The future of farming lies beneath our feet—within the microscopic world of beneficial microbes. As agriculture faces mounting challenges exacerbated by climate change, innovative solutions are essential. Dr. Brahim Benbrik,.
Humanity is on the verge of breaking the water poverty line – 1,000 m3 of water per year per capita – below which its food security would be seriously compromised..
When it comes to agricultural research, MASCIR walks on the two legs of sustainability and profitability. Our first concern is to reduce agriculture's carbon footprint. Our second concern is the.
The LiDAR project, one of the Centre d'Optique et Photonique's strategic projects, was designed and carried out under the direction of Professor Zouheir Sekkat. In terms of precision agriculture, the.
MASCIR's strategy, like Morocco's, is to exploit one of our strengths: 3,500 km of coastline. It's obvious to us: the sea is an inexhaustible source of microalgae. Microalgae are photosynthetic.
____ SOILS, A COMPLEX LIVING ECOSYSTEM ___ Part 1 UN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SOIL ANALYSIS Soil ecology is the study of the interactions among soil organisms, and between biotic.
____ SOILS, A COMPLEX LIVING ECOSYSTEM ___ Part 2 SOIL CONSERVATION The soil is a complex world where biotic elements interact with each other and with the abiotic elements.
[divider]File 1[/divider] From Food Insecurity to Food Sovereignty After taking stock of African agriculture, Pierre Jacquemot draws inspiration from agroecology practices to argue that food sovereignty is the royal road.
Access to financing remains a major issue for farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The lack of credit availability is considered a central obstacle, if not the most significant one, to the.
Across Africa, from Senegal to Djibouti, the world's longest vegetative wall is being built: the Great Green Wall. It is 7,600 km long. More than just a reforestation program, the.
Throughout the 21st century, agricultural production growth in Africa will rely on significant productivity gains. Plant biotechnology, which speeds up the selection process to obtain plant varieties with desired traits more quickly, will be crucial in achieving this.
IMPOSSIBILITY TO ACHIEVE GROWTH GOALS WITHOUT PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY
The growth of African agricultural production, necessary to improve the continent's food self-sufficiency rate, will depend on more productive local crops.
According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), root crop production will reach 4.85 million tonnes by 2031, which is 900,000 tonnes more than in 2019-2021.
The planted varieties will need to be able to adapt to climate change and its extremes. Cereal and legume production will also increase by 20% during this period, thanks to high productivity gains of nearly 2% per year. As the African population is expected to double by 2050, productivity gains will need to continue each year.
Without the use of plant biotechnology, the growth targets for these crops are unattainable.
"The plant biotechnologies currently used are part of a range of selection tools developed through innovation, technological advancements, and scientific knowledge," explains Georges Freyssinet, President of the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies (AFBV). "They are complementary and are all used with the idea of creating new plant varieties adapted to climate, resistant to pathogens and pests, more productive, and less dependent on inputs."
Georges Freyssinet, President of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology
Plant Biotechnologies in Plant Breeding
Plant biotechnologies employed in plant breeding can be classified based on the three operational modes identified in the selection process.
In addition to intraspecies crosses, biotechnologies offer three possible approaches:
Panoramic view of a field of cassava, maize, and millet (@ Nieuwenkampr)
Acceleration of Plant Breeding
Except for transgenesis, all the presented biotechnologies only accelerate the selection process to obtain plant varieties with desired traits more quickly. They only exploit the existing genetic heritage of plants in nature.
The authorized and employed plant biotechnologies do not introduce exogenous genes. Moreover, they are used without controversy.
These plant biotechnologies differ in this aspect from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the late 20th century, GMOs represented a technological leap as they aimed to expand the genetic variability of cultivated plants by introducing new traits through genes from other species.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, genome editing technologies have opened new possibilities to accelerate the selection process. Will they be more welcomed than transgenic technologies?
In December 2019, Kenya decided to authorise the commercialisation of transgenic cotton within the country. “This should help farmers increase revenue thanks to increased levels of production”, explained Head of State Uhuru Kenyatta. The decision has largely gone unnoticed. However, it represents a turning point. The country, which passed a bio-security law in 2009, had banned all imports of transgenic products, including food products and seeds for food production. GM (genetically modified) plantations were banned. Only strictly-controlled research projects were able to take place. On one side, the African Agricultural Technological Foundation (AATF), a pro-GMO organisation based in Nairobi, was lobbying the government to repeal the ban. On the other, Greenpeace was calling for the ban to be maintained to prevent “big business from taking over the food production system”.
