Presented at the 2024 Organic World Congress BioTour in Hualien, Taiwan: Development of ecological agriculture in the Hualien area and visit to the Organic Agricultural Research Center.
Abstract
A faltering and environmentally destructive system of agriculture inspired a movement toward more ecologically sound practices that became organic agriculture. Although it began as a movement, organic agriculture is now driven by the economics of consumer demand. Organic standards are being continuously challenged as being too lenient, too strong, or lacking science-based outcomes. Organic science must simultaneously link with production challenges while providing evidence of science-based outcomes that merit government support and investment. Therefore, the science of organic agriculture must align with the features of Organic 3.0 by inspiring innovation, continuous improvement, transparent integrity, true value and cost accounting, and inclusiveness. Engaging producers, pursuing ecological innovation, and exploring the application of advanced technologies can all support the growth of organic agriculture. But international networking and peer support networks for organic are very valuable for inspiring on-going commitment to organic science.
Introduction
The definition of organic agriculture provided by IFOAM Organics International is based largely on the four principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness, and Care.
“Organic Agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic Agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved.” (IFOAM General Assembly 2008)
While the definition nicely outlines expected high-level practices and outcomes, it does not capture organic as part of a global economy. Consumer demand has most certainly driven the growth of the organic sector. It creates market for organic products, supports the sector’s economics with price premiums, and inspires government policymakers to support organic agriculture. Government regulators ensure that product labelling and claims meet specific requirements that enhance consumer confidence. An alternate definition may be:
“A regulated system of food production guided by principles of sustainability (related to health, ecology, fairness, and care) and management standards that were established by producers and processors and driven by consumer demand domestically and internationally.” (A.M. Hammermeister)
Consumer advocacy certainly can influence policymakers and we see this with government programs designed to support organic agriculture. However, consumer demand alone does not necessarily inspire all governments to adopt policies that directly support or endorse organic agriculture. Government is increasingly citing that their policy development needs to be ‘science-based’. What happens if science behind organic agriculture does not exist or is contrary to current policy directions? How do we translate the benefits of organic agriculture into meaningful policy? Here we will discuss the Canadian experience of attempting to advance organic science over 20 years.
Principles, Policies, Practices and Trade-offs
The principles of organic agriculture are based on the values held by ecologically-minded producers, processors, and consumers. Meanwhile the organic standards are “process” based as opposed to a “product or outcome” based. Thus, organic standards outline the practices that should be followed or those that are prohibited under organic production and do not make guarantees (or claims) about the healthiness, safety or nutritional value of the products. However, the expectation is that organic will achieve many desirable outcomes. Many in the agriculture community argue that as long as agricultural outcomes fall within a specific tolerance threshold, or meet a minimum target then it does not matter how the outcome is achieved. The organic standards are not independent of other regulations. In addition to following organic standards, the certified organic operator must also adhere to all other government regulations relating to agriculture, environment, labour, animal welfare, and food safety.
So it seems logical that organic agriculture should have higher sustainability performance than conventional agriculture. And indeed it does, however, the performance depends on whether measuring on a per unit area basis or per unit output basis (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). And that is where the feeding the world debate enters.
Herein lies a fundamental challenge for organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is quite good at meeting many performance targets, perhaps not all at once, but certainly a good number at the same time. However, there can be tradeoffs among sustainability targets (Schader et al. 2016) particularly in relation to environmental performance vs productivity. Many conventional policymakers and producers have placed a higher priority on economics and productivity than other sustainability indicators. Organic agriculture has a more holistic view, and attempts to reduce (or avoid) the unseen or unassigned costs of agriculture (e.g. pollution of water resources, biodiversity loss, health impacts on farmers and consumers, poor animal welfare) while still ensuring a fair economic return for the producer and serving the nutrition needs of society.
