The
Globalization of Agriculture: Implication for Sustainability of Small
Horticultural Farms
John
E. Ikerd, Agricultural Economics,
Keywords: sustainable agriculture, international trade, free markets,
economics,
comparative
advantage
To globalize means to make worldwide in scope or application. We live in a global ecosystem; in this, we have no choice. Increasingly, all nations of the world share a global culture, a consequence of past choices. And, the economy has become increasingly global as well. However, within the global ecosystem are boundaries, which give form and structure to natural systems. Within the global culture are boundaries, which define different human values and perspectives of reality. And within the global economy are boundaries, which allow nations to reflect the differences in their natural ecosystems and social cultures in the structure and functioning of their economies.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) appears committed
to removing all “barriers” to international trade, to achieve “free trade,” and
thus, to removing all “economic boundaries” among nations. Once the economic boundaries are removed, cultural boundaries will become further blurred, and
ecological boundaries will be left open to economic exploitation. Cultural and ecological diversity are
considered obstacles to economic progress.
A truly global economy will allow greater geographic specialization,
greater standardization of processes and products, and thus, will allow global
corporations to achieve even greater economies of scale.
In a global agricultural economy, small farms will
be replaced by large farms, which in turn will be controlled by giant
multinational corporations. Small
farmers quite simply will not be able to compete in a “free market” global economy. Many small farmers of the world rely on
horticultural crops for their viability.
Thus, the implications of globalization may be even more dramatic for
horticulture than for most other agricultural sectors. But even more important, ecological and
cultural boundaries are essential to the long run sustainability of
agriculture. Thus, if all economic
boundaries are removed, human life on earth, at least as we know it, will not
be sustainable.
Over the past
decade, globalization has become a major public issue. Most of the recent controversy has centered
on the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The WTO was established in 1994, with authority to oversee international
trade, administer free trade agreements, and settle trade disputes among member
nations, replacing the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). However under the WTO, authority was greatly
expanded to cover trade in services as well
as merchandise – including protection of intellectual property rights. And, intellectual property rights have been
interpreted to include the genetic code of living organisms. Also, the WTO has far greater authority over
trade in agricultural commodities than had existed under the GATT. The implicit, if not explicit, objective in
forming the WTO was to reduce and eventually remove all restraints to trade, in
order to achieve a single “global free market.”
“Globalization,”
as a concept, is far broader in meaning than is the concept of a “global free
market.” To “globalize,” according to
Webster’s dictionary, means “to make worldwide in scope or application.” The objective of the WTO is to create a
single geographic market that is worldwide in scope, with a single set of
trading rules that are worldwide in application. However, we cannot change the global economy
without simultaneously affecting global ecology and global society. This is the crux of the current WTO
controversy. What are the implications
of a “global free market,” not just for the world economy, but also for the
world community and for the world itself?
We live in a global ecosystem, regardless of whether we like it or
not. We have no choice; such is the
nature of “nature.” The atmosphere is
global. Whatever we put in the air in
one place eventually may find its way to any other place on the globe. Weather is global. The warming or cooling of the oceans in one
part of the world affects the weather in another, which in turn affects the
temperature of oceans elsewhere on the globe.
All the elements of the biosphere are interrelated and interconnected,
including its human elements. We are all
members of the global community of nature.
We have no choice in this matter.
Increasingly, we also live in a global “social”
community. Global communications – print
media, radio, television, and the Internet – have erased technical communications
barriers among nations, resulting in the spread of common cultural values
around the globe. Global travel has
become faster, easier, and less expensive, resulting in greater
person-to-person sharing of social and cultural values among nations. Consequently, the distinctiveness of national
cultures has diminished. We seem to be
moving toward universal membership in a common global culture.
However, in
matters of society and culture we have the right and the responsibility to
choose. We have the right to maintain
whatever aspects of our unique local or national cultures and communities that
we choose to keep. And we have the
responsibility to protect this right against the economic or political forces
pushing us toward a single global culture or social community.
We also seem to be moving toward a single global
economy. International trade has
increased dramatically over the past few decades, first under the various GATT
agreements and now under the WTO. All of
the national economies of the world are interconnected through their dependence
upon each other for trade. Problems
anywhere in the world economy, with Japan and Argentina being recent examples,
create economic problems for nations all around the globe. However, the global economy is made up of
numerous distinct markets – including national markets and various
multinational trade groups, such as those defined by the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union (EU). However, the implicit purpose of the WTO is
to remove all restraints on trade among nations and among trade groups, and
thus, to create a single global market.