In the end, Kenya decided to adopt a three-phase approach to setting up GM farms, known as 3 F: Fiber-Feed-Food. The first phase involves adopting Bt cotton[1], followed by fodder crops. Only then will the production of GM food products for human consumption be considered. In this way, the authorities plan to give themselves time to assess the risks involved in this decision. Bt cotton field tests carried out in the country over the past few years have shown that the transgenic crop produces yields 30% greater than conventional cotton. There is, therefore, an agronomic argument to be made. The other argument is industrial, with the country’s ambition to impose itself as the regional leader in textile production. As East Africa’s biggest economy, Kenya’s position may influence its neighbours, which share the same agricultural and industrial challenges.
Since the 1980s, new technologies used by plant breeders have emerged, inspired by genetic engineering and genomics, leading to the development of GM plants. Since then, biotech research has expanded considerably. With African populations still suffering from food insecurity, the use of these resources, in particular transgenic seeds, is presented by supporters as a means of overcoming most of the constraints which are hindering the development of agriculture. However, African decision-makers, scientists and farmers remain divided over the advantages and potential risks of transgenic crops.[2]
How is the argument framed, and what are the options for using biotech seeds to overcome agricultural and food production issues in Africa? This question underpins the continent’s food and nutritional security. It is all the more pressing in the context of emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, which will have disturbed agricultural and food production systems while opening the way to new options.
[1]“Bt” refers to a toxin produced by strains of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. It is a GM variety created by the American firm Monsanto (absorbed by Beyer in 2018).
[2] The African Seed Access Index (TASAI) monitors essential indicators (number of varieties, accessibility, quality, price, yield, extension services) crucial to the development of the seed sector for fourteen African countries.
In 2018, there were almost 192 million hectares of GM crops, or 12% of crops worldwide, in 26 countries (ISAAA, 2018). Four GM crops dominate - soybeans for livestock fodder, maize, rape, and cotton - achieving almost complete market saturation in the United States, with 93.3% of the market (average for soybeans and maize), Brazil (93%), Argentina (almost 100%), Canada (92.5 %) and India (95 %). Biotech crops have expanded with alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya, squash, aubergine, potatoes and apples, which are all already on the market. Indonesia has planted the first drought-resistant sugar cane. Research into biotech crops by public sector institutions includes rice, bananas, cassava, yam, cocoa beans, coffee bushes, potatoes, sweet potatoes, wheat, chickpeas, pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan) and mustard. This research focuses on various aspects of nutritional quality and economic advantages for producers and consumers of food products in developing countries.
In Europe, maize MON810, which produces an insecticide to protect the plant from corn borers, is the only GM crop approved for use in Europe. France has put in place a moratorium on planting GM crops. However, 70 GMOs are authorised for consumption in Europe, most of them for livestock. In this way, Europe imports transgenic soybeans to feed cattle, thus consuming them indirectly.
Transgenic cottons are now produced by most of the major cotton-growing countries: China, the United States, Australia and India, on very large farms. Brazil authorised GM cotton in 2006. Two African countries have been part of this group for several years: South Africa and Sudan.
South Africa was one of the first ten countries in the world to plant 2.7 million hectares of biotech crops. From 1997, over two million hectares of transgenic, lepidopteran-resistant cotton and maize were planted for commercial purposes. The country then approved GM soybeans. Adoption has been progressive. Today, 80% of maize, 85% of soybeans, and almost 100% of cotton in South Africa is genetically modified, for a total of around three million hectares.
For its part, Sudan has grown 245,000 hectares of Bt cotton with a 98% adoption rate among farmers. 90,000 of these farmers operate small farms, averaging 2.1 hectares. Some of the genes were introgressed with local varieties, to stimulate the expansion of this biotechnology with varying degrees of success. For small-scale farmers, farming by hand, the additional cost of transgenic licences is rarely covered by increases in yield, which remain low. However, for farms 50 hectares or more in size, there is a clear economic advantage which, nevertheless, varies depending on the level of infestation in fields and weather conditions.
[inbound_button font_size="14" color="#8d0100" text_color="#ffffff" icon="download" url="https://dev.willagri.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Dossier-Willagri-03-20-EN-1.pdf" width="" target="_blank"]Télécharger le dossier en PDF[/inbound_button] At the start of this decade, France has been at war in the Sahel for seven years, and.