Challenges associated with organic agriculture were identified by Niggli et al. (2017) to include: a yield gap, the current economy penalizes diversity; deficits of standards and regulations (organic restriction of technologies & lack of science-based assessment of technologies), insufficient funding, and competition with other sustainability initiatives. The yield gap in part relates to ecological limits of production in the absence of high input use and some technologies. Science can help address these issues, but only with adequate funding. Funding becomes scarce if organic is competing with other sustainability initiatives. While the regulated system of organic has enabled market growth, it has also become a barrier in that an operator must be ‘all in’ to be described as organic. This makes it more challenging to link with other sustainability movements. Can science be a link between organic and other sustainability movements so that common goals can be achieved?
About the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada
The Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC) was established in 2001 by Dr. Ralph Martin as a result of a provincial government study exploring opportunities for market development in the province of Nova Scotia. The OACC has developed degree level courses that are offered online and combine to provide students with a Certificate of Specialization in Organic Agriculture. Since 2009, the OACC has been to be a national voice for, and facilitator of organic science. The Organic Science Cluster (OSC) program is the national science program for organic agriculture in Canada which is jointly led by the Organic Federation of Canada and the OACC at Dalhousie University. The OSCs have supported scientists at over 35 research institutes including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) research centres and universities since 2009. The Organic Science Cluster program is supported by the federal government’s Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (an investment by federal, provincial, and territorial governments) and matching contributions from the agricultural community and 100s of farmers who have collaborated in the research.
Research Priority Setting in Canada
The Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC) has led national organic research needs assessment and priority setting processes since 2003. The most recent research priorities (Hammermeister and Graves 2021) were prepared to support preparation of the fourth Organic Science Cluster program (OSC4).
Canada is a geographically large country with a diversity of growing environments while organic encompasses the full breadth of agricultural production systems. Priority setting must consider the economic importance of production challenges and opportunities across commodities. However, environmental challenges have become increasingly important, and producers have needed to become increasingly resilient to the many pressures from climate change, global markets, consumer expectations, and government policy. As such, research needs are plentiful and diverse (Figure 1). Ultimately however, the research priorities must align with government priorities in order to receive funding. Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAFC) identified priority areas and outcomes (Table 1) for the fourth AgriScience Program as part of their policy framework titled “Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership”.
To begin the process sector-wide consultations were held to identify research ‘needs’. Over 300 research ‘needs’ statements were considered from consultations across Canada. Of course, all research ‘needs’ cannot receive attention and funding, they must be prioritized. Organic production systems have long been challenged with balancing productivity, cost of production, and ecological performance.
While many specific issues were identified for individual crops and livestock, the discussions almost always came back to needing a systems approach in research and perhaps multifunctional solutions for the whole farm. Pest and nutrient cycles are often inter-related; they should be studied and managed together. Applying integrated, multidisciplinary approaches is a continuing priority in all types of organic production. Integrating crops and livestock was considered important as a means of providing manure for soil fertility, controlling weeds, and improving soil health by using forages in crop rotations. Strategies for increasing integration were suggested, such as intercropping greenhouse vegetables, testing novel mixtures for field crops, and incorporating biodiversity with diverse seeds and genetics, flowering strips and hedgerows.
Organic research must work within the context of organic farming systems; stand-alone practices, inputs and breeding programs must be developed within the context of whole production systems. Thus emphasis was placed on research being conducted on organic farms.
Resilience to climate change and environmental performance are key priority areas that should be incorporated within all production practice research. Emerging tools and technologies should be coupled with cultural practices to achieve outcomes of improved resilience as well as environmental and economic performance.
The review committee finally identified 32 research priorities in the form of statements consisting of three components: i) one or more outcomes, ii) a priority crop, livestock, or production system, iii) the approach to achieving the outcome (Hammermeister and Graves 2021). Examples of resulting priorities include:
- Increase productivity, profitability, and economic resilience of cropping systems by optimizing soil/growing medium fertility and health. (Economics)
- Reduce pesticide risk and improve resilience in horticultural crops in both outdoor seasonal as well as protected growing systems by finding cost-effective alternatives for managing insect pests of economic importance in more than one region of the country. (Resilience)
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in organic crop production using whole farm or systems approaches. (Environment)
After the priority setting was complete, a call for letters of intent went out with the review emphasizing relevance to the organic sector and connection with industry. Successful letters of intent were invited for full proposal which in turn were submitted to peer review for scientific merit and then government review for alignment with federal priorities. The outcome of the Organic Science Cluster programs can be seen at www.dal.ca/oacc/osc.
