This article gives a brief snapshot into a paper giving the history of and controversy surrounding the term,” Sustainable intensification” its main assumptions and risks, as well as its value for the future. The paper calls for a re-rooting of sustainable intensification as one key element of a sustainable food system situated within a green economy.

Sustainable intensification: then and now

The term sustainable intensification was originally coined in the 1990s in the context of smallholder agriculture in the developing world particularly Africa, where productivity was predominantly low and degradation of natural resources a major concern. The original conception placed equal emphasis on sustainability and intensification. Sustainability was seen as a prerequisite for intensification given the degraded state of many agricultural lands. Moreover, livelihoods were accorded a central place.

Recently, several high-level reports and many major institutions both public and private have endorsed sustainable intensification as a mainstream concept. But whereas the early work took a decidedly pro-smallholder stance, sustainable intensification is now being treated as a global framework for agricultural production. For example, in 2010 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization adopted ‘the Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production’ as Priority Objective. The use of sustainable intensification in current debates is based upon three fundamental assumptions about agricultural production systems in the 21st century. These assumptions are

§ The world must produce significantly more food in the coming decades to feed a growing, increasingly affluent population.

§ Agricultural production must become more sustainable and resource use efficient to preserve the natural capital on which agriculture relies.

Considered together, these three assumptions imply that agricultural production on existing arable land must intensify in order to meet higher demand, but in a manner that does not damage the environment. While the latter two assumptions are sound, the first requires some qualification.

Demand for food is likely to increase significantly owing to population growth, rising affluence and changing food consumption patterns, but estimates of the additional food required vary widely (between 60 and 110 per cent).These estimates hinge on assumptions about rates of population growth, urbanization, affluence, consumption patterns, food waste, biofuel demand, and so on. But such projections of future food demand typically assume the continuation of current trends and neglect to take into account how changes in any of these parameters would affect the demand for food and its availability. Furthermore, given current problems with access to food, there is no guarantee that higher levels of production will mean more people are food secure unless distributional, political and economic issues in the food system are addressed.

Today’s use of the term raises some risks

Few would dispute the need to boost food production in sustainable ways or to increase the efficient use of resources, but there are troubling aspects to the way the term ‘sustainable intensification’ is currently being used. It is, for example, coming under severe criticism from NGOs working on agriculture and food security. So what are the risks with the way sustainable intensification is being used today?

§ Some actors are using sustainable intensification to justify a repackaging of intensive, high-input models and the use of proprietary technologies, such as biotechnology, as the means to achieve it.

§ Although agro ecology as well as genetics are proposed as means to increase productivity, very little money actually goes to developing and scaling out agro ecological practices.

§ Sustainability is often defined too narrowly, neglecting its vital social and economic elements, for example, livelihoods, equity, social justice and economic viability.

§ An exclusive focus on crop production risks not addressing the farming system as a whole, including livestock, which is a necessity for achieving food security.

§ Given that sustainable intensification will require reduced use of agricultural inputs in many parts of the world, the incentives for private sector involvement remain unclear. Hence public sector funding has a vital role to play in contributing towards the knowledge and technology needed to deliver sustainable intensification.

§ A skewed focus on intensification rather than sustainability may be used to legitimize high-input conventional agriculture with only slightly reduced environmental impacts.

But the rationale that ‘to feed one billion hungry people, global food production must significantly increase over the coming decades’ ignores the evidence that hunger is more an issue of access and entitlement to food rather than total availability. Despite plentiful supplies of food globally, more than 800 million people remain hungry, so producing more food is no guarantee of worldwide food security, particularly for people suffering from deprivation. Approximately one third of all food produced is lost or wasted halving these losses would save enough food to feed one billion people. At the same time, nearly two billion people worldwide are overweight and over 600 million are obese. If access, consumption and waste are not addressed, further intensification will be needed, leading to worsening degradation of the natural resource base that sustains food production.