[inbound_button font_size="14" color="#8d0100" text_color="#ffffff" icon="download" url="https://dev.willagri.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Dossier-Willagri-02-20-EN.pdf" width="" target="_blank"]Download the article[/inbound_button]
Despite appearances, the agriculture and mining industries have several things in common, not least the race to scale up and up. This is old news in mining. But, contrary to perceived wisdom, the same is true of farming, at least when it comes to supplying global markets. Huge farms supply the agri-food industries and supermarkets' purchasing groups. These farms often focus on producing a single product. They are not scattered randomly but concentrated in a small number of highly specialised agricultural regions.
In the middle ages, Europe was dotted with small lead, zinc, tin, copper and other mines. Having become too small, isolated and unprofitable, these mines and associated industrial units in the Massif Central region of France, Thuringia in Germany and Bohemia in the Czech Republic barely survived the First World War. Despite their glorious pasts, the mines in the coal fields of northern France, Belgium and Great Britain and even the Ruhr were in turn shut down one by one after the Second World War.
The only mines that survive worldwide are gigantic operations in places like Canada, Chile, Mauritania, South Africa and Australia. These are open-cast mines that process enormous quantities at very low production costs. They are linked by railways to specialist ports where large cargo ships dock to load.
The same kind of mergers are now happening in agriculture, albeit a few years after they happened in the industrial sector. Today, the big agricultural production areas supply world markets. They are made up of huge holdings covering tens or even hundreds of thousands of hectares. For example, 47,000 Brazilian farms are more than 1,000 hectares in size (a quarter of them are over 10,000 hectares) and account for nearly half of the farmed area in the country, while 5,700,000 farms of less than 100 hectares farm less than 21% of the farmed area. In Ukraine, one holding manages over 600,000 hectares and several firms in the hands of Russian oligarchs are over 1 million hectares in size. These massive businesses are fully equipped, managed rationally, and obviously employ salaried workers. Harvests are transported to loading ports by water, train or a constant toing and froing of trucks. This happens on the North American plains, via the Mississippi and St Laurence rivers, in the "Black Sea" countries where produce is taken to ports on the Sea of Azov, and in Argentina, where the Rosario terminal on the Paraná River is the destination.
But despite their size, these production areas cover only a fraction of cultivated land worldwide and satisfy only a minority share, albeit a large one, of human dietary needs. The vast majority of these needs are met by hundreds of millions of very small holdings. Of course, these micro-farms play only a very marginal role in supplying world markets. But they are essential for feeding the general populations of rural areas and even neighbouring cities.
A few large production areas dominate all these international markets, whether for grain, sugar, oilseeds or dairy products. And the same is true of bananas, avocados, coffee, cocoa and tea. This is because each of these large crops comes from a very small number of highly specialised regions able to supply huge quantities of products that comply with strict standards at very competitive prices. It is these precise characteristics that are sought by the large traders, agri-food manufacturers and purchasing groups in buyer countries and ultimately the retail sector.
Of course, consumers benefit in turn, year round, from a regular supply of low-price, consistently high-quality produce. But obviously this produce might come from the other side of the world, because the market decides.
Let's take the case of wheat. This grain crop, widely grown and eaten around the world, needs a lot of space. But most of the areas supplying the world market with wheat are located in regions that are particularly conducive to this crop because of their soil and weather conditions and arable production arrangements. This applies to the North American plains between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains (nearly 20 million hectares of wheat fields), the Pampas in Argentina, the black-soil regions of Ukraine and southern Russia, and the plains of the European Union.
In 2019-20, global wheat production is predicted to total 765 million tonnes. Around 175 million tonnes (22.6%) might be traded internationally. Out of this total, the Black Sea countries are forecast to export 60 million tonnes, the US and Canada 24 to 25 million tonnes each, and the EU nearly as much (including 11.7 million tonnes by France). To this we can add Argentina, which exports 14 million tonnes, with a similar amount from Australia, although it is, even more so than other countries, exposed to very frequent unpredictable weather conditions. In total, this handful of countries will export 162 million tonnes of wheat, or nearly 93% of the global total.
On the other side of the scales, there are many more importer countries. And some have large trade deficits as a result of growing needs and structurally weak harvests. For example, in 2019-20, the five North African countries will likely import 28 million tonnes of wheat. But the Middle East, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan are also big importers, while sub-Saharan Africa's wheat imports are growing rapidly.
If we move on to all grains except rice, we need to add to this small group the major corn exporters, who are, essentially, besides the US, Brazil and far behind it South Africa.
