Welcome to the CIELAP wiki. This is a neat experiment. We hope you will post your comments on our 4th Partnering for Sustainability workshop: Achieving Resilient Agricultural Systems: Innovation, People and Partnerships. Our hope is that those who will be attending our workshop - and others who are not - will post their views on what we need to do in Canada to make sure that our farmers livelihoods can be sustained and that Canadians have access to high quality food. Check out the documents that have been posted. Let us know your views. Anne Mitchell, Executive Director, CIELAP.

I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts as I unfortunately was already committed to some other meetings on the dates of your conference.

Given that agriculture is in fact quite a succes story and both farmers and the industry have shown adaptibility to change through science and innovation, I'm wondering if your conference is showcasing the many successes we've had, or is leaning too much towards trying to solve a problem that may not really be there?

Am interested in others thoughts.

Richard

I want to congratulate CIELAP and Bayer Cropscience for this initiative. I will be distributing the link to this wiki to others who view the agri-resource base in its multifunctional potential and who are committed to the sustainable and profitable maximization of the societal and commercial benefits that have been and can been derived from the physical agri-resource base.

In response to Richard above, the Agriculture Institute of Canada keeps a running tab on success stories on "adaptibility to change through science and innovation" in both developed countries such as Canada, BRIC like countries, the Middle East and the developing world. I would be glad to share some of them over the course of the next few weeks. And you can contact me directly at AIC.

Is agriculture a success story? It depends on your worldview, and on the goals you establish within that worldview. If we are discussing sustainability we need to move beyond the assumption that the purpose of land is to grow food for humans. Such linear thinking leads us to ignore important factors, as if they were "externalities." To reach sustainability in agriculture or in other areas we need holistic and systemic thinking that recognizes humankind as one component of an intricate and delicate system, and to understand that our goal must be the ongoing , long term health of the system. Chemically managed, commercial monocropping is destructive of the soil's ability to hold water (greenwater), of the necessary soil micro- life that feeds larger plant life, and so on. If the soil is dead, blown and washed away, dependent on petrochemicals, if vast areas of the oceans are also dead from eutrification, if nutrition is reduced in foods grown in impoverished soil, we do not have sustainability or success.

We also do not have thriving local populations. Urban food demand around the world is up, a major reason being that smallholders have been forced to give up farming their land. Instead we have slums where people are dependent on food from commercial sources, with increased poverty, hunger and malnutrition.

A truly sustainable agriculture must fit seamlessly into a worldview of a healthy whole. The discussion should include defining what that whole is all about and looking seriously at what needs correction, not patting ourselves on the back over "successes" that are actually dangerous failures that threaten the continuation of our kind and others.

AIC held a conference on Sustainable Agriculture in Quebec city in 2005. Many of the papers presented are pertinent to the sub theme areas for the upcoming workshop. Go to http://www.aic.ca/conferences/past.cfm to view the conference and, go to http://www.aic.ca/issues/economics.cfm for two papers AIC commissioned one on Big Farms Smal Farms and the other on Innovation and Diversification in agriculture.

Food security can truly be realized through enhanced, deliverable applications of urban agriculture in urban regions. Agriculture need not be so separate from urban life. Many low-income communities already employ numerous techniques and grow lush crops on limited land throughout Toronto for instance. The first step in integrating agriculture back into the mindset of individuals is connecting them directly to their food sources. When consumers respond through purchasing of local food and organics for instance, the proliferation of conglomerate agricultural companies franken-seeds will reduce when they see that markets are shifting.

I liked Mary Gilbert's first two paragraphs. As a small-time farmer for close to 30 years I have observed many changes within agriculture/farming, but not necessarely 'success stories', particularly not in New Brunswick. as well as other regions.
The fact alone that some rural areas (or should I say most) have become nothing more than 'small bedroom communities', where
people have to move and travel to small towns and cities to find jobs, and farmesr go bankrupt by the week (if not by the day) should kepp everyone thinking about 'my' fundamental question -' Is there anything sustainable in todays agriculture, or life for that matter??' I really wonder.
The fact alone that man has started tinkering (in the name of science, research and progress) with our food supplies, be it through genetic engnieering, chemicals use or the newest technology now - Nanotechnology should really make people ask the question - Do we need to do this and why?? We all know we do not live in a perfect world and never will, but what we're really doing in part is poisining ourselfes and the physical environment around us in ways where no one has any clue about future outcomes or consequences.
Through my years of involvement with the provincial (NBEN) and Canadian Environmental Netowrk I had many opportunities to listen to great and not so great stories, participated in countless 'government consultations' and workshops, and really tried to make things better and people understand by communicating projects like 'biodiversity' International Chemicals Management Programs, and so on. Its not always just about 'success stories', its about the fundamental questions and their solutions.
Lets just hope we can still find them.

Vast mono-cultures of lawn grass exist across the urban and semi urban landscapes. If these were turned into vegetable gardens -akin to the victory gardens during WWII- the need for fruits and vegetables trucked long distances from California and farther might be alleviated. It would appear that as oil supplies dwindle this may be necessary to reduce the energy requirement needed to get food to the kitchen table.

