The FAO's SARD concept was developed and refined over the year or so between the FAO/Dutch Government conference at Den 'Bosch in 1991 (at which the concept was brought into the public domain and ratified by FAO's 160 member governments) and the UNCED conference in Rio. A strategy for the promotion and implementation of SARD was then set out in Chapter 14 of Agenda 21, signed by 178 governments. This represented a very significant step forward in collective thinking on the future of agriculture and rural development. There was, however, from the outset, ambiguity about whether - and, if so, how - SARD applied to OECD countries.

Furthermore, the very process of public consultation which was built into the concept and the attempt to reconcile the numerous interests which were involved in negotiations meant that the final text became somewhat incoherent and contained numerous contradictions which make the implementation of SARD problematic. The fact that a text was agreed at all must be seen as a great achievement, but it was perhaps inevitable that many issues would have to be "fudged" if the interests of such diverse groups as indigenous peoples and multinational companies were to be represented.

The challenge now is for the SARD concept to be turned into reality. But attempting to achieve a transition to sustainable systems begs the question: which SARD are we trying to a achieve? The stated objective of SARD is to meet the challenge of feeding a global population which is expected to grow rapidly at a time when modern agricultural practices have actually degraded the resource base on which agriculture depends. Implicit in the Agenda 21 text are two fundamentally opposed models for achieving this goal, which we shall call SURFACE SARD and DEEP SARD (in deference to the title of this series of publications).

SURFACE SARD has as its basis a commitment to a liberal world trading system and to the concept of comparative advantage. The belief which underlies this model is that some areas are better adapted for the production of certain agricultural commodities, and that the removal of barriers to free trade will allow more efficient use of resources to occur. This kind of specialisation necessarily means that goods are produced not for local consumption but for trade, often involving transport across great distances. Historically, this kind of approach has been linked to intensive, industrial approaches to agriculture which have damaged resource bases, salinated and eroded soils, polluted water and air, encouraged monocultures, reduced genetic diversity and provoked rural unemployment and migration to urban centres.

SURFACE SARD hopes to avoid such pitfalls however. Rural unemployment is to be tackled by diversification into alternative industries; pollution and energy consumption are to be reduced by using lower levels of inputs complemented with greater use of crop rotations, integrated pest management, biological control etc., methods which have been employed hitherto by farmers operating outside the mainstream of 'productivist' agriculture, such as low)external)input, organic and biodynamic farmers, and permaculturalists. There are two principal contenders for the ground of SURFACE SARD: "integrated systems" using better targeted agrochemicals and complementing them with the use of, for example, wide field margins to encourage pest predators; and "the new biotechnologies" which promise (but so far has been hardly effective in producing) new genetic combinations in seeds so that crops have better built-in resistance to pests and diseases, and so that they can for instance tolerate the salinated and drought condition s caused by mismanagement by the previous generation of 'scientific' farmers. Some early experiences of marketing animal biotechnology products in Europe, however, indicate that the private companies which are driving the thrust for agricultural biotechnologies underestimated both the scientific complexity and the public resistance (especially in Northern Europe) to applying new science to food and farming. Although SURFACE SARD hopes to reduce the negative environmental impacts of farming by adapting agricultural technologies, the historical experience has been that reliance on inter-regional trade to get food to the populations which need it has failed many people; and there is little reason to think that mere changes in technology will solve the problem of people who have no land, jobs or social security ...and therefore no access to food.

DEEP SARD

There is a second model, which we call DEEP SARD, which runs through Chapter 14 of Agenda 21. This is based on the concept of regional food security, the minimisation of trade and transport, the use of local resources by local people to feed themselves, the employment of more local labour and the use of agricultural techiques which employ and enhance genetic diversity and the properties of the living systems on which food production depends. This model also raises difficult questions about the ownership of land and resources: calling for local resources to be made accessible once more to rural peoples, rather than being owned by distant financial interests whose primary goal is the pursuit of profit. There are many farming and land use systems which are linked to attempts to promoting local and regional self-reliance, including organic systems, permaculture, agroforestry and various traditional farming systems.