The soya market is even more concentrated because three countries, the US, Brazil and Argentina, account for almost all production and exports. China takes in 60% of these, and the EU a good proportion of the remainder. The same is true for palm oil, which is essentially produced in Indonesia and Malaysia, and mainly imported by China and India.
The market for dairy products is dominated by New Zealand and the EU, with the US a distant third.
The production of exotic fruit, vegetables and flowers is also very concentrated. Take bananas. They are consumed in large quantities in the US and Europe and are produced by huge plantations in the small, rich coastal plains of four Central or South American countries (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Colombia and Ecuador). If we add the Philippines, these five countries account for 83% of international banana production. The plantations and trade are controlled by large consortia such as Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte, which each cultivate tens of millions of hectares.
Ghana and Ivory Coast, meanwhile, account for 60% of cocoa production, while coffee production is dominated by Brazil, Vietnam and Ivory Coast.
This concentration of agricultural production therefore offers major and obvious advantages for big farmers, middlemen and processors, but also, at least in the short term, for consumers. However, it also presents serious drawbacks.
Forecasts on the potential of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa on the basis of which large scale land transactions are being deployed, are based on a rhetoric of the "empty continent", adapted to establish agricultural policies as well as to justify all manner of greed. This thesis of the existence of "dormant resources" which would amount to approximately a billion hectares in useful agricultural surfaces area is incorrect. This article introduces the concept of actual availability of agricultural land and takes into account all the real estate constraints in order to assess the surface area likely to be actually devoted to agriculture.
The most optimistic production forecast theories rely on the rhetoric of an Africa rich in “dormant land resources", "vacant and without masters". There would be an abundance of available land, unassigned and ready to be used. 50 million hectares of arable land has already changed hands, between 2000 and 2018, 90% of which to the benefit of foreign interests (Oakland Institute, 2019). It is thought to be concentrated in certain regions particularly favoured in terms of land fertility, access to water and transport infrastructure.
This rhetoric is also well adapted to respond to the question of the Africa’s ability to occupy an agricultural labour force which is very likely to increase by approximately 330 million people over the 40 years between 2010 and 2050 and its ability to cover its own food needs by farming its available land.
The reality is more complex. Land availability is a relative concept in a continent where various modes of ownership and use overlap, but which is also marked by strong agronomic and ecological constraints.
A robust, detailed knowledge of agricultural availability is essential to estimate production potential as well as installation possibilities for newcomers. On the basis of new estimates and a more demanding analysis, this case study draws from a previous Willagri article (20 November 2017), entitled “The Myth of the abundance of arable land in Africa", and attempts to answer three questions: Can we assess the true availability of agricultural land? Can we identify the constraints that are opposed to its extension? And glimpse the dynamics in play when it comes to commercialising African land?
In order to assess the surfaces likely to be devoted to agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, let’s introduce the notion of land availability by distinguishing 5 balances one after another:
Let us measure this using data from the recent Bauhaus Luftfahrt carried out in Munich (Riegel, Roth and Batteiger, 2019) established on the basis of high resolution geospatial data to estimate the areas devolved to different types of use of the soil, supplemented by that of the United Nations for agriculture and power supplies (FAOSTAT).
The approach is called "residual", in that we gradually identify the areas which are not available for agriculture, thus varying the balance if changes occur in any of the subject areas.
With a total of 2 456 million hectares, the sub-Saharan sub-continent is vast.
The areas considered to be useful, i.e. virtually likely to be devoted to an economic activity of one kind or another, cover nearly 1 537 million ha of this zone, after deduction of continental waters, land considered non-cultivatable because it is affected by desertification and areas of population settlement, cities, transportation routes, etc. (ELD-UNEP, 2015; Riegel et al., Op. cit.).
To obtain the potential, we must remove the forests (677 Mha) and protected areas (155 Mha[1]), recognized for their ecological value and whose exploitation for agricultural purposes seriously affect environmental balance.
Within the potential available balance, the land already exploited, with annual and long-term cultivation account for approximately 240 million hectares (OECD/FAO, 2016; FAOSTAT, 2019).
Finally, prairies (including the trails, pastures and cropland, comprising trees, pasture and fodder) devoted to permanent pasture and extensive pastoralism, cover approximately 29% of the useful available surface areas (not uncultivated for livestock), or 445 million ha (FAOSTAT, 2017).
