The varieties of sustainability

Each of four sections in this paper sketches the philosophical problems associated with a different dimension of sustainability. The untitled introductory section surveys the oft-noted discrepancies between different notions of sustainability, and notes that one element of the ambiguity relates to the different points of view taken by a participant in a system and a detached observer of the system. The second section, Sustainability as a System Describing Concept, examines epistemological puzzles that arise when one attempts to assess the truth or falsity of claims that attribute sustainability or non-sustainability. In particular, such claims generally presume bounded systems, but boundary conditions are value-laden. The third section, Sustainability as a Goal Prescribing Concept, examines puzzles that arise in attempting to define sustainability in normative terms. In particular, the question of whether sustainability is an intrinsic or instrumental value is examined. The final section, Sustainability and Bliss, offers an analysis of the moral responsibilities that human beings have, given the fact that knowledge of conditions for achieving sustainability can never be complete.Paul Thompson was President of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society during 1990 and 1991. He now directs the Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. He is also Professor of Philosophy and of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M. His bookThe Ethics of Aid and Trade (Cambridge: 1992, Cambridge U. Press) reviews the alleged conflict of interest between U. S. farmers and efforts that would increase the productivity of agriculture in developing countries.     

Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for third world people

Increasing attention has been given to indigenous knowledge in Third World rural societies as a potential basis for sustainable agricultural development. It has been found that many people have functional knowledge systems pertaining to their resources and environment, which are based on experience and experimentation, and which are sometimes based on unique epistemologies. Efforts have been made to include such knowledge in participatory research and projects. This paper discusses socio-political, institutional, and ethical issues that need to be considered in order to understand the actual limitations and contributions of such knowledge systems. It reviews the nature of local knowledge and suggests the need to recognize its unique values yet avoid romanticized views of its potential. Local knowledge and alternative bottom-up projects continue to be marginalized because of the dominance of conventional top-down R&approaches, pressures of agrochemical firms, scientific professionalism, and for other political-economic reasons. It is argued that the exploitation of local knowledge by formal institutions should be avoided; instead, people need to establish legitimacy of their knowledge for themselves, as a form of empowerment.Lori Ann Thrupp is presently a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of California Berkeley (in the Energy and Resources Program), pursuing work on sustainable agricultural development strategies. She received her doctoral and masters degree in Development Studies from the University of Sussex (U.K.), and her bachelors from Stanford University in Human Biology and Latin American Studies. Her interests are natural resource management, sustainable development, political ecology, agricultural technology transfer, indigenous knowledge, and environmental policy issues in developing countries. Her doctoral dissertation research was on The Political Ecology of Pesticide Use in Costa Rica, supported by a Fulbright Scholarship. She has also received grants from the National Wildlife Federation, Marshall Foundation, and Dudley Seers Fund. Her professional experiences include consulting, teaching, and research on natural resource issues and agroecology for organizations such as CATIE (a Tropical Agriculture Institute) in Costa Rica, the Pragma Corporation, USAID, the Organization of Tropical Studies, the International Institute for Environmental and Development (on a fuelwood energy project in Kenya), the Intermediate Technology Development Group, the Worldwatch Institute, Resources for the Future. She has published in both Spanish and English (including co-authorship of a book on EI Uso de los plaguicidas en Costa Rica, and co-editing a book with Robert Chambers and Arnold Pacey on Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research).     

Theology and agricultural ethics at state universities: A rejoinder

Michael Eldridge's critique of the author's earlier paper on the place of theology in agricultural ethics at state universities fails in at least three places: (1) Eldridge presents an inadequate picture of how basic assumptions function in human thinking and misuses terms like public, private, particular, empirical, and common experience; (2) he wrongly distinguishes between philosophers and theologians on the bais of their openness to new data, ideas, and public criticism; (3) he misunderstands the meaning of the First Amendment. Baer argues that whenever faculty at a state university deal with the Big Questions—who we are, how we should live, and what it all means—they must be seen, for First Amendment purposes, as operating within the realm of religion. Without such a functional definition of religion, the state will inevitably give unfair advantage to nontheistic, secular answers to the Big Questions. Eldridge is wrong to claim that Dewey escapes the liabilities of particularity and parochialism in a way that theologians do not. He also misunderstands the nature of the First Amendment when he argues that public schools may legitimately propagate Dewey's naturalistic variety of religion. Baer claims that when state universities address the Big Questions, the demands of public justice will be met only if theologians participate in the discussion and debate.Richard A. Baer, Jr. is professor of environmental ethics at Cornell University and a Fellow of the Center for Public Justice in Washington, D.C.     