In
the matter of a single global market, we also have a right and a responsibility
to choose. Every nation has the right to
maintain those aspects of its local and national economies that it deems
necessary to protect its resources and its people from exploitation. In a truly “global free market,” the social
and political boundaries that now protect nations from such economic
exploitation would no longer exist.
Again, to the crux of the WTO controversy, we must ask, “What are the
implications of removing the economic boundaries among nations, thus creating a
single global market?”
Perhaps
the best way to begin addressing this question is to examine the boundaries
that currently restrain globalization and to ask why those boundaries are there
in the first place. The boundaries that
exist in nature, the ecological boundaries, were put there by natural processes. Such physical features as oceans, mountains,
and even rivers and ridges, separate one physical bioregion from another. Why do such boundaries exist within
nature? Perhaps, because nature is
inherently diverse and boundaries are nature’s way of defining its
diversity. Boundaries separate and
define the form or structure of those things that support life: sunlight, air,
water, and soil. Boundaries also define
the physical structure of all living things: bacteria, fungi, plants, animals,
and humans. We know also that biological
diversity is necessary for life; diversity that distinguishes cells, organs,
and living organisms from each other; diversity that gives resistance,
resilience, and the regeneration ability to living communities. Without diversity, without boundaries, nature
could not sustain life, including human life.
Cultural and
political boundaries are those things that define distinct “communities” of
people – including cities, states, and nations.
We established such boundaries to facilitate relationships among people
within boundaries and to differentiate between relationships among people
within a given “community” and their relationships with people in other
“communities.” Within cultural
boundaries, relationships were nurtured to enhance social connectedness and
personal security. Boundaries “between”
communities maintain some sense of identify, and thus, maintain diversity among
different groups or collections of people.
Diversity among communities maintains choices and opportunity for those
of the current generation and for those of generations to follow. Historically, whenever one human culture or
society has become dominate, but has then failed, alternative cultures and
societies has always been available to restore health and growth, and thus, to
provide resilience, and long run security for human progress. Without cultural diversity, there would have
been nothing to replace the long line of failed societies of the past.
In
earlier times, cultural and political boundaries tended to coincide with
natural boundaries – oceans, mountains, rivers, and ridges. However during the industrial era, economic
and political considerations have taken priority over natural boundaries in
defining our social relationships. Wars
have resulted in redrawing of national boundaries along lines that have little
relationship to either topography or culture.
Towns and cities have expanded their boundaries with little regard for
the best long run use of the land they have covered with highways, buildings,
and parking lots. And with the trend
toward a single “global community,” the remaining social and cultural
boundaries that still define different groups of people, with diverse social,
ethical, and moral values, are being largely ignored.
With
some notable exceptions, economic boundaries, over at least the past century,
have been the same as national political boundaries. Historically, each nation has had its own
currency, and has maintained economic relationships among those “within”
nations as separate and distinct from economic relationships “among”
nations. The
The
basic purpose of economic boundaries is to promote “free trade” within the
boundaries of communities and to carry out “selective trade” among those
communities that are separated by economic boundaries. Economic diversity, as defined by economic
boundaries, is necessary for division of labor and specialization. If all national economies were to lose their
distinctiveness, becoming as one, all potential gains from trade among nations
would disappear. Historically, economic
diversity among nations also has been considered a necessity to ensure choice
and opportunity – to ensure health, growth, resilience, and long run security
of the global economy. Humanity has not
been willing to put all of its “economic eggs in one basket.”
So,
why have leaders of the major economic powers of the world decided now to put
all their “economic eggs” in the “WTO basket?”
The most logical answer seems to be that world leaders are now motivated
more by short run economic consideration than by longer run concerns for human
culture or for the natural environment.
In this respect, other nations quite likely are being misled by the
“economic culture” of the
Within this
culture, economic boundaries are viewed as obstacles to trade, as limiting the
ability of investors to maximize economic efficiency. “Free trade” among all nations would result
in a more efficient global economy, they say, thus benefiting all people of the
world. Current barriers to trade, they
say, usually are nothing more than artificial, political restraints designed to
protect specific individuals and industries within nations from economic
competition with more efficient producers in other nations. Thus, the WTO should work to remove such
barriers, allowing the most efficient producers in the world to produce the
world’s goods and services, resulting in the lowest possible cost of goods and
services to consumers everywhere – so they claim.
Such claims are based on
economic theories of trade that historically have made “free trade” something
of a “sacred tenet” of economics. This
is true particularly among the more conservative of economists, whose views are
now in vogue. Contemporary “free trade
theory” has its foundation in the early 1800s, primarily in the writing of
British economist, David Ricardo.
