Dr. Parveen Kumar
While the word ‘De-growth’ in the title of this article may look disturbing to most of us; reality related to the word is entirely different from what most of us perceive because we perceive de-growth as something opposite to growth. In the context of this article, it means an economic situation in which global consumption and production are reduced and the focus is on wellbeing rather than productivity. The word ‘degrowth’ was formulated for the first time in 1972 during a debate organized by the Nouvel Observateur, in which André Gorz (1923-2007) examined the relation between growth and capitalism: ‘Is global balance, which is conditional upon non-growth or even degrowth of material production, compatible with the with the survival of the (capitalist) system?’ His reflections fell within the context of the debate on ‘Zero-growthism,’ which followed publication of the Club of Rome report calling for ‘Zero-growth,’ in an effort to limit pressure on resources. It took until 1979 for a first book to include the word Degrowth on its cover. The Swiss philosopher Jacques Grinevald proposed making it the title of a collection of texts by the Romanian-American economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994), who worked on an economic theory based on the law of entropy: Demain la décroissance [Tomorrow Degrowth]. As far as agriculture sector is concerned; over the years, the focus has been on increasing production and since last so many decades, growth all across the globe has resulted in increase in productivity and production. As a result of this many countries have now become self sufficient in food grains production.
Unfortunately, this growth has also bring with it environmental catastrophes like degradation and pollution of natural resources viz soil, water and air, loss of biodiversity, increase in temperature and associated climate related changes, increased frequency of droughts and floods and much more. Together with wild flora and fauna, many domesticated plants, animals, breeds selected for their milk or meat are fast disappearing from this planet. Of the 7,000 species used in agriculture (throughout human history); today only 120 are important for human consumption. According to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 75 per cent of agricultural diversity disappeared; varieties of edible plants were irreversibly lost. In the United States, the amount lost is 95 per cent. Nowadays 60 per cent of the world’s food is based on three cereals: wheat, rice and corn. Today the world is witnessing a period when more food has never been produced before. But still there are billions of people who are hungry or malnourished. It is a problem of distribution, politics, conservation, productive chains, and marketing. A United Nations (UN) World Food Program report showed that 70 per cent of food comes from small farmers. Agriculture on an industrial scale does not feed the world; it provides only 30 per cent of the food, but uses 70 per cent of the resources. From the soybean and corn production, 70 per cent is destined to the production of bio-fuels or animal feed. To have real food, we need to protect small farmers. The conversion of feed into meat is not particularly efficient. In the case of livestock, for example, about 13 Kg feed is needed to produce 0.5 Kg meat. In this way, when more the demand for meat growth, more land will be devoted to the cultivation of animal. This is not the growth model of sustainability and development which our policy makers and planners aspire to be.
Contrary to the prevalent growth paradigm, the de-growth proponents advocate reducing ecologically destructive forms of production and resource to achieve environmental goals, while transforming production to focus on human well-being. Degrowth proposes an economy and a society which means, on the ecological side, a lower consumption of energy and materials and on the social side putting into effect the principles of organization based not on the priorities of the market, but on the autonomy, the care of people, reciprocity and social interaction. In agriculture, as in other areas, the voices of people have grown progressively. Farming community, the researchers, the academia and relevant stakeholders have now realized that the so called production and chemical intensive developmental model is neither that has been desired nor is it sustainable. Degrowth has now become a recognized paradigm for identifying and critiquing systemic unsustainability rooted in the capitalist, growth-compelled economy. Degrowth implies alternative solutions so that, as a society, we walk in search of humanity, in order to get rid of these dark times and reach perhaps the modernity that we have been searching for centuries.
Infact the de-growth movement arose from the consequences of the productivism and consumerism associated with industrial societies both capitalist and socialist which resulted in reduced availability of our natural sources, the declining quality of the environment vis a vis global warming, pollution, threats to biodiversity, the decline in the health of flora and fauna upon which humans depend, the social consequences in terms of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and health. The ever-expanding use of resources by developed countries to satisfy lifestyles that consume more food and energy and produce greater waste is at the expense of the developing and less developed countries. The results of the quantitative model to test de-growth principles in the food and land system confirm that reducing and redistributing income alone, within current development paradigms, leads to limited greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation from agriculture and land-use change, as the nutrition transition towards unsustainable diets already occurs at relatively low income levels. Instead, a structural, qualitative food system transformation has the potential to achieve a steady state food system economy that is net GHG-neutral by 2100 while improving nutritional outcomes. This sustainable transformation reduces material throughout via a convergence towards a needs-based food system, is enabled by a more equitable income distribution and includes efficient resource allocation through the pricing of GHG emissions as a complementary strategy. It thereby integrates de-growth and efficiency perspectives.
There are some misunderstandings regarding de-growth. A common misunderstanding is that it is reversal of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate. The reversal of GDP growth is called recession and hence it is different from de-growth. The point of de-growth is not to have ‘less of the same’, but to organize appropriation, extraction, production, distribution, consumption and waste differently. Secondly, de-growth is not about imposing ‘austerity’ everywhere and shrinking ‘everything’. Some items (like local products) will surely be consumed and produced much more in a de-growth society, and many economic activities will increase in such a society (like agro-ecology, urban gardening, and so on). Third, de-growth is not anti-technology. After almost two centuries of extraordinary technological progress (and also disruptions), advocates of de-growth simply advocate for the right to choose what to take and what to leave behind. Fourth, de-growth is not just about celebrating the local.
Degrowth in agriculture can be accomplished by reducing the environmental impact of human activities, switching over to organic and natural farming practices which are based on recycling of natural resources and does not depend on external inputs. These use the inputs from the farm and return these inputs back into the farm. Participatory and active involvement bottom up approaches that ensure inclusion of the excluded ones, result social and economic empowerment also form vital elements of a de-growth economy. Agro-ecological approaches like organic and natural farming replace pesticides and insecticides with natural balance mechanisms exerted in the form of bio-control agents. Another strategy of degrowth is Relocation. It means, locally producing essential goods to satisfy our needs as the so-called modern agricultural practices increase the gap between social and ecological processes. Agro-ecology and degrowth represent alternative solutions so that, as a society, we can move towards a new kind of humanity that is environmentally responsible, socially just, ecologically feasible and culturally accepted.
