The Case for Small Farms
An Interview with Peter Rosset
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D. is executive director of the Oakland, California-based Institute for Food and Development Policy -- better known as Food First -- a nonprofit "people's" think tank and education-for-action center whose work highlights root causes and value-based solutions to hunger and poverty around the world, with a commitment to establishing food as a fundamental human right. He is author of a number of briefing papers, including "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations," and is co-author of World Hunger: Twelve Myths.
Multinational Monitor: Large farms are commonly viewed as more
productive than small farms. What's the evidence that suggests that in
fact small farms are more productive?
For every country for which data is available, smaller farms are anywhere from 200 to 1,000 percent more productive per unit area.
The myth of the greater productivity of larger farms stems in part from the confusing use of the term "yield" to measure productivity. Yield is how much of a single crop you can get per unit area -- for example, bushels of soy beans per acre.
That's a measure that's only relevant to monocultures. A monoculture is when a single crop is grown in a field, rather than the kind of mixtures of crops and animals that small farmers have.
When you grow one crop all by itself, you may get a lot of that one crop, but you're not using the ecological space -- the land and water Ð very efficiently.
In monocultures, you have rows of one crop with bare dirt between them. In ecological terms, that bare dirt is empty niche space. It's going to be invaded and taken advantage of by some species in the ecosystem, and generally we call those species weeds. So if that bare dirt is invaded, the farmer has to invest labor or spray herbicides or pull a tractor through to deal with those weeds. Large farmers generally have monocultures because they are easier to fully mechanize.
Smaller farmers tend to have crop mixtures. Between the rows of one crop there will be another crop, or several other crops, so that ecological niche space -- that potential -- is producing something of use to the farmer rather than requiring an investment of more labor, money or herbicides. What that means is that the smaller farm with the more complex farming system gets more total production per unit area, because they're using more of the available niche space.
It might look like the large farm is more productive because you're getting more, say, soybeans per acre. But you're not getting the other five, six, ten or twelve products that the smaller farmer is getting. And when you add all of those together, they come to a much greater total agricultural output per unit area than the larger farms are getting.
MM: Is that the essential difference Ð that the small farms use
a more complex cropping arrangement?
Small farmers also benefit by integrating crops and livestock. By rotating pasture and planted fields, animal manure is used as fertilizer, and then the part of the crop that is not consumed by humans -- let's say the stalks of a corn plant -- is food for the animals. So there's recycling of nutrients and biomass within the system. That also makes it more efficient and productive.
Small farmers tend to invest more labor in their land. That too makes it more productive.
And the quality of the labor is much better. When it's a farm family whose future depends upon maintaining the productivity of that soil and that piece of land, they naturally take better care of it.
When it's a huge corporate farm with relatively alienated wage labor doing the work, the employees do not have the kind of tie to the future of that piece of land that they would if they were family farmers.
MM: It seems as if some of these benefits are not necessarily inherent
in size but just in the different styles of farming. Could you have, for
example, more complex kinds of farming on large farms?
So some of the factors do depend on size and others depend on styles of management and relationships between human beings and the land.
MM: Do the general points you're making apply equally to farms
in the United States and other rich countries as well as farms in the
MM: If all this is so, then how come the conventional wisdom is
just the opposite?
There's also the fact that smaller farms don't appear to be economically viable. Despite what I've said about productivity, they're being driven out of business in incredible numbers. At the end of World War II, we had more than six million farms in the United States; today we have less than two million, and it's mostly the smaller farms that have been driven out of business.
We have to look at why that is. My belief is that it's because we have a system here that rewards inefficiency, low productivity and destruction of soil -- 90 percent of the topsoil in the United States is being lost faster than it can be replaced.
This system is heavily based on direct payment subsidies tied to the amount of land that a farmer has. American taxpayers paid a record $22 billion in direct farm payments last year. Sixty-one percent of those payments went to the largest 10 percent of American farmers.
Although those subsidies have been presented to us as helping keep family farmers on the land, they do just the opposite.
Because large farms in the U.S. get such a large subsidy, they can stay in business even if they're selling what they produce below the cost of production. The subsidies are tied to area and allow prices to drop below the cost of production. That prevents small farmers from competing because: one, crop prices have dropped so low and two, they don't have enough land to get enough subsidies to live on.
The system drives inefficiency and destruction of resources, because the large farms are the ones that strip rural America of trees, destroy the soil, dump so many pesticides, and compact the soil with machines.
It's basically a transfer of money from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers to large corporate farmers, so that they can stay in business despite low prices, and to the ones who benefit the most -- the Cargills and ADMs of the world who have all this grain that they're buying at giveaway prices and using to capture markets around the world and drive small farmers out of business in Mexico, India, Africa, Asia and South America.
MM: Is export dumping the primary cause of farmers in the Third
World being driven off the land?
But all those biases together pale in comparison with the impact of this kind of export dumping and the taking over of local markets by multinational grain companies. Because of the perverse way that farm subsidies work in both the United States and European Economic Community, the U.S. and Europe are dumping agricultural commodities on Third World economies at prices often below the cost of production. Local farmers can't compete.
MM: To what extent in developing countries does the Green Revolution
change the equation? Don't Green Revolution efficiencies require big farms?
