Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Preserving the planet's future
-Paths to a sustainable agriculture-

Emmanuel Thévenon, journalist, France

Like transport and heating, modern farming is contributing to the damage being done to the planet. But while experts agree about the need to change the methods used, they are divided between those believing in a technological approach and supporters of organic farming.

A huge consumer of petroleum products (fertilizers, diesel, etc.), modern agriculture releases large quantities of greenhouse gases, impoverishes soils and causes lasting pollution to water sources.

"Precision" agriculture

What should we do? There are two opposing schools of thought — the "technicians" and the "traditional farmers". The former consider that industrial farming could continue provided new tools are invented making it possible to reconcile economic, social and environmental imperatives. To achieve this, they are relying on the monitoring of land by satellite 1, on the extension of the area farmed and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). "This is a huge step forward for the environment and sustainable agriculture", says Jacques de Bohan, president of the Coopérative agricole Champagne Céréales [Champagne Cereals Farming Cooperative]. "GMOs reduce inputs (fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides)and keep costs down." Believers in this approach claim that the consumption of fertilizers and pesticides can be controlled. Through increasingly sophisticated techniques (soil analyses, nitrogen levels, etc.), they give the plant "the right dose at the right time", thus reducing the leakage of toxic products into the environment.

This "rational" farming is supported by FARRE (Forum for rational and environmentally friendly agriculture). The network, set up in 1993 on the initiative of agricultural trade organisations, should, in accordance with the French national sustainable development strategy, represent 30% of farming businesses by 2008. The champions of this "precision" agriculture are also counting on the development of plant-derived fuels (wheat, rape, etc.), which could form 5.75% of fuel consumption in France by 2010.

In the longer term, "green chemistry" should also enjoy a major boom. This means using agricultural produce in place of oil. Rape, sunflower, wheat, maize and beet can all be used to make plastic, lubricants, surfactants 2 and even solvents (printing ink for example), all biodegradable. According to Agrice, the scientific interest grouping which funds a large proportion of the research on bioproducts in the country, France, the leading agricultural power in Europe, could call on the equivalent of 25 to 30 million oets (oil equivalent tonnes) of biomass of agricultural and forest origin, or 30% of its petroleum consumption.

The overwhelming popularity of organic farming

Contrary to the "technicians", the supporters of a "traditional farming" approach consider that technical measures will not be enough on their own to permit sustainable development. They advocate farming that does not squander finite natural resources. For them, the use of natural resources should not exceed their replenishment rate or their replacement by renewable resources. Their small farms make little or no use of chemicals. The farm produce, which often carries a quality label, benefits from an added value and is sold locally. This is the "Pochon method", named after a Breton dairy farmer who gave mixed farming back its respectability. Instead of maize and soya, his cows are fed almost exclusively on grass and clover grown on the farm. "This technique", explains its inventor, "saves working the land, the fertilizers, spraying, watering maize, harvesting it, silage making, etc." - all savings that make it profitable and three times less polluting.

Organic farmers are the only ones to guarantee that they use neither chemical fertilizers nor pesticides. Their approach, in fact the most sustainable, is now hugely popular, with 37% of French people regularly consuming organic produce, despite its high price. But the domestic market is far from meeting a demand that has literally exploded since the "mad cow" crisis. Indeed, "organic" farming is as yet practised only on 1.4% of French agricultural land, compared to 8% in Italy and 11% in Austria. Lastly, each of us, as a consumer, can also play a role in more sustainable farming. Why, for example, do we insist on buying tomatoes or strawberries grown under glass, in the depths of winter?

1. GPS systems linked to yield sensors on plots of land, allowing doses of fertilizer to be modified to suit the characteristics of the soil.

2. Chemicals used in the manufacture of cosmetics and cleaning products for household, industrial or farm use. (Courtesy: Label France Magazine, Embassy of France in Kathmandu).

The Democracy Index

Prof. Asher Arian, Political Science Department, Haifa University, Israel

Israel's standing as a democracy among other western countries is subject to much scrutiny in light of the unique and trying conditions under which it exists. Much of this scrutiny comes from Israel itself, which is committed to maintaining the highest international standards set by other democratic systems. Two of the greatest challenges to its commitment to adhere to these standards are its security concerns and the multifaceted nature of its society. Israel is one of the very few recognized democracies that face constant challenge by nationalist minorities, ethnic groups and various religious factions.