However their survival and continuity is often threatened by powerful business interests who can outbid local people for land and undercut prices through supermarket chains. The importance of DEEP SARD is however underlined by the fact that the innovations being tried in SURFACE SARD actually derive from practices developed by alternative practitioners and traditional farmers. DEEP SARD does not require massive movements of volumes of agricultural commodities, nor does it encourage the concentration of populations in cities. Based on local areas, local populations and local networks it has a much closer interest in and relationship with rural communities than does SURFACE SARD. However, the concentration of financial and legal power outside rural communities makes it hard for the practitioners of DEEP SARD to survive in spite of the good intentions expressed in Agenda 21. The roots of many environmental problems lie, to a great extent, in the very process of "commoditisation" of the land, whereby the land ha s ceased to be the basis for people's whole culture, and where, instead, land is simplistically reduced to a means for making a living. This process of transformation of landscapes from 'homelands' to 'means of production' has a long history in many Northern European countries.

 6 Steps to SARD

Although Agenda 21 does not present the 6 steps to SARD clearly, they are nevertheless embedded in the text. If populations are to be fed without destroying the potential for future generations to feed themselves, there is a need to establish policies for regional food security. This requires the assessment of what present and future food needs are, what the resource base is from which these needs must be met, what technological options exist for using these resources without degrading them and what needs to be done to mobilise people's commitment to realise SARD's goals. The 6 steps entailed in this process and which are to be found dotted rather incoherently around the Chapter 14 text are as follows:

1. Surveying the natural resource base

2. Identifying human needs for present and future generations.

3.Enumerating the various technological and institutional changes which could be made.

4. Assessing the economic implications of such changes and establishing whether they could be afforded or not.

5. Making information available to the public and initiating a particpatory debate on the social acceptability of the potential changes.

6. Deciding which of these technological or institutional changes - or what mix of them -would most nearly approximate the twin objectives of meeting the identified human needs without degrading the natural resource base.

By the Commission for Sustainable Development meeting in mid-1995, all signatory governments have also committed themselves to undertaking a full review of their national agriculture policies. European governments should also currently be engaged in assessing needs and resources in agriculture as part of their National Sustainable Development Reports.

CASE STUDIES

[NOTE: The case studies presented below cannot be seen as representing a complete overview of the developments which have been taking place across Europe. Because of constraints of space and time, we have selected a small number of examples which are deliberately diverse, both geographically and across the spectrum of sustainable land use systems. We have not focused on the development of the organic farming movement simply because the movement's achievements are much better known, and are better documented elsewhere.]

Government initiatives: beyond the technical options

The government of the West German state of North-Rhine Westfalia, in cooperation with the farmers' union, the agricultural administration and the state research institute, launched a programme in 1985 aimed at developing "an environmentally sound and locally adapted agriculture". This programme involved the promotion of "integrated production processes together with locally adapted crop rotations, plus reduction of the application of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides". It is currently encouraging a "general extensification of agriculture" in the region and a reduction of amounts of fertilizers and pesticides used. It has set up a programme of activities called "Nature 2000" in which "guidelines and guiding images for nature and the landscape have been integrated into a system of connected biospheres, with priority areas for the natural landscape." Water protection is an essential part of the programme and the government has introduced "model farms of integrated land production" demonstrating environmentally sensitive techniques. A computer-operated 'expert' plant protection system for producers, Pro-Plant, has also been introduced. The regional government is currently lobbying the federal government for real, 'green' reform of the CAP, and is encouraging the cooperation of producers, consumers and environmentalists to this end.

