Hans R. Herren ~ Full interview

President of the Millennium Institute in Washington

1.  What are the most urgent problems in the field of food?

First of all we have to make sure that we can produce healthy and sufficient food for all, today and into the future. Consumers are becoming more demanding, also in respect to the origin of food and how it was produced. We therefore need to find solutions to sustainable productivity and multifunctionality. It will be very important to adapt to climate change, through crop genetic diversification and improvement, crop diversification and making the farming systems resilient and adapted to the new conditions. We have to focus increasingly on the farming system, as farming is an ‘intervention’ into the ecosystem, and this has to be done with care, supported by knowledge, science and technology.

Given that the world population will reach 8 to 8,5 billion by 2050, we need to address the quantity of food too, through productivity increases, as mentioned above, but again, and very importantly, in a sustainable manner.

With rising food prices, partly because of the use of food crops for energy, but also because of the steady decline of the cereal stockpiles and speculators that are taking advantage of the expected food price increases over the longer term, there is a need to adjust a number of policies. For one, there is a need to assure that the hungry have access to food in the short term, while also taking steps to help with better and more production. Also, it is imperative that policies are put in place to cap the free and wild speculation with the major commodities, which yet again benefits few and hurts the masses. It is immoral that some people are allowed to speculate on what is a human right: access to food.

Lastly, adjusting trade policies to favour production by small-scale farmers in the developing countries will become more and more important. Presently, the OECD countries are trying to impose trade policies that are not always in the best interest of developing countries.

The above issues are creating a lot of debates, because of the centrality of agriculture and food in national security and also at an individual and society level.

2.  What solutions do you see for these problems?

Solutions will come from research and the implementation of the research results; these obviously supported by a policy environment that will promote the new research and then the uptake of the results.

New research needs to focus on sustainable productivity increase, because it is not only how we produce more, but also how we produce more food in a sustainable way that will matter in the years ahead. We have to get better water and soil management and also look at integrative production systems that maintain diversity and provide the needed ecosystem services. This means we also have to take care of other goods that agriculture produces not only the food, feed, fibre and fuel. I also support the idea that farmers be paid for the ecosystem services, only so can we make sure that they will be taken care of.

As suggested above already, we also need better integration of livestock into the farming systems. We now have the tendency to separate different agricultural activities (animals, crops, forests, fish farms, etc….). The factory type production of any of the farm products is not the way to go, it creates a new set of problems, like manure accumulation, unhealthy feeding regimes, energy use and the use of antibiotics and hormones, erosion, nutrient leaching and export, etc, which go against the principles of sustainable agriculture. Therefore, we need to integrate much more the farming system into a holistic unit of food, fibre, feed and fuel production.

I have some specific suggestions to focus our research on:

• The value of ecosystem services. I believe that eventually farmers will have to be paid for this in addition to growing food. This will help farmers to contribute to sustainability.
• Adaptation to climate risk, like crop genetics and on how to improve farming systems to make them more resilient against the extreme weather conditions, like drought or high rainfall. To improve crops is certainly one important aspect here.
• The increase of production efficiency, which means also less external energy input.
• Adding value at the farm level to improve farmer’s income. The farmers produce a raw product that will be processed down the road. The problem is that farmers get the least out of the total value chain. We have to bring back value to the farmer, not only to the people in between.
• An increase in crop diversity, within and across species. This will result in better food security and nutrition and adaptation potential to climate change.
• Improving social networks and policies that help farmers to better adapt to climate change. Insurance policies for farmers are helpful to give them a backing for climate risks, both in developing and developed countries.
• The ability to forecast climate variations, so that farmers can be ready and use crop varieties bred for expected conditions in a particular growing season.

Research is not useful unless it is made available in a format that farmers can use, delivered on time with an option to receive feed back. Therefore, extension services as well as good access to information are important for farmers. The needed ICT infrastructure has to be planned at the same time as research is carried out, so that the two go hand in hand.

3.  What are the necessary conditions for successful solutions? What are the opportunities and threats?

We have to respect farmers’ and consumer’s wishes, not follow any particular interest group. People need to have access to unbiased information, the freedom to make their own informed choice.

Furthermore, we have to find the real cause of the problem since a successful solution treats its cause, not the symptom. Today we spend too much time in treating symptoms rather than thinking first about the cause of the problems and tackling them at the root. We have great scientific capacities, let’s use them for uncovering the causes and develop smart solutions, even if these do not lead to great profits for the agro-industry. Food after all is a human right, and one should keep this in mind when seeing agriculture as yet one more way for a few to benefit at the expense of most of humanity.

4.  Are there any biotechnological solutions for these problems? What biotechnology solutions are already available and what solutions may be available in the future? Is there a difference between genetic modification and other biotechnological techniques?