Ricardo showed that when two individuals choose to trade, each is better
off after the trade than before. People
have different tastes and preferences, and thus, each person values the same
things somewhat differently. So, if I
value something you now own more highly than I value something I own, and you
value the thing that I own more highly than you value the thing you own, we
will both gain by trading. I will get
something that I value more than the thing I now own and so will you.
The
same concept can be used to show the potential gains from trade associated with
economic specialization. For example,
one farmer may be a more efficient producer of one crop, e.g. tomatoes, and
another farmer may be a more efficient producer of another, e.g. green peas. If so, one farmer can then specialize in green
peas and the other in tomatoes. The
better tomato producer can then trade tomatoes for peas and the green pea
producer can trade peas for tomatoes, and they both will be better off than if
they each tried to produce both peas and tomatoes.
Even
if one farmer is a better producer of both peas and tomatoes, the other farmer
will have a “comparative advantage” in producing one or the other. Let’s say the first farmer could produce
either 4 tons of green peas or 80 tons of tomatoes on a hectare of land and a
given amount of labor, and capital.
Assume a second farmer could only produce 3.3 tons of green peas or 60
tons of tomatoes on a hectare of land using the same amount of labor and
capital – not as much of either as the first farmer.
If the first farmer
decided to produce only peas, he or she would have to forego 20 tons of
tomatoes for each ton of peas produced (80/4=20). However, if the second farmer decided to
produce peas, he or she would only have to forego 18 tons of tomatoes for each
ton of peas (60/3.3=18). In economic
terms, this means that the second farmer has a “comparative advantage” in
producing peas, because his or her “opportunity cost” of producing peas is
less. Using the same logic, the first
farmer has a lower “opportunity cost” of producing tomatoes (0.050 tons of peas
per ton of tomatoes (4/80), compared with .055 tons of peas per ton of tomatoes
(3.3/60)). The “opportunity costs” for
both crops are lower if the second farmer specializes in producing peas and the
first farmer specializes in producing tomatoes.
Although
the arithmetic gets messy, if the second farmer specializes in peas and the
first in tomatoes, and they trade their surpluses to each other, both will be
better off than if each produces some peas and some tomatoes. Of course the real world is much more complex
than this simple “two producer, two commodity” example, but this simple
one-on-one trade situation is still at the heart of contemporary economic trade
theory.
So,
if both traders gain from specialization and trade, what’s wrong with “free
trade?” The problems arise because “free
trade” between two independent individuals, in the context of the early 1800s,
does not accurately reflect the reality of trade among nations in the early
2000s.
First,
trade is truly free only if both partners are “free not to trade.” Participants in “free trade” must have an
“interdependent” relationship.
Interdependence implies that people relate to each other “by choice,”
not “by necessity.” If one trading
partner is dependent on another, the dependent partner may have no choice but
to do whatever is necessary to maintain the relationship. “Interdependent” relationships can only be
formed between two otherwise independent entities. When both are independent, neither is compelled
to either form or maintain the relationship.
Under such circumstances, trading relationships are formed only if they
are beneficial to both and continue only so long as they remain beneficial to
both.
Trading
under conditions of coercion, under explicit or implied threats of retribution,
is not free trade. The school kid that
“trades lunches” with the bully, under threat of bodily harm, is not
participating in free trade. Neither is
a weak nation that trades with a strong nation, under the threat of denial of
military protection from some global tyrant.
Nor is it “free trade” if one nation is dependent on the other for its
economic wellbeing, as in cases where one nation has built up large debts to
another. Poor nations are made dependent
on rich nations by their lack of economic wealth, economic infrastructure, and
technological advantage, regardless of their inherent worth to humanity. In many cases, rich nations are able to
exploit the workers and resources of poor nations through trade, because the
poor see no other way to avoid physical depravation or starvation of their
people. Trade when one party feels compelled to trade is not “free trade.” Coerced trade is not “free trade.”
Second,
“free trade” assumes “informed trade.”
Both parties must understand the ultimate consequences of their
actions. If a car dealer trades cars
with a customer, knowing his car is a gas-guzzler, needs lots of repairs, and
is unsafe to drive, and trades the car without informing the customer, this is
not a “free trade.” When a developed
nation encourages a lesser-developed nation to produce for export markets,
knowing that such production will lead to exploitation of their natural and
human resources, and does not inform them of the consequences, this is not free
trade. The “leaders” of the
lesser-developed nations may reap benefits from such trades, often including
bribes or payoffs from the outside exploiters, but the resources of the
lesser-developed nation will be exploited rather than developed. The people will be left with fewer
opportunities for developing their country than they had before. The exploiters know the consequences but the
exploited do not. Uninformed trade is not
“free trade.”