*A correction is made in order to take account of the overlap between protected areas and forests, estimated at 12% (Riegel and Al, 2019). The sources of data are indicated at the end of the article.
©GRET
The net balance of exploitable land is approximately 100 million hectares. The accuracy of the data is relative, but one conclusion appears evident: "There is still substantially less available viable land than is often stated once taken into account all the constraints and trade-offs between various functions" (Lambin et al. , 2014, p. 900). We must include functions other than those which are strictly agronomic or economic and often obscured in arguments which boast the opportunities associated with the agricultural potential of the sub-Saharan sub-continent.
This dossier consists of two distinct parts:
1) An overview of protective measures against the importation of agricultural products: current situation and key issues for sub-Saharan Africa by Jean-Christophe Debar and Abdoul Fattah Tapsoba from the FARM Foundation;
2) A debate between Jean-Christophe Debar (President of FARM), Pierre Jacquet (President of the Global Development Network and FARM's Scientific Committee) and Laurent Levard (a specialist in agricultural issues and trade policy at Gret).
The issue dealt with here is of paramount importance for the future of agriculture in Africa: is it in the interests of the sub-Saharan countries of Africa to increase or decrease customs duties on imported agricultural products? Our experts' answers are nuanced, and pragmatism is the byword. Any increase would, in effect, penalise the urban populations by increasing the prices of imported foodstuffs. Any decrease, by bringing down the prices of imported foodstuffs, would penalise smallholders who would thus be subjected to fiercer competition from products bought abroad. The question of the level of customs duties needs to be looked at within the broader framework of the countries' agricultural policies. Indeed, a decrease of taxes on imported goods can only be justified if it goes hand in hand with government investments to improve the productivity and, therefore, the income of small farmers. It is the only way to compensate for the income lost by the latter due to competition from imported products.
Source: FARM - based on harmonised MAcMap-HS6 data from CEPII and the ICC
Source: FARM - based on harmonised MAcMap-HS6 data from CEPII and the ICC
In 2013, all the sub-regions, with the exception of southern Africa, protected their agriculture less from the rest of the world than from the continent's own sub-regions
1- The 'price dilemma in food supply'
2- Trade agreements
Individual African governments have some theoretical room for manoeuvre to increase the duties applied up to the level of the tariffs consolidated at the WTO.
But this room is limited by:
In conclusion
Contrary to all predictions, in the 21st century, agriculture has emerged as one of the most pressing issues of our times. Until now, and for centuries, people’s great fear was that they would not be able to produce enough to feed themselves properly. But today, the future of human societies and even the sustainability of life on earth is at stake. Agriculture will not, by itself, solve these problems crucial to the future of humankind. But it can contribute to solving them.
Within this context, agriculture must also respond as positively as can be to four major challenges:
Nobody can argue with the importance of each of these four challenges taken in isolation. The problem is that the objectives to be achieved are, in part, incompatible. Essentially, we must square the circle by conserving core objectives, but by making sacrifices in certain respects.
In 2015, the FAO estimated that it would be necessary to increase agricultural production by 50% by 2050. It was an ambitious objective, but one which seemed compatible with progress observed in the 20th century. But is it compatible with our three other objectives? Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. Such an increase would require higher agricultural yields, an expansion of agricultural land and an increase in industrial livestock farming.[1]
A significant increase in agricultural production is probably incompatible with the need to reduce greenhouse gases. This is because it would both require continuing to clear forests and cultivating the best grazing lands (both of which are excellent carbon sinks), using large quantities of nitrogen fertilizers (a source of N2O, which is very harmful to the environment, and to increase industrial livestock farming. The FAO also recommends increasing the number of rice fields, particularly in Africa. However, these produce large quantities of methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas whose effects on global warming represent, it has been claimed, over 10% of emissions for the entire agricultural sector.
In this way, increasing agricultural production at the same rate or greater than in the past can only harm the environment and biodiversity. Previous forecasts should therefore be revised more or less extensively, while ensuring people throughout the world are fed enough and healthily.
[1] Despite the size of natural grazing lands worldwide (3,300 million hectares, or almost twice the area of farmland), the potential for production is very low as these are often in arid or semi-arid zones.
Reducing obesity and food waste would, in theory, reduce global needs. Indeed, a section of the population in Western countries is already reducing consumption of meat, sugar and oil for health reasons. But we also know that, until now, obesity levels have continued to increase, in particular (but not only) in developing countries. In certain countries, 50% of the population is already overweight. Significant savings are therefore possible in this area, but they currently remain out of reach. However, any improvement in agricultural losses (up to 30% in certain countries) and food waste would represent direct progress in reducing needs.
