(Note: This may seem to be tedious reading, but there is much here of value. Many chafe at the heavy hand of the Delphi Technique and consensus is truly a failure here.)

October 17, 1998

Sustainability in Agricultural Systems in Transition - A World Bank, American Societies of Agronomy/Crops/Soils International Symposium, Baltimore, MD, Oct. 20-22, 1998 Stakeholder Survey Comments as of Oct. 17, 1998.

In preparation for the October symposium, a survey containing 17 statements was sent to stakeholders with an interest in the sustainable intensification of agricultural systems globally, including: farmers and farmer organizations, consumers, technology institutions, policy makers, NGOs, academics, multinationals, and agro-industry.

The purpose of this survey and the symposium was to facilitate “the forging of stakeholder partnerships and alliances focused on promoting an exchange of ideas, information and knowledge on the technologies, institutions, and policies needed for achieving sustainable agricultural intensification.”

Note that the October symposium will be followed by a series of regional workshops planned for Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa during the 1999 through 2001 period.

These regional workshops will be able to focus on fine-tuning recommendations from the 1998 symposium to take account of differing regional and location-specific requirements.

For this survey/symposium, the initial working definition of “Sustainable intensification” was: “an integrated agricultural management system which progressively increases agricultural output per unit of land while maintaining the long-term ecological and biological integrity and diversity of natural resources, providing economic returns to individuals, contributing to quality of life, and strengthening a country’s economic development.”

The October symposium concluded with agreement that achieving sustainability will require that international champions such as the World Bank initiate significant changes in international development and investment policies through using a combination of incentives and controls to encourage private-sector/public-sector partnerships.

In order to assess opinions most accurately, each survey statement provided an opportunity to include detailed comments in addition to checking one of five choices: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

A number of respondents who agreed to be available for a follow-up interview by phone were interviewed and their remarks are included in the following list of comments from the completed surveys.

Note that all survey comments are included below and that in most cases the comments came from respondents who checked either “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” on their forms.

Respondents who agreed with the survey statements tended not to add comments.

This difference explains why the comments that follow are generally critical, whereas the great majority of respondents agreed with the survey statements.

A 71 Have conclusions already been drawn?

A 129 Changes in the distribution system are needed.

A 135 Past population estimates have always been wrong. Emphasis needs to be on increasing sustainable production and better distribution, rather than on eye-catching, speculative off-the-wall statistics.

A 145 We should be encouraging more population control.

A 149 In addition to world food supply, distribution of, and access to, food are also important factors in the alleviation of world hunger and to keep pace with demand.

A 150 Have world population estimates been accurate in the past? I have been taught and listened to these kinds of estimates since the early 1960s, and we still have a food surplus.

A 151 Most demographic studies suggest 2040 to 2050 depending on assumed global population growth, 2%= 35 years = 2033.

A 155 Projections to 2025 are 8 billion+, hence increase in production of only 50%, required to alleviate hunger. To keep pace with increased demand, more like 75% increase.

A 158 Not likely. You might be correct on the projection of the need.

A 160 Doubling is wrong, much less is needed. Comment “doubling” is too high. Most say 50% increase by 2050.

A 168 A never-ending spiral of disaster unless population stabilizes/decreases.

A 170 Endemic hunger in the United States, a country with a large food supply, illustrates that there is no direct relationship between the two. Hunger can be alleviated by raising incomes so that people can buy food or can produce their own food. As long as people can feed grain to livestock and consume the animal products, the demand for agricultural production is insatiable. Doubling the food supply by 2025 will neither eliminate hunger nor keep pace with the demand for foodstuffs.

A 174 I would agree with 2050.

A 177 Food distribution and purchasing power of people to buy food are necessary.

A 178 Hard to predict accurately.

A 179 The challenge is more complex than a mere doubling. Volume of food needed cannot be projected in absence of detailed information re dietary composition. Growth in consumption of animal products is clearly a driving factor. New developments in fermentation technology, aquaculture, and small-scale farming systems could...

A 183 Food production is a problem, but so is food distribution.

A 184 Transitioning towards more vegetarian diet in more prosperous countries would lessen the dilemma.

A 227 This question doesn’t belong on this survey.

A 228 Hunger alleviation and world food supply are not directly linked, as the question suggests. Total food production might be technology linked or input linked. However, hunger is a result of unequal economic growth. People are hungry because they don’t have enough money or resources to buy or produce food, not because the world food production is too low.

A 231 This statement is delusionary! EVERY biological system increases its population in response to increased resource availability. Humans are no different. World population will continue to grow as long as food production grows. Take a lesson from basic ecology! Food supplies do NOT need to be doubled, but the current food levels MUST be distributed more equitably and people must be empowered to produce their own food LOCALLY. It is folly for some areas of the world to continue supplying others. Every region should be food independent to buffer the entire system (i.e., so that we don’t become overly dependent on a few regions to supply the needs of the entire planet — sets us up for global-scale famine). Every region should be producing some staple food. For too long, export crops have been emphasized in developing countries to increase cash so that they can IMPORT food. This can never be sustainable. A paradigm shift is essential BEFORE such crises occur.

A 233 This estimate is probably too high.

A 235 I fear that we have given the world’s political and theological leaders the notion that we can keep increasing food supplies to keep pace with the increase in human population. Maybe we can and maybe we cannot! I believe we should announce this very clearly and worldwide. I think the leaders noted above are gambling with the continuation of civilization in not addressing and bringing population growth to zero as soon as possible. We have a glut of oil now, but in only a few decades the supply of oil will become increasingly scarce, and, of course, much more expensive. This will have severe ramifications for food production. I would like you to address this reality in the context of “Sustainable Agriculture.”

A 240 The use of the wording “food supply” should in some way include reference to the need to increase forages for animals. Animals are important in developing and maintaining a sustainable agricultural system. They convert weeds and crop residues into an indigenous “fertilizer” source needed for the production of grains and vegetables on the millions of small and subsistence farms where most of the world’s food shortages occur.

A185 The world population growth needs to be cut, not the food supply.

B 128 True, but in many cases bigger problem is lack of access to existing technology. Broad generalizations are dangerous. Negative environmental impacts and pesticide resistance has undoubtedly occurred in some areas of the world. However, in the countries in which I have experience — Haiti, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, the environment is at greater risk from lack of access to input that would make land use more efficient and productive. This includes fertilizers, improved varieties, and other technologies.

B 130 Need to use all available technologies as wisely as possible.

B 134 Some “Current agricultural technologies “particularly high-input mechanized technologies for rain fed upland” have encountered obstacles . . .

B 137 It’s true that improperly applied current agricultural technologies have encountered these obstacles. However, that shouldn’t automatically result in an indictment of and disregard for those conventional ag technologies that have led to self-sufficiency in industrialized countries. Conventional ag isn’t inherently evil. I’m sure there are many examples of conventional ag technologies that actually protect the environment.

B 143 Mismanagement rather than improved technologies

B 147 Current problems indicate the desirability of looking at other options, but they do not indicate the need to discard current technologies. These problems may be avoidable if the farmers had better training in using current technologies. IPM is one example of how chemicals can be an effective and safe solution given proper training. Your term “agricultural technologies” is a bit vague, hence this comment.

B 150 Negative aspects of current technologies are more associated with inappropriate application of technology such as excessive fertilizer use or misuse of pesticides. However farmers need all the options not just those that are highly technical.

B 152 It is my contention that much of the “negative” image of agriculture is due to an unbalanced portrait painted by the mainstream press. The success of agriculture over the past four decades is unparalleled. After working in the developing world for several years I was shocked to return to Canada and see the high level of concern that Canadians have regarding food safety. Consumers now have a level of skepticism around farmers and processors that I have been hard-pressed to explain. We can look at several poorly handled incidents (BSE in Britain, E. coli, salmonella outbreaks), but in the broad picture of risk analysis these things aren’t on the screen. We need to do a better job of providing information about the extraordinary successes of the agricultural sector.