Some reflections on Eastern European agriculture an introductory essay to the special issue on “agriculture in Eastern Europe”

This article reviews three general themes pertaining to the transformation of Eastern European agriculture from a command system to a market oriented system. The first theme deals with the diverse character of Eastern European agriculture. In a context in which the agricultures of this region are often considered homogenous, acknowledgement of the varied dimension of this sector is a key element in both analytical and political terms. The second theme pertains to the market. The historical and theoretical dispute over the role of the market has not only been central in the socio-economic reorganization of Eastern European countries and agricultures but is also a common element shared with the West. The third and final theme refers to the changing social stratification of rural regions. The emergence of new and powerful social groups and the demise of others represent fundamental aspects in the understanding of possible trajectories for development. The article concludes with a review of the contributions contained in this special issue of Agriculture and Human Values.Alessandro Bonanno is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is the author of numerous journal articles and books, among themSmall Farms (1987),Sociology of Agriculture (1989),Agrarian Policies and Agricultural Systems (1990), andThe Agricultural and Food Sector in the New Global Era (1993). He is also co-editor of the forthcoming book From Columbus to ConAgra: The Globalization of Agriculture and Food. Since the late 1980s, he has been researching issues pertaining to the Agricultural and Food Sector in selected Eastern European Countries.     

Once and future farming: Some meditations on the historical and cultural roots of sustainable agriculture in the United States

American agricultural history, literature, and thought reveal historical circumstances that have often been unfavorable to the development of a sustainable agriculture in the United States. Further critical examination of these historical and cultural roots reveals that sustainable agriculture is an evolving concept that can be traced to the tradition of agrarian idealism, scientific and organic agriculture, and the recent history of ecological ideas, beginning with the Dust Bowl and extending to the present.Carl D. Esbjornson received his Ph. D. in English, with an emphasis in American literature and culture, from the University of Iowa. He taught at the University of Iowa, Oklahoma State University, the University of South Dakota, and, for the last four years, as an assistant professor in the Department of American Thought and Language at Michigan State University. He has published articles on Wendell Berry and on recent American poetry. He is now engaged in a more extended interdisciplinary study of sustainable agriculture. He now lives in Minnesota, working as an independent scholar, free-lance writer, and an advocate for sustainable agriculture.     

The restructuring of the agricultural and food system: Social and economic equity in the reshaping of the Agrarian Question and the Food Question

The paper investigates the characteristics of the global restructuring of the agricultural and food system that has occurred in recent years. Emphasis is placed on the emergence of the Food and Natural Resource Question and its relation to the Agrarian Question. It is argued that rather than being separate issues, these are two aspects of a unified process occurring at the global level. Moreover, it is argued that the transnational unity of the agrarian question and the food question mandates a reconstruction of the arena within which production takes place. This phenomenon in turn generates a set of limits to domestic political institutions and locally generated social demands. The implications of the emergence of the international arena as locus of political action is discussed vis-a-vis the local level of socio-political action.Alessandro Bonanno is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He has researched among other topics, the structure of agriculture, the role of the State in agriculture, and regional and international development. Currently, he is investigating the processes of globalization and restructuring of the agriculture and food sector.     

Sustainable agriculture in Michigan: Some missing dimensions

Michigan's approach to sustainability does not conflict with its efforts to reindustrialize state agriculture. As currently applied, agricultural sustainability remains a one-dimensional concept tightly focused on the condition of production resources and the larger physical environment. The social and political dimensions of sustainability, by contrast, are conspicuously absent. Using Michigan's livestock initiative as a case in point, it is argued that this conceptualization conforms to and reinforces the reindustrialization of agriculture and the existing structure of power within the industry.Laura B. DeLind is a Specialist in the Department of Anthropology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Her current research focuses on the economic and political structure of Michigan agriculture. She has written numerous articles critically evaluating the effects of state agricultural programs and policies at the local or community level.     

Global contested terrain: The case of the tuna-dolphin controversy

Employing the case of the global tuna-fish industry, it is argued that the process of globalization is contested terrain as it opens free spaces to some classes or groups and closes free spaces to others; that the nation-States' regulatory abilities are weakened; and finally, that while some social movements may gain, others are marginalized. Three basic conclusions are reached. (1) The industry's actions were successfully contested by environmental groups supported by the legislative and judicial branches of the US State. (2) Simultaneously, pro-environmental legislation is currently threatened, along with several national and international environmental accords. (3) Workers in the US and, particularly, in Latin America are paying the consequences of the introduction of pro-environmental legislation and the actions of transnational corporations (TNCs).Douglas H. Constance is Research Associate of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His research interests include the sociology of agriculture and environmental sociology. He is the author of several journal articles and is coauthor with Alessandro Bonanno of the forthcoming bookCaught in the Net: The Global Tuna Industry, Environmentalists, and the State.     