Many of Israel's citizens emigrated from or have personal links with democratic countries. While Israel's immediate neighbors are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, most Israelis identify with the culture and norms of the West. Israel's achievements in the fields of science, technology, sports, and others are clear demonstrations of the fact that Israel ranks high alongside the more well-established, stable and progressive democratic states in the world. Whether Israel manages to successfully uphold fundamental Democratic ideals in its surrounding environment, and whether the public believes that these ideals are being fairly achieved, is the subject of the "Democracy Index", a comparative survey initiated by the Guttman Center in the Israel Democracy Institute.

The Index measures various democratic components in Israel against a number of internationally accepted principal indicators that characterize a democracy in terms of its presentational aspect and by the norms and values that accompany this type of political system. The Index ranks Israel's democratic features against those of 35 other established democracies, as well as its standing among its own public.

In the survey, Israel fared favorably on the institutional aspects of democracy, where it ranks among such countries as Denmark, Holland and Finland. These aspects include representation, participation, amount of perceived corruption, checks and balances and accountability. Israel receives high marks in the area of representation and ranks sixth out of the 35 countries in regard to its system of checks and balances. In spite of the decrease in voting participation over recent years, Israelis still turn out to participate in the electoral process in fairly high numbers as compared to other democratic countries.

Affected by its security concerns and the unique challenge it faces in that regard, Israel ranks in the middle third of countries in terms of social rights and equality (together with such countries as the United States and England) and in issues relating to the integration of military activity and politics. In areas unrelated to social composition or security, such as economic and gender freedoms, Israel is ranked in the top third (for example, Israel ranks alongside England, Spain, Argentina, Ireland and the United States in the area of gender empowerment). In the categories of human rights, equal rights of minorities, and freedom of the press, Israel does not rank as high. In these categories, Israel is within the range of other democracies in its protection of these values, but falls short of reaching the high standard that it has set for itself. The Index also noted a higher turnover rate in the Israeli government than in other democratic systems.

On the other hand, Israel has proved adept in preserving its democratic character while under fire. As a result of living under almost constant duress, fear and continuous threats and acts of violence, Israeli democracy has evolved in a manner that enables it to remain intact under almost impossible conditions. Notwithstanding the physical and other assaults on the state that test its democratic nature, Israel remains committed to achieving the highest standard of democratic involvement. Israel's success is based on the commitment of its leaders and citizens to preserving a democratic way of life and its striving to adhere to those values and ideas that characterize life in a democratic society.

The Index also measures Israeli perception of and satisfaction with the democratic makeup of the state. The fact that the latest survey noted a decrease in satisfaction in this area can be viewed as a positive indication of the public's desire to strive for a more fully developed and progressive democracy. In this respect, Israel's rating in terms of public satisfaction with its quality of democracy stands alongside Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria and Poland. An increased sensitivity by Israeli society to substantive aspects of democracy such as equality and social justice, individual freedoms, human rights and freedom of expression, can be taken as a sign that the Israeli attitude towards these liberties is becoming more finely honed and is helping to shape how society perceives the level of democracy in the country. This trend can be seen from the growing awareness and concern expressed by the public about the status of minorities, particularly the Arab sector, and the weaker elements of society. Those surveyed expressed greater concern than in a previous survey, not only vis-à-vis the status of the Arab minority, but also about the social and economic disparity between various groups and classes in the general population as well.

A public opinion survey was also conducted among the younger population, in part, to gain a sense of what can be expected from the next generation. Encouragingly, the survey found that Israeli youth are likely to be more satisfied than the adult population with the nation's political institutions and the function of democracy in Israel. The younger generation also displays greater awareness of liberties and anti- democratic tendencies, such as restrictions on the freedom of expression. Accordingly, democracy appears be increasingly viewed as an intrinsic and valued way of life for Israel, and therefore likely to be safeguarded in the future.

Does the South's Support of Pyeongyang Serve Our Interests?

Kim Yungbong, Professor of Economics, Chungang University

Korea's support for the Kim Jong-il regime has become a constant policy approach during the tenures of the so-called People's and Participatory Governments. During his recent visit to Turkey, President Roh Moo-hyun stated that both the ruling and opposition parties had no desire to see North Korea collapse and that his government had not prepared any plans to deal with such a development.

