Monoculture arose from a systematic approach to regulate agricultural production and marketing.
It is, in fact, the projected evidence of the modern agricultural philosophy which we identify as the Green Revolution, which prime objective is to harness the variability of agricultural production and to manipulate it so that a fair degree of control can be had over the natural elements.
This, in turn, is sustained by a multitude of research and technologies that serve to monitor and to counter any resistance offered by nature. It is a case of man versus nature, with agriculture serving as the scenario of the battle. Ultimately, this quest for dominion leads to a never ending struggle for farmers to sustain their livelihoods.
Monoculture represents the first chapter; the initial challenge to warfare with nature. A monoculture directly contradicts the natural tendencies towards diversity and equilibrium. Pests, diseases and weeds are, from the ecological point of view, but agents for restoring this natural order. Unfortunately, this contravenes with the intentions of the farmer, who, undoubtedly, starts to wage warfare against the ecosystem in order that he achieves his goals.
What farmers do not often realize is that they are the ones who initiated the challenge. Not unlike other wars, the costs would be high (relatively) with destruction at its wake.
Of the 3 economies that govern the proper functioning of society -- nature, people and the market - much priority is given to developing the market economy. Consequently the neglected natural and social economies suffer. Monoculture expresses such bias to a large extent.
Much of the agricultural practices in Malaysia today are monocultures. These are a derivation of Green Revolution technologies and philosophy.
The early evidence of commercial monoculture in Malaysia can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century when rubber was first introduced as a commercial crop. By 1930, rubber covered 2/3 of the cultivated area of Peninsular Mayasia and had established itself as the most important export crop. Later, oil palm and cocoa were introduced and together with rubber, they now form the most important export commodities from agriculture in Malaysia.
Significant examples of monocultures in Malaysia are as follows :
These are mainly commercial ventures aimed at making profits and are characterized by the following factors, positive or otherwise :
The aim we hope to achieve through our program is to establish a mode of socially and ecologically compatible agriculture which can provide economic security to a majority of small farmers with the produce being free of agricultural chemicals.
Pesticide-free farming is a relatively new concept in Malaysia. Interest in it has generally been confined to NGO's and a few individuals and academics. It is only recently that the Government has made any attempt to study the possibility of such farming practices; perhaps after shipments of vegetables from Malaysia have been rejected by Singapore on the grounds that there had been excessive pesticide residues. Public awareness and consumer pressure for pesticide-free produce is also poor.
The Green Revolution is rampant in the rural areas. Apart from non-commercial backyard farming in the compounds of the village houses, the bulk of agricultural practices in rural Malaysia employ the "conventional", "modern" system. There are a few valid reasons why this is so.
Farmers have little control over the prices of their commodities. Often, the middle persons dictate the off-farm prices and the farmers are forced to accept the going rates due to the perishable nature of their produce.
Due to this overwhelming control of the Green Revolution marketing structure, agrochemical usage is just an automatic means adopted by the farmers to satisfy these markets. Failure to conform to these markets would mean an inevitable loss of income.
As it is, commercial agriculture is ecologically unstable. Confronted by the ecological backlashes of pests, diseases, weeds, falling fertility, moisture loss and poor soil structures, farmers, the majority of whom are not highly educated, would adopt the simplest and most straight-forward method of remedy, the Green Revolution package.
Not that they are unaware of the dire consequences of pesticides; many can testify to poisonings. Some have even lost friends and loved ones through exposure to these lethal concoctions. Nevertheless, the trend continues because there is hardly a way out of the Green Revolution network.
A classic example of how this is so would be the subsidy scheme for paddy farmers. This scheme offers a guaranteed market for the paddy the farmers produce each season, with fertilizer subsidies if the farmers sell their yields to the authority. For the subsidies alone, virtually all the farmers have chosen to be in the scheme because the overall returns are greater. All yields go directly to the processing plants and this has deprived paddy farmers from tasting a single grain of their labour. The farmers have, like the rest of the population, to purchase rice from the shops, and chicken feed for their chicken. None of the farmers, due to the more attractive package of the scheme, are willing to grow paddy for food purposes alone. Coupled with this, they will use the chemicals derived from the subsidies and unconsciously, continue to propagate Green Revolution practices.
