].

Post-WWII

Gliessman mentions that post-WWII, groups of scientists with ecologists gave more focus to experiments in the natural environment, while agronomists dedicated their attention to the cultivated systems in agriculture[9]. According to Gliessman[9], the two groups kept their research and interest apart until books and articles using the concept of agroecosystems and the word agroecology started to appear in 1970[11]. Dalgaard[5] explains the different points of view in ecology schools, and the fundamental differences, which set the basis for the development of agroecology. The early ecology school of Henry Gleason investigated plant populations focusing in the hierarchical levels of the organism under study.

Friederich Clement’s ecology school, however included the organism in question as well as the higher hierarchical levels in its investigations, a "landscape perspective". However, the ecological schools where the roots of agroecology lie are even broader in nature. The ecology school of Tansley , whose view included both the biotic organism and their environment, is the one from which the concept of agroecosystems emerged in 1974 with Harper[5]

[15].

In the 1960’s and 70’s the increasing awareness of how humans manage the landscape and its consequences set the stage for the necessary cross between agronomy and ecology. Even though, in many ways the environmental movement in the US was a product of the times, the Green Decade spread an environmental awareness of the unintended consequences of changing ecological processes. Works such as Silent Spring, and The Limits to Growth, and changes in legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act caused the public to be aware of societal growth patterns, agricultural production, and the overall capacity of the system[5].

Fusion of agronomy and ecology

After the 1970’s, when agronomists saw the value of ecology and ecologists began to use the agricultural systems as study plots, studies in agroecology grew more rapidly[9]. Gliessman describes that the innovative work of Prof. Efraim Hernandez X., who developed research based on indigenous systems of knowledge in Mexico, led to education programs in agroecology.[16] In 1977 Prof. Efraim Hernandez X. explained that modern agricultural systems had lost their ecological foundation when socio-economic factors became the only driving force in the food system [8]. The acknowledgement that the socio-economic interactions are indeed one of the fundamental components of any agroecosystems came to light in 1982, with the article Agroecologia del Tropico Americano by Montaldo. The author argues that the socio-economic context cannot be separated from the agricultural systems when designing agricultural practices [8].

In 1995 Edens et al. in Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems solidified this idea proving his point by devoting special sections to economics of the systems, ecological impacts, and ethics and values in agriculture [8]. Actually, 1985 ended up being a fertile and creative year for the new discipline. For instance in the same year, Miguel Altieri integrated how consolidation of the farms, and cropping systems impact pest

Saving IFCS11/21

populations. In addition, Gliessman highlighted that socio-economic, technological, and ecological components give rise to producer choices of food production systems [8]. These pioneering agroecologists have helped to frame the foundation of what we today consider the interdisciplinary field of agroecology.

Publications in agroecology [17]

Year Author(s) Title

1928Klages Crop ecology and ecological crop geography in the agronomic curriculum

1939Hanson Ecology in agriculture

1956Azzi Agricultural ecology

1965Tischler Agrarökologie

1973Janzen Tropical agroecosystems

1974Harper The need for a focus on agro-ecosystems

1976Loucks Emergence of research on agroecosystems

1977Hernanez Xolocotzi Agroecosistemas de Mexico

1978Gliessman Agroecosistemas y tecnologia agricola tradicional

1979Hart Agroecosistemas: conceptos básicos

1979Cox & Atkins Agricultural ecology: an analysis of world food production systems

1980Hart Agroecosistemas

1981Gliessman, Garcia & Amador

The ecological basis for the application of traditional agricultural technology in the management of tropical agroecosystems

Saving IFCS12/21

1982Montaldo Agroecologia del trópico americano

1983Altieri Agroecology

1984Lowrance, Stinner & House Agricultural ecosystems: unifying concepts

1985Conway Agroecosystems analysis

1987Altieri Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture

1990Allen, Dusen, Lundy, & Gliessman

Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture

1990Gliessman Agroecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture

1990Carroll, Vandermeer & Rosset

Agroecology

1990Altieri & Hecht Agroecology and small farm development

1991Caporali Ecologia per l’agricultura

1991Bawden Systems thinking in agriculture

1993Coscia Agricultura sostenible

1998Gliessman Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture

2001Flora Interactions between agroecosystems and rural communities

2001Gliessman Agroecosystem sustainability

Saving IFCS13/21

2002Dalgaard, Porter & Hutchings Agroecology, scaling, and interdisciplinarity

2003Francis et al. Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems

2004Clements, Shrestra New Dimension in Agroecology

2007Gliessman Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems

2007Warner Agroecology in Action

2009Wezel, Soldat A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline agroecology