B 156OK, but farm investment must pay either by disbanding low food costs or add value at farm gate.

B 169 Promote proven sustainable technologies.

B 177 Combine the best of current technologies with alternative technologies to provide farmers with the best options for local conditions and resources.

B 178 Same problem with many new technologies. Need technology assessment. Economics must be included in this.

B 179 For two decades, the focus of WB, CG and international investments has been intensification through fertilization, irrigation, and development of high-yield varieties. The limits and externalities of this approach are now clear to most and hence interest in other paths to intensification. The key will be a shift in research...

B 184 Most practices do not consider long range impacts, especially on soil and water quality.

B 188 Agricultural technologies will continue to evolve to address the above referenced obstacles. However, it is important that we not discount the tremendous achievements made by agricultural technology in providing a safe, affordable food supply.

B 201 Not always a need to develop new technologies, but to adapt/disseminate existing technologies, train in their use, etc.

B 229 Not the technology, but the application.

B 231 Essential that technologies be matched to LOCAL resources and conditions, including socioeconomic conditions. Build on current local knowledge and practices. No “expert” from outside can know the local situation (biophysical, socioeconomic and cultural) better than the farmers and local people. Build on that local knowledge and know-how.

B 233 That is true in some cases but is over reported. Positive news does not sell.

B 241 The “seeds” of such technologies already exist such as integrated farming systems in E & SE Asia. C 125There are other ways to expand food supplies, such as building greenhouses in Antarctica. Alternatives like that will be developed.

C 130 Some area expansion can still take place.

C 132 There are areas where there can be area expansion. What we need is a combination of answers.

C 135 There is room for substantial expansion in irrigation. However, past half-century irrigation projects too often have been unsustainable social and agronomic disasters, focused on world markets and centrally run by hierarchical organizations with little concern for (thus benefit to) the farmer family on the land. In all, large increases in new area farmed are not feasible, but restoring lands lost to salinization and other bad management, plus better water management can have significant effects. Raising biological yields through bio-tech opens the system to many pitfalls. Statement C could be misinterpreted as a clarion call for bio-tech, at the expense of the family farm in favor of the corporation. (See M)

C 140 Genetic improvement of tree crops and other underutilized crop plants.

C 144 It has to be a combination of all.

C 150 Future food increases will come from increased yields as well as increased production from rain fed and irrigated areas.

C 154 Future food expansion must come from a variety of sources. Reduction of protein consumption in the first world, use of animal and human wastes, plant breeding, fertilization, also reduction of war.

C 159 The needed increase in biological yield should involve major decreases in gaps between potential and actual yields as well as some potential yield increase through breeding programs and development of new crop plants and animals. I think the largest potential for improvement would come from improved systems and management so that yields come nearer the climatic and biologic potentials.

C 162 So much food is wasted in modern society. Saving should be considered as one of the goals.

C 164 At any given level of biological productivity, several-fold increases in caloric content of human diets can be achieved by a nutritional shift from animal to plant proteins.

C 171 A balance is required considering land use, climate economics, education levels, and natural resources making this an interesting question. Unconventional forms of food production (ocean “farming” or fish farming) are possible alternatives in certain situations. Expansion in some areas, while keeping good conservation practices, is a viable alternative to starvation.

C 179 Reducing losses to pests also should receive higher priority, particularly where post-harvest posses remain high. Also, see answer to B.

C 184 My understanding is we have pretty much maxed out on irrigation (which has some pretty strong environmental downsides anyway). Again, the question of what type of protein the world consumes affects the equation.

C 185 The question, again, is poorly phrased. Neither increasing biological yields nor expanding irrigation are appropriate solutions.

C 196 Generally true throughout the world, but less so in Russia and Central Asia, which still has land.

C 202 It could be combination of both. Medium expansion, redistribution, and productivity increase.

C 227 The “biological” yield, or yield plateau, is a poor choice for placing research priorities. It would be far better to (1) raise yields through improved management of low yielding areas, (2) bringing new land into production. But let’s not forget that population control, especially through education, should be the TOP priority.

C 231 This statement is delusionary! EVERY biological system increases its population in response to increased resource availability. Humans are no different. World population will continue to grow as long as food production grows. Take a lesson from basic ecology! Food supplies do NOT need to be doubled, but the current food levels MUST be distributed more equitably and people must be empowered to produce their own food LOCALLY. It is folly for some areas of the world to continue supplying others. Every region should be food independent to buffer the entire system (i.e., so that we don’t become overly dependent on a few regions to supply the needs of the entire planet — sets us up for global-scale famine). Every region should be producing some staple food. For too long, export crops have been emphasized in developing countries to increase cash so that they can IMPORT food. This can never be sustainable. A paradigm shift is essential BEFORE such crises occur.

C 233 This is not true everywhere. Africa has developable land but it needs to use present land better.

C 240 There are undeveloped areas in many Third World countries that are not used because they are under the control of government officials, wealthy landowners and, in some countries, owned by global corporations. Some of these lands would benefit by irrigation.

C 241 Use of HYVs and IPM.

D 38 This is trying to encompass too much and sounds almost political.

D 48 Need to also consider economic viability of farmers.

D 131 The problem with sustainability is that farmers tend to be “married” to their crops. The farmers today in the U.S. are in major difficulty because of a lack of ability to separate the products they produce from emotions — they’re married to their products. Only about 30% of the products sold around the world are sold in the top third of the market, which tells you that these farmers marry their product. They sell rather than market their product. They need to look at the economic facts and get the emotion out of their decisions. For sustainability, the farmer has to sell at a profit. For developing countries, that means getting rid of subsistence-level farming, with most farmers leaving the land. Then you need to create markets and train the remaining farmers in marketing.

D 137 Reducing poverty should be replaced with improving the quality of life or improving the well being of farmers. It’s a given that we’ll be reducing poverty and sounds too much like pity.

D 141 Add “quality” not just compatibility.

D 144 Add “increase job opportunities.”

D 147 What about the economic health of rural communities? Sustainable agriculture should also keep the rural setting attractive enough so people can stay there and earn reasonable livings, instead of leaving for the cities. Otherwise, the agricultural system will be forced to undergo further change yet.

D 158 To do that we need to re-evaluate how question A should be answered. More food or less births.

D 163 Too complex for one answer

D 164 The fundamental objective of agricultural intensification should be to achieve optimal efficiencies of capture of isolation energy by cropping systems and in the processing and distribution of food and fiber outputs at household, local community, national and global levels. Large increases in efficiency of production and distribution can be effected by changes in land use patterns in and around urban areas.

D 167 Poverty a different issue. Too many points for one category.

D 172 I would agree with all parts except “(a) reduce poverty.” Since the causes of poverty are so diverse, I don’t see how sustainable agricultural intensification can be an effective tool in reducing it. Also, it is still going to boil down to who owns the land and if those living in poverty don’t have access to the land, ag intensification won’t be an option for them. Keep the goals focused — you can’t cure all of the world’s problems by improving agriculture.

D 173 At first I thought this question was multiple choice, but then I realized it was yes or no. Four areas are listed as goals of sustainable agriculture, but some of the most important goals are omitted from the list. Sustainable agriculture depends on maintaining the soil resource (i.e. preventing excess erosion, enhancing soil quality, reducing the rate of urban/suburban sprawl that gobbles up prime farmland). Maintaining good farmland is as important as de-emphasizing bringing marginal land into production.

D 174 Add “(e) make life worth living.”

D 176 Re “improve human health” — will not accomplish this.

D 178 Without any priority.

