Agriculture, farming, fishing and industry

The demographic explosion of the second half of the 20^th century, from 3 to 6 billion inhabitants between 1960 and 1999, was accompanied by an intensification of agriculture, farming, fishing and industry. But feeding a growing population and providing it with its material goods has profound consequences on nature and mankind.

Agriculture: in search of a new performance model

Agricultural productivism saw the light in the early 60s. In Europe, it was implemented by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP, established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome). Its main objectives were to ensure European food safety, reasonable prices for consumers as well as fair incomes for farmers. This was to be achieved through research on productivity, protectionist measures and significant subsidies.

The productivity research led to intensive agriculture. It relies on the use of chemical products, in particular: fertilisers (providing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutriments) and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides...). The surpluses of these products are found in soil, groundwater, rivers and sea shores, resulting in proliferation phenomena (algae, for example, with nitrogen fertilisers) and the poisoning of wildlife and flora (90% of pesticides are lost in the wild, with only 10% reaching their targets ⁽¹⁾). In Europe, agriculture is responsible for 60% of water pollution and 30% of chemical pollution ⁽²⁾. Organic farming uses natural methods that do not require chemicals, but "organic" cultivation applies to only 2.5% of French farmland (European average: 3.9%) ⁽³⁾.

Irrigation is necessary for the survival of many countries. But when it is too intensive, it also has serious consequences. 70% of global water consumption is devoted to agriculture. However, 60% of this water evaporates before it reaches the watered plant ⁽¹⁾. The minerals dissolved in the water then settle on the ground, creating a crust on its surface. This phenomenon, which leads to soil salinization, can make vast agricultural areas become sterile.

The globalisation of agriculture also sometimes has disastrous social consequences. Rich countries, whose production is often heavily subsidised and over target, export their goods to poorer countries. These poorer countries then struggle to sell their own products at home. In order to become competitive, they start adopting intensive methods, but become dependent on the pesticides that are produced by industrialised countries, which thereby increase their level of debt. Moreover, new agricultural needs (biofuels...) are now competing with local food-producing operations: rather than feed their own people, some countries are now converting a large portion of their land so that these more profitable crops, which will be exported, can be cultivated.

The production of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) covers 5% of the world's arable land. The United States gathers half of this surface. The US is followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada and China ⁽⁴⁾. The GMO debate divides people. For some, it represents a solution in the fight against hunger, thanks to more resistant crops. For opponents, the cost of GMOs limits their use to large farms, and environmental risks (transmissions of new traits to other species, adaptation of existing species...) are not controlled. Ethically, the legitimacy of mankind's intervention on the structure of life using these GMOs is questioned.

On many criteria, the current agricultural model shows its limits. A new model, powerful yet harmless to the environment and its populations, seems necessary. Even if actual developments are slow to come, this idea is gradually gaining ground. In 2007, the FAO has broken with its traditional view by admitting that organic farming could indeed feed the entire planet ⁽⁵⁾.

Breeding: rich countries too carnivorous

Worldwide, the livestock population represents approximately 4 billion animals (cattle, sheep and pigs) ⁽¹⁾. In France, meat consumption has doubled between 1930 and today, to about 200 grams per day per person, twice the amount usually recommended for a balanced diet. This represents a real public health problem, particularly because overconsumption of red meat increases the risks of cardiovascular disease and certain forms of cancer.

From an environmental point of view, meat consumption is one of two main factors that make the global ecological footprint unsustainable ⁽²⁾. The underlying cause is the food required for the growth of livestock: over half the world's food crops are destined for animal feed ⁽⁶⁾. A very bad choice when one knows that cows feed twelve times less than the grain they have consumed ⁽¹⁾... The environmental impact of meat production is huge: use of agricultural land, consumption of vast quantities of water (more than 10,000 litres per kg. of beef) and greenhouse gas emissions (18% of global emissions ⁽⁵⁾).

As for fish farming, pisciculture, the picture is not much better. Although it can limit the pressure on certain species, it requires 2.5 kg. of caught fish (processed into flour for food) to produce 1 kg. of farmed fish ⁽¹⁾. Such farming substantially contributes to the reduction of fish stocks.

Today, only one conclusion is possible: we must reduce our consumption of meat. During the Copenhagen summit, ten key figures (Pierre Rabhi, Corinne Lepage...) organised a "meat strike" to denounce this under-publicised problem.

Fishing: stocks are dwindling

Regarding fishing, the situation can easily be summed up: 76% of global fish stocks are exploited to their maximum or are over-exploited ⁽⁵⁾. This overfishing situation is leading to a decline of the global catch: it has decreased by 13% since the peak achieved in 1994 ⁽⁴⁾, despite the major technical efforts made by fishermen.

Overfishing has also led to huge social imbalances. On the one hand, catches are not distributed evenly: 1% of boats, which are over-equipped, are responsible for 50% of the global catch ⁽⁴⁾. On the other hand, traditional fish-eating countries (Ghana, Nigeria...) are unable to catch enough fish and are forced to import some of the fish that they consume.

Industry: necessary but unequal regulations

Industry is the source of different types of pollution: distribution of pollutants in the air, water and soil, greenhouse gas emissions (30% of global emissions ⁽⁷⁾), waste production, noise, olfactory and thermal pollution... Depending on work conditions, industry can also have consequences on the health of its employees.

In northern areas, such activities are highly regulated (water treatment...). However, standards usually do not become stricter until serious accidents occur. These industrial accidents still typically occur in northern countries (explosion at the AZF factory in Toulouse in 2001; explosion on a BP oil platform and an oil slick 70 km. away from the Louisiana coast in 2010...). In southern countries, regulations are much more uneven, and this leads to serious environmental and health consequences. In order for this situation to change, the intervention of international NGOs is often decisive.

Written by Florent Planas for "One year for the Planet" (translated by Anyword).

Find out more…

1. Fondation Nicolas Hulot, Ecologuide de A à Z (Le Cherche Midi, 2004)
2. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), june 2010 report
3. Wikipedia, Organic Farming
4. Michel Barnier, Atlas pour un monde durable (Acropole, 2007)
5. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)
6. Wikipedia, Environmental effects of meat production
7. Jean-Marc Jancovici, www.manicore.com
8. To learn more about the dangers of the intensive farming model and overfishing, read chapter 2 of Yves Cochet's book, Antimanuel d’écologie (Bréal, 2009).