2009Wezel et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. A review

Applications of agroecology

To emit a point of view about a particular way of farming, an agroecologist would first seek to understand the contexts in which the farm(s) is(are) involved. Each farm may be inserted in a unique combination of factors or contexts. Each farmer may have their own premises about the meanings of an agricultural endeavor, and these meanings might be different than those of agroecologists. Generally, farmers seek a configuration that is viable in multiple contexts, such as family, financial, technical, political, logistical, market, environmental, spiritual. Agroecologists want to understand the behavior of those who seek livelihoods from plant and animal increase, acknowledging the organization and planning that is required to run a farm.

How agroecologists might see organic and non-organic milk production

Because organic agriculture proclaims to sustain the health of soils, ecosystems and people [18], it has much in common with Agroecology; this doesn’t mean that Agroecology is the same as organic agriculture or that Agroecology sees organic farming as the right way of farming, though. Also, it is important to point out that there are large differences in organic standards among countries and certifying agencies.

Three of the main areas that agroecologists would look at in farms, would be: the environmental impacts, animal welfare issues, and the social aspects.

Saving IFCS14/21

Environmental impacts caused by organic and non-organic milk production can vary significantly. For both cases, there are positive and negative environmental consequences.

Compared to conventional milk production, organic milk production tends to have lower eutrophication potential per ton of milk or per hectare of farmland, because it potentially reduces leaching of nitrates (NO3−) and phosphates (PO4−) due to lower fertilizer application rates. Because organic milk production reduces pesticides utilization, it increases land use per ton of milk due to decreased crop yields per hectare. Mainly due to the lower level of concentrates given to cows in organic herds, organic dairy farms generally produce less milk per cow than conventional dairy farms. Because of the increased use of roughage and the, on-average, lower milk production level per cow, some research has connected organic milk production with increases in the emission of methane [19] .

Animal welfare issues vary among dairy farms and are not necessarily related to the way of producing milk (organically or conventionally).

A key component of animal welfare is freedom to perform their innate (natural) behavior, and this is stated in one of the basic principles of organic agriculture. Also, there are other aspects of animal welfare to be considered - such as freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, injury, fear, distress, disease and pain. Because organic standards require loose housing systems, adequate bedding, restrictions on the area of slatted floors, a minimum forage proportion in the ruminant diets, and tend to limit stocking densities both on pasture and in housing for dairy cows, they potentially promote good foot and hoof health. Some studies show lower incidence of placenta retention, milk fever, abomasums displacement and other diseases in organic than in conventional dairy herds [20]. However, the level of infections by parasites in organically managed herds is generally higher than in conventional herds [21].

Social aspects of dairy enterprises include life quality of farmers, of farm labor, of rural and urban communities, and also includes public health.

Both organic and non-organic farms can have good and bad implications for the life quality of all the different people involved in that food chain. Issues like labor conditions, labor hours and labor rights, for instance, do not depend on the organic/non-organic characteristic of the farm; they can be more related to the socio-economical and cultural situations in which the farm is inserted, instead.

As for the public health or food safety concern, organic foods are intended to be healthy, free of contaminations and free from agents that could cause human diseases. Organic milk is meant to have no chemical residues to consumers, and the restrictions on the use of antibiotics and chemicals in organic food production has the purpose to accomplish this goal. But dairy cows in organic farms, as in conventional farms, indeed do get exposed to virus, parasites and bacteria that can contaminate milk and hence humans, so the risks of transmitting diseases are not eliminated just because the production is organic.

In an organic dairy farm, an agroecologist could evaluate the following:

1. can the farm minimize environmental impacts and increase its level of sustainability, for instance by efficiently increasing the productivity of the animals to minimize waste of feed and of land use?

Saving IFCS15/21

2. are there ways to improve the health status of the herd (in the case of organics, by using biological controls, for instance)?