A key challenge with the AgriScience program was that it required 50% matching funding contributions from industry (or 30% if the research related to greenhouse gas emission reduction). Canada does not have a mechanism for automatically gathering funds to support research. Industry partners are more likely to support projects that enhance their business or value proposition. Large commodity groups were mainly interested in their own commodity, not the systems approach taken by organic. As a result of this, and despite the priority setting process, funding proposals were ultimately limited to those areas where matching funding could be acquired. A national research funding mechanism is needed.
Through the process of managing several Organic Science Clusters, we have learned that science coordination and knowledge transfer are very important but harder to achieve on a national scale. Researchers tend to focus on disseminating results at scientific conferences or producers in their local area. Having networks and a plan for knowledge transfer is essential. We also learned that creating networking opportunities for researchers and students interested in organic to meet with each other is essential for peer support, much as organic farmers need peer support from each other.
Climate Change: Is Organic the Canary in the Coal Mine?
Through the course of priority setting meetings, a sense was beginning to develop that organic was the “canary in the coal mine” in terms of early impacts of climate change on disease and insect pressure, particularly in horticulture. For example, insect pests are coming earlier, staying longer, and cycling more quickly resulting in overall more pressure. Concerns were expressed over the ability of biological controls to keep up with pest cycles.
Climate change has already resulted in extended periods of hot weather. Some commonly used organic pest control products require 12 hours of <25oC weather to avoid crop stress. Producers are reporting that in some areas they may not use these products for 2 or 3 weeks due to continuously high temperatures; they are missing the optimum timing for application of products.
Organic systems may be more vulnerable to insect pest and disease pressures as producers have fewer control options. Organic may be an early indicator of climate change- driven trends in pest cycles and management. Organic research should target greater resilience through adoption of ecological practices.
Likelihood of Success and Adoption
Organic production systems are knowledge intensive, requiring understanding of ecosystem components and how they interact in order to be sustainable. While improving understanding of the agroecosystem is important, the priority now is to ensure that research is resulting in practices or products that achieve measurable outcomes of improved environmental performance, economic growth and resilience. Results oriented research is essential, however, impact on targeted outcomes depends also on producer adoption. Research programs must consider producer perceptions and barriers to adoption, which should be addressed through well-designed knowledge transfer programs. Knowledge transfer should extend beyond the results of an individual project; it should integrate results of other research to form comprehensive production recommendations.
Niggli et al. (2017) describe four examples of innovation based on i) tacit knowledge, ii) farmer participation, iii) eco-functions, and iv) smart use of technology. Our experiences with the Organic Science Cluster echo these pathways to success. Industry partnerships and producer collaboration in research have been found to have much greater impact than independent institutional research. Producers bring significant knowledge, experience, and observation that can accelerate research and increase the likelihood of adoption.
Chevassus au Louis and Griffon (2008) describe ecological intensification as “intensification in the use of the natural functionalities that ecosystems offer”. Ecological intensification would be characterized by high internal regulation processes, moderate resources inputs, low nutrient losses and high productivity (Bender et al. 2016). Ecological intensification requires a better understanding of the ecosystem and how it functions in order to inform management choices that lead to higher levels of sustainable production. From the perspective of enhancing productivity, ecological intensification would involve understanding the localized interface between the crop, soil, environment, pests, beneficial organisms, and inputs used to support the crop.
The rapid advancement of digital, sensing, robotic, and automation technologies, also described as ‘smart technologies’ when coupled with decision-making systems, have tremendous potential for applications to organic agriculture. Improved placement of inputs could enhance efficacy while reducing costs. Sensing technologies can provide information that supports more timely management of pests as well as animal welfare issues. Robotics could help address labour shortages. These tools, however, can be costly, require training to use, and education to interpret and support. Thus smart technologies must be coupled with cost-effective and skilled operators and support systems, especially in developing countries.