D 179 The last goal should be restates as — “building the inherent productive capacity of soil, water and other agricultural resources while improving environmental quality.” The term “be compatible” is far too wishy-washy. It means whatever people want it to mean.

D 194 This would have been better as a multiple choice question to prioritize the objectives.

D 202 However, education and skills development also should be compulsory.

D 210I Note with interest that your “definition of Sustainable Intensification” makes no reference to “socially just” distribution of the fruits of S.A. Is that assumed or implicit? Does it naturally follow from your other conditions?

D 231 Intensification and sustainability as defined are mutually exclusive. Environmental and social costs MUST be accounted for.

D 233 U.S. agricultural policy would like other countries to become more dependent on us. Europe (Switzerland) needs people on landscapes.

D 241 Food security should not be confused with food self-sufficiency.

E 124 Subsistence-level farmers probably do not have an expanded world view of ag sciences. They do not know what is available or what works elsewhere. Monuments to the unlearned are not needed.

E 127 While I agree with this statement I am concerned that we can carry “respect for native wisdom” too far. Yes we must listen to the needs and desires of those who must actually do the sustainable farming, but their traditional ,methods and superstitions (and mine) can be terribly wrong and terribly damaging. Our job as scientists to objectively separate the good from the bad, suggest changes and suggest ways to implement those changes, even in the face of stiff opposition from the farmers themselves.

E 130 Farmers should be involved, but they often are unaware of opportunities.

E 131 Sustainability requires an approach that leads to production growth only! For true sustainability, as a farmer I have to be able to increase my production each year, year after year, consistently.

E 136 The statement of E with respect to subsistence farmers is absolutely true. My experience as a soil scientist in Sierra Leone, W. Africa (A.I.D./ University of Illinois 1967-72) confirms this. My research objective during that period I served in Africa was to introduce a cultural change from traditional subsistence farming, i.e., expanding into marginal land after 2 years cropping and fallow for 6-12 years, to continuous cultivation on coastal lowland owned by small farmers and the community. (My agricultural innovation was to develop a rotation of corn, rice, and groundnuts [1 1/2 yearly rotation] under continuous cultivation which I initiated on our research farm in Sierra Leone.) To introduce the innovation and hopefully have it accepted by the farmers, we utilized the concepts of grassroots institution building (acronym, GRIB). This paradigm invoked the ideas of Extension, Service, Education and Decision-making, Socio-Psychological (status-role), and Institution Building. In essence, we believe that the closer the problem to the self, the more likely an individual will change attitudes and behavior. However, early in the program we realized that an indispensable prerequisite to the commitment to GRIB is that the indigenous government would be agreeable to and will support GRIB. The whole area of sustainable agriculture requires a solid philosophical base upon which to work — something akin to GRIB.

E 143 Back-stopped by pragmatic R&D by natural social scientists.

E 146 I don’t feel it is limited to just listening to farmers. I’m not ruling out that but it’s just one avenue and we need to involve the universities, the private sector, etc.

E 150 Well said.

E 151 This plus consumers. Sustainability must include non-farm population.

E 152 I am a strong advocate of on-farm participatory research. When I worked for a CG institution in West Africa, we allowed farmers to grow potential new varieties on their own farms to get additional information on the positive and negative aspects of potential grain legume cultivars. I am now using the same methodology in western Canada to allow farmers and their neighbors the opportunity to see new crops and technologies in a non-threatening place which gives them a feeling of contribution and empowerment.

E 155 Why is it necessary to say men and women farmers. Are there any other kind? Just omit men and women.

E 157 Sustainability involves Mr. and Mrs. Farmer at all levels and more. It touches the increasingly sensitive interface between the farmer/farm, the urban neighbors and representatives in government. Nothing grows like a rumor that a new farm program or practice may impact food quality, contaminate the ground water or foul the air. Increasingly, the rural and urban interests are more alike than different. A dialogue on sensitive matters such as environmental quality, sustainable systems and property rights should start early to avoid the need for conflict resolution that otherwise will almost surely follow.

E 162 Enhance communication between farmers and researchers.

E 233 Holding hands is good but policies in many countries are the main problem. Look at how U.S. got to where it is.

E 241 Including other key stakeholders.

F 124 Current conventional practices that include such tools as IPM, scouting and hybrids are definitely site specific, knowledge-intensive and management-intensive.

F 125 I think that a lot of our current practices are sustainable. What grates on me is the idea of separating agriculture into two camps. So many of what are being called sustainable practices are in fact standard practices today. We need to understand that we’re all in this together for the long haul.

F 132 One of the problems is that it goes against the grain when we try to take our technology down to the level that farmers in developing countries can implement. In Africa, for instance, we’ve run into problems by trying to make farmers our of herdsmen.

F 137 By default you’re indicting conventional ag practices as detrimental to the environment, no-brainers, applied blindly without regard to site-specific limitations and needs, and requiring or leading to minimal management attention. I’m sure many farmers employing “conventional ag practices” would object to those assumptions.

F 150 “Conventional practices” should be more site-specific, knowledge-intensive and management-intensive than they are now.

F 156 Sustainable practices are more labor intensive, not more knowledge or management intensive. When I farmed in the Dakotas, we were using the old Danish ways, and I’ve worked with farmers in Russia where in some places they’re been using the same practices for hundreds of years.

F 158 If they are, forget it! Still trying to sell basic agronomic practices, and not always succeeding.

F 165 Question is too open to interpretation. Does it assume/imply that “conventional” practices are not sustainable?

F 166 “Sustainability” and “Intensification” may not be compatible in developing nations. Their ability to increase inputs at the farm level is very limited. Strategies to increase production and sustainability in developing nations must recognize this significant limitation. One intensive input they can increase is labor, hand labor is in abundant supply in many developing nations. We westerners often forget this as our agriculture has used technology to reduce hand labor. Our western history of intensification is likely not an appropriate model for sustainability in developing nations.

F 179 They can become less management intensive after transitions to more stable, productive agroecosystems. This statement might be amended by including at the end of the phrase “especially” during transitions from input-based and energy intensive systems.”

F 184 Yes, they are more site-specific than ‘conventional’ ag, but conventional ag is based on a lot of knowledge and management. It’s just that we’ve done a good job of “downloading” that knowledge in many areas. Sustainable ag practices haven’t had the same attention.

F 188 Many factors have contributed to the development of current conventional” practices.

F 207 The statement is too vague not specific enough — what is sustainable what is conventional?

F 233 While this is partially true, it is also very self-serving to those selling their services.

F 238 Statement G says one has to strongly agree with Statement F.

F 240 I question whether most Sustainable Agricultural practices are more site specific, knowledge intensive, and management intensive than current “conventional” practices. There are some exceptions such as, roof-top gardens and Zai Holes in desert areas. Review the information in the book “Amaranth to Zai Holes” and the two enclosed leaflets.

F 241 And conserve biodiversity.

G 125 I do, however, agree that farmers themselves should be involved in providing training to other farmers.

G 126 I agree that improvement needs to made with site-specific etc. application, but using farmers, whom each have only site-specific experience to train other farmers with a different set of site-specific conditions, does not improve the situation. Persons with broad experience with alternatives that can be applicable to site-specific conditions are needed.

G 128 Farmers do not have all the answers. I agree about investment. The statement seems to imply that training farmers by other farmers will somehow solve the lack of knowledge. That is preposterous. If the knowledge.. and capacity to farm sustainably existed within the farming community, then they would be doing so. The problem is that the old ways of extensive farming, which were sustainable under low population are not viable under present demographics. Investment in research and in the provision of the inputs needed for more intensive farming is what is needed. Using farmers as extension agents is fine as an extension methodology but it does not address the fundamental problems of need for technology alternatives and the need for better access to agricultural inputs..