3. does this way of farming sustain good quality of life for the farmers, their families, rural labor and communities involved?

Agroecologists' view of no-till farming

No-tillage is one of the components of conservation agriculture practices and is considered more environmental friendly than complete tillage [22][23]. Due to this belief, it could be expected that agroecologists would not recommend the use of complete tillage and would rather recommend no-till farming, but this is not always the case. In fact, there is a general consensus that no-till can increase soils capacity of acting as a carbon sink, especially when combined with cover crops [22][24].

No-till can contribute to higher soil organic matter and organic carbon content in soils [25][26], though reports of no-effects of no-tillage in organic matter and organic carbon soil contents also exist, depending on environmental and crop conditions [27]. In addition, no-till can indirectly reduce CO2 emissions by decreasing the use of fossil fuels [25][28].

Most crops can benefit from the practice of no-till, but not all crops are suitable for complete no-till agriculture [29][30]. Crops that do not perform well when competing with other plants that grow in no-tilled soil in their early stages can be best grown by using other conservation tillage practices, like a combination of strip-till with no-till areas [30]. Also, crops which harvestable portion grows underground can have better results with strip-tillage[citation needed], mainly in soils which are hard for plant roots to penetrate into deeper layers to access water and nutrients.

The benefits provided by no-tillage to predators may lead to larger predator populations [31], which is a good way to control pests (biological control), but also can facilitate predation of the crop itself. In corn crops, for instance, predation by caterpillars can be higher in no-till than in conventional tillage fields [32].

Most crops can benefit from the practice of no-till, but not all crops are suitable for complete no-till agriculture [33][30]. Crops that do not perform well when competing with other plants that grow in no-tilled soil in their early stages can be best grown by using other conservation tillage practices, like a combination of strip-till with no-till areas [30]. Also, crops which harvestable portion grows underground can have better results with strip-tillage[citation needed], mainly in soils which are hard for plant roots to penetrate into deeper layers to access water and nutrients.

In places with rigorous winter, no-tilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates [34][35]. Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the previous years crops laying on the surface of no-tilled fields can provide a favorable environment to pathogens, helping to increase the risk of transmitting diseases to the future crop. And because no-till farming provides good environment for pathogens, insects and weeds, it can lead farmers to a more intensive use of chemicals for pest control[citation needed]. Other disadvantages of no-till include underground rot, low soil temperatures and high moisture[citation needed].

Based on the balance of these factors, and because each farm has different problems, agroecologists will not atest that only no-till or complete

Saving IFCS16/21

tillage is the right way of farming[citation needed]. In fact, these are not the only possible choices regarding soils preparation, since there are intermediate practices such as strip-till, mulch-till and ridge-till, all of them - just as no-till - categorized as conservation tillage. Agroecologists, then, will evaluate the need of different practices for the contexts in which each farm is inserted.

In a no-till system, an agroecologist could ask the following:

1. Can the farm minimize environmental impacts and increase its level of sustainability; for instance by efficiently increasing the productivity of the crops to minimize land use?

2. Does this way of farming sustain good quality of life for the farmers, their families, rural labor and rural communities involved?

Agroecology by region

The principles of agroecology are expressed differently depending on local ecological and social contexts.

Latin America and agroecology

Main article: Agroecology in Latin America

Latin America's experiences with North American Green Revolution agricultural techniques have opened space for agroecologists. Traditional or indigenous knowledge represents a wealth of possibility for agroecologists, including "exchange of wisdoms." See Miguel Alteiri's Enhancing the Productivity of Latin American Traditional Peasant Farming Systems Through an Agroecological Approach for information on agroecology in Latin America.

Madagascar and agroecology

Main article: Agroecology in Madagascar

Most of the historical farming in Madagascar has been conducted by indigenous peoples. The French colonial period disturbed a very small percentage of land area, and even included some useful experiments in sustainable forestry. Slash-and-burn techniques, a component of some shifting cultivation systems have been practised by natives in Madagascar for centuries. As of 2006 some of the major agricultural products from slash-and-burn methods are wood, charcoal and grass for Zebu grazing. These practises have taken perhaps the greatest toll on land fertility since the end of French rule, mainly due to overpopulation pressures.