Third,
“free trade,” in economic theory, implies that the decision is made by an
individual, not a collection of people or a nation. Individuals are whole people, presumably
absent of unresolved internal conflicts regarding the relative values of items
to be traded. A person trades only if
they decide trading is good for them as a whole. Nations cannot think with one mind or speak
with one voice. Nations, as large
collections of individuals, may make and carry out trade agreements to which a
substantial portion of the nation’s population is opposed, both before and
after trade takes place. The economic
rational for such agreements is that if the economic benefits to those who
favor trade more than offset the economic costs to those who oppose it, the
nation as a whole will benefit from the trade.
Economics
is incapable of dealing with social consequences of trade, such as equity or
justice. In economics, a nation is said
to gain from trade if those who benefit from trade “could” compensate those who
lose and still have something left over.
Of course, the gainers are under no legal obligation to compensate the
losers, and rarely, if ever, do so. And
in economics, it doesn’t matter that the rich are made richer and the poor are
made poorer. In economics, it doesn’t
really matter how many people are made “relatively” worse or better off by
trade, as long as trade results in greater total wealth and growth of the
overall economy. Free trade doesn’t
address issues of social equity or justice.
Finally,
the foundational principles of economic trade theory are rooted in a “barter
economy” – people “trade” things rather than buy or sell things. In an international currency economy,
comparative advantages in trade can be distorted by fluctuations in currency
exchange rates that have nothing to do with relative productivity. Such fluctuations can cause the exports from
one nation to become more or less costly to importers from another nation for
reasons totally unrelated to changes in production efficiency. Under such conditions, “free markets” do not
result in efficient resource use. Trade
theory assumes differences in monetary prices reflect differences in real
value.
In
classic trade theory, also, each trading partner uses their individual
resources, land, labor, capital, technology, etc. to do whatever they do best –
to realize their comparative advantage.
No consideration is given to the possibility that one nation might
instead transfer some of their resources, such as capital and production
technology, to another nation where they might generate even greater profits. Mobility of capital and technology, hallmarks
of today’s global economy, eliminates the “comparative advantage” of higher
cost nations, forcing them to import from lower cost nations, devaluing both
land and labor in the higher cost nation to globally competitive levels. The classical economic concepts of
comparative advantage did not anticipate international mobility of capital and
technology.
Because
of all these inconsistencies between economic theory and economic reality, the
theory of economic “free trade” does not reflect the reality of “international free
trade” today. Perhaps more important,
opposition and open defiance of the WTO, from countries around the globe,
indicates that any further expansion of trade, being forced upon unwilling
people by the WTO, almost certainly will “not” be “free trade,” but “coerced
trade.”
So
what are the implications of market globalization for international
agriculture, and specifically, for the sustainability of small horticultural
farms? First, the implications will be
different in different parts of the world, because of the wide diversity in
current size and ownership structure of horticultural production units in
different countries. Obviously, large
differences exist between agriculture in the “developed” and “developing”
countries of the world. However,
significant differences also exist within these two communities of nations.
The
European Union (EU) and the
Approximately
1.8 million farms in the EU produced fruit and vegetables in the early
1990s. Many of these obviously were
small family enterprises oriented toward home consumption, as they averaged
only 1.3 ha. in size overall. Some
100,000 of these were classified as commercial operations specializing in
production of vegetables, averaging 4.2 ha. in size, and 350,000 were
commercial operations specializing in production of fruit, averaging 7.9 ha. in
size.
Horticulture in the
However, for
both the
Comparable
data are not available for many of the developing countries. However over the past decade, the fastest growing
fruit and vegetable regions of the world have been
In general,
regardless of the region of the world or the segment of agriculture considered,
the vast majority of all farms are still small farms, with many still serving
local markets. However, the vast
majority of total agricultural output is accounted for by a small proportion of
larger, specialized commercial operations, oriented toward serving global
markets. And increasingly, these large,
export-oriented agricultural operations are controlled, if not owned outright,
by giant multinational corporations.
As
diversified family farmers have been replaced by large, specialized production
units, independent food processors and wholesalers have been displaced by giant
food processing and distribution firms.
These large food processing and distribution operations more recently
have combined, through various types of alliances and joint ventures, into five
or six even-larger “global food chain clusters.” As the four or five dominate global food
retailers link up with existing “global food chain clusters,” they increasingly
will control all phases of the global food system from “conception to
consumption,” including agricultural production (Heffernan, 1999, Hendrickson,
2001).