Ecological intensification can be applied to enhancing productivity, however, its application requires a high level of understanding of the growing environment and processes within it. Smart agriculture technologies can be used to support this understanding in an integrated way, and potentially provide tools that could support ecological intensification. Smart agriculture technologies could also be used to understand and monitor other ecosystems services. Capturing the synergy between these two approaches could contribute toward addressing all six features of Organic 3.0.
Envisioning a Future For Organic
When the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada was established we discussed what success would look like. Much like the features of Organic 3.0 (Arbenz, 2016) we decided that success would mean that i) the principles of organic agriculture would be incorporated within agricultural degrees at universities across the country, ii) that researchers were adopting ecological innovation in concert with technological innovation, iii) industry professionals and policymakers would regard organic practices as viable and important parts of a sustainable farming system, iv) the food industry would adopt organic alternatives in food ingredients, and v) there would be significant collaboration between organic and other sustainability initiatives. After much discussion, we concluded that success would mean that our Centre would no longer need to exist. We have made progress, but we have not yet achieved that goal. Nor has this goal been achieved in most parts of the world.
Organic 3.0 expressed an urgency to effect widespread adoption of organic practices in order to mitigate the global impacts of agriculture. We see conventional agriculture adopting more practices that once were limited to organic agriculture. Such practices include cover cropping, use of biostimulants, biocontrols, and use of recycled nutrient resources. Animal welfare standards have gradually improved, in part by organic agriculture being an example of how improved welfare can also still be profitable. It is hard to measure the impact that organic has had on conventional agriculture, but more certainly needs to be done. But we must always remember that most of the practices have evolved from the knowledge and experience of producers. Leading organic farmers can be important ‘influencers’ within the larger agricultural community, and researchers should build relationships with such farmers.
Conclusion
Progress comes through innovation, and innovation, in turn, comes through research that is relevant to stakeholders, produces useful results, and effectively communicates results to relevant stakeholders. We must build integrity with government funding agencies by aligning organic sector priorities with federal priorities, and providing scientific evidence of the merits of organic agriculture. In Canada’s Organic Science Cluster we have strived to foster relationships between researchers and producers to identify research priorities and identify practical solutions that can be adopted by many producers. Research is much more likely to have impact when producers and other industry partners actively participate in the research. In addition, researchers and producers learn from each other in the process of planning and carrying out the research. Science must provide practical and accessible solutions to production challenges by linking ecological innovations with appropriate technology.
References
Arbenz, M., Gould, D. and Christopher S. 2016. Organic 3.0 – for truly sustainable farming and consumption. IFOAM – Organics International and SOAAN. https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/organic-landmarks/organic-30-truly-sustainable
Chevassus au Louis, B. & M. Griffon. 2008. La nouvelle modernité: Une agriculture productive à haute valeur écologique. Déméter: Économie et Stratégies Agricoles 14: 7–48.
Hammermeister, A.M. and Graves M.E. 2021. 2021 Canadian organic research priorities. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, Dalhousie University. 13 pp. https://www.dal.ca/faculty/agriculture/oacc/en-home/about/canadian-research-priorities.html
IFOAM General Assembly. 2008. Definition of organic agriculture. IFOAM Organics International. https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/organic-landmarks/definition-organic
Niggli U., Willer H. and Baker B. P. (2017): A Global Vision and Strategy for Organic Farming Research – Condensed Version. Version February 2017. TIPI – Technology Innovation Platform of IFOAM – Organics International, ℅ Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/31340/1/niggli-etal-2017-TIPI-GlobalVisionStrategy-CondensedVersion.pdf
Schader, Baumgart, L., Landert, J., Muller, A., Ssebunya, B., Blockeel, J., Weisshaidinger, R., Petrasek, R., Mészáros, D., Padel, S., Gerrard, C., Smith, L., Lindenthal, T., Niggli, U., & Stolze, M. (2016). Using the sustainability monitoring and assessment routine (SMART) for the systematic analysis of trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions and themes at farm level. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 8(3), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030274
Seufert V. and Ramankutty N. 2017. Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv.3, e1602638(2017).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1602638
Published on the OSC4 website December 6, 2024