G 132 I would agree to having farmers trained by farmers of local origin, one on one, national to national. It’s a waste of money unless training is locals to locals. But I’ve yet to see a program that didn’t require technology improvement and transfer.

G 143 Including use of modern telecommunication/computer technology.

G 150 Farmers will adopt “more sustainable” practices when they become economically feasible. Information and training on sustainable practices will come from all credible sources.

G 151In commercial agriculture farmers are not the best researchers and educators, but they are an important part of the information network.

G 155 Farmers are already at.

G 158 I strongly agree with basic premise, but not sure farmer to farmer approach will be any more successful than traditional. Some emotional baggage that tends to make things confrontational.

G 162 Researchers should be involved too.

G 171If a farmer can grow more food or make more money with proposed changes in farming practices, the program will be able to stand on its own. If the program needs a continual supply of government subsidies to guarantee its continued existence, it is more than likely not a viable alternative to long-term starvation and poverty.

G 184 See F above, this is to “level the knowledge field,” providing an alternative to conventional/prescriptive approaches.

G 188 Economic and environmental factors have contributed to the development of conventional systems such as no-till crop production.

G 201 Not just training, but other forms of support (credit).

G 208 ... and the private sector.

G 227And farmers must train NGOs, local governments, etc.

G 233 Partially true. There are two groups — those that make a living selling services and information, and those trying to quantify impact of proposed practices.

G 238 If one does not agree with statement F, statement F cannot be made.

G 240 Applied field research should be conducted on the factors that limit production on the millions of small farms. Field demonstrations should be established along well traveled roads or paths near rural communities. Results of these demonstrations and other information should be brought to the attention of agronomists, agricultural students, animal husbandry specialists, aquaculture specialists, extension workers, foresters, farmers, missionaries, NGOs and Peace Corp. volunteers in the field and in regional conferences.

G 241 Farmer education is critical especially as the working population migrates out from the rural areas.

H 127 My disagreement comes with the words “unintentionally favor.” I think the favoritism is very intentional and meant to maintain the status quo for those who benefit from it despite long term (and short term) damage it may be doing to farms, farming, and farmers.

H 130 Not always unintentionally

H 134 Nothing wrong with partial subsidy of inputs. In many developing countries some excellent technologies already available, however, for implementation they need partial subsidies of inputs, which are usually not affordable considering local prices of product. No need to keep inventing. Should put more emphasis on application and implementation. Will be interesting to do postmortem analysis why some development projects succeed and many failed to use the results of these studies as guidelines for future project development.

H 146 We already have a lot of government policies that actually support alternative practices. Conservation is probably the core of sustainability. Conservation of our land resources is what is going to enable us to achieve sustainability. All else would be irrelevant if we don’t practice conservation. I disagree to some extend as to how non-sustainable our current practices are. Many of the current technologies, if we have good conservation practices, are relatively sustainable. We don’t have to throw away what is working well.

H 150 This has always been a problem since the first farm program.

H 152 Let’s be honest.. ..this is never going to be solved. At the International Food Legume Conference in Adelaide last year we heard that India was producing smaller grain legume crops because the government subsidies made it more profitable for farmers to grow cereal crops.

H 158 We are running out of alternatives as specialization increases.

H 179 I disagree with the use of the term “may.” It is clear that they do, and in many cases the impact is closer to intentional than unintentional. This question is phrases in such a politically correct, softball fashion that it obscures the importance of the issue.

H 184 YOU BET! (Again, see comment F.)

H 210 It is often the applications and abuses of the policies, rather than the policies per se, and changing the policy may not prevent ill-intentioned abuses

H 228 The idea that policies “distort” values twists the way the question might be used. Our policies reflect our values or the values of those who control government. If we decide we want smaller farms and more diverse rural landscapes, then policies could be designed to promote that. At the moment policies are contradictory, as, for example, the tobacco subsidies and regulations against smoking. Which of these two policies distorts the other?

H 233 The U.S. agriculture policy is unrealistic for many countries to follow and may not serve U.S. agriculture well. Weather-dependent agriculture cannot be managed like General Motors, for example.

H170 Government policies intentionally favor current practices. Suppliers of agricultural inputs, farmers, processors, and marketers of agricultural products all have investments in the current technologies. They protect their investments by spending money (i.e., graft, campaign contributions, advertising) to influence government policies.

H 241 “etc.”

H 242 I don’t know if “unintentionally” is an accurate word choice. I expect that most policy makers understand that they are favoring current practices. Current practices “work” for many people and alternatives represent greater risks.

I 127 See E above for thoughts on local on-farm practices. I am also concerned that biotechnology in its common meaning of laboratory genetic manipulation has little to do with sustainable farming because I believe sustainable farming requires locally developed and adapted seed sources. Even if genetic services are donated for free, US gene labs will not be able to produce the best varieties for a particular location. Erasing of genetic diversity in crops is one of the biggest threats to sustainable agriculture and will be the result of even the most well-meaning biotechnology program. That is not to say that all biotech is bad everywhere. Things like encapsulation of Bt may well be sustainably beneficial, but biotech is a very different animal than the other items in this list.

I 137 While understanding current local on-farm practices is the only responsible, respectful approach to take when working with any farmer, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you want to incorporate them into a management plan. For example, what if a current on-farm practice is highly destructive of the environment? All change isn’t necessarily bad.

I 143 Based on a farming system approach

I 146 An essential component of any sustainable ag system is an effective soil conservation program. Soil is the most vital resource of agriculture and must be maintained or improved in a sustainable system.

I 151 Must be a systems perspective and a longer-term, i.e., more than 5 years

I 152 Yes! The wording of the question is superb. The integration of all of these ideas will lead to sustainable intensification. I am most concerned that the researchers who are currently involved in the various “compartment” disciplines will be hardest to convince that they must incorporate complex, multidisciplinary groups to obtain useful data. I fear that even young agricultural scientists want to have a nice limited-factor trial that will be easy to interpret and give a “straight” answer (even if it is the wrong one because all of the other influencing factors have been blocked out of the question).

I 156 In countries not ready for new technology, biotechnology, for example, may create more problems than it solves.

I 159 Biotechnology will help in some areas, but I don’t think the solutions will come as “silver bullets” but from incremental improvements in infrastructure, production systems, and management.

I 169 Seed production and plant breeding.

I 179 I am uncomfortable with including “biotechnology” without being more specific, and this issue will surely emerge as one of the most contentious. I urge the Bank to either become more specific re what is meant by biotech, or just drop it since again it will only trigger endless debate which will be useless until informed by specific...

I 186 There are very important questions about the wisdom of utilizing biotechnology in the field, prior to undertaking a rigorous and thorough-going process of scientific, sociological (specific to each country and locale) and political review.

I 194 Again, I agree with some and not with others. Should allow choice of individual objectives.

I 227 “Sustainable intensification” is an ambiguous term, and potentially dangerous.

I 231 Biotech offers few benefits to farmers in developing areas and undermines sustainable practices elsewhere.

I 232 Utilization of appropriate plant genetic resources is an important key component, which is missing from this list, as well as from the entire survey questionnaire.

I 233 This is true. The degree to which these need to be applied is the question.

I 241 Co-evolution of pest/weed with new varieties will continue even with genetically engineered crops.

J 5 Control Pests.

J 38 Worked in cotton IPM in Arkansas in 1976 and we used Bt to save beneficials then.

J 47 Not true for weed, true for insects.

J 124 Evidently you do not know the definition of IPM to make such a statement. IPM is a matter of identifying the economic threshold. It does not mean lady bugs and lacewings. By definition, IPM does not include the use of biologicals. Relying on biological controls works fine in a greenhouse, but it does not work on a field scale for our crops (cotton, corn, grain sorghum).

J 130 Need to use manufactured chemicals properly. Natural chemicals also have dangers.

