4 Agriculture and Food Systems
reasonable means. Yet it is increasingly being recognized that the social and envi-
ronmental costs of agricultural modernization cut deep into the fabric of society.
Modernization in the urban environment has been characterized by alienation and
conflict, increased individualism and a breakdown of communities. Much the
same is true in rural environments. Jobs have been lost, environments polluted,
communities broken up and people’s health harmed.
All sectors of economies are affected. The drive for agricultural efficiency has
drastically cut the numbers of people engaged in agriculture in industrialized coun-
tries. External inputs of machines, fossil fuels, pesticides and fertilizers have dis-
placed workers in Green Revolution lands. Rural cultures have been put under
pressure, as more people have been forced to migrate in search of work. Some local
institutions, once strong, have become co-opted by the state or have simply withered
away. Farms have become simplified and some resources, once valued on the farm,
have become wastes to be disposed off the farm. Some external inputs are lost to the
environment, so contaminating water, soil and the atmosphere. Agriculture has
become more fossil-fuel intensive, so contributing to global warming. Overuse or
continued use of some pesticides causes pest resistance and leads to pest resurgences,
encouraging farmers to apply yet more pesticides. The first article by Jules Pretty
reviews these thematic challenges, as well as analysing in detail case studies on pesti-
cides in the Philippines, soil erosion in the US, Africa and India, social change in
Britain, Japan and the US, modernism in Mexico, social change in rice cultivation
areas of Indonesia, and conflicts between pastorialists and wheat farms in Tanzania.
The real agricultural challenges of the future will, as today, differ according to
their geopolitical and socioeconomic contexts. The current divide between those
who eat well and those who go hungry will continue, defined largely by differences
in per capita incomes within and between countries. Factors that distinguish the
various trajectories of agricultural development also exhibit significant spatial var-
iability, such as differences in farming systems and productive capacity, population
densities and growth, evolving food demands, infrastructure and market access, as
well as the capacity of countries to import food or to invest in agricultural and
environmental improvement. Environmental problems associated with agriculture
also vary according to their spatial context, ranging from problems associated with
the management of modern inputs in intensively farmed areas to problems of
deforestation and land degradation in many poor and heavily populated regions
with low agricultural potential.
In the second paper Robert Tripp summarizes the findings of a study that exam-
ined the performance of low external input technology in three major projects. The
projects promoted soil restoration (Honduras), soil and water conservation (Kenya)
and Integrated Pest Management (IPM, Sri Lanka). The focus projects were large
and well managed and the study examined outcomes five or more years after project
completion. An assessment of the utilization, adaptation and abandonment of the
technologies found fairly consistent experiences that allow several general conclu-
sions. In many instances, these methods make important contributions to farm pro-
ductivity. Low external input technology is often labour-intensive and the growing