Amid the twin troubles of climate change and food insecurity is the predicament of the ongoing degradation of arable land. Regenerative agriculture is the answer to the question of how the world is going to be able to feed its estimated 9.6 billion population by 2050. It is touted as the way to turn things around and stave off the shortages ahead that could make today’s inadequacies look like a walk in the park.
Though not a new concept – it was employed ages ago by Indigenous peoples whose practices included working with nature rather than against it – regenerative farming, which emphasises soil health, has been in the forefront recently. It is in effect a series of applications whereby growing or rearing food minimises damage done to the land, as well as the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, while saving water and increasing crop yields without the use of chemical fertilisers.
While different, regenerative farming is not that foreign a concept. Crop rotation, for example, when carried out with the intention of rejuvenating the soil, rather than simply growing what is deemed profitable, is a part of it. From all indications it requires patience and change that would likely be expensive, but ultimately prove profitable and redound to the benefit of humans and the planet.
Recognising the worth and necessity of truly sustainable agriculture, countries have been implementing and reinforcing these processes; encouraging farmers’ participation through education and grants. In the Latin American and Caribbean region, farmers and companies in our Caricom neighbours Barbados, Belize, Jamaica and Haiti have so far undertaken the regeneration initiative. In Brazil, several large and small-scale agricultural entities are involved, including the Balbo Economic Group, which owns the world’s largest organic sugarcane farm. This company’s techniques are held up as a best practice especially because sugarcane tops the list of crops that are most harmful to the planet.
According to extensive studies done by the World Wildlife Fund, sugarcane production takes a huge toll on the environment. Aside from fuelling deforestation, it is a prodigious cause of biodiversity loss, when compared to other crops. In addition, it utilises toxic agricultural chemicals, which leads to damaged soil and the run-off of polluted wastewater.
Worse still is the burning of the cane in the fields prior to harvesting. Besides the negative impact on the environment by the emission of toxic substances, burning cane is also harmful to human health as it causes particle pollution. Breathing in these micro particles means that they find their way into the lungs and result in several health complications, including aggravating asthma. Further, other studies have revealed that burning sugarcane can cause headaches, drowsiness, and neurological and liver damage because of the toxins released.
Possibly in light of this, Bonsucro, an international non-profit association was founded in 2008. Among its stated aims is reducing the environmental and social impacts of sugarcane farming and accelerating its sustainable production and use. Plugging itself as “the leading global sustainability platform and standard for sugarcane,” Bonsucro boasts that its over 280 members from 50 countries help “address critical challenges in the sugarcane sector and drive both performance and impact…” Notably included in the 50 states are Barbados, Jamaica and Haiti in Caricom and Brazil next door. Guyana did not appear on that list, perhaps understandably.
It is well known that despite the constant hot air from the government about green practices and its boasts about this country’s agricultural prowess, there is very little sustainability employed in local farming, least of all in the state-owned sugar industry. To call the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) an ongoing drain on the financial resources of this country would be to massively understate the issue. Last profitable possibly in the late 1980s, the corporation has received billions of dollars in government funds over the last three decades, not a cent of which has gone towards any form of sustainability. Given that simply keeping GuySuCo afloat has already cost more than an arm and a leg, one baulks at attempting to guess what it would take to implement regenerative farming there, although considering the alternative, it is absolutely necessary.
One cannot help but recall here, the unnecessary and implausible boast by GuySuCo CEO Sasenarine Singh in February this year that the corporation would not be a burden on the country forever, just after the government announced that it was to receive another $6 billion. The fact is that even if, by some miracle, GuySuCo managed to haul itself out of the abyss of loss sometime in the future, the contribution of its operating standards to poor health in general means it would continue to burden the health system.
