Agricultural Sustainability and International Security
Ritika Kapur
Introduction:
The importance of agricultural security in terms of food is an issue of survival at a very fundamental level. While this is naturally a key reason to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production, when it comes to international politics, it is only one of many. Environmental degradation and resultant unsustainable agriculture has already taken its toll on those who are most susceptible. However, the implications of unsustainable agriculture will eventually affect all of us.
The effects of agricultural decline will naturally be felt first and foremost in those countries whose economies depend on agriculture and more importantly, where a majority of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods. However, in the light of globalization and integrated markets, in the long term, agriculture, that is food scarcity, will have implications for global society as a whole.
This paper will argue that unsustainable agricultural practices in countries such as Bangladesh will eventually have economical, political and social implications for the international community as a whole. Globalization and integrated markets play an important role both in the cause of this eventuality and in the diffusion of the results across the globe. In addition, existing social and political inequities, both national and international, serve to accentuate the problems.
The main tenets of the argument presented here are that current neo-liberal economic concepts and practices have been a root cause of environmental degradation and of the marginalization of agriculture. Conversely, the grave implications of unsustainable agricultural practices, economic, social and political, will all be felt internationally due to these same concepts and practices.
The Economic Framework :
The definition of the concept of ‘development' commonly accepted in current mainstream (neo-liberal) thought is based on a movement away from the agricultural and natural resources sector towards industrialization and the manufactured goods and services sector. It can be argued that this concept is based on historical patterns of development, that is, the development of what are now the advanced western states.
The counter argument, of course, is that the development of the given states took place at the expense of Third World countries, which provided the much needed natural resources to fuel the development of manufacturing and service industries; otherwise known as colonization or imperialism. As Chris H. Lewis explains,
The global economy has been dominated by European and U.S. imperialism. The goal of this global imperialism, which First World elites call ‘development', was to suck the wealth, labor, and resources out of their colonial dependencies to increase First World wealth, freedom and opportunity.
While the debate concerning a suitable definition of ‘development' is a most valid one, for now a commonly accepted version has been established and is regularly used by international economic and financial institutions, as justification for their actions and decisions. Thus, it would appear that the decision by governments of developing countries to often provide subsidies or other advantages for the manufacturing or services sector over agriculture is not only justified but a sensible step in the right direction- based on mainstream concepts.
Additionally, neo- liberal ideology encourages the ‘opening' of economic borders to allow for the capitalist integration of all markets or ‘globalization'. This ideology often promotes economic growth and the maximization of profits. Therefore, the preference of certain industries that will provide the most monetary profit (such as manufacturing over agriculture) is completely acceptable and endorsed by international financial institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) that promote neo- liberal principles. As Ted Trainer explains,
… the market system inevitably brings about inappropriate development in the Third Wold, that is, development of the wrong industries. It will lead to the development of the most profitable industries, as distinct from the ones that are the most necessary or appropriate…. Thus, the Third World's productive capacity, its land and labor, is drawn into producing for the benefit of others.
Another aspect of this liberalization and integration of markets has been that different countries now have to compete with each other in order to attract investment by multinational corporations into their economies. This often results in a decrease in wages and environmental standards or a ‘race to the bottom'. In this contradictory fashion globalization not only leads to the degradation of the environment but also serves to further poverty and inequality, the very things it claims to address.
Hence, the marginalization of agriculture appears inevitable. Neo-liberalism promotes an atmosphere of consumerism, which taxes the environment to a completely unsustainable extent. The commercialization of natural resources for profit rather than for utility will not last, at least not without serious repercussions. While it would appear that oftentimes manufacturing and services do in fact contribute a greater percentage to the GDP of a country, this is a very limited view of the situation and a far more long term and multi-dimensional perspective is necessary.
