E-Kantipur

The only way Nepal can improve the health of the majority is by ensuring their access to quality food together with the provision of clean water and comprehensive public health care. Access to quality food can be ensured only by promoting a system of production that is ecologically sustainable, a system of distribution that is socially just and a set of public interventions that are designed with the twin values of justice and sustainability in mind. This means respect for the majority small holders, and preserving and enhancing soil quality and biodiversity. This also means creating institutions of knowledge which have a central role for practicing farmers and those closely allied with them. Quick fixes in the form of commercialization of agriculture or a high-chemical system might benefit a few business houses, some agricultural scientists or a select few cash crop farmers, but it will not improve the conditions of the majority of farming families in Nepal that are overwhelmingly small holders. Moving to a saner food future is not an easy task, however.

In their book Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets, Tim Lang and Michael Heasman have identified three paradigms of food as they relate to health. They call them productionist, life sciences integrated and ecology integrated paradigms. In much of Europe and North America, the productionist paradigm dominated from the early 19th century till not long ago. This paradigm was based on the model of deficiency: that the problem of health was lack of adequate quantity, and the role of the food production system was to speed up production of a few crops. The emergence of chemical science further provided a boost to this. Agricultural production was thought to be similar to the emerging factory-based industrial system. It was believed that addition of a few chemical elements had the potential of producing limitless amounts of food.

This paradigm was transferred to the Third World through the agricultural development programmes initiated in the aftermath of the Second World War. In Nepal, the United States Agency for International Development began to introduce this paradigm by setting up institutions such as the Rampur Agricultural Campus, bringing in agricultural volunteers, training lots of agricultural experts in the U.S. and Indian universities and supplying hybrid seeds, among other things. It also helped design massive radio programmes on modern agriculture that reached all over the country. The green revolution in India in the early 1960s created further conditions for its expansion in Nepal as mass produced chemical fertilizers and pesticides together with hybrid seeds began to flow across the border. The Nepal government’s policy to supply cheap fresh food to the growing urban areas provided the needed boost for the pockets of intensive production of fresh vegetables in areas near growing urban centres.

But this paradigm has left in its trail degraded soil and growing desertification, dwindling diversity, stressed farming populations and growing pessimism regarding the viability of the agricultural production system itself. The promise of a hunger-free future looks ever more distant. Over half of the people in Nepal do not eat adequate food, and those who eat enough seem to be eating food that is making them obese. To borrow from Raj Patel’s famous book Stuffed and Starved, while the overwhelming majority are starved, a sizable section of the economically powerful is overstuffed. But the promise of the productionist paradigm has not died out completely. We can see it in the promises of politicians and claims of agricultural experts. In fact, through the indoctrination done in the last six decades of development, this paradigm has assumed the status of unquestioned truth. 

The life sciences integrated paradigm focuses on a set of bio-technologies to produce and process a few lucrative food products for the market. Its technology is highly concentrated in a very small number of bio-tech companies located mostly in the rich countries with some operations in places like India and China. For example, according to a survey carried out in 1999 by a research wing of the European Union, 83 percent of the total funds spent on biotechnology was limited to only eight countries. This paradigm is a response of large bio-technology and agro-industrial corporations to the growing realization that the productionist paradigm is running its course. It is also a response to the problems posed by declining soil fertility, erosion of biodiversity and increasing health consciousness in North America, Europe and among a small section of the middle class in the developing countries.

It is also pushed by the increasing desire of big bio-tech agricultural and food corporations to take control of the food economy throughout the world. This growing control of giant corporations in the trade and production of goods led to the shocking price rises throughout the world in the last two years. Among the growing urban populations and the poor and lower middle classes among them, this further deepened their level of food insecurity. In the field of production, this is yet to spread in Nepal; although there are some bio-tech corporations trying to promote lucrative cash crops such as herbs in some parts of the country.

The ecology integrated paradigm emphasizes the potential of a productive food system that nurtures the soil, enhances biodiversity, minimizes risks and ensures access to quality food for all. At the core of this paradigm is respect for the health of both the soil and the people. In North America and Europe, there is growing consciousness towards this paradigm. The largest ever transition from the productionist paradigm to this one happened, however, in Cuba. Most of the food in Cuba is now produced through a small-holder, sustainable system. In Nepal, this paradigm is promoted as organic farming, permaculture and biodynamic agriculture. This is a mixture of the traditional system of farming and modern knowledge about the working of natural systems and not against it. The conditions in Nepal are ripe for the expansion of this paradigm. The agricultural production system is still small-holder dominated. The climatic and geographical diversity has the potential of enhancing highly diverse production systems. But promotion of this paradigm requires increased power of the farmers in public priority setting in agriculture. 

The main reason the failed productionist paradigm is still dominant is that those who promote it have little real stake in the health of the soil or the people. They derive their income from agriculture development projects or selling chemical inputs, and not through producing real things. How many of our agricultural experts actually derive their livelihoods from farming? How many of our politicians practice and know about farming? They might ride piggyback on their cadres while celebrating the rice planting season, but their knowledge about farming and the ecology is very limited.

Nepal, in fact, is in need of a real farmers’ movement. And if that happens, it will also be Nepal’s biggest health movement. In Nepal, there is no way the health of the majority can be improved without ensuring access to quality food for those who go hungry every day. Therefore, a transition from the productionist to the ecology integrated paradigm is a crucial link for health interventions.

(The author is pursuing a PhD in integrating food to public health planning at the University of Toronto, Canada)

anilbhattarai@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.