In Italy, throughout the 1980s, several local governments promoted plans to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture. Although the majority remained on paper, or had little impact, Trento provincial and Emilio Romagna regional agricultural departments promoted programmes to involve fruit growers' cooperatives in developing Integrated Pest Management practices, requiring farmers to adopt a common 'code of production'. In Emilio-Romagna, in cooperation with the regional research and training institutions, 184 advisers covering 20,000 hectares of fruit and wine-growing land (20% of regional fruit production, 7% of vineyards) spread IPM and biological control techniques to the farmers' coop members. In Trento province, where farmers are exclusively growing apples, the plan was followed by 90% of growers, with considerable cuts in pesticide use. A quality label guaranteeing less chemical residues to the consumer is paying farmers a premium for abiding by a set of constraints designed by public authorities under pressure from public opinion.It must be stressed that these more 'market-led' initiatives have not arisen because of farmers themselves taking a pro-active role.

However, the technical results and the tangible (cost-able) environmental benefits can be impressive: earlier in the 1980s, the National Research Institute on Alternative Energy (ENEA) involved 1000 olive farmers in Viterbo province in a programme which achieved a 70% reduction in pesticide use, and in which producers - again through their cooperatives - received a 30% price premium for their 'reduced-input' olive oil. Since this early success (involving technical advisers, on-farm metereological testing and personal computer link)ups for pest control information), the EEC)funded a research programme on natural predators (coordinated from Cardiff University in Wales, with partners in Greece and Spain). Although the programme looks too costly to implement across the whole of Italian olive production, the information generated on IPM in the field, on pest-climate interactions and on insects and pheromones for biological control could be applicable to the whole Mediterranean region where, in the EC alone, two million people still depend on olives for their livelihood.

Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands were the first OECD countries to make a comprehensive review of their pesticide use in agriculture and horticulture and, therefore, to develop national, input reduction programmes in full collaboration with the whole range of concerned parties: e.g. relevant government departments;research/scientific institutions; farmers' and farmworkers' organisations; trade associations from the pesticide and water industries and the medical profession; and NGOs and community groups. Between 1986 and 91 Sweden achieved its target of a 50% reduction in volume of active ingredient. In the second phase - achieving a further 50% reduction by 1997 - it is clear to all parties that unless the wider policy environment for promoting SARD is tackled (nationally and internationally), reaching the national target will be problematic.

A less ambitious strategy in Denmark achieved a 25% reduction between 1986 and 90, but did not meet targets for lower application frequency. Pressure to drop the frequency parameter came from the Ministry of Agriculture, the farmers' unions and the industry, but the Danish parliament refused to abandon it, and a target of a further 50% reduction in volume and frequency by 1997 has been agreed, using a new figure measuring 'pesticide loads'.

After several years of concerted negotiation between affected parties, the Netherlands government started its reduction programme in 1991; but starting from one of the highest agrochemical application rates in the world. The programme also sets targets for agricultural emissions to air, groundwater/soil and surface water (50%, 75% and 90% respectively by 2000), with drastic cuts in soil sterilant use in bulb and potato production for example; this will require major changes in farming methods. The government remains well aware that this will require a coherent national and European policy framework, especially if the key actors - farmers and landworkers - are to see incentives for making quite radical changes in farming practices and marketing networks. The Swiss-based Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) produced comparative analysis of these programmes which shows up key components common to all three "which can serve as building blocks for similar policies elsewhere". WWF continues to work "to help build the c onsensus needed to achieve reduction in other countries, as well as promoting the concept and programmes on the international agenda."

A recent survey of official or popular awareness of SARD in Central and Eastern Europe reveals, perhaps unsurprisingly, a general unfamiliarity with the concept, except in isolated cases where organic farming systems have been developed (almost invariably through links with Western Europe over the last 5-7 years). In the Baltic states, Romania, Croatia and Moldova, national agricultural policies are still focused exclusively on productivity (with increasingly large zones of Russia or the Ukraine, for example, being effectively condemned from production in the medium-term, because of contamination). 'Sustainable', if understood, means 'extensification'; little or no public pressure to change systems exists. In Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, however, there are governmental efforts emerging in respect of the environmental impact of agriculture. In Hungary, a national programme to"integrate production objectives with protection of natural resources" was adopted in July 1993; whilst in Poland the government's new agriculture and rural development programme proposes the development of "ecological agriculture" as a key element. In the Czech Republic, the Department for Privatisation and Alternative Agriculture was established within the Ministry of Agriculture and has been implementing an elaborate programme of alternative agricultural education, training, farm conversions and marketing.