Behind Agriculture:
The importance of the agricultural industry is social, political and economical, as are the implications of unsustainable agricultural practices, or to put it another way, food scarcity. The economies of most developing countries are still agrarian and while agriculture may not always make a large contribution to the GDP it usually provides a livelihood for a majority of the population. For example, although the agricultural sector in Bangladesh makes up only around 30% of the GDP, it provides for approximately two-thirds of the population. Thus, the sustainability of agriculture has great social impact.
Agriculture is being systematically marginalized.
However, agricultural sustainability also has a great deal to do with environmental sustainability. Massive deforestation has led to huge floods, soil erosion and the loss of arable land in Bangladesh. All these are key issues for agricultural sustainability. Furthermore, overpopulation and high corresponding growth rates in most developing countries puts an added strain on already scarce land resources. This results in mass poverty, high levels of unemployment and overall economic decline, at the national level.
The focus of development on industrialization has meant that any potential investment in agriculture has usually been diverted elsewhere. This diversion of investment - capital, technological or otherwise has resulted in a lack of education and technological savvy that has not only prevented the movement of labour from agriculture to the manufacturing sector, but has also been to the further detriment of the agricultural sector itself. Environmental degradation and unsustainable land practices are the direct result of this, and the root cause of further social, political and economic problems. (For a brief outline of the points of conflict between economic growth and environmental stability please see Appendix A.)
National Implications:
What does this all add up to? As previously mentioned, the results of unsustainable agricultural practices are multifaceted. Economically, population levels are often too high for the agricultural sector to absorb, even though it is usually a labour intensive sector in developing states. Land scarcity accentuates this problem. The lack of education means that labour cannot make the transition from agriculture to manufacturing and what results is a high rate of unemployment and rising levels of poverty.
The loss of agricultural productivity due to environmental degradation and the absence of technological input, results in a decrease in the supply, while demand (that is population) continues to grow. Resultantly, food prices increase, often beyond the means of large parts of the population. This adds to the already high levels of economic instability that is characteristic of most developing countries.
Socially and politically, as levels of hunger and poverty continue to rise, frustrations will increase and people lose their faith in any political authority or stability that exists. Food scarcity will eventually bring social inequities to the fore. As Homer Dixon explains, the ability of wealthier sections of society to procure food while others cannot, may result in inter – class conflict.
Migration, as a result of scarcity can already be seen in regions all over the world, including Bangladesh. Here once again, is the opportunity for conflict. Homer Dixon theorises that migration could result in conflict between indigenous and migrant populations, xenophobic backlash and racial strife, concerning for example, job scarcity, as populations increase. As Michael Renner explains,
Migrants or refugees are perceived as taking away jobs, imposing economic burdens, irredeemably altering the local culture and customs, or generally becoming unwelcome competitors for scare resources and services.
Thus, we see that agricultural sustainability could lead to a variety of social, political and economic implications, all of them with negative impacts on society.
Case Study: Bangladesh
Bangladesh is situated on deltas of large rivers flowing down from the Himalayas and into the Bay of Bengal. Nearly one third of the entire country of Bangladesh is flooded every year. Bangladesh suffers from extreme overpopulation and all the problems that go along with that, including unemployment, which is around 35.2%, and mass poverty.
But one of the most troublesome issues currently is environmental degradation and the effect that this is having on the lives of the majority of the population. The major cause of the flooding problem, somewhat surprisingly, lies outside the country. Large-scale deforestation in Nepal, north of Bangladesh and upstream of the major rives that form the deltas, is at the root of the problem.
Soil erosion, huge floods and the loss of arable land are the direct results of this deforestation. Since 1990 forested land in Nepal, as a percentage of total land area, has dropped from 32.7% to 27.3%. The mainstay of the Nepali economy is agriculture, providing about 80% of the population with a livelihood. Increasing population and the economic situation described above have led to massive deforestation to make up for land scarcity. Unfortunately, the more severe results of this are being felt down stream, in Bangladesh.
While there is barely any migration in or out of Nepal, large numbers of people cross the border from Bangladesh into the eastern Indian state of Assam every day. Additionally, there is the export of cheap labour from Bangladesh to countries such as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.