See also

Agriculture | Agroecological restoration | Agroecosystem | Agroecosystem analysis | Agronomy | Agrophysics |applied ecology | biodynamics | biological pest control | Community-supported agriculture | Conventional agriculture | dynamic equilibrium | Ecology | Ecology of contexts | Edaphology | Environmental economics | Environmental impact assessment | Extensive farming | Farmer Field School (FFS) | forest gardening | food desert | Food sovereignty | food security | Food systems | Genetic Erosion | Intercropping | industrial agriculture | Integrated Pest Management | intensive farming | Landscape Ecology | Life cycle analysis | Malnutrition | Managed intensive grazing | Masanobu Fukuoka | Permaculture | pollinator decline | Polyculture | Monoculture | organic agriculture | Rural Sociology

Saving IFCS17/21

| secondary succession | Shifting cultivation | Sociology | Soil Science | Traditional Knowledge | Urban Agriculture

Agropedia portal

References1. ̂ Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., David, C.

(2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development (published online)

2. ̂ Pretty, Jules. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 447-465.

3. ̂ Conway, Gordon R. 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural Administration, 20, 31-55.

4. ̂ http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=81 5. ^ a b c d e Dalgaard, Tommy, and Nicholas Hutchings, John Porter.

"Agroecology, Scaling and Interdisciplinarity." Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 100(2003): 39-51.

6. ̂ http://www.agroecology.org 7. ^ a b Buttel, Frederick. "Envisioning the Future Development of

Farming in the USA: Agroecology between Extinction and Multifunctionality?" New Directions in Agroecology Research and Education (2003)

8. ^ a b c d e f Francis, C., et al. "Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22.3 (2003).

9. ^ a b c d Gliessman, Stephen. R Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor: Sleeping Bear Press, 1998.

10. ̂ Klages, K.H.W. 1928. Crop ecology and ecological crop geography in the agronomic curriculum. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 20:336-353.

11. ^ a b Wezel, A., Soldat, V. (2009). A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (1): 3-18.

12. ̂ Tischler, W. (1965). Agrarökologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany, 499 pp.

13. ̂ Friederichs, K. (1930) Die Grundfragen und Gesetzmäßigkeiten der land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Zoologie. Vol. 1: Ökologischer Teil, Vol. 2: Wirtschaftlicher Teil. Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey, Berlin, Germany, 417 and 443 pp.

14. ̂ Hansen, B., Alrøe, H.F., Kristensen, E.S., 2001. Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 83, 11–26.

15. ̂ Harper, J.L., 1974. Agric. Ecosyst. Agroecosyst. 1, 1–6. 16. ̂ qtd. in Francis et al. 2003. 17. ̂ Reproduced from Francis et al., 2003 and Wezel et al., 2009. 18. ̂ IFOAM (International Federation for Organic Agriculture

Movements) 19. ̂ Boer, I J. M. 2003. Environmental impact assessment of

conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science. Vol 80, p 69–77.

20. ̂ Hovi, M. el al. 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science. Vol 80, p 41–53.

21. ̂ Bennedsgaard, T.W. et al. 2003. Eleven years of organic dairy production in Denmark: herd health and production related to time of conversion and compared to conventional production. Livestock production science. Vol 80, p 121-131.

22. ^ a b Garcia-Torres, L. et al. 2002. Summary of the Workshop on Soil Protection and Sustainable Agriculture organized by the EU

Saving IFCS18/21

Commission DG Environment and the DG Environmental Quality of the Spanish Ministry of Environment (Soria, Spain)

23. ̂ Branco, H. and Lal, R. 2008. Principles of Conservation Management. No Tillage-Farming (Ch.8). Springer Verlag. Netherlands. P. 195

24. ̂ Bolliger, A. et al. 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian “Zero Till Revolution”: A review of landmark research and farmers’ practice. Adv. Agron. Vol 91, p 47–110

25. ^ a b Calegari, A. et al. 2008. Impact of Long-Term No-Tillage and Cropping System Management on Soil Organic Carbon in an Oxisol: A Model for Sustainability. Agronomy Journal. Vol 100, Issue 4, p 1013-1019

26. ̂ West, T. and Post, W. 2002. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1930–1946

27. ̂ Machado, P.L.O.A. and Silva, C.A. 2001. Soil management under no-tillage systems in the tropics with special reference to Brazil. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. Vol 61, p 119–130

28. ̂ Koga, N. et al. 2003. Fuel consumption-derived CO2 emissions under conventional and reduced tillage cropping systems in northern Japan. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Vol 99, p 213–219.

