|
In Indonesia
where many forests have been illegally cut, the government is trying to
re-establish the forests with the aid of small farmers living nearby.
These
farmers are given the right to cultivate and plant complementary crops
between
the trees, (in this case Teak and Eucalyptus trees), until the full
canopy has
formed. One may question if the full canopy is necessary for optimal
growth and
quality of the trees. Less than full canopy could give small farmers
continuous
access to grazing and other complementary crops and maybe also to
better
quality trees. Interplanting with leguminous trees and bushes for
animal feed
could capture N for the forest trees. The way silvopastoral systems
should be
developed or perhaps more precisely redeveloped will vary
environmentally
according to climate, type of trees, type of animals and socioeconomic
circumstances. What's important here is not always the maximum
production of
trees, but the best total production of all the components in the
system. An
added advantage is that such systems will be much more sustainable than
monoculture tree systems and special animal systems. Chickens and pigs
after
all were forest animals and not designed for large intensive stall-fed
and
battery-fed systems. The trees will also accumulate carbon from
atmospheric CO2
and therefore help in slowing down climate change.[1]
We must not throw away the knowledge and experience that has been
accumulated
by millions of farmers over several thousand years. But we can go
beyond what
they have learned because we have modern science to help us. If only a
fraction
of the money being devoted to developing GM crops were spent on
improving
traditional methods, think about how much progress we could make.
Why don't we?
Well, we are. There is work being done and it
is succeeding. Just to cite one example, it's been shown that you don't
have to
genetically modify sweet potatoes to make them pest resistant; you only
have to
adapt an intercropping system that's traditionally been used in parts
of Africa.
Naturally the GM lobby claimed it wouldn't work in South
Africa,
but
it does.
But because
that sort of research doesn't lead to patents,
companies aren't going to do it. Even universities and government
laboratories
are less keen than they used to be on carrying out work that won't
generate
royalties for them. And, unusually, GM allows companies actually to own
and
control varieties, so there is a big incentive to do by GM what you
might have
done by other, less hazardous, means. [2]
|