International Implications of Unsustainable Agriculture:
The current trends of globalization and neo-liberal practices are having a highly detrimental effect on the environment and causing the marginalization of agriculture in developing states. The results of this phenomenon are already being felt all over the world in many developing regions. However, these events are not occurring in a vacuum. As the world economy continues to become more and more integrated, the effects of unsustainable agriculture in less developed regions will soon be diffused into the rest of the world, by means of the economic veins that now connect them.
The effects of unsustainable agriculture will be social, economical and political. Of course, these are not clear-cut categories and there will a large amount of interconnectedness between the issues. But for the sake of discussion, let us divide the given implications into these three categories.
The implications of declining agricultural productivity may first express themselves economically in the global arena. Similar to the results at the national level, the price of agricultural products will increase due to a decrease in supply and increase in the demand. However, at the international level this price increase is likely to be far more drastic. The combined effect of decreasing supply in all developing regions and also combined increase of population will likely cause the world price index to skyrocket.
It is important to note that while agricultural decline does not naturally point to general economic decline across the globe, the nature of the product itself holds great importance. Agriculture is one industry on which the fate of human survival does in fact depend. It is a need, a basic requirement, as compared to a ‘want' such as branded shoes. The decline of this industry can bring human society to its knees, a large part of it.
Similar to events at the national level, agriculture in economic terms will bring social and political inequities to the fore. In a market-based economy, the product goes to those who can pay for it. Thus, it is highly likely that class and other social distinctions will become far more pronounced. But at the international level, this translates into a much larger conflict. It could be described as ‘the North- South divide'.
More advanced (richer) countries will be able to deal with increasing prices much more easily than will less developed countries. In the short run, developed states will be able to procure products on the open markets and continue to function somewhat normally. However, in the long run, it is unlikely that these effects can simply be ignored. This event will produce further debate and conflict. A number of questions concerning the effectiveness and the morality of the current economic system may arise. While these questions are already being asked, it is likely that they will rise to the top of the agenda, in the event of an agricultural crisis.
For example, the inequality produced and maintained by the capitalist system is a key question. More specific questions may arise in the event of food scarcity. For example, ‘Should the distribution of food be based on money or need?' Or ‘Is it justifiable to allow poor people to die, simply because they cannot afford to live?'
One particular social implication, that will have immense implications of its own, is Migration. We can already see this not only at a regional level, but also at an international level. In a situation where the degradation of the environment continues to be reinforced by the economic system, often the only option left for people is to leave. The situation is only worsened by the fact that the lack of education limits any mobility between industries. Once again, at the international level, where the problems of all the developing countries are compounded, the implications are far increased.
Already hundreds of illegal immigrants landing on the coasts of developed states is hardly unheard of. Millions of people all over the world, unemployed and hungry have nothing to lose by leaving. Where will they go? Xenophobic backlash, racial strife and inter-ethnic or inter-communal conflict at a international level, among millions of people is an international security concern.
Moreover, conflict and violence are highly likely results of social strife caused by unsustainable agriculture. It is in this context that agricultural sustainability becomes a serious international security concern (from a realist perspective?). Notably, Homer Dixon and Robert Kaplan, talk at length about conflict as a direct result of economic scarcity. They both make note of the fact that conflict and violence will not remain limited to developing countries, either due to migration or due to the integration of the economic system.
Another possibility for violence is revolt. High levels of frustrations, the increased awareness of social and political fault lines and the increased interaction between various segments of society due to migration could all lead to conflict at the international level.
Conclusion:
Thus, there appears to be a clear link between environmental degradation, agricultural productivity and economic decline. The social and political implications of unsustainable agriculture constitute a break down of the current economic system. Capitalism is simply not sustainable. As Dobkowski and Wallimann explain,
“.. the capitalist market, the very technique chosen to manage survival, is itself a threat to survivial.”