I wanted to share with everyone an opportunity for maintaining this wonderful dialogue after the workshop is over. A few months ago a CSD listserve was started to provide a forum for discussion among all individuals interested in Canada's role at the Commission on Sustainable Development. In particular, the listserve was created to allow Canadians active in the CSD process to connect, share resources, and identify opportunities for the Canadian Government to move forward at the CSD. During the CSD, members can use the listserve to connect in person at the UN and to seek input from Canadians back home on pressing issues as they emerge.

This CIELAP workshop is bringing together a variety of individuals to address sustainability issues from a consilient lens. This makes both the CSD and the CIELAP workshop unique and it would be great to retain this energy and pool of knowledge once the workshop is over.

To subscribe, send an e-mail to: csdcanada-subscribe@groups.takingitglobal.org

What makes an agricultural production system successful and sustainable? Are the key elements such as natural, financial, manpower and technological resources that are defining the productivity of a production system? No. Are the power of the market that matches the supply and the demand? No. It is a country’s national policy that makes an agricultural production system successful and sustainable.
Take dairy sector as an example. In Canada, the supply management system is the national policy. This system builds a safe and stable domestic dairy food base for Canadian consumers through empowering the dairy producers. While in other countries dairy sector is not always a successful story, as many dairy producers I met proudly pointed out.
Making an agricultural production system successful and sustainable is like playing a game. You can use your knowledge, techniques and other resources to win the game, only if there is a rule to play the game and you follow the rule. We can’t make a perfect global agricultural policy. But we can make a national policy better.

I agree with Qigao, national policies/visions are necessary. However, it's my opinion that there are no perfect models and what may work for the dairy producers will not necessarily work for example for the pork producers.
Furthermore, success is not attained once and for all. From my perspective, success and sustainability are processes which require constant reflection and adjustment. Options and success are defined by our current circumstances and knowledge, and so when those circumstances change or we learn about new technology/ideas, we need to adapt and be flexible.

This is potentially a very important discussion. I will be watching it post-symposium in hopes that it will deal in some depth with various issues. Though not an expert, I have a number of research notes at http://delicious.com/fdmillar/farm that are in public domain and can be used by anyone.

I have already posted this on the Local Food Systems page but do it here a second time as this seems to be the place where most of the action happens.

I happened upon two articles in Friday's National Post under the title "Food Mile Myths" (http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=939434). The articles are based on a study done for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University by U of T professor Pierre Derochers and a consultant. In a nutshell the study and commentary question the view that local is necessarily food mile friendly or safer than food produced in other countries. The articles point to the complexity of elements that need to be considered when judging the attributes of local and imported food. Food for discussion in this section.
CD

UNEP is doing the same thing at the same time as CIELAP. It would be worthwhile for someone from CIELAP to read and summarize the policy papers cited below. There are active links to the PDFs which this wiki does not allow me to insert easily.

November 13-14th 2008 UNEP North American Regional Civil Society Consultation, will be hosted by the World Resources Institute (WRI) in Washington, D.C. Agenda and background papers at http://www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF/indexGCSF10.asp.

This year’s session will include the traditional dialogue with Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP (who has just announced a Green Global New Deal aka GEI) and will discuss the following key topics:
UNEP Programme of Work (POW)
Globalization and the Environment
Climate Change
Chemicals Management and Mercury
- Guidance for identifying populations at risk from mercury exposure
- Second meeting of the ad hoc OEWG to review and assess measures to address the global issue of Mercury: 6-10 October 2008

International Environmental Governance
Opportunities for Major Groups Engagement in the implementation of the POW
Additional background documents contributed by participants. Please click on the links below to view:
Mitigation and adaptation to climate change effects: the role of farmers
Statement by the farmers of the world on: “MAIN ISSUES FOR FARMERS RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY”
Statement by the farmers of the world on: “Facing climate and energy challenges through sustainable bioenergy”

I just met Dr Chris Lind, an eco-theologian who has published a long and thoughtful series of articles on sustainable agriculture in Western Producer and elsewhere. Links are in his blog http://www.christopherlind.blogspot.com/

See Thomas Dobbs, Time to fundamentally reassess the WTO's Doha Round at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/21/8442/8311. A partial quotation:

"...it would be delusional to think that Doha negotiations stumbled simply because of disagreements on details. In reality, there is a fundamental impass about how agriculture should be treated in multilateral trade agreements. Led by the U.S. trade negotiators, one view has been that agricultural trade should be completely liberalized. Never mind the fact that the U.S. government does not practice what it preaches in this regard, and shows no intention of doing so!

"An alternative view -- implicitly held by many developing and some individual European countries and various NGOs -- is that the principle of '"food sovereignty" should guide agricultural trade negotiations. Under this principle, individual countries need to set their own food and agricultural priorities. For most countries, one of those priorities includes some degree of food self-sufficiency. This certainly does not exclude agricultural trade, by any means. But it does recognize that most countries (or blocks such as the E.U.) want to preserve some internal capacity for production of staple foods, as well as a sensible food reserve system. Many countries also want to protect other agricultural functions, as observed in the European emphasis on "multifunctionality" [PDF], which includes preservation of valued agricultural landscapes. "