Filling the white space between the ads

In this personal essay, subtitled A jaundiced view of journalism after 30 years in the trenches, the author discusses the ethics challenges too often involved in the relationships between farm magazines and advertisers. Collusion between advertisers and editors is a clear and present danger, particularly in times when publications are struggling economically. Yet a more important question relates to agricultural journalists' collective failure to report on the underlying structural changes in agriculture and the broader society.Gene Logsdon is a farmer, writer, and editor who lives in Ohio and is recognized as one of agricultural journalism's most respected critics. He is the author of several books, includingHomesteading: How to Find New Independence on the Land, while his work also has appeared in major farm magazines and a newspaper column, The Country Rover. He studied philosophy and history at Bellarmine College and earned a master's degree in folklore and did doctoral work in American studies at Indiana University.     

A discourse on Forestry science

Forestry science is firmly based on the ideas of rationalization, emancipation, and progress as embedded in the Modernity Project. Its emergence in the late Seventeenth century is primarily a rationalization of timber production, although to some extend attention is given to other functions of the forest. As an applied science, forestry was preoccupied with bio-technical and economic research. The development in forestry science during the last four decades is described as a broadening of this narrow rationalization concept. Social and ecological dimensions of forestry are acknowledged as legitimate and undeniable fields for forestry research. The new rationalization concept is not yet operationalized, but encompasses besides economic efficiency also equity and ecological sustainability. Since the narrow rationalization concept resulted in irrational outcomes, the new concept of sustainable development might be characterized as a rationalization of the Modernity Project. As a critical counterpoint to this mainstream forestry thinking, a Non-modern Project is emerging. Indigenous forestry as an ethnoscience points at the cultural and philosophical biases still underlying professional forestry and forestry science.Laurent Umans worked as associate lecturer at the Department of Forestry, Agriculture University Wageningen, The Netherlands. Currently he is working for the Food and Agricultural Organization as an associate expert forestry development in the Hill Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project in Nepal. He published on the themes forestry and economic development and indigenous forestry.     

Constructing “green” foods: Corporate capital, risk, and organic farming in Australia and New Zealand

Public concern over environmentalquality and food safety has culminated in thedevelopment of markets for green foods – foodsthat are variously construed as fresh, chemical-free,nutritious, natural, or produced in anenvironmentally-sustainable manner. Understanding theemergence of green foods is dependent on analysisboth of the ways in which foods are produced andprocessed, and of the meanings that are attached tothem at each stage of their production,transformation, and consumption. The notion of greenfoods is thereby understood here as a fluid andcontestable signifier that myriad actors involved inthe production/consumption cycle may attempt to shapefor their own purposes. This paper explores corporate capital's recent attempts, through certification logosand advertising, to signify the healthiness andenvironmental virtues of organically-produced foods inAustralia and New Zealand. These attempts have not,however, been universally successful either in termsof gaining consumer interest, or in gaining agreementsbetween farmers, certifying organizations, andcapitalist firms over the meaning of organic and thepractice of sustainable agriculture. The experienceof corporate involvement in the organics industry isillustrative of yet-to-be-resolved processes ofreflexive modernization. As food production andtransformation continues to produce environmental andsocial risks, the question of just what makes foodgreen will continue to be a source of social conflict.     

Is value conflict inherent in rural economic development? An exploratory examination of unrecognized choices

Rural development and economic change has generally been associated with growth and the in-migration of nonlocal firms or their branch plants and offices. Such change has been critiqued and at times resisted because of its implicit urbanism and conflict with rural values and modes of social interaction. The inevitability of the conflict has always been assumed, given the perspectives of development groups and many rural residents. This paper examines the apparent conflicts between the rural ethos and the growth ethos, and the considers the necessity for the pursuit of the forms of growth that tend to undermine rural values. The severely limited set of changes in the local economy considered by the common forms of growth-sponsoring economic development groups is then examined. Finally, the existence of alternative forms of economic change are hypothesized and their viability demonstrated. We conclude that improved economic well-being for rural residents need not sacrifice their values and lifestyles on the altar of urban-influenced economic growth.Peter B. Meyer is professor of Urban Policy at the University of Louisville. He was previously employed at The Pennsylvania State University where he directed the Local Economic Development Assistance Project, a research/technical assistance service to smaller cities, towns, and rural counties. Dr. Meyer's research interests are in processes of community and economic development in capitalist and third world countries and the ways in which processes and their outcomes are measured and valued.     