The
two dominant trends in agriculture today, globalization and corporate
consolidation, are not just coincidental, but almost certainly are
intentional. Trade negotiators for the
more industrialized nations, the
The
world economy envisioned under the WTO presumably would operate much as a
national economy. “International
commerce” would resemble “interstate commerce,” and no individual member nation
would be allowed to have laws interfering with such commerce. Under the WTO, nothing could be arbitrarily
excluded from “international commerce.”
The WTO would decide what nations can and cannot exclude from the world
marketplace. And, no seller or buyer
would be allowed to offer different prices or conditions of trade to different
nations, for any reasons.
Under
such rules of trade, a nation could not subsidize its agriculture by any means
that might be trade distorting; that is, it couldn’t subsidize producers of one
commodity more than it subsidizes producers of another. A nation could not establish environmental,
health, or safety standards for its production processes that were more
restrictive than those specified by the WTO.
A nation could not close its borders to WTO approved “cultural exports”
from other nations – movies, television programs, clothes, and magazines – no
matter how repulsive they may be to some residents of that nation. A nation could not refuse to allow its natural
resources, such as minerals, oil, or even water, to be sold to another
nation. And, the WTO would stand ready
to enforce merchandise patents and intellectual property rights globally,
regardless of whether the people of the world agree that all things, such as
genetic life forms, should be patented.
These are but some of the many potential consequences of the WTO vision
of a single global economy.
In
essence, removal of national economic boundaries would open the world to
“corporate colonization.” Historically,
a “colony” has been defined as a geographic
territory, acquired by conquest or settlement by a people or government
previously alien to that territory (Encarta, 1998). In general, a colonial relationship is
created when one entity extends its sovereignty and imposes control over
another people or territory. In the case
of “corporate colonization,” it is the corporation,
rather than a people or government that extends its sovereignty
and imposes its control over the economies
of nations. Nations lose control over
their individual economies as their economic boundaries are removed, allowing
the multinational corporations, previously alien to their countries, to expand
across political boundaries at will.
The potential for economic colonization is
inherent, so long as the world is composed of nations at radically different
stages of economic and technological development. Those in the more developed economies will
always be tempted to dominate those in the less developed economies. The emergence of multinational corporations,
lacking a strong affiliation to any nation, makes those in the less developed
areas or all nations vulnerable to global corporate domination. Such disparities in power, however, only make
colonization possible – not necessary or inevitable. The powerful are not always able to expand
and dominate the weak, as long as the weak have the political means to
resist. Once the economic boundaries are
removed, however, there will be no political means to resist.
As with political colonialism,
there are strong arguments both for and against economic colonialism. Clearly, multinational corporations can bring
numerous economic benefits to people in less developed economies, including
greater access to investment capital, more employment opportunities, and higher
personal incomes. A stronger economy
also provides opportunities for governments to spend more for public
transportation, health care, education, national defense, police protection, and
other social welfare programs.
However, reliance on outside corporate
investors for capital and technologies brings with it significant social and
ecological risks. As with political
colonization, life-styles are disrupted, cultures are destroyed, and entire
communities, nations, and races of people may be economically subjugated by the
corporations. A nation’s natural
resources – minerals, petroleum, forests, biological diversity, soils – may be
exploited to maximize corporate profits, because there is no long term
corporate commitment to any particular people, place, or culture. Decades after political colonization has
ended, many so-called Third World countries still harbor a deep resentment,
sometimes hatred, toward their former “colonial masters,” in spite of the
numerous economic, health, technological, and educational benefits they
received. There certainly is no reason
to believe that an after-the-fact assessment of benefits and costs will be any
less condemning of the corporate colonization process.
Under contemporary international standards of
human rights, political colonialism is no longer considered excusable – no
matter what the potential economic or social benefits. Colonialism conflicts directly with inherent
rights of national sovereignty and self-determination. The 19th-century empire builders, however,
believed they had a moral responsibility to rule the “backward peoples” of the
world, in order to bring them the fruits of Western civilization (Encarta,
1998). Many in the more developed nations today believe they have a moral
responsibility to develop the “less developed economies” of the world, in order
to bring them Western prosperity. The
industrial nations have tried, without much success, to impose their industrial
economic model on the rest of the world through various government- and
foundation-funded international economic development programs.