Since 1989, the Scottish Agricultural College and Edinburgh University have been monitoring and comparing the performance of organic livestock and mixed farms in Central Scotland with conventional enterprises. Their recent Sustainable Farming Systems (SFS) initiative, the largest of its kind in Europe, derives from a more holistic vision: analysing and developing on-farm not only the different technical options available through organic farming systems but also at the whole issue of regenerating or preserving declining ) or even completely decayed rural communities. The challenge is to actually create (or re-create) employment in both agriculture and rural development in a 'post-industrial' economy on the geographical periphery of the European Union. "We are attempting to value improvements which sustainable systems would bring to society, so that the full costs and benefits can be compared."

In cooperation with partners in Portugal, Holland and Eastern England 9and with funding from the EEC / SFS is developing and testing "technologies which combine with natural regulatory processes, and providing farmers with whole system and technical options that will encourage a paradigm shift in the way farming is managed ". The Scottish vision makes explicit the need for farming systems to be analysed and changed in the wider context of rural communities. Their well)developed education and training programmes are targeted at "practising farmers of today and for students who will be responsible for managing our land tomorrow" Involving People: a prerequisite for SARD. Achieving sustainable development will depend, according to the Brundtland report, on the involvement of local people. Changes can be imposed from above, or the energy of local peoples can be engaged to support the process of change.

The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural Wales is concerned that "not enough is being done in Wales to inform and involve people in the debate on sustainability". It has published its own Sustainability Report : "Wales 2012" and proposes the creation of a Welsh Centre for Sustainability, which it envisages as a "small independent centre of applied research into practical models of sustainability", with a remit to involve the public in the process and to provide briefing materials for decision-makers.

The European Civic Forum and the Communal Forum of the Land of Brandenburg provide another example of groups which are attempting to strengthen local democracy as part of a strategy to achieve a sustainable rural development. Political and economic changes in Central & Eastern Europe have meant the collapse of pre-existing collective forms of ownership and control of land. These groups and their various partners throughout Eastern Europe are concerned that privatisation of agriculture and of previously collectively owned resources is failing to meet the challenge of rebuilding agricultural systems; these are in disarray and failing to address the very severe environmental impacts of years of mismanagement.

At a symposium held in January 1993, a "Permanent East-West Working Group for Rural Development" was setup with the following tasks and aims: preserving the land as property of the local community, and its defence against speculation; strengthening of communal structures and citizens' initiatives for local democracy; building local economies, based on direct marketing to the consumer, increased quality, greater local processing, use of environmental technologies and enhanced exchanges between town and country; developing new forms of cooperative enterprise which boost individual initiative, whilst relying on the experience of past collective work.

In Andalusia, Southern Spain , the arrival of 'industrial' agriculture has further compounded the economic pressure on the landless agricultural day workers of the region, the jornaleros.Their challenge to the 'latifundist' model of highly uneven land ownership has gained considerable momentum in recent years as farmworkers have formed cooperatives, leased or squatted land as a group, and linked up with ecological producers' associations to forge a model for sustainable production in Southern Europe. At Villamartin, an ecological vegetable cooperative of jornaleros:"Villamartin is an established, successful, small-scale and capital-extensive experience, with a very motivated, homogenous and well-organised group that has complete control over its development process. It has a clear view on the strategy towards independent farming, in which ecological agriculture plays a fundamental role. Knowledge is being rescued from traditional farmers in the region. Commercialisation of the produce is deliberately mainta ined on a small scale. Creation of work is the central objective."