There are options in the area of plant breeding, in particular for marker assisted breeding to accelerate selection processes. I really insist on this, because it is a technique that is not controversial, already available, and I think it can help a lot in the whole breeding process i.e., for drought tolerance, to grow crops on acid and salty soils etcetera.

Another technique may be switching on and off genes, which is less controversial than GM. Although genetic modification may have uses in bio-fortification, the acceptance problem will remain, as in some places it may be accepted and in other not. The consumers’ freedom to choose must be respected in all circumstances. Genetic modification should, if ever, only be used following a detailed needs assessment, the evaluation of possible alternatives and their respective costs and benefits, including the externalities. As of yet, we do not understand enough the ecological, health and societal implications of GM crops to be using them as we are. Bt-induced insect and herbicide resistance, are presently the main transgenic crops on the market, and are mostly grown by large scale farmers, with the exception of cotton, which has also been introduced to small scale farmers too. The benefits of these crops accrue mainly in terms of reduced production costs, rather than increased yield. But for many farmers the issue is less the production costs than other issues such as access to micro credit, inputs, information, markets, etc. For transgenic crops as for any other inputs, farmers need to have the capacity and freedom to make their own informed choices, so they need access to solid and unbiased information, and also education.

5.  Should biotechnological solutions be placed higher on the social, political or scientific agendas? If so, why?

Let’s give a chance to more system based and ecological solutions to the problems addressed by today’s GM crops. We have solutions to pests and diseases that could be implemented. Should there be a need for targeted interventions against pest and disease outbreaks, there are a large number of bio and also synthetic products that are environmentally benign and also do not affect human or animal health. GM may some day be used on a strictly ‘need’ basis if at all, and only after much more solid science on their social, ecological and agronomic implications. Again, if we look at the causes of most of our problems, there are non GM, and proven, methods to solve those problems.

6.  In your view, which developments/solutions (from questions 1, 2 and 3) will lead to public debate? Where do you expect controversy? How should we deal with controversies?

Ecosystem services payment in the developed countries is a big issue, because it is perceived by developing countries as a subsidy. This must be handled in a delicate way. However, the farmers in developing countries also have to be paid for ecosystem services. For example the north can pay farmers in Brazil for keeping the forests, so that CO₂ can be sequestered.

Second, trade agreements will lead to new debates. We don’t have a level playing field in agriculture around the globe. European and American farmers have already industrialised, benefiting immensely from subsidies and so they out-compete farmers in the south on price. The focus should be on protecting developing country farmers, allowing them to enter the markets. Every country is different, so there is not one single solution that fits all.

GM crops are controversial and this won’t go away fast. It’s all about personal choices and people should be given these choices. How this should be done is not clear. GMOs should not spread widely all over the globe without proper authorization and approval by local authorities, farmers and consumers. The freedom to plant non-GM crops needs to be upheld, and farmers that want to use organic or non-GM crops should be able to do so. This is not guaranteed as of yet, as many of the GM crops spread pollen to neighbouring crops, and the cross pollination that results lead to non GM crop contamination, making them unsuitable for the organic market. A further issue is the large number of lawsuits that have already been raised against farmers, whose crops have been contaminated by neighbouring GM crops. All these issues have to be debated intensively in the future and solutions found.

7.  What are the differences between developing and developed countries (in terms of both problems and opportunities)?

Ecological principles, which need to be followed, are universal, so these apply similarly in both developed and developing countries. In developed countries we have to get productivity more in line with sustainability. We have to reduce inputs. In developing countries it is the other way around: we need more inputs in order to increase productivity and sustainability and to get better farming practices. We have to farm in a way that the soil will be improved over time, for example by applying organic farming principles - not mined of its minerals and organic matter.

8.  In your view, what will the field of food look like in 20 years time?

There will be a more nature and people-linked type of agriculture. We already see trends in this direction: agriculture that is in harmony with the environment that nurtures it and with a more human face.

People also want more recreational area. People do not only want to see corn across the whole landscape. People want to know more about what exactly they are eating because of their health and also where it comes from, how it has been grown.

Eventually, people in the developed countries will have to spend a larger portion of their budget on food, including the ecosystem services, while in the developing countries that proportion will become lower, from a today’s high of 75 %, but in the long term it will equalize around the globe at some 30 % or so would be my guess.

9.  Which statement/question/dilemma would you like to put to the readers of this interview?

What does food, agriculture and the environment mean to you? Do you see a link?

Do you prefer mass produced food that is cheap, anonymous, manipulated to look perfect and devoid of connections with the environment or do you prefer food of quality, with the imperfections of nature, but also its beauty and health rewards, produced locally by people you know that are taking care of the land your children will also want to enjoy. Would you be prepared to pay more for healthy food that is also good for the environment?