In terms of efficiency and effectiveness (on the surface), Green Revolution techniques offer dramatic, instantaneous displays, like fireworks. Natural methods pale in comparison, like wood-stoves. Unless the farmers are able to comprehend the long-term usefulness of the stoves, they are most likely to select the fireworks and get burnt in the process. Many farmers are unaware of this. Large scale propaganda by the Government as well as the many multinational agrochemical companies have camouflaged the ill effects of the Green Revolution.
The Government's goal to commercialize the agricultural sector has much to do with the perpetuation of the Green Revolution. Most research is performed in alignment with these goals. The multinationals cash in on the flow and have also done much to champion the Green Revolution.
Nevertheless, as affluence sets into Malaysian society, awareness of the negative consequences of the Green Revolution are being exposed as the media, only quite recently, started to pay particular attention to the health and environmental aspects of modern life. Even so, the root cause of the malady is not identified and as far as the farmers are concerned, they have to make a living; by hook or by crook.
For the farmers, it is not so much a concern for the environment or the health of consumers, but survival through the best available means of their profession.
To cause a sway from the Green Revolution, there has to be a change in priorities, possibly even a new paradigm. Above all, farmers have to be motivated to make a switch. Whether the Government will take up the challenge remains to be seen. Many NGOs and concerned parties, however, have taken the plunge to attempt to alter the situation; albeit with variable aims, ideals and approaches.
Presently, the Government is actively involved in promoting IPM (Integrated Pest Management) and biotechnology as solutions to the pesticide problem. Their main concern, I believe, is to see that yields are maintained or increased and at the same time the reduced usage of pesticides causes less contamination to food and the environment. Still, we see it as a progression from the Green Revolution policies; not to mention the controversies arising from biotechnology. Moreover, most of the procedures are high-tech in nature and we wonder if the small farmers are able to adapt to them.
Other pioneers who venture into alternative agriculture in Malaysia range from those who are into self-sufficiency to those who do it to tap into the commercial potential of "organic" products. Still, many are sincere in wanting to contribute in making this world a better, healthier place to live in.
Recently, a number of farms have been set up to produce "pesticide-free" vegetables. The main technique used is on the exclusion of pests by setting up closed environments using fine netting material. These are purely commercial ventures with high capital requirements and the label does not indicate the inclusion of chemical fertilizers nor to some extent, herbicides and fungicides.
Hydroponics has presently also gained popularity with the produce fetching quite high prices. From this example, we learn that the definition "pesticide-free" means just that; discounting all the other chemicals added to nurture the plants to maturity.
With some awareness (from the media) but less understanding of the reasons behind the need to propagate an alternative agriculture, we are getting some support from consumers, but not as much as we would like to. Amongst those who patronize the "alternative" market, many are doing it for personal reasons alone.
Many would question the difference between "organic" and chemically produced food. Often, organic products are visually less attractive than the chemical ones and for that reason alone, there is no motivation on the part of the consumer to switch over. The current relatively high prices of organically grown food also tend to deter many.
Presently, the alternative agricultural movement is caught within a cycle of lukewarm response from consumers and technical and economic limitations on the production aspects. Like a grounded aeroplane, the movement is unable to take off unless a surge of energy and momentum is achieved. This would come from achieving technical competence in production as well as a revival in consumer awareness on the evils of the Green Revolution, probably attained through systematic consumer education and propaganda.
Ultimately, the determining factor of the success or failure of alternative agriculture in Malaysia will depend on the support of Malaysia consumers. After all, farmers will always comply wherever the demand lies. Practitioners will also need to coordinate themselves to achieve some sort of unity in administration.
CAP believes that if an alternative agricultural system is to be set up, it should be more holistic in its goals and be able to solve a majority of the Green Revolution problems as stated at the beginning of the report.
What CAP has been trying to do is to provide escape routes from the Green Revolution trap. Sound technical procedures of alternative farming coupled with an alternative market have been able to draw a few farmers out of their former practices.
To achieve this, CAP has spent two and a half years developing techniques to cope with the forces against farming without depending on the usual chemical arsenal. So far, we have come up with various procedures suitable for constructing small scale sustainable farms, having taken into account the financial, social and ecological constraints affecting the farmer and his land. Overall, CAP intends that whatever form of farming emerges from our effort, it should be socially just, ecologically sound and economically viable.
However, the early implementation offers little in measurable success nor matured examples from the efforts. Because of this, many farmers are still clinging to the Green Revolution practices whilst keeping one eye focused on the pioneers who have dared ventured into the agricultural wilderness of organic farming in Malaysia, unarmed.
|
|