Meanwhile, at Marinaleda, another group of ex-jornaleros have occupied 1100 hectares. Their project explicitly goes beyond just farming and stresses the need to improve village economic and social well-being, through the creation of work. At Contraviesa, an ecological wine cooperative, based firmly on the revaluing of traditional local farmer knowledge, has reconquered the local market for wine. "The cooperativist form is thought of as crucial to economically defend local farming and provide an alternative to depopulation. The experience may serve as a model for 2,000 farmer families." On the mountainous border of Andalusia with Extremadura, the traditional and sustainable agro-silvopastoral system, known as Dehesa, is under threat form capital)intensive production: depopulation is almost irreversible, former productive areas have been abandoned, with corresponding loss of biological and cultural diversity, a decrease of energy efficiency, and greater social and economic dependency. Only the remaining local farmers and jornaleros hold the key to recreating the diverse land use system which previous generations had evolved into a complex web of practices. Here, at least, there is a chance of saving the local knowledge which the most fragile agroecosystems in Europe require to sustain them for future generations.

ALDIS is an association set up by farmers and rural people in 1984 in Mayenne, a departement in Normandy, North West France. ALDIS adopted the slogan 'Act locally, think globally' - that is to say, make farming practices in Europe compatible with a global development model which is both sustainable and equitable. Farmers (mainly medium)scale dairy producers) have sought to develop more self)reliant farming systems, in solidarity with their colleagues in Brazil, Peru, Poland, India and Cameroon, with whom they have strong links and exchange programmes. The first phase of ALDIS' activities involved research into more efficent and more 'autonomous' production systems: rediscovering the value of legume crops, and pasture development with a white clover/ ryegrass mix; pioneering lupins and other pulses in the region; trials to produce methane gas from manure.

The second phase focused on reducing pollution from agricultural sources: preventing water pollution by nitrates, and the setting-up of the 'Azote Mieux' ('Better Niotrogen Use') programme with 800 farmers; reducing pesticide use, by weeding instead of using atrazine; and awareness-raising amongst farmers and the general public about the active ingredients in widely-used pesticides.

In its third and current phase, ALDIS is seeking to promote production systems which meet three objectives: the production of safe, healthy food; the preservation of natural resources (air, water, soil); and increasing the 'value added' to a product in order to guarantee the farmer a remunerative income without having to increase production. However, despite impressive successes in all these areas in less than a decade, ALDIS' analysis that "the economic logic of the CAP in the 1980s has pushed farmers into intensification in order to guarantee their incomes" has been shown to be all too correct. The reformed CAP of 1992 has actually made their grassland and fodder production - as an alternative to the maize silage/ imported soya model - unviable economically, by doing away with the grass premium payments and reverting to premia for maize silage. This particular measure takes the CAP in the opposite direction to sustainability. "The public interest would be better served by de-intensification in order to have less surpluses and less pollution".

Conclusion

Prospects for NGO/FAO Cooperation in Promoting SARD

The FAO could play a crucial role in promoting the political will among European member governments to implement commitments they have signed in Den 'Bosch and Rio. The role of farmers' organisations, NGOs and civil society as a whole will continue to be critical in generating the grassroots momentum and public support required to mobilise appropriate government and inter-governmental actions. FAO's ability to adapt to an empowering, facilitating role and its willingness to broaden the SARD concept within the International Common Programme Framework will determine NGO attitudes. In other words, SARD must also be seen to apply to the 'donor' governments, and FAO's mandate adapted. FAO could also, for example, give the necessary inter-governmental credibility and momentum to the process of redesigning the Common Agricultural Policy for SARD. This would have potentially very positive repercussions across the whole of Europe, and well beyond.

