At the moment the term SI is more of a buzzword than anything concrete.
My questions around SI are this:
1) Who defines what is sustainable? Are we talking about sustainable from an economic or from a Bruntland perspective. Are we talking about a bit more sustainable than full-bore extractive agriculture as defined by the sellers of inputs to farmers locked into those systems, or are we talking about systems that focus on closed loop farming systems with focus on nitrogen, phosphorus, soil, water and waste loops? My point here is that sustainability often depends on who defines it. While WLE sounds good in principle, does it speak to these closed loops, planetary boundaries or is sustainable just about producing enough food for people?
2) Similarly how do we define intensification? While I agree in principle that we have to use land and resources more intensively as population grows, just how does that intensification work? Do we take agriculture into shade tunnels, covered by plastic and reliant on external inputs or do we intensify traditional systems by intercropping, closing loops and making the whole production cycle more sustainble.
So what we have is a semantic dance around the terminology of SI that needs to have a consistent and measurable set of parameters to define outcomes. Not just for the sake of measuring and being science based but so that the system can meet the requirements of the people who rely on the resouces where SI is being practiced - so that there is a feed up and feed down into managing the system.
If SI is to be broadly accepted it needs to ensure that there are standards that cannot be opportunistically abused - perhaps similar to organic standards. For instance so much water must produce so much crop weight or nutrient value. Same for nutrient input and output. Systems must be able to manage, accept and recycle all waste. Feedback and improvement loops must be integral parts of these systems.
I am sure that all of these issues have been hacked over at length but I worry about the adoption of buzzterms that are well intentioned and then simply hijacked by the very institutions that are responsible for many of the problems facing agricultural production in the first place. So SI, like any improvement in agricultural production must be managed with integrity in order to ensure long term reputational integrity. This requires transparent standard setting, monitoring, evaluation and oversight.
At the moment the term SI is more of a buzzword than anything concrete.
My questions around SI are this:
1) Who defines what is sustainable? Are we talking about sustainable from an economic or from a Bruntland perspective. Are we talking about a bit more sustainable than full-bore extractive agriculture as defined by the sellers of inputs to farmers locked into those systems, or are we talking about systems that focus on closed loop farming systems with focus on nitrogen, phosphorus, soil, water and waste loops? My point here is that sustainability often depends on who defines it. While WLE sounds good in principle, does it speak to these closed loops, planetary boundaries or is sustainable just about producing enough food for people?
2) Similarly how do we define intensification? While I agree in principle that we have to use land and resources more intensively as population grows, just how does that intensification work? Do we take agriculture into shade tunnels, covered by plastic and reliant on external inputs or do we intensify traditional systems by intercropping, closing loops and making the whole production cycle more sustainble.
So what we have is a semantic dance around the terminology of SI that needs to have a consistent and measurable set of parameters to define outcomes. Not just for the sake of measuring and being science based but so that the system can meet the requirements of the people who rely on the resouces where SI is being practiced - so that there is a feed up and feed down into managing the system.
If SI is to be broadly accepted it needs to ensure that there are standards that cannot be opportunistically abused - perhaps similar to organic standards. For instance so much water must produce so much crop weight or nutrient value. Same for nutrient input and output. Systems must be able to manage, accept and recycle all waste. Feedback and improvement loops must be integral parts of these systems.
I am sure that all of these issues have been hacked over at length but I worry about the adoption of buzzterms that are well intentioned and then simply hijacked by the very institutions that are responsible for many of the problems facing agricultural production in the first place. So SI, like any improvement in agricultural production must be managed with integrity in order to ensure long term reputational integrity. This requires transparent standard setting, monitoring, evaluation and oversight.