During the boom years of the Green Revolution, from 1970 to 1990, world food production did go up dramatically. Unfortunately, hunger increased in most parts of the Third World as well. The Green Revolution creates what we call the paradox of plenty, or hunger amidst abundance. Production goes up, but that production is in the hands of larger farmers, who expand at the expense of smaller farmers. These smaller farmers eventually lose their land, move to the cities, don't find jobs, and can't afford to buy the additional food that's produced. So the Green Revolution gives you more food and more hunger.
If we ever really want to get at hunger in the future, we have to find a different kind of agricultural model that can have additional production come from the hands of the poor themselves. The small farm model is really the only model that will allow us to have more food and less hunger, instead of repeating the mistakes of the Green Revolution era when we had more food and more hunger.
MM: What happens when you add the World Trade Organization and
proposals for agricultural liberalization into the story?
I've already described a system that's pretty bad, but despite all odds, small farmers and peasants have clung to the land in incredible numbers all around the world. But the WTO agreement on agriculture threatens to remove virtually any ability on the part of individual countries to protect their agricultural sectors, to stop the flooding of their local markets with cheap imports from Northern countries or other large grain-exporting companies. It would take away the ability of countries to have programs that promote or support small farmers or family farmers.
Organizations representing small farmers, medium-sized farmers, farmworkers and the landless from all over the world were in Seattle last November protesting the WTO. We had the National Family Farm Coalition from the United States, the National Farmers Union from Canada, Mexican farmworker unions, the landless workers union (MST) from Brazil, farmworker unions from Africa, farmers' organizations from Africa, farmers' organizations from Thailand, the United Farm Workers union from the United States -- an incredible international coalition of rural organizations all saying that the proposed WTO rules for agriculture would be a death sentence for rural communities and rural areas around the world.
The upside of the WTO proposals is that they have helped a new global food movement coalesce. It's got all of those rural actors -- farmers, farmworkers and the landless -- as well as environmentalists concerned about pesticides and genetically altered crops and consumers concerned about food safety, working together against the WTO.
To me this is very exciting, because counting all the people negatively affected by the global food system as we know it, we are really the majority of the people in the world.
MM: What would the WTO agricultural proposals do and how does that
differ or go beyond the already-existing restrictions on Third World governments?
What the WTO rules would do is raise those agreements to the level of treaty law, making it a violation of international law for a country to impose any kind of protection on its agricultural sector. I believe that every country, in order to have national security, has to have the most important dietary elements for its population produced within its borders. But under the WTO rules you would not be able to maintain policies to guarantee that. It would also require that Third World countries reduce any remaining tariffs much more dramatically than northern countries would have to reduce theirs.
Basically what happens with free trade or the integration of economies is that you go from a relatively small-sized national economy to a larger economy. If you have a small economy that's too small to support a Cargill or an ADM, and you have protection so that it's hard for those companies to get in, then you have a situation where smaller producers and smaller companies can flourish. When you open up into a larger economy, you create the conditions where the giant conglomerates now have large enough market conditions to support themselves, and then they can undercut everyone else and drive everyone else out of business. So as we go from smaller economies to larger economies, we create the conditions where the largest multinationals can use their power in the marketplace to drive everyone else out of business, with devastating social consequences.
MM: What is multifunctionality?
The concept of multifunctionality was developed by the European Union as a way of arguing that agriculture should receive special treatment in the WTO and shouldn't be opened to free trade the way that industry has been.
Unfortunately, that notion didn't have a lot of success in terms of trying to stop the U.S.-driven juggernaut towards free trade in agriculture.
The United States was able to point out quite rightly that Western Europe was being hypocritical in saying that they wanted protection for agriculture in order to preserve its multiple functions, given the way European export subsidies are destroying farming in the Third World. Of course the United States was also being hypocritical, since U.S. export dumping is also destroying agriculture throughout the Third World. As a result of the U.S. maneuvering, this very interesting and I think potentially very useful concept fell by the wayside.
MM: How would you like to see it incorporated into trade agreements?
If agriculture were excluded from the WTO, then countries would be able to develop policies towards their rural sectors that were tailored towards their own rural needs, their own realities and their own cultures, something that's not permitted under the WTO. Multifunctionality does give at least a theoretical argument for why you should exclude agriculture.
MM: How does land reform work to promote the kinds of goals that
you're talking about? In areas where there has been a heavy liberalization
and destruction of the rural sector, does land reform help revitalize
However, redistributing land is not enough. If we redistribute land but allow trade liberalization to move ahead, then we're giving people land under economic circumstances under which it's impossible to survive on that land. Land reform is a key policy for rural development, but it must go hand-in-hand with stepping back from the free trade agenda in agriculture and also with reversing some of the anti-small farmer and anti-peasant biases in agriculture and agricultural policies around the world.
MM: Given that kind framework, what makes for good land reform?
If land reform gives people very poor land in remote areas with no access to markets and a macroeconomic environment in which agricultural production itself is not viable, then we're setting people up for failure.
When we look at the history of land reforms in the post-war period around the world, we find a range from very successful land reforms which led to very successful broad-based economic development -- in countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the People's Republic of China and Cuba -- to countries where land reform was an abysmal failure and people eventually moved deeper and deeper into poverty -- countries like Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador, etc.
So land reform has to be a real land reform in which people get good quality land and in which market conditions favor their production, and in which they have a supportive state for small-farm production. Otherwise, it's doomed to be a failure.
But we do have these great success stories that show that under the right circumstances and with the right set of policies it really can be the key to turning the corner towards broad-based economic development with economic benefits for all.