J 132 We really don’t practice IPM yet because it’s got to be a lot more than just spreading lady bugs.

J 139 Synthetic chemicals are the un-conventional.

J 141 Success is limited to “high-value” crops only and insects mostly.

J 154 Integrated pest management has a long way to go to provide reduced use of chemicals.

J 156 IPM sounds pretty good, but the success stories may come from farms where a lot of conventional controls are used in the surrounding area and so the pest population is very much reduced.

J 159 IPM has some demonstrated success stories, but not broad general solutions for the diverse problems out there. The one success factor that seems pretty consistent to minimize diverse insect, disease, and weed problems, is the need for rotations. But we have to stick to this approach to make it the standard approach for pest control.

J 165 “Conventional synthetic chemicals” are or can be an important part of an IPM program.

J 177 It has worked well in some areas, but not in others.

J 179 I agree, but again the Bank and others must be more precise in what is meant by IPM. I urge you to include the phrase “biologically based” or “biointensive” to distinguish between IPM systems worthy of support and investments versus systems that aspire only to use pesticides cost-effectively. Manufacturers should bear the...

J 196 But not in all situations.

J 201 Need for more PR for IPM. Why has this message not come out? Have the economic analyses not been brought down to the farmer-level?

J 227 IPM is still an evolving and unproven concept, especially for weed control.

J 228 IPM should include more than insects and weeds, i.e., diseases.

J 232 This is a confusing and somewhat contradictory statement. When IPM is combined with the use of market-purchased agrochemicals for pest control, the latter becomes a part of IPM. Furthermore, the long-term cost effectiveness is far from conclusive. Thus it is difficult to agree or disagree with this statement.

J 233 As long as there are chemicals available when needed, I can agree. There have to be ways of rescuing crops in some instances.

K 234 There are no organic nutrients!

K 124 Evidently you do not understand the basic science of soil fertility to make such a statement. Plants cannot absorb nutrients in an organic form. Nutrients must be converted to an inorganic form.

K 125 Most good farmers already make use of organic nutrients in the right ways. We manage water, we manage nutrients.

K 128 Organic nutrients also have cost limitations. More equitable access to fertilizer needed. Integrated use of organic sources of nutrients is fine to the extent that they are available, but in many developing countries they are inadequate to meet the needs of low resource farmers who have few livestock. Secondly, there are cost limitations to use of organic sources of nutrients. They are costly to transport and may have high labor cost. In developing countries, greater and more equitable access to fertilizers is badly needed.

K 130 Strongly agree that should use organic nutrients when feasible but costs often higher

K 131 Using animal residues on the land means your yields will only come up to a certain limit, and even then you must use site-specific application. Animal manure, which is carbon nitrogen, needs to be used in others ways such as producing energy, methane or electricity.

K 136 The indefinite plant nutrient composition of many organic substances designated to supplement or replace inorganic fertilizers particularly with respect to the site and time of sampling discourages definitive nutrient labeling as fertilizers and thereby reduces the quality of this information as a component of the model for integrated soil fertility management (ISFM). The diffuse nature and low level of the nutrient composition of unprocessed or quality controlled organics derived from vegetable and/or animal materials should place these materials into a category of Soil Amendments or Soil Conditioners used primarily to improve the physical properties of the soil and by this definition become a component of ISFM. The term “supplement” when applied to fertilizer is incorrect unless the biosolid provides ingredients that truly supplement the nutritive composition of inorganic fertilizers. If organics could “replace” conventional inorganic fertilizer, they must possess a range and magnitude of nutrients which can support food production, nation-wide, or meet minimum nutrient standards for fertilizer, otherwise the organics must be relegated to certain specialty situations where they become the sole source of select nutrient requirements. Based on the work I have done in toxic metal bioavailability in soils, the use of urban sludge should be monitored with respect to levels of toxic metals as part of ISFM unless the sludge has been processed by the community facilities to remove them. The resulting materials should then be classified as a soil amendment and/or conditioner.

K 137Are nutrients from an organic source inherently superior to those from an inorganic source? I guess I’m saying that ISFM need not include an organic nutrient component.

K 142 When available locally only!

K 143 This statement is insufficiently clear!!

K 147As did Question B, this question implies the intent to discard current practices and preach that people must take on a new technology. Mineral fertilizers are not inherently inferior. For example, there is no proof for irrigated lowland rice that organic fertilizers are any better than mineral fertilizers, short-term or long-term. In addition, economic analysis of organic fertilizer sources is rarely done. For example, animal manure application may improve crop growth, but how available is it? How far can it be shipped economically? Can it be made available to all farmers seeking to follow prescribed guidelines for sustainable agriculture?

K 150 Organic-based nutrients are not cost effective on most farms. Isn’t ISFM appropriate for conventional inorganic fertilizers?

K 157 The cost benefits of wise use of animal manures have been well established. With continued research and development aimed at processing, packaging and distribution, its value will likely increase. If this is not done especially in areas of high manure concentration and limited land for application, animal waste could become a major liability. Municipal waste represents another significant source of organic nutrients and a great opportunity for farm-city collaborative action. In a sustainable system, the organic waste produced in population centers must be returned to the soil. The cities have a major problem and the farmers have the open land, which is at least a partial key to the solution. And, farmers are well qualified to compost or otherwise process municipal waste for on-farm use or for distribution in non-farm markets.

K 159 Organic sources of nutrients would be more beneficial if we would develop more uniform products from these sources, so that the value-added product would be able to be transported further, stored until needed, etc......

K 164 Because of transportation costs, the potential benefits from recycling of garbage and municipal wastes can be feasibly achieved only locally in and around urban areas. On the other hand, concentration of vegetable and fruit production in and around urban and suburban areas can also result in significant benefits in terms of nutritional quality, enhanced distribution efficiencies and security of food supplies for local populations.

K 172 I would agree as long as organic nutrients are available. Unfortunately with increased emphasis on “factory” farms, many of the nutrients are confined to extremely small areas and are not readily available for many of the growers who could use them. Besides that, they are causing significant pollution problems due to their concentration on only a relatively few acres.

K 177 This is a viable option so long as organic matter is available and economic.

K 184 A lack of appreciation for soil sustainability and soil quality (not just erosion control) is probably the weakest link in our current ag systems.

K 188 IPM and soil fertility management are definitely components of “conventional” agricultural systems in Michigan.

K 194 Unclear wording. Monitoring in and of itself offers no output and cost benefits. Also what is an organic nutrient?

K 203 They CAN offer benefits, but don’t always.

K 230 I wish the statement were true, but in the USA and Europe inexpensive and easy-to-use fertilizers and aggressive marketing makes externally derived fertilizers more attractive to farmers than the use of whatever organic materials they have. The geographic separation of livestock and crop production facilities has made it very uneconomical to transport manures to cropland where the nutrients can be used effectively without causing environmental damages. In poor countries, the manures at this time are not a problem, and they utilize them pretty well, but donor organizations are urging developing countries to follow the same path the rich countries have taken to develop large animal facilities to achieve greater economies.

K 233 Yes, but depleted soils, Africa for instance, need fertilizer in a big way.

K 241 This could be on a landscape basis.

K 242 It seems to me that it is a benefit to monitor nutrients (if you don’t pay too much to do it) regardless of the sources used to improve them.

L 128 Cover cropping is not appropriate to many low-resource farmers. Again, some of these strategies are beneficial, but they are not practical across the board. For example, cover crops are of questionable benefit to farmers that do not have access to mechanical tillage. No-till generally requires access to herbicides that are not readily available in developing countries. Some soil conservation structures, though beneficial, are not readily adopted without outside assistance because of the high labor cost.

L 130 Output and cost benefits are too often negative. Risk needs to be considered.