From an international policy perspective,
economic colonization by multinational corporations is but another means of
developing the “less-developed economies” of the world. The next stage of development, for most
less-developed countries, is the transition out of agriculture and into
manufacturing. This transition cannot
take place until agriculture is industrialized, making it possible for the
agricultural sector to produce more food with fewer farmers, thus freeing
farmers to work in the factories and offices of the new industrial
economies. Agricultural globalization
will make it possible for the agribusiness corporations to industrialize the
agriculture of these lesser-developed economies. Thus, agricultural globalization is seen as a
necessary prerequisite to global economic development.
Before
addressing the implications of agricultural globalization on sustainable horticultural
farms, we must address the sustainability of agriculture in general. First, any form of sustainable development,
including sustainable agriculture, must meet the needs of the present while
leaving equal or better opportunities for the future. To meet this standard of sustainability, a
system of production and distribution must be ecologically sound, economically
viable, and socially responsible.
Lacking any one of these three aspects, a system quite simply is not
sustainable over the long run.
Globalization is a strategy designed for short-run economic
exploitation, not for long run societal sustainability.
A
sustainable food system, to be ecologically sound, must work in harmony with
nature – not attempt to dominate or conquer nature. Nature is inherently diverse. Diversity in nature is necessary to support
life within nature. “Boundaries” in
nature define the diversity of landscapes, life forms, and resources needed to
support healthy, natural, sustainable production processes. Fence rows, streams, and ridges define unique
agroecosystems within which nature can sustain different types of human
enterprises. Economic globalization
ultimately will result in removal of fence rows, diversion of streams, and
leveling of ridges, to facilitate standardization of functions and
homogenization of production processes.
The natural boundaries needed for sustainability will be removed to
achieve greater economic efficiency.
Economic globalization ultimately will destroy ecological
sustainability.
A
sustainable food system, in being socially responsible, must function in
harmony with human “communities,” including towns, cities, and nations. Humanity is inherently diverse. Diversity among people is necessary for
“interdependent” relationships – relationships of choice among unique,
independent individuals. Although we
have our humanity in common, each person is unique, and we need unique human
“communities” within which to express our uniqueness. Social and cultural boundaries define those
“communities” – towns, states, and nations.
Globalization will remove those boundaries and will homogenize global
culture and society. The natural
boundaries needed to sustain social responsibility will be removed to achieve
greater economic efficiency. Economic
globalization ultimately will destroy social sustainability.
A
sustainable food system, to be economically viable, must facilitate harmonious
relationships among people and between people and their natural
environment. The inherent diversity of
nature and of humanity must be reflected in diversity of the economy. Although potential gains from specialization
are real, such gains are based on the premise that people and resources are
inherently diverse, with unique abilities to contribute to the economy. Competitive capitalism is based on the
premise that individual entrepreneurs make individual decisions and accept
individual responsibility for their actions.
If globalization is allowed to destroy the boundaries that define the
diversity of nature and people, then it will destroy both the efficiency and
sustainability of the economy. Economic
globalization ultimately will destroy even economic sustainability.
In a global
agricultural economy, large farms will continue to displace smaller farm in the
global marketplace. Increasingly, the
larger farms will be controlled by giant multinational corporations. Many small farms depend on sales of
internationally traded commodities to provide cash farm income, in developed as
well as less-developed countries. The
most important aspect of their farming operation may be its non-cash
contributions to their quality of life.
In less-developed countries, the major non-cash contribution of farms
may be food, clothing, and shelter, while in other countries it may be a
healthy environment, privacy and security, and an independent life-style. In both cases, however, the economic
viability of the farm may depend on cash income from sales of internationally
trade commodities. Under globalization
and corporate colonialism, small independent family farms quite simply will not
have access to markets for internationally traded commodities. Essentially all such commodities will be
produced under comprehensive contracts offered by corporations linked to one of
the “global food clusters.” Only the
larger farming operations will be able to secure such contracts, and in many
countries, such operations may be corporately owned and operated.
Commercial
horticultural markets will become geographically specialized globally. In those areas of the world with an economic
comparative advantage in horticulture, the larger farming operations will be
consolidated and absorbed into one of the “global food clusters” – through
contract or outright ownership. In those
areas lacking a comparative advantage in horticulture, the commercial market
infrastructure for horticultural crops will be dismantled due to lack of
use. Thus, small family horticultural
operations will be denied access to markets for internationally traded
commodities in both cases. Small farmers
worldwide rely on horticultural crops not only for their in-home own use but
also for cash income, and thus, for their economic viability. Thus, globalization has important
implications not only for the economic viability of small-scale horticulture
but for the sustainability of small family farms everywhere.
The
implications of market globalization and corporate colonialism are no more
acceptable than were the implications of earlier attempts at cultural
globalization and political colonialism.