Tens of millions of hectares of arable land have been assigned to production of cereals, oleaginous grains and sugar cane for ethanol or diester. Abandoning this production would free up land or avoid clearing thousands of additional hectares of forests. For example, the United States uses 300 million tonnes of maize for ethanol production, which requires at least 30 million hectares of good agricultural land. This represents around 2% of arable land worldwide (around 1,600 million hectares). And yet, the USA, the world’s number one producer of petrol, does not need this type of fuel. It could therefore give up ethanol production without any losses, except to producers.
The latest available statistics show that, contrary to the hopes (and objectives) of the FAO, the number of people going hungry, which had dropped to 200 million at the start of the 21st century, is now rising again. In 2017, 821 million people, or one person in nine worldwide, were going hungry. Unfortunately, it seems that this number will remain steady, and may even increase. This will be due to overpopulation (in certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa in particular), climate change and political uncertainty in various countries. If this hypothesis turns out to be true, world food production will automatically drop. This, it goes without saying, is not morally acceptable.
Of course, agriculture, like all other economic activities, contributes to the production of greenhouse gases. It is estimated that it accounts for 13.5% of greenhouse gases (30% including downstream businesses). There are many sources of gases: direct consumption of energy by agricultural machines, N2O emissions from nitrogen fertilizers, production of methane... If we want to limit global warming, these emissions must urgently be reduced. Of course, agriculture must play its part, but in what form and in what proportions?
As a priority, let’s stop clearing forests or prairies and get better at fighting forest fires, which wipe out millions of hectares every year. Also, let’s avoid setting fire to the vast African savannahs during the dry season.
Simplified agricultural techniques will reduce fuel consumption. These practices are developing rapidly throughout the world. They must continue.
By modifying certain agronomic practices, it is also possible to reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers and therefore the amount which is emitted into the atmosphere. But it will be difficult to avoid a drop in yields (in countries where these are very high, such as Europe or China), whereas agricultural production must increase because an extra 2 billion people will have to be fed by 2050.
Even though the majority of the 3,300 million hectares of natural grazing lands often have low productivity, too often they are over-exploited. To resolve this situation, flock sizes must be reduced, and grasslands must be restored so that CO2 can be trapped in the soil.
Scientists are researching types of feed which lead to less methane being released by ruminants. This path should be explored further too. It is also possible to reduce animal numbers, for example by eating less red meat or breeding more productive and therefore fewer dairy cows. Think of the millions of cows in India which are virtually unproductive and yet are releasing methane!
The increase in the size of farms and the widespread use of modern production techniques has harmed the environment, in particular wild flora and fauna. Ever larger plots, the disappearance of hedges, the destruction of humid zones and increased use of crop protection products have led to these phenomena. We now know that their consequences for soil protection, water and air quality, and simply the future of agricultural production are extremely serious and long-lasting. For example, atrazine can still be found in groundwater, even though its use has been forbidden in maize production for 20 years.
However, these difficulties do not mean we should set aside our objectives, even though much work remains to achieve them.
This will be very difficult. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine dividing up huge agricultural plots in new countries to return to a more human scale. However, small or medium farms are better adapted to the preservation of traditional plots and to good use of rural land. These must be protected.
The priority should be to stop clearing forests and cultivate natural grazing lands. However, this is less than ever the direction taken by countries such as Brazil, which are claiming the right to grow their exports of soya, cereals or meat as they please.[1]
In the same way, soil restoration with its flora and fauna is complicated, as it requires completely modifying agricultural methods. This is one of the objectives of organic farming and agro-ecology.
A network of hedges should also be created or brought back around fields. In France, Brittany has already started re-planting some hedges, particularly in catchment areas to prevent chemicals from being swept into rivers. Currently 2,500 kilometres of new hedges are thus planted every year, which is good. But in the 1960s and 1970s, we destroyed 250,000 km of hedges!
All of this can be expensive, pushing up cost prices for agricultural products.[2] While managers of large farms are perfectly able to implement these changes when they are imposed, smaller farmers must be given training in these new techniques.
[1] Based on satellite observations, deforestation has accelerated dangerously in Brazil (+278% between 2018 and 2019).
[2] It should be remembered that, in organic farming, yields are lower than in conventional farming, leading to higher production costs and therefore higher sales prices.