The FAO has a progressive record in defending farmers' rights to seed and in collaborating with NGOs over genetic resource conservation. So, maybe farmers and NGOs should be optimistic that isolated examples of collaboration over SARD will lead to a much more fruitful relationship, with both parties benefiting from access to each other's skills and networks. The new factor driving the movement is not just the breadth and depth of urban opinion in favour of a 'higher quality' agriculture and public environmental protection measures, but also the emergence of broad new alliances for sustainable agriculture and rural development in a dozen countries of Europe: farmers' unions, ecological farmers' associations and NGOs representing consumer, environmental, welfare and Third World interests are working together for change. Several major European meetings have taken place since Rio - in Berne, Mons, Mulheim and Girona - and have generated a firm basis for a continent-wide grassroots movement, with recognition already from EC policymakers of our potential role.

It is possible that without such diverse processes of public education and action, necessary to securing genuine participation in a transition to SARD, FAO's efforts to shift the conceptual thinking of national governments will prove futile. Collaboration, on equitable terms, between FAO, European farmers' organisations and others active in civil society holds great potential for achieving our aims, despite the inevitable strong resistance from agribusiness and even some farmer organisations.But we NGO educators should not lose sight of the goal. If farmers and rural people themselves are not involved in the process of transition, SARD will remain a 'theoretical fix', or it will be more easily blocked by those who have much to lose from a move away from an external input) intensive agriculture.
 
 

References/Resources:

1. From an address entitled "The Challenge of Rio to Northern Agriculture" by Dr Hans Hermann Bertrup, Secretary of State, Ministry of Environment, Regional Planning & Agriculture in the state of Nord)Rhein Westfalia to the international NGO conference 'Bringing Rio Home', Mulheim, Germany, 31.8)3.9.93. All papers and final declaration available from: Dr R. Buntzel, Hohebuch, D*74638 Waldenburg, Germany.

2. Material provided by Liliana Cori of 'Una Terra Buona per Tutti', c/o COSPE, Viale Vicini 16, 40122 Bologna, Italy. Reports on the OLEAE project (ECLAIR 209) are available from Dr David Dent, School of Pure & Applied Biology, Univeersity of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 915, Cardiff, Wales CF1 3TL.

3. Material drawn from "Pesticide Reduction Programmes in Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden", a WWF International Research Report, CH)1196 Gland, Switzerland, 11.92.

4. Material drawn from " Report on SARD implementation in Central & Eastern Europe" by Urszula Soltysiak, Warsaw Agricultural University, Poland, 7.93. Presented at Mulheim conference, 1.9.93. See note 1 above.

5. Drawn from material supplied by Professor Barry Dent and Charlie Wannop of SFS, Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland.

6. Quoted in "Wales 2012: The UK National Sustainability Report -Its role and relevance to Wales", Campaign for the Preservation of Rural Wales, Ty Gwyn, 31 High St., Welshpool, Powys, Wales SY21 7JP, 1993.

7. Material drawn from "The Future of Agriculture in Eastern Europe ", a report of a European Symposium on 'Denationalisation of agriculture and rural development in Eastern Europe', European Civic Forum/Communal Forum of the Land of Brandenburg, 1.93. Available from: ECF, BP 42, 04300 Forcalquier, France."

8. From a chapter entitled "Ecological Agriculture in Andalusia" in 'Endogenous Regional Development in Europe', proceedings of a seminar in Vila Real, Portugal, 11.91. Published by DGVI, CECC, 200 rue de la Loi, B)1049 Brussels.

9. Material written by Jean-Yves Griot in an article entitled "Translating Words into Deeds: Against the Grain in Normandy", published in CCFood Matters Worldwide Special Issue, 10.93, Farmers' Link/Farmers' World Network, 38 Exchange Street, Norwich NR2 1AX.

10. Background material and texts of common position documents available from: The European Network of Alliances for Sustainable Agriculture, c/o Plataforma Rural, C/Agustin de Bethancourt 17, 28003 Madrid. Fax: 34)91)534)65)37.

Note:

SARD must also be seen to apply to the 'donor' governments, and FAO's mandate adapted. FAO could also, for example, give the necessary inter-governmental credibility and momentum to the process of redesigning the Common Agricultural Policy for SARD. This would have potentially very positive repercussions across the whole of Europe.