But with such powerful economic and political forces promoting
globalization, how can we ordinary people expect to stop it. First, we can help people realize that the
undeniable existence of a global ecosystem, a global society, and a global
economy does not justify market globalization – i.e., the removal of all
economic boundaries among nations.
Natural boundaries are necessary to ensure ecological integrity. Cultural boundaries are necessary to ensure
social responsibility. And economic
boundaries are necessary to ensure long run economic viability. Without boundaries, the world will tend
toward entropy – toward a world without form, without structure, without order,
and without life.
Every
nation has both a right and a responsibility to protect its people and its
resources from exploitation, just as every person has a right and
responsibility to protect their person and property from exploitation. Globalization would deny these most
fundamental of human rights to the “communities” of people that constitute the
nations of the world. People need to
have healthy relationships with each other and with the earth, but healthy
relationships are relationships of choice, not relationships of coercion. Global society needs a world forum, such as
the WTO might be – not to remove boundaries, but to ensure that every person of
every nation is protected from economic exploitation. We must reclaim our rights to individual and
national sovereignty.
Other
things we can do to fight globalization are more tangible and practical – and
many of these things are particularly relevant to horticultural producers and
marketers. We can all help develop more
sustainable, local alternatives, which will reduce our reliance on
multinational corporations. For example,
millions of farmers and consumers all around the world are already joining
forces to develop more sustainable, local food systems. These people come together regularly within
their local communities at farmers markets, CSAs, community gardens, and at
other venues where farmers and consumers meet around food. The central focus of many, if not most, of
these alternative food systems is horticultural crops – vegetables, fruits,
flowers, etc. The sustainability of
small family horticultural farms in the future will depend on the evolution of
these alternative niche markets of today.
As these markets evolve, small horticultural farms of the future may
well become still greater in number, far more important to human nutrition and
health, and even more profitable for small farmers.
Perhaps
one of the most common of misperceptions today is that niche markets make up
only a small part of total markets and that niche marketing will always be
marginal to the marketing mainstream. In
reality, all consumer markets are niche markets, because all individual
consumers have different tastes and preferences. It’s a fundamental principle of economics,
the utility or economic value of anything depends of individuality – on “who”
has it and “who” wants it, and not just on what it is, where it is, and when
it’s available.
The
industrial food system has focused on minimizing the cost of changing form,
place, and time – on efficiency of processing, transportation, packaging, and
storage – through systems mass production and distribution. In attempting to minimize costs, food
production and distribution systems have become highly specialized,
standardized, and centralized, and people have been treated as if we all had
much the same tastes and preferences.
Industrial systems are inherently inefficient in doing a lot of
different things for a lot of different individuals.
As we move
into the post-industrial era of economic development, however, the focus is
shifting from minimizing costs to maximizing individual consumer satisfaction. Industrial foods have emphasized superficial
product differentiation and “mass-produced convenience” – packaging,
preparation, and home delivery – to make industrial foods more acceptable to
individual consumers. Ultimately,
however, the bulk of the food market will go to those who give individual
consumers the foods that they actually want – choices of food with flavor,
freshness, nutrition, and integrity – not just food that is quick, convenient,
and cheap. Small family horticultural
farms that are focused on niche markets are on the frontier of the new
post-industrial food system.
Thus,
successful small farmers of the future must give an even higher priority to
local markets in developing more sustainable farming systems. They must realize they simply will not be
able to sustain their farming operation by competing with the multinational
food corporations in the emerging global economy. They must focus on those quality attributes
of products that the multinational corporations cannot match with the
industrial system of production and distribution – such as nutrition,
freshness, flavor, and food safety.
The
perceived safety of industrial systems of production and distribution is an
illusion created by the complexity of government rules and regulations that
have been promulgated to alleviate food consumer’s concerns. In reality, these rules and regulations are
necessary only because of the separation of consumers from producers in the
industrial food systems and because of the risks inherent in systems of mass
production and distribution of food.
When farmers and their customers relate to each other personally,
customers have a personal knowledge of how their food is produced and handled
and farmers know their products must be safe and wholesome or they will have no
customers. When producers and customers
are separated by thousands of miles and multiple layers of food marketing
firms, there is no relationship of trust, and consumers must rely on complex rules
and regulations, which are virtually impossibly to enforce with
consistency. In addition, if a small
farmer marketing locally mishandles food, a few customers suffer the immediate
consequences, but the farmer will likely be forced out of business. When a large, corporate food processor mishandles
food products, thousands of people suffer the consequences, and at most, the
food processor will settle a few lawsuits, shift production to another
processing plant, if necessary, and continues with business as usual.