Last week, as the threat emanating from North Korea's nuclear program was becoming more evident than ever in the South, Representative Yu Si-min stated: "Considering the expenses we would have to bear should there be a mass exodus of North Koreans, the money we now spend on North Korea represents only a minimal sum." He went on to add: "A sudden collapse of the North Korean system would result in a state of emergency not unlike that of a time of war."
What does this kind of North Korea policy mean in terms of inter-Korean relations? President Roh has called for unification to be carried out as part of a predictable process, under which: "Unification should be achieved under a stable process that involves attaining a confederation stage and then remaining there until North Korea becomes capable enough through South-North exchanges to withstand unification."

"However, is it possible to engineer such a change in North Korea and resultant unification in a manner that we desire? President Roh was reportedly taken by surprise when he was asked by senior German officials "if South Korea had prepared for a sudden unification." However, this is one of the most logical questions that could be asked.

When can we expect North Korea to reach a level such that its national capabilities would be comparable to those of the South? If North Korea were to adopt a democratic market system that supported freedom and creativity, it would be possible for its political and economic capabilities to expand rapidly. However, since this would mean the effective collapse of the existing North Korean system, the South is not interested in such a turn of events. If the current North Korean leadership, who is responsible for the nation's utter poverty and its belligerent attitude, remains in place for next 50 years to orchestrate the fate of North Korea in whatever way it so pleases, will this lead to a ripening of the conditions for unification? In reality, the South does not want unification after all.

The North Korean system is comparable to a kind of serfdom society that was seen during the feudal ages, in that the North Korean people are the property of the regime. As such, they work like slaves until they die so that the interests of the existing political system can be sustained. Cut off from the civilized world, they praise their leader despite widespread famine and other serious difficulties. And those who cannot tolerate these hardships have been forced to flee their homeland, at the risk of losing everything, and are now roaming aimlessly throughout China.

South Korean government officials have stated that a collapse of the North Korean regime would pose a serious threat to the South's national security, while a mass exodus of North Koreans would place a tremendous social and economic burden on the South. Therefore, they argue, although there is only a slim chance that the regime will collapse, the South does not want to see the North fall abruptly. Accordingly, helping to maintain the North Korean system is a strategic means of delaying unification and thereby sustaining the soundness of the South's economy and society. In other words, since the North Korean people represent a burden to the South, it would be better to prop up the Pyeongyang regime in order to keep the North Korean people "in their cage."

Can such a strategic mindset actually contribute to our national interests? The international community's patience has reached a point of exhaustion, such that it should be no surprise to see a major change take place in North Korea in the near future. The most sensible and predictable change that could be expected would be for the regime to collapse and be replaced with a liberal democratic system. When that day arrives, will we in the South be able to face this new North Korea and its people with dignity and pride? Will we able to claim shared interests with the North? At that time, the people of the South may well find themselves in a lamentable situation in which they are called upon to make restitution for their role as a perpetrator of tyranny as well as an apology for their past conduct, rather than being looked at as a savior motivated by genuine brotherly love.

Despite the various assistance that South Korea has extended to the North, the Pyeongyang regime nevertheless went ahead and announced to the world that it is now a nuclear power. As a result, South Koreans now have to cope with a constant nuclear threat from the North. Moreover, North Korea does not recognize the South, in spite of its having faithfully defended the North's interests, as a legitimate dialogue partner. While the Seoul government has been busy speaking well of its relations with North Korea, almost as if it were a relationship between compatriots, anti-American sentiment has been allowed to become rampant. As such, a crack has appeared in the Korea-U.S. relations while the nuclear threat of the North has grown more serious. This situation will have a lingering effect on the nation's overall economic and social capability as well. There is also no way to know what national gains the South might realize in return for its support of the North Korean regime.

We cannot stand any attempts to reap gains by exploiting our long-suffering North Korean compatriots. If the people of the North are such a burden to us it would be better to cut off all links with them and wash our hands clean of any related concerns. A majority of the South Koreans would not support the government's policy if they understood that their government is actually using the North Korean people while pretending to help them.

[The Munhwa Ilbo, May 16, 2005]