L 137 Is it conceivable that by not using the mentioned cultivation practices, one may still achieve output and cost benefits and still improve plant and soil health?, i.e. could use of conventional ag practices also offer output and cost benefits and improve plant and soil health?

L 143 These practices under different circumstances offer sometimes benefits, at other times, detriments.

L This is site- and environmentally dependent.

L 152 We have had a huge switch to no—till farming systems in western Canada. It has been an excellent example of farmers, researchers, equipment manufacturers and other groups working together to adopt a beneficial practice. It is critical that producers see a quick benefit, because they are the ones who are risking their entire livelihood to adopt a new practice. The researchers will still get their salary even if the new technique is a failure.

L 156 It takes, however, years to achieve a balance. It took from 1941 to 1956 to change soil structure and management of soil structure on my North Dakota summer rainfall farm.

L 161I disagree with this statement when used in this broad context. At other places in this survey, site specific practices are mentioned. The same will apply here. Most agronomic practices involve tradeoffs. For example, no-till cropping often relies on additional herbicide usage for weed control and makes incorporation of organic nutrients difficult. In some cases, the need to reduce soil loss may outweigh disadvantages of additional chemical use, in some cases not. These practices are just as site specific as IPM, ISFP, and biotechnology.

L 162 Depends on locations, countries.

L 168 Too much dependence of no-till on ag. chemicals.

L 175 Conservation tillage may be costly in short term, whereas long-term benefits will be specific to given system.

L 178 But often increased pesticide use.

L 179 The critical need is to enhance soil microbial activity. These are the wells of soil quality, and must be the foundation of sustainable intensification, regardless of how it is achieve.

L 196 Again I agree for many farm situations, but it is not always appropriate or feasible.

L 203 They CAN offer benefits, but don’t always.

L 233 This works in some areas. Where moisture supplies from rainfall are unreliable, it may be a mistake to grow a cover crop — i.e., much of Texas. Water is too variable year to year.

L 234 I feel that this question (L) is not well stated. Cost benefit is difficult to define. What is the price of a “healthy soil” and what is the price for clean water leaching out of a soil?

L 238 It depends on the climatic conditions in the area.

L 241 Must take account of climate change impacts especially in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

M 126 Improved plant varieties offer solutions for some items mentioned but offer little promise for such problems as salinity which continues to increase and thereby nullify each increment of biological gain unless corrected in the soil. (Unless they get plants that will grow in sea water) Genetic improvement is great but has to target specific problems.

M 127 See comments under I.

M 130 Costs can be very high. Who gains the benefits? Who takes the risks?

M 132 In a developing country! Developing countries are not ready for biotechnology.

M 134 Cost effectiveness of biotechnological contributions are still questionable.

M 135 As bio-tech develops, we see a growth in patent-protected products that force increased farmer dependence on corporations and raise a false hope that “conventional” practices need not be modified. Whereas there is no cause to reject all of bio-tech, current developments are in the direction of increased dependence on purchased inputs, contrary to sustainability goals. The Europeans see this more clearly than the Americans.

M 141 Unsure about the level of future problems introduced.

M 151 A promise not yet realized

M 156 Too many parts to question.

M 158 Biodiversity inconsistent with biotechnology. Sorry.

M 164 Genetic engineering approaches have great potential for benefit, but also present hazards that must be thoroughly examined before adoption and then vigilantly monitored in practice. For example, out-crossing can result in transfer of engineered properties desirable in cultivated species to uneconomic, competing wild species. Needs for monitoring, regulation and enforcement will be greatly increased.

M 165 Due to biotechnology costs, I would expect a narrowing of the germplasm base — less biodiversity.

M 169 The target population (subsistence farmers) cannot afford this technology. Farmers need access to seed, land, credit and a good extension service.

M 174 Along with plant breeding.

M 177 In some cases biotechnology resources may not be available and useful to small farmers.

M 178 Depends on who owns the genes.

M 179 I cannot agree or disagree without more specifics. The Bank cannot duck the problems with current trends in biotechnology. I urge you to provide a well-structured forum for all stakeholders to work toward agreement on applications of biotechnology that clearly promise sustainable benefits with little or no adverse impacts. These...

M 194 Yet to be seen, most commercial applications so far have been questionable.

M 203 They CAN offer benefits, but don’t always.

M 210 Current work/investment in biotechnology is 95%+ driven by economic (proprietary) lust, not for any good involving sustainability. We may all hope that will change, but for now the applications and extensions of biotechnology are (on balance) probably negative with regard to sustainability.

M 227 Remains to be seen.

M 228 A broader reaching question about biotechnology should have been asked. While it may do some of those things mentioned in the question, it also takes control of technology out of the hands of farmers. The issue of control of genetic resources cannot be separated from biotechnology. If the large companies are going to use the world’s genetic resources for their profits above all else and to vertically link them to the sale of other inputs, I guess I would do without the possible benefits of biotechnology.

M 231 Farmers in developing areas cannot afford or access biotech products. Biotech is reducing biodiversity and provides only short-term defenses against pathogens and insects. These will continue to evolve in response to the biotech approaches, just as they do to chemical “solutions.” After several decades, the promises of biotech haven’t been fulfilled in industrialized nations (or anywhere else). While we have certainly gained insights into genes and their regulation, biotech applications are not helping farmers, but rather, enriching large agribusinesses. If the intent is to help farmers and improve food availability, then the seeds should be able to be saved by farmers. I understand that the biotech approaches are extremely expensive and companies are in the game to make a profit, but do NOT sell biotech as a solution to world hunger — it isn’t.

M 233 This is true for insect and weed control. The jury is still out on more complex traits.

M 236 No, $$ driven and poorly regulated. Safety??

M 237 Biotechnology may provide benefits in certain aspects, but sometimes bioengineering is going too far without knowing the consequences.

M 240 Biotechnology offers output and cost benefits primarily to improving production in developed countries where money is available to purchase the improvements obtained through the new technology.

M170 Biotechnology offers potential cost benefits to farmers, but these will not be realized if biotechnology is controlled by large corporations. Under current conditions, biotech inputs are marketed under near-monopolies, and priced accordingly. The cost benefit to the farmer is minimal, but the effect of improved yield on prices can be dramatic. Dairy farmers in the United States anticipated the consequences of BGH (rBST), and many resisted its introduction. Many adopted this “biotechnology” not in anticipation that it would raise their incomes; rather, those not adopting BGH tended to be the farmers that went out of business as the price of milk has declined to the same level as it was 20 years ago. In the current political-economic climate, biotechnology will only accelerate the trend that attended earlier technologies: while a few farmers will get bigger, many will be displaced off the land. Those with the advantage of better soil, more available water, better education, more capital, or more “entrepreneurial spirit” will adapt the new technology. Other farmers (those less integrated into market economies) will fail if prices for produce fall locally or nationally. While biotechnology has the potential to reduce farmers’ reliance on purchased inputs, corporations have no incentive to make such products available to subsistence or near-subsistence farmers. The reproducibility of seeds is one of seeds’ values to farmers, and one of the properties that biotech companies seek to eliminate.

M 241 Biodiversity is used here in a loose context, and should mean crop variability/robustness.

N 127 While some changes needed to achieve sustainability are evolutionary. Some changes will also be revolutionary. At some point on the path to sustainability for each farm or region, just tweaking the system a little won’t be enough. I also disagree that “intensive systems with market objectives” is necessarily the desired end result for all farms or regions. “Intensive systems with subsistence objectives” may well be the proper goal of many small, rural communities.