Equally
important to food quality and safety, small farmers must focus on their
personal integrity, dependability, and commitment, on developing personal
relationships with their customers – something that corporations simply cannot
do. Again, corporate producers attempt
to create the illusion of personal integrity, through such strategies as
unconditional guarantees, “rain checks” on advertised specials, identifying
products with specific producers, and even inviting farmers into their
stores. However, receiving a refund or
returning to a store to receive a special price is not a substitute for
receiving the right product at the right price in the first place. A picture of a farmer is not a substitute for
knowing the farmer who produced your food; and most consumers know a farmer in
a supermarket probably is a promotion gimmick backed with very little locally
grown product. Corporations are not
people, and thus, can’t have personal relationships with their customers.
Public
researchers and educators must shift their efforts from development of
industrial, commercial technology, including biotechnology, to helping farmers
develop more sustainable, localized, systems of production and marketing. The multinational corporations have both the
profit motive and the financial means of developing whatever commercial,
industrial technologies may be needed for the future benefit of society. Publicly funded research and education should
be focused on doing those things of benefit to society that the private sector
of the economy will not do. The private
economy offers no economic incentive for ecological integrity and social
responsibility, or even long run economic viability. Sustainability is a responsibility that must
be met through the public sector – including public research and education. Nowhere is such public research more likely
to yield greater societal benefit than in production and marketing of
horticultural crops to sustain small family farms in both developed and
developing countries of the world.
Supporting
local food systems doesn’t mean that we have to give up those things that can’t
be produced locally. Trading when we are
“free not to trade” can be beneficial to all concerned. We, all people of all nations, simply need to
attempt to produce, sell, and buy locally to the extent necessary to sustain
our local and regional food systems. The
sustainability of global food production depends upon the food security of all
nations. A nation that cannot feed its
people in a time of crisis is no more secure than is a nation that cannot
defend itself in a time of crisis. Those
nations that cannot achieve internal food security need to form food alliances
with other nations that are as secure as their defense alliances with other
nations. Nations and regions can and
should continue trading with other nations and regions to help ensure the
sustainability of agriculture everywhere on the globe. But, relationships among regions and nations
must be “interdependent,” rather than “dependent,” if the global food system is
to be sustainable. We must maintain
boundaries in order to maintain our identity, our integrity, and our ability to
act interdependently.
It would be
easy to be skeptical about the possibility of success in developing sustainable
local food systems – such systems currently make up such a small part of the
huge global food system. Committed
farmers, consumers, researchers, and educators may seem too few and too weak to
confront the giant global food corporations.
However, the trend toward a global food system, occurring over the past
several decades, took place one farmer, one customer, one scientist, one
person, at a time. One-by-one, as
scientists changed the focus of their work, as farmers changed what they
produced and where they sold it, as consumers changed what they ate and where
they bought it, a food system that had been local became global. Again, one-by-one, we can and must make the
changes needed, as scientists, as producers, and as consumers, to create a
sustainable food system. Can we prove
that a sustainable food system is possible?
Maybe not. But growing and
compelling evidence suggest that the current industrial food systems – with its
large, specialized, corporate controlled production operations – is neither
ecologically sound nor socially responsible, and thus, is neither economically
viable nor sustainable over the long run.
Why shouldn’t publicly funded agricultural scientists be leading the way
by at least attempting to prove that, in spite of agricultural globalization,
small family horticultural farms can be, and must be, sustained?
Avermaete, U.,
with G. Leeman and M. Leeman. 1997. World-Wide Impact Of Horticulture. International Society of Horticultural Science,
World Conference on Horticultural Research,
Heffernan, W.
with M Hendrickson and R Gronski. 1999 Consolidation in the Food and
Agricultural System, Study for National Farmers Union, reprinted in Small Farm
Today Magazine, Clark, MO, USA.
March/April 1999. Also available
on Internet at http://nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf
Hendrickson M., with
M. Heffernan, P. Howard and J. Heffernan. 2001. Consolidation in Food Retaining
and Dairy, Study for National Farmers Union, reprinted in Small Farm Today
Magazine, July/August 2001, also available on the Internet at http://nfu.org/images/heffernan.pdf.
Encarta,
1998. Microsoft Encyclopedia, Colonies
and Colonialism, Microsoft Corporation,
Segre, A., with F. Lunati and A. Brandini. 1998.
Global Horticultural Impact: Fruits and Vegetables in Developing Countries,
International Society of Horticultural Science, World Conference on
Horticultural Research, Rome, Italy, 17-20 June, 1998.