This week's newsletter is the first in a series of four that we'll be sharing over the course of this summer and fall. From contributor Rini Singhi, who moved from Jaipur to Providence, RI to complete a Master's in Nature-Culture-Sustainability Studies at the Rhode Island School of Design, with a focus on food (in)security and food systems, we'll be looking at regenerative agriculture and the many intersecting issues at the heart of the concept. You can catch up on past contributions from Singhi here.
IF PRACTICED ALL AROUND THE WORLD . . .
regenerative agriculture would reduce more than 23 gigatons of CO2, at a cost of $57.2 billion, and a savings of $1.93 trillion. But the discourse around regenerative agriculture is complicated because it compels us to look at the deeply rooted entanglements of colonization and capitalism.
Freighted with the job of carbon sequestration, rejuvenating soil health, making land fertile and healthy, and growing quality produce, regenerative agriculture is a complex interplay between communities, ecosystems and social justice. Professor and author Harini Nagendra helps us to make sense of it by proposing a framework that uses “3 Fs” to define sustainability: Finitude, Fragility and Fairness.
Sustainability is defined as the ability to maintain over time, while finitude - the first F - states that resources are limited and finite, by definition. Land is the biggest and the most valued resource for growing food, but our relationship with land is complicated by lines of ownership deliberately blurred to enable unquestioned and reckless use of that land. Yet this recklessness is not the only problem – it coincides with using the shelves of supermarkets to covertly display “artificial abundance.”
In a utopian world, abundance assumes a positive connotation: happy, well-fed people; pavements splurging with fruit trees; clean air; and green covers all around. In reality, abundance comes at a cost (food swamps, land degradation, food waste) that’s overlooked. In A Kingdom From Dust, Mark Arax investigates California’s biggest farmer, Stewart Resnick (the owner of 180,000 acres in the state of California) and his company Wonderful: even as the supplies of state and federal water dropped to near zero, agriculture in Kern county not only kept alive their orchards and vineyard during drought but added more almonds (79,000 acres), more pistachios (73,000 acres), more grapes (35,000 acres), and more mandarins (13,000 acres) to satisfy the world’s growing appetite for nuts and fruits. In this case, regenerative agriculture is not viewed as a practice to rejuvenate land but as a practice to commodify it, even as carbon sequestration is being utilized.
In discussions of restoring the planet by adopting practices such as regenerative ag, we too often forget to address the reasons for the degradation in the first place. Lisa Held, in her newsletter Peeled, asks, “What, exactly, is this “planet” that we’re trying to save? What would be best for the planet is for humankind to vanish, eliminating excess greenhouse gas emissions and allowing it to heal itself. The climate crisis is not an earth crisis, it’s a crisis for human life on earth.” These words acted as mirrors to dismantle my own savior logic. In order to devise solutions, we cannot discount the fragility that exists in our ecosystems with or without human intervention.
Land is fragile in relationship to unchecked human growth and demand. An intervention for the supposed betterment of land should be given the time and capital it needs for smooth transition. In a limited amount of time, the sequestering/reducing of CO2 to prevent global temperatures from rising through regenerative agriculture is misplaced – it will not be an overnight transformation. As I write, sitting in my room in Jaipur with temperatures at 104 degrees outside, I know my hometown will be one of the most affected by this temperature rise. But packaging regenerative ag as an all-in-one solution without considering behavioral consistencies of land use doesn’t feel complete.
For instance, Nestlé, on the path to reduce emission by 100% by 2050, shared its regenerative agriculture manifesto outlining the main pillars and priority actions, such as driving soil conservation, using organic fertilizer, developing natural habitat, using less chemicals, protecting watersheds and integrating livestock. This statement was followed by the need to maintain or increase yields as an imperative clause for the implementation of regenerative ag.
As a practice, regenerative ag involves understanding the fragility of land, ecosystems and soil - its "finite" qualities. It also means improving, rejuvenating and restoring soil health by giving land time and space to get accustomed to the absence of external inputs. Prioritizing, maintaining, or increasing yields translates to turning a blind eye to the vulnerability of land and pushes us into the same vicious cycle of creating abundance at all costs. It also means underestimating the effort required for the transition to a regenerative system.
For regenerative agriculture to become the norm, all parts of the system need to be incentivized. If organizations with capital lead this movement, then putting regenerative ag in their manifestos should entail strengthening support for people who grow the food and pass on valuable wisdom. A system designed to be fair will empower all entities and sub-systems it encompasses. It would not just be a cure for a symptom, it would be powerful enough to transform the system.
. . .
We are thrilled and grateful to have collaborated with Singhi through our Share Your Voice initiative, an ongoing effort inspired by the #sharethemicnow movement. Stay tuned for more in this series in the coming months.
Yours in food, justice, and food justice,
Tay + Dor
photo by Rini Singhi
|