N 128 All agricultural systems are market oriented. This statement represents a naive view of low resource farming as subsistence farming. In my years of working in developing countries, I have never seen an agricultural system that was truly subsistence farming. Virtually all agricultural systems are market oriented. Most farmers seek to sell produce in order to purchase what they cannot produce. The only question is what markets they have access to. I don’t believe in evolution or “evolutionary paths.” I believe government policies, good governance, strong research support, intervention by outside agencies and access to inputs and urban markets will lead to sustainable intensification of agriculture. Sustainable intensification will not evolve on its own.

N 129 What would the market objectives be?

N 135 Probably true, but not necessarily desirable. If “market objectives” were to emphasize local markets, we would be on the right track. The emphasis needs to be on integrating the production and consumption cycles, with but limited dependence on corporate middlemen.

N 137 I feel that the statement “highly intensive systems with market objectives” is the true overriding goal of all farmers and should be what drives the entire workshop.

N 141 Provided there is an economic return.

N 143 Statement insufficiently precise.

N 150 Sustainable intensification will happen if it is economically viable.

N 151 Depends on the degree of “commercial ag” today.

N 152 I do not believe that the pathway is as linear as stated in the question. There are several areas of the world currently based on “subsistence objectives” which are as productive as they can be given the current technologies. Providing something as simple as an insect-resistant cultivar could triple productivity.

N 158 No amount of arguing will change the true effect. Agree with “Achieving sustainable intensification will follow an evolutionary path leading from extensive systems.” Strongly disagree with the rest; premise flawed in “based on subsistence objectives to highly intensive systems with market objectives.”

N 159 Some areas will likely remain in subsistence production for the foreseeable future, because of the very harsh environments and low potential for production. But many areas currently in extensive production have good potential for intensification, with increased infrastructure support and increased investment in the “human capital” in the regions.

N 184 This may be true where land is already given over to monoculture. Something beyond subsistence, but not highly intensive “market-driven” may be needed in areas like more highly populated areas

N 188 No-till and conservation tillage have become components of conventional farming in Michigan. In fact, tillage systems leaving less than 15% residue now account for only 30% of the crop acreage in Michigan. No-till and conservation tillage make up the remainder.

N 205 The wording is problematical. It implies a sidestepping of the intensification at the small-holder level, which is crucial and may be only partly driven by market objectives.

N 207 Statement not well formulated. Subsistence farming can be very intensive for instance. I can strongly agree with the second part of the statement.

N 227 Cannot evolve to market-driven ag without labor markets.

N 231In many areas, joining that path to intensive systems has been disastrous and is not a “one size fits all” path. Farmers should be enabled to feed their own families and LOCAL communities first; emphasis on export crops is short-sighted on an evolutionary scale. We can NOT sustainably transport food long distances. Local crop diversification to optimize production to meet the local needs is more sustainable and has greater resilience than specialized systems that stress yield (dry matter) maximization. Perhaps “yield” should be evaluated in terms of meeting dietary and fiber needs, rather than just in terms of weight. Current trends are increasing the vulnerability of food supplies locally, regionally, and globally to boom/bust cycles that will result in widespread famines.

N 232 The statement’s meaning is not clear. If it is an evolutionary path, you need not facilitate (i.e., human interference) specific countries to join the path. There is little time to waste. We cannot afford the luxury of a slow evolutionary path to undo the enormous environmental and social problems created by the ongoing systems of agricultural intensification.

N 232 There is no evidence to support the view that biotechnology improves biodiversity. In fact, the reverse is likely to be true. Plant improvement through biotechnology is a substantially more expensive output than conventional plant breeding. There is absolutely no relative cost benefit of biotechnology. Its long-term impact on sustainability is just as questionable as that of conventional high-input agriculture.

N 233 That has been the history of the developed world. We are in better shape than many seem to think we are in my opinion.

N 236 No, only useful in U.S., Europe. $$ driven economics.

N, O 164 Unregulated management practices driven by market pressures have already pushed fragile biological and environmental systems beyond their limits of resilience in major food producing areas of the world. Market motivations cannot be relied on to assure adoption of alternative management strategies to repair damage already done to soils and the environment. The goal of increased sustainability cannot be realized unless accounting and market concerns are made subordinate to the requirements of the soil plant system and the capabilities and limits of local soils, terrain and climate. The need for expert supervision of farming operations, and for monitoring, regulation and enforcement must be increased, rather than reduced.

N170 As I described in my comments on M, intensification will start in the most developed and market-oriented farms and regions and is unlikely to spread to subsistence farmers. “Sustainability” must be judged in terms of the urbanized population displaced from the land as well as the residual rural population and their farming practices. The impact of biotechnology in Asia must be judged in terms of the pollution that accompanies urbanization. The impact of biotechnology in advanced economies such as the United States must be judged in terms of the transportation costs accompanying regional specialization and massively centralized processing.

N 241 Developing countries experience a critical shortage of R&D&E capacity in agriculture for food production.

N 242 Politics, economics, and human inertia have more to do with the path followed.

O 125 There are regulations, which limit the use of conventional practices, and these regulations should be eliminated in order to improve sustainability.

O 129 I need a better definition of sustainable intensification in order to answer this.

O 158 Did not think this through too carefully, I hope! In the cattle industry, it would mean eliminating all those hobby farms and part-timers, you did say eliminate. They will not intensify, so we will have to take their property and give it to the efficient. Eliminate the incentive to want to own rural land.

O 175 The economics of food and fiber production require that everyone is on level playing field, i.e., production and controls, pesticides, etc. are uniform. Salaries and benefits to workers are uniform. Production occurs with same constraints of ag chemicals, etc. Without the above, regulations, support incentives, and various policies will be required.

O 176 lso barriers to traditional agriculture.

O 179 Lots of luck, it’s a pretty long list, well entrenched, and the interests who have, and will continue to benefit from them, will not give them up without a fight.

O 202 his has to be done gradually without creating too much resistance from wealthy farmers, businesses and so on.

O 210 f not treated very carefully, this will simply open new doors for increasingly exploitive (private sector) behavior, and leave long-term sustainability even more distant and elusive.

O 228 ere again the question is framed in such a way as to sound free market. That is, the problem is regulations, and the solution is that they should be eliminated. The question could also have read that regulations should be analyzed and modified to better fit the goals of sustainable intensification.

O 233 What do you mean by priority. Relative to what?

O 236 Rather than give priority to intensification, for sustainability, diversification may be key.

O 238 Or any other type of agriculture.

O 240 Government regulations and policies can hamper agricultural production. Import taxes on fertilizer, seeds, and agricultural equipment limit increased production. Shipment of subsidized grain from developed countries to Third World countries can lower prices so that Third World country farmers cannot compete in the market. Factors Limiting Increased Production: 1. Lack of capital to purchase needed agricultural inputs; 2. Low soil fertility, acid and alkaline soils, sodium in arid areas and along coastal waters; 3. Serious soil erosion; 4. Lack of insect resistance in crops; 5. Amount of rainfall and its distribution during the growing season; 6. Lack of recognition of the importance of animals’ contribution to a Sustainable Agricultural System; 7. Need for more applied research on problems limiting production on small or subsistence farms where most of the world’s food shortages occur; 8. Need for more field demonstrations in rural areas.

O 241 Because agriculture is the main employer and forms a significant part of the GDP of most developing countries.

P 127 But again, not the only voice or a voice with veto power. Policies, incentives and regulations that are necessary for achieving sustainability may well be viewed as burdensome by farmers. The loudest and most politically powerful voices won’t necessarily be the most enlightened.

P 130 But farmers often vote for status quo unless they are in trouble.

P 131 Farmers already are participating in making environmental laws and regulations for sustainability. But I find that most farmers, even the successful producers, first do not have the expertise to make these decisions, second are not in a position to be making them, and third, when we make these decisions, they need to be made on the basis of science, not sociology.

P 134 Difficult to implement.

P 135 One US example is the current USDA effort to develop organic standards. It is clear from the tens of thousands of comments received by USDA that the current draft favors corporate welfare over farmer and consumer needs.