Celebrating hunger in Michigan: A critique of an emergency food program and an alternative for the future

Michigan Harvest Gathering is a popular and nationally acclaimed antihunger campaign. It represents a state-sponsored partnership among public, private, and nonprofit institutions to improve conditions for Michigan's citizens in need". This paper reviews the program, and in the process, critically examines its underlying assumptions about the nature of hunger and helping, about those who are hungry, and about the relationship of agriculture to the remediation of hunger throughout the state. It argues that, in keeping with Michigan's corporatist orientation, the program valorizes the agrofood industry at the expense of sustained public welfare. An alternative approach based on the development of greater local food autonomy provides a programmatic contrast to the elaboration of a helping industry designed to deliver emergency food assistance.An earlier version of this paper was prepared for the session: "Food, Social Values and the Future: Interdisciplinary Crystal-Gazing" at the Cuisine, Agriculture & Social Change conference, jointly sponsored by Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society, June 9–12, 1994, Tucson, AZ.     

State,class, and technology in tobacco production

Recent debates over the persistence of family farms have focused on the importance of naturalistic obstacles to the capitalist development of agriculture. According to these arguments, the existence of these barriers in some realms of agricultural production precludes the development of wage labor. I argue, however, that in many instances these obstacles are based primarily on political factors. To demonstrate this thesis I illustrate how the tobacco program until recently has proved to be an obstacle to consolidation and structural change in tobacco production. The tobacco program has conditioned the extent of technological development and structural change in tobacco production. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the tobacco program maintained a system of small-scale producers and discouraged technological change in the industry. Changes in the program in the 1970s and 1980s, however, have contributed to the rapid mechanization and structural change among tobacco producers. Many of the obstacles to consolidation were overcome not by technological change, but by weakened political support for the tobacco program. These results suggest that in addition to economic and technological considerations, we need to assess more carefully the political foundations of the capitalist development of agriculture.Gary P. Green is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and the Institute of Community and Area Development at the University of Georgia. His research concentrates on the sociology of agriculture, political economy of rural development, and economic development and community change. He is currently involved in research on the effectiveness of local economic development strategies and self-development strategies among rural communities.     

Selling appropriate development vs. selling-out rural communities: Empowerment and control in indigengous knowledge discourse

This paper looks at the languages of empowerment and control as they are expressed by authors writing about indigenous knowledge. We performed a content analysis on CIKARD News, a newsletter dealing with the concept of indigenous knowledge. This concept has become increasingly prominent in the discourse of alternative development, addressing issues of ecological sustainability and the empowerment of the rural poor. However, mediated by institutions that perpetuate global and local power asymmetries, the empowering potential of indigenous knowledge may be bypassed. Instead, officials, researchers, and practitioners may utilize this knowledge for their own perceived ends, however good their intentions. In addition, there is already evidence that an indigenous knowledge approach is seen by major agencies as beneficial for integrating poorer populations into the global economy. Our analysis suggests that tensions persist among and within the writings of these authors between the desire to empower and the tendency for development to control rural populations.William E. O'Brien is currently a doctoral student in Environmental Design and Planning at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. His masters and bachelors degrees are both in Geography; the masters also from Virginia Tech, the bachelors degree from Radford University. His research interests center around the use of indigenous knowledge in pastoral development and agroforestry, particularly in East Africa.     

Free trade and environmental economics

In this paper, I argue that there is no essential inconsistency between a well-constructed free trade policy and environmental sound development. From an examination of the concept of free trade, I argue that free trade must mean environmentally sustainable trade. The argument is conceptual in nature. I argue that free trade must mean trade free of subsidies in which the price of a good fairly reflects the costs of its production. I then argue that environmentally unsustainable commodity trade is in fact subsidized. Therefore, the international regulation of this trade would be consistent with the goal of free trade. Moreover, such regulation could promote both environmental conservation and the long-run interest of developing countries. However, ethical and practical considerations demand that these regulations must be structured so that they do not have a negative short-term economic impact on developing countries. A mechanism to implement this policy is suggested.Notes 1. Work on this project was funded by a grant from George Mason University's International Institute.     

