2 Agriculture and the Environment
impose large environmental and health costs throughout economies. Other people
and institutions pay for these costs, and this is both unfair and inefficient. If it were
possible to add up the real costs of producing food, we would find that modern
industrialized systems of production perform poorly in comparison with sustainable
systems. This is because we permit cost-shifting – the costs of ill health, lost biodi-
versity and water pollution are transferred away from farmers, and so not paid by
those producing the food nor included in the price of the products sold. Until
recently, though, we have lacked the methods to put a price on these side effects.
When we conceive of agriculture as more than simply a food factory, indeed as
a multifunctional activity with many side effects, then the idea that farmers do
only one thing must change. Of course, it was not always like this. It is modern
agriculture that has brought a narrow view of farming. The rural environment suf-
fers as environmental services are affected, the food we eat is as likely to do as much
harm as good, and we still think food is cheap. The external costs and benefits of
agriculture raise important policy questions. In particular, should farmers receive
public support for the public benefits (environmental and health services) they
produce in addition to food? Should those that pollute have to pay for restoring
the environment and human health? These two principles are called ‘the provider
gets’ and ‘the polluter pays’, and they are important for both industrialized and
developing countries. Three categories of policy instruments are available: advisory
and institutional measures, regulatory and legal measures, and economic instru-
ments. Effective pollution control and the supply of desired public goods requires
a mix of all three approaches, together with integration across sectors.
A range of policy reforms could do much to internalize some of these costs and
benefits in prices. In practice, as no single solution is likely to suffice, the key issue
rests on how policy makers choose an appropriate mix of solutions, how these are
integrated, and how farmers, consumers and other stakeholders are involved in the
process of reform itself. Attention will therefore need to be paid to the social and
institutional processes that both encourage farmers to work and learn together,
and result in integrated cross-sectoral partnerships. Policy integration is vital, yet
most policies seeking to link agriculture with more environmentally-sensitive
management are still highly fragmented.
One problem is that many environmental policies have tended only to green
the edges of farming. Thus an essentially modernist agriculture remains much as it
ever was, but is now light green. Many non-crop habitats have been improved,
including hedges, woodlands and wetlands. But the food is still largely produced
in a conventional manner. The bigger challenge is to find ways of substantially
greening the middle of farming – in the field as well as around the edges. A thriv-
ing and sustainable agriculture requires both integrated action by farmers and
communities, and integrated action by policy makers and planners. This implies
both horizontal integration with better linkages between sectors, and vertical inte-
gration with better linkages from the micro to the macro level. Most policy initia-
tives remain piecemeal, affecting only a small part of farmers’ practices, and so do
not yet lead to substantial shifts towards sustainability.