P 150Wouldn’t it be nice if farmers could agree on a “voice.”

P 152Yes of course, but we need all the tools of on—farm participatory research to understand what farmers are concerned about and have them express themselves.

P 176 And also affect traditional agriculture.

P 184 of the rainforest.

P 188 Agricultural systems will continue to evolve. However, I do not believe we can state with 100% accuracy how that evolution will proceed.

P 210 Extensive lip service has been paid to this goal for the last 20-30 years, but the number of cases where the goal was successfully achieved are few and far between.

P 227 Farmers “should” have a voice, not “must” have a voice.

P 232 If we rely on our farmers to follow the path toward sustainable intensification of farming Systems, this will never occur. You have to recognize that it is our farmers, both men and women, who are responsible for the present-day evils of agricultural intensification. If they have a voice in decision and policy, you may forget about sustainable agricultural intensification. Contrary to the statement, a vast majority of our farmers need to be educated on sustainable farming systems by means of concerted efforts and vigorous campaigns.

P 233 We all need to have opinions. The ag economists are willing to analyze but seem unwilling to offer conceptual alternatives. Get ideas from wherever they show up.

P 238 Or any other type of agriculture.

P 241 By and large. Subsistence systems will continue for those opting out of the mainstream of development and for hobby farmers.

P 242 A good idea but better mechanisms for this feedback are needed. Since food growers are such a small part of the population, traditional representative politics does not serve them well.

Q 124 Any efforts must be science-based, not based on feelings. I am very concerned at the wording of many of these questions. They show evidence of a major lack of understanding of ag sciences and rural economics.

Q 130 Need greater definition of these good-sounding, high-faluting generalities.

Q 133 Need to include building of local decision-making ability and articulation of agricultural ethic.

Q 142 Research needed to put current technology know-how to work in crop production systems through multi-disciplinary team-approach research. Multi-discipline state nation pyramidic research dollar approach. Money committed by supporters increases as teams show action toward results.

Q 143 Targeted also to the social cultural circumstance.

Q 147 It’s not clear whether these steps will solve the problem facing many rice farmers in tropical Asia: current market prices are so low that many farmers feel little motivation to put any more effort into their crop than is necessary. In years to come, the prices should rise as surpluses disappear, but can the next steps of this undertaking wait that long?

Q 155 Who could disagree with motherhood and apple pie? Last three fit that.

Q 158 What’s new?

Q 163 Too complex for one answer

Q 164 To in fact be sound, policies to facilitate implementation must include appropriate motivations and adequate constraints to minimize excesses due to profit-motivated exploitation.

Q 176 And also facilitate traditional agriculture.

Q 185 I find this survey constructed in such a way to elicit specific results. This survey is designed to validate the surveyor’s opinions. Why are you wasting time and money?

Q 194 Again, should have let us choose among these.

Q 196 Mostly needs to be done at the country level for each country.

Q 227 This issue is certainly too complex to be approached in such a cavalier, pseudo-democratic survey.

Q 228 After any number of questions stating that farmers should have an active voice in the future of agriculture, the final question rephrases the conventional system for technology generation and transfer. If this is how sustainable intensification is supposed to be done, then it sounds just like business as usual. Why bother with a questionnaire?

Q 233 This may be more optimistic than warranted. I would agree but I am not sure what I would be agreeing to.

Q 236 Re: “technology options” — depends on what that is intended to really mean.

Q170 The next step should be to ameliorate the disparities in wealth and power both within and among countries. Part of that effort should be rebalancing the rights of traditional farming communities and corporations to control their respective germplasms. Nations (and preferably localities) should have control over what biotechnologies are introduced, without the threat of retribution under trade agreements. Consumers should have the ability to identify the products of biotechnology and the choice whether to purchase them. [According to FAO’s Plant Breeding News] “More than 24 leading agriculturists and environmental scientists representing [African] countries at the UN have issued a statement to counter Monsanto’s arguments [for genetically modified crops]. They say Monsanto is using the poor to emotionally blackmail skeptical Europeans by making claims that are blatantly untrue and unproven. ‘We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves’.” I wish that I were optimistic enough to refute that statement, but after 23 years in agriculture, I believe it is correct.

Q 241 I presume agroecologies means agro-ecosystems

R 124 The world’s biggest pesticide producer is Mother Nature. Natural herbicides, for example, are always going into the ground from the roots of plants. Biochemistry shows us that we eat ten thousand times more pesticides that nature has produced than man has produced. I’ve very tired of people who do not base their positions on sound science.

R 125 This survey appears to confuse organic and sustainable. So many of our current practices used by “conventional” farmers are very much “sustainable.” We need to come together as a group rather than say the answer has to be one way or some other way. All farmers need to be as conservative as we can in the use of resources, so that we can prolong the value of our resources over the long term.

R 132 A major problem is that most donors don’t have the required patience. They plan a long-term project, but then they send in some auditor or evaluator and aren’t satisfied with the results. If we are ever going to succeed, instead of looking at five years or ten years, we must have the patience to accept long-term transfer, over generations.

R 146 Comment on survey. I find these questions’ content and wording to be very ambiguous and leading. If I were interpreting this survey, there would be a high level of uncertainty to the meaning of answers. My impression is this survey is constructed to produce the answers that the sponsors want — not true opinions of those surveyed. There are far too many parts to each question to interpret responses.

R 156 Each question #B, C, F. G, H, I, M, N, O, Q has too many parts and goofy goals. I hope conversations are not on the same order. It is nice to have such high-sounding words in the questions, but let’s get down to basics. Get down to the where it really counts. I have spent some time in FSU countries. Production would rise dramatically with just improving see rates, dates, depths. Basics, basics, basics is what is needed. What’s also needed is Patience, Patience, Patience! Soil conditions, for instance, may take decades to change. And in many countries, not only is information hard to get, but we are dealing with farmers who may not be sophisticated in finding, analyzing or applying information.

R 160 Note: the propagandic nature of this survey is transparent. You are “surveying” to the choir!

R 185 This survey, as an instrument, is a poor method for gathering different perspectives. Most of the questions are “When did you stop beating your wife” questions. Therefore, the survey will get the results the designer wanted. I once was in that business. Obviously, the World Bank has its agenda and doesn’t want “stakeholder” interference. Your survey was poorly written and contained so many internal biases that it was basically worthless as a survey vehicle. The only reason such a survey would have been written is to validate the surveyor’s own views. As a result, I cannot believe you are serious about trying to find the stakeholders’ views.

R 228 I find the concept of sustainable intensification contradictory. It reminds me of greenwashing which the big petroleum and chemical companies do to improve their public image. Perhaps that is why I might agree with most of the statements made in the questionnaire and conclude that I don’t really think I agree with the overall concept. This is confirmed by the statement in the introduction that one of the goals of this effort is to increase partnerships between the public and private sector. Presumably we will find Monsanto working with the government of Brazil to replace shifting agriculture with Roundup Ready crops rather than the government of Brazil working with indigenous people to create in situ germplasm conservation. Both cases are public/private partnerships.

R 240 Sustainable agriculture in developing countries will not be possible until there is increased recognition of the importance of growing more legumes for human food and animal forage. Legumes are needed for the protein they produce in pulses, vegetable legumes, and increased meat production. They can contribute at little cost 50 to over 150 kilos per hectare of nitrogen for vegetable and grain production. A number of small-seeded forage legumes can reseed themselves if properly managed, reducing the need to reseed every year. These also have the potential of being used as living mulches into which grains and vegetables can be planted. There are some large-seeded legumes that are hand harvested which are used both for human food and forage for animals.

R 241 What about integrated farming systems and biodiversity conservation on a landscape scale?

LINK