Sustainability (or something like it)

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone associated with Peace Corps Zambia say 'sustainability' in the past year I would have at least $1.75 (but that's about 5,750 Zambian Kwacha and I could buy like 57 candies with that kind of cash). It's a big word in the U.S. of A. and in most other developed countries and in Peace Corps we throw it around like a Frisbee - and let me tell you that we Peace Corps Volunteers love us some Frisbee. But if I had 100 Kwacha for every time I heard someone not associated with PC use that word I would have exactly zero kwacha. The word doesn't even exist in our village. This discrepancy between Zambia and America has a lot to do with the fact that environmental quality is a 'luxury good'. Meaning that demand for things like tree conservation and clean air increase as incomes rise and only after they cross a certain threshold or tipping point. Zambia, obviously, has not reached that tipping point.

The dictionaries that we keep in our school library define 'sustainable' as "capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing ecological damage E.G. sustainable forestry." It's not the most complete definition of the word, but it's not totally inadequate. PC emphasizes the concept of sustainability in everything we do. And well they should. Sustainability is a big part of successful development projects. And NGOs and aid agencies that are more committed to sustainability in word than in deed and drive into the bush in their Land Cruisers, give handouts to villagers that say, "I'm interested" and then drive out don't do a whole lot other than make our job harder and feed what I call the "What about Bob?" syndrome ("Gimme, gimme, gimme. I want, I want. I need, I need.") - not all aid projects are like that, but more than you think are. So, sustainability is important. But let me ask you, based on the above definition (and acknowledging that there are better ones), what is more sustainable than absolute poverty? Many families here and in other parts of the world live on less than $2/person/day. It's difficult, but it's nothing new. Some portion of every generation of man has lived in similar poverty conditions. So, what could be more sustainable than something that has existed forever and can exist indefinitely into the future? My point is simply this, sustainability is not enough -- and especially when it comes to farming. I know, I know, it's not exactly an earth-shattering revelation. Many of my colleagues in PC agree with me on that point. However, where we tend to disagree is on the relative weights of progress (i.e., yield and profitability increases) and sustainability (i.e., organic farming practices). I have always put more weight on progress, but after a year of working with smallholder farmers I put even more weight on it than I did before: the reason being that the farmers care more about growing more maize than about using composted manure in place of fertilizer. Yet in training we got to make compost on several occasions and we never once discussed proper fertilizer application. Organic farming is great in America where farmers earn a price premium for their additional care and effort; but there's no price premium if you eat it yourself, and for smallholders in Zambia organic farming is not better. That being said, I teach what I consider to be sustainable use of modern farming techniques. I am technically a part of the 'Environmental' Peace Corps program yet I teach and promote the use of chemical fertilizers, hybrid seeds, and herbicides. And I can say whole-heartedly that I am fulfilling my duties as an environmental volunteer. Zambia is not in the top ten countries in the world for much of anything, but it is (or was) one of the world's leaders in deforestation per capita. The conversion of forests into agriculturally productive land is a main culprit. A big part of the solution is intensification (growing more food on less land). So, to "save" the forests we need to get farmers to grow increasing volumes of food on the land they have so they don't have to cut down trees each year to expand/shift their farms. And the best way to do that is through the proper and, I would argue, sustainable use of fertilizer, hybrid seeds, and herbicides. Additional benefits of these technologies include the fact that they are profitable and labor-saving if done correctly; and many farmers here already use these three things, so we don't have to get them to do or use something that they never have, we just have to teach them to properly use things they already are.

While I could go on for days about on these topics, this blog is already too long and opinionated so I'll wrap it up. Sustainability is not enough. And if we really care about the people in Zambia and developing countries everywhere we should leave our biases against agricultural chemicals at the door and teach farmers how to use them properly rather than teaching ideas and concepts that people are not yet ready to value.