29. ̂ Fleizo et al. 2002 30. ^ a b c d Koller, K. 2003. Techniques of soil tillage. Ed. Adel

El Titi (CRC Press) 31. ̂ Pavuk, D.M. 1994. Influence of weeds within Zea mays crop

plantings on populations of adult Diabrotica barberi and Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Vol 50, p 165-175

32. ̂ G. E. Brust, B. Stinner & D. McCartney. 1986. Predator activity and predation in corn agroecosystems. Environmental Entomology 15:1017-1021

33. ̂ Fleizo et al. 2002 34. ̂ Randall, G.W., and P.R. Hill. 2000. Fall strip-tillage

systems. p. 193–199. In R.C. Reeder (ed.) Conservation tillage systems and management. MWPS-45, 2nd ed. Iowa State Univ., Ames.

35. ̂ Licht, M.A. and Al-Kaisi, M. 2005. Strip-tillage effect on seedbed soil temperature and other soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research. Vol 80, p 233-249

Additional information Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative

agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press. Altieri, M.A. 1992. Agroecological foundations of alternative

agriculture in California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 39: 23-53.

Buttel, F.H. and M.E. Gertler 1982. Agricultural structure, agricultural policy and environmental quality. Agriculture and Environment 7: 101-119.

Carrol, C. R., J.H. Vandermeer and P.M. Rosset. 1990. Agroecology. McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York.

Paoletti, M.G., B.R. Stinner, and G.G. Lorenzoni, ed. Agricultural Ecology and Environment. New York: Elsevier Science Publisher B.V., 1989.

Robertson, Philip, and Scott M Swinton. "Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3.1 (2005): 38-46.

Savory, Allan; Jody Butterfield (1998-12-01) [1988]. Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making (2nd ed. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-487-1.

Saving IFCS19/21

The Power of Community:How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. Yellow Springs,Ohio 45387: The Community Solution.

Vandermeer, J. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 201-224

Advances in Agroecology Book Series

Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture (Advances in Agroecology) by Fred Magdoff and Ray R. Weil (Hardcover - May 27, 2004)

Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems (Advances in Agroecology) by Louise E. Buck, James P. Lassoie, and Erick C.M. Fernandes (Hardcover - Oct 1, 1998)

Agroecosystem Sustainability: Developing Practical Strategies (Advances in Agroecology) by Stephen R. Gliessman (Hardcover - Sep 25, 2000)

Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities (Advances in Agroecology) by Cornelia Flora (Hardcover - Feb 5, 2001)

Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management (Advances in Agroecology) by Lech Ryszkowski (Hardcover - Dec 27, 2001)

Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) by Thomas Gitau, Margaret W. Gitau, David Waltner-ToewsClive A. Edwards June 2008 | Hardback: 978-1-4200-7277-8 (CRC Press)

Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) by Mario Giampietro 2003 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1067-6 (CRC Press)

Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Adel El Titi 2002 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1228-1 (CRC Press)

Tropical Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by John H. Vandermeer 2002 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1581-7 (CRC Press)

Structure and Function in Agroecosystem Design and Management (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Masae Shiyomi, Hiroshi KoizumiClive A. Edwards 2001 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-0904-5 (CRC Press)

Biodiversity in Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Wanda W. Collins, Calvin O. QualsetClive A. Edwards1998 | Hardback: 978-1-56670-290-4 (CRC Press)

External links University of Wisconsin-Madison Agroecology Graduate Program The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems Agroecology in action agroecology Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program at University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign Agroecology at Iowa State University Agroecology Program at Penn State

Saving IFCS20/21

European Master Agroecology Agroecology Program at The University of British Columbia UC Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems Facilitating Mechanism of the Global Plan of Action for the

Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

http://www.agroeco.org/index.html Agroecology in Brazil Agroecology in Spain

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology"Categories: Agronomy | Agriculture | Agricultural soil science | Conservation | Habitat management equipment and methods | SustainabilityHidden categories: All pages needing to be wikified | Wikify from June 2009 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009 | Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009

Saving IFCS21/21