Taking agricultural ethics to the forefront: A practical guide to the organizational and philosophical issues

If the field of agricultural ethics is to realize its potential and if the agricultural and philosophical communities are to address the impending changes in world food production, there is a need for education in public, governmental, and academic arenas. The development of a symposium on agriculural ethics is an effective method for raising awareness of the imminent need for a consolidation of philosophical and agricultural expertise. Based on experience, a series of organizational guidelines and their associated philosophical issues are presented. The initial step is a determination of the purposes of the symposium, which leads to the consideration of the choice of speakers and topics. The best series of speakers will ultimately prove to be ineffectual if the logistics of the symposium are not carefully planned. The scheduling, format, timing and location of the talks are critical. Related to these practical aspects is the organization of promotional efforts. Since one of the goals is, presumably, to enlighten a target audience, effective promotion should be a central concern. Underlying all of these considerations is the budget. How the agricultural ethics symposium at the University of Wyoming addressed these issues is presented, with a critical review of our efforts based on external evaluations.Jeffrey A. Lockwood is an assistant professor of entomology at the University of Wyoming. The impetus for his organization of the symposium on Agricultural Ethics came from his participation in the 1986 workshop on the Ethical Aspects of Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resource Policy conducted by the National Agricultural and Natural Resources Curriculum Project. He has team-taught courses and led seminars on agricultural ethics, assessment of values systems in pest management, understanding world hunger, and issues in sustainable agriculture. His research centers on insect ecology, with an emphasis on rangeland grasshoppers. He received a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University in entomology in 1985 and a B.S. in biology from New Mexico Tech in 1982.     

Environmental and social risks, and the construction of “best-practice” in Australian agriculture

Amongst the environmental and social externalities generated by Australian agriculture are a number of risks both to the health and safety of communities living near sites of agricultural production, and to the end consumers of agricultural products. Responses to these potential risks – and to problems of environmental sustainability more generally – have included a number of programs to variously: define best-practice for particular industries; implement Quality Assurance procedures; and encourage the formation of self-help community Landcare groups. Taken together, these programs appear to deal comprehensively with both the social and environmental risks associated with agricultural production and products. However, these programs may also be interpreted as strategies that actually encourage the further intensification of agriculture, while attempting to reassure consumers that their food is safe and that farmers are doing all they can to protect the environment. Investigation of the Australian cotton and beef industries illustrates a number of strategies that have become evident between farmers, agri-science agencies, and the retail sector to manage these risks and define good farming practices in ways that satisfy their own perceived interests. Contrary to the image, therefore, of green consumption that is emerging as an integrated concern for clean (and thereby healthy) and sustainably produced foods, it appears that mainstream agricultural industries have bifurcated these concerns in ways that distract attention from production and processing methods, leaving conflict over on-farm production methods a characteristic only of those industries believed to have direct health impacts on nearby communities.     

Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming

Recent developments in agriculture have stirred up interest in the concept of sustainable farming systems. Still it is difficult to determine the extent to which certain agricultural practices can be considered sustainable or not. Aiming at identifying the necessary attributes with respect to sustainability in Dutch dairy farming in the beginning of the third millennium, we first compiled a list of attributes referring to all farming activities with their related side effects with respect to economic, internal social, external social, and ecological sustainability. A wide range of people (i.e., experts and stakeholders) were consulted to contribute to our list of attributes. Our consultation showed that only one attribute was selected for economic and internal social sustainability: profitability and working conditions, respectively. The list for external social sustainability contained 19 attributes and the list for ecological sustainability contained 15 attributes. To assess their relative importance, the same experts and stakeholders ranked the attributes for external social and ecological sustainability by using a questionnaire. The most important attributes for external social sustainability were food safety, animal health, animal welfare, landscape quality, and cattle grazing. For ecological sustainability they were eutrophication, groundwater pollution, dehydration of the soil, acidification, and biodiversity. The present method for identifying and ranking attributes is universal and, therefore, can be used for other agricultural sectors, for other countries, and for other time periods.Klaas Jan van Calker is a Researcher at the Animal Sciences Group and is doing his PhD research on sustainability of different dairy farming systems in cooperation with Business Economics of Wageningen University.Paul Berentsen is a Lecturer and Researcher at Business Economics, Wageningen University.Gerard Giesen is a Lecturer and Researcher at Business Economics, Wageningen University.Ruud Huirneis the general director of the Animal Sciences Group, and Professor of Farm Management, Wageningen University.     

Hues of American agrarianism

Agrarianism in America assumes manyforms, in part because of the varied sources ofruralistic values, some evolving from times beforenationhood. Views expressed are sometimes anti-city,other times pro-rural. The Jeffersonian perspective isrevealed in three forms, two by historians, one by aphilosopher. They agree that Jefferson was animportant figure in America's land system, but theydiffer markedly in their uses of Jeffersonian valuesabout agriculture, land, and rural life. The essayconcludes with a basis for new agrarianism basedmore on land than agriculture as enterprise.