Consumerism in the North and the proliferation of the neo–liberal system has caused environmental damage in the South. This environmental damage has in turn had great influence on the agricultural sector, the implications of which will find their way back to the North through the same economic system, by virtue of globalisation and integrated markets.
The dependency theory and the issues of exploitation, neo-colonialism, and neo-imperial economic dominance will all take on a reality of immense proportions. As the world, as a whole, begins to understand and comprehend first hand, the experience that these issues all refer to, this will hopefully allow for a drastic change in the system. And hopefully, this change will not be too late.
From a realist perspective, it is only when environment degradation leads to security concerns that it becomes ‘high politics', important enough to even be on the agenda. Although, from a green perspective this is an inappropriate response to environmental sustainability, unfortunately, such is the reality. The purpose of this paper has been to state that environmental degradation is a security concern of international proportions. Conflict, violence and revolt are all likely results of an agricultural crisis and it is imperative that we recognize this possibility now . A complete revamping of the current economic system and corresponding political and social values would be the ultimate solution to this inevitable crisis.
Bibliography:
• Brown, Lestern R. The Agricultural Link . (World Watch Institure 1997)
• CIA: The World Factbook 2002. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html . Updated March 19 , 2003
• Cobb, John B., “Globalization and Security” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002)
• Dasgupta, Partha, “The Economics of Food”, in Feeding a World Population of More than Eight Billion , ed. J.C. Waterlow et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)
• Gowdy, John M., “Biophysical Limits” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002)
• Lewis, Chris H., “Global Industrial Civilization” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002)
• Paterson, Matthew, Understanding Global Environmental Politics . (Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 2000)
• Renner, Michael, Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Sonflict and the New Age of Insecurity . (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996)
• Trainer, Ted, “Our Unsustainable Society”, in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002)
10.Alauddin and Hossain, Environment and Agriculture in a Developing Economy . (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001
• United Nations Development Programme. www.undp.org/rbap/
• Thomas Homer Dixon, “Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict”, (I nternational Security , Vol. 16, No. 2, 1991)
Appendix A:
John M. Gowdy succinctly outlines the points of conflict between economic growth and environmental stability.
1. Population growth is good for the economy because is creates new markets for goods, but the human population has greatly surpassed the level of sustainability.
2. Increasing per capita consumption is good for the economy but requires increasing amounts of resources and generates increasing amounts of waste products.
3. Income inequality increases productivity and economic growth by funnelling resources into their most productive uses, but the cost is increasing income inequality and social instability.
4. New technologies increase productivity and stimulate the expansion of economic activity, but many of these technologies have negative consequences for society and the environment
5. The expansion of markets is good for the economy, but it brings new parts of the natural world as well as diverse cultures under the peculiar and short sighted logic of market exchange.
Michael Renner. Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Sonflict and the New Age of Insecurity . (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 54
Lestern R. Brown. The Agricultural Link . (World Watch Institure 1997), 21
Chris H. Lewis, “Global Industrial Civilization” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002), 17
Ted Trainer, “Our Unsustainable Society”, in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002), 48
John B. Cobb, “Globalization and Security” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002) , 8
Matthew Paterson. Understanding Global Environmental Politics . (Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 2000), 46
Alauddin and Hossain. Environment and Agriculture in a Developing Economy . (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001), 12
Partha Dasgupta, “The Economics of Food”, in Feeding a World Population of More than Eight Billion , ed. J.C. Waterlow et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 25
Thomas Homer Dixon, “Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict”, (I nternational Security , Vol. 16, No. 2, 1991)
The World Factbook 2002. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html . Updated March 19 , 2003
Waltraud Morales, “Sustainable Development and Human Security” in On the Edge of Scarcity ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002), 125
Dobkowski and Wallimann, ed. On the Edge of Scarcity ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002), xxvii
John M. Gowdy, “Biophysical Limits” in On the Edge of Scarcity , ed. Dobkowski and Wallimann, (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002) ,37- 38
back