Agriculture is adverse numerous important problems: food accumulation, social justice, ecology, climate change. We are told by the agrochemical industry there is only one, simple, solution: the next level of the so-called blooming anarchy.
The adventure so far: intensification and globalization of agriculture in the after 20th aeon has increased yields and production of food dramatically – at least in the western apple. The so-called developing countries still ache hunger and poverty, although global production would be acceptable to augment the whole apple.
The enlightened West is starting to apprehension that accelerated agriculture has accomplished a limit, further yield increases arise to be absurd. We are also beginning to ascertain that our Agricultural systems are not acceptable at all: high inputs, clay abasement, ecology abuse, beastly justice, accident of biodiversity and climate impacts. Because of all this ecological agriculture has gathered a lot of solidarity. But it is generally admired as an ancient fantasy and accordingly not acceptable as a solution for poor countries because food outputs would never be able to be increased.
Really?
The adverse is the case. 
This is the capital message of the UN address on Agroecology, appear on the 8th of March. It states that a doubling of food assembly by use of eco-farming within 10 years is accessible with all the benefiting effects on social structures, farmers incomes and ecological aspects. UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter acutely points out that the most efficient farming techniques accessible are the ones based on ecology. These do not await on extensive inputs but on the use of ecological systems and the ability of these systems. The published study is based on numerous scientific investigations, which are not only reliable but also deliver absorbing examples. These cover ecological annoyance ascendancy by use of the so-called push-pull-strategy (accompanying with bigger baptize administration and soil re-degradation, as well as bargain erosion) or the use of ducks and fish in rice fields (accouterment additional food and admixture), or agroforestry. In the end yields increased by 80% in 57 developing countries, with an boilerplate of 116% in the African projects. The martyred soils are also adequate, generating forgotten water availability and abundance.
The added side of the bread …
… from the agrochemistry point of view: ecological agriculture increases yields (as industry propagates for their articles) but also carefully reduces the use of bogus pesticides and fertilizers. Projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92% reduced use of pesticides.
Where`s the profit?
This is the main point. Who might account from a sustainable, social and climate friendly agriculture? It is not biotechnology abnormally not the GE allotment of it. This will never be able to serve the bounded needs of farmers for acclimatized crop varieties. These are – and should be – accessible acreage. Thats addition battlefront…
The allowances of ecological agriculture are free and yet are the most admired benefits imaginable and it is difficult to earn money with them. They will save potential millions in social and climate impacts. In this instance millions does not only mean dollars but also lives.
Profit for us!
Climate, ecology, sustainability, social justice and so on as continued as you do not accept Monsanto-stocks (hopefully these will decline) we are in a win/win-situation. And in the end it will be of commercial interest.
Therefore we should all be encouraged to further advance these account especially as they are not just ideas but concrete approaching solutions.
-Dirk Zimmermann is a Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner at Greenpeace Germany