Name: Kyle Petzer

Student Number: 16340574

Module Name: Sustainable Development

M. Swilling and E. Annecke

Due Date: 28 April

Word Count

Part A: 5352

Part B: 3668

Total: 9020

Part A - SustainableDevelopment: A Personal

Worldview

“I hereby confirm that the assignment is the product of my ownwork and research and has been written by me and further thatall sources used therein have been acknowledged.”

2

Contents1. Introduction....................................................32. Sustainability a brief history and summary......................4

A) The need for sustainability...................................4B) Development thinking..........................................4

C) Sustainable Development a brief history.......................5D) Sustainable development.......................................6

E) The Questionability of Sustainability thinking................73. Deep ecology as a worldview.....................................7

A) Basic breakdown of Deep Ecology...............................8B) Deep Ecology in Practice......................................9

C) A personal, altered Deep Ecology as worldview................10D) Critique on Deep Ecology.....................................11

4. Literature review and critique of other worldview’s............11A) Ecological modernization.....................................11

B) Eco-feminism.................................................13C) Social ecology...............................................14

D) Bioregionalism...............................................155. Conclusion.....................................................16

6. References.....................................................18

3

1. Introductione are in a transitional era where concepts such as

sustainability, climate change and environmental

degradation are hotly contested in the political arena

while remaining a hot topic on everybody’s lips. We are now

more aware of the impact we have on each other and the

environment than ever before, but still the concept of

sustainability and our developmental trajectory is widely

debated. We are trapped in a carbon intensive capitalist

system and few know how, and have the ability to move out of

this system.

W

Each protagonist for sustainability has their own

interpretation of the concept and more importantly, how it

should be implemented and maintained. These interpretations

and worldviews differ vastly from one another. So, the

question remains, which worldview is correct? How should it be

implemented, and is it the answer to the ever increasing

questions we have on issues such as environmental degradation,

economic growth and social justice?

It is sufficient to say that nobody might know which way is

wrong or which is right. We as humans will learn only through

trial and error. Until then, we are most probably venturing

into the unknown. I believe that Deep ecology holds the key to

alleviating many of the problems that society faces today. It

holds the key to reducing environmental degradation and may

ensure social justice.

4

My worldview then is Deep ecology, but I would supplement this

view with various elements of other theories and views so that

it can hopefully address most of the shortcomings as well as

offer the right solutions to the many problems we as society

and inhabitants of planet earth face.

In this paper I will formulate my own worldview and build an

argument for my worldview by looking at the definition, the

origins of sustainability thinking and also what the elements

of the ecological crises are, and more importantly why it is

important to transform into that which is sustainable. I will

then substantiate my argument by critically analyzing other

worldviews on sustainable development and their shortcomings

in terms of addressing environmental degradation and social

injustices.

2. Sustainability a brief history and summary

A) The need for sustainabilitySwilling and Annecke (2012:29-44) introduces us to the seven

documents that ultimately changed our view of the world. The

arguments for sustainability and the need for sustainable

development are exacerbated in these documents. The seven key

issues surrounding the need for sustainability and focuses on

that which is so unsustainable in the world today: Eco-systems

degradation, Climate change, oil peak1, poverty inequality,

urban futures, food insecurity and material flows2 are the key

concerns that these documents are centered on. These documents1 Refers mainly to the concept of peak oil discovery and production2 Refers to the materials on which the global economy are dependant:biomass, fossil fuels, ores, industrial minerals and construction materials

5

have enlightened us to what the challenges globally are as

well as the issues of justice and environmental degradation.

This has fueled the sustainability debate and has built a

foundation on which action towards a more sustainable and

equitable future can take place.

B) Development thinkingThe concept sustainability is a widely diverse and hotly

contested concept among politicians, economists and

environmentalists. Sustainability and development of a

sustainable nature is a dialogue of varying values between

different entities within society. Many will share and hold

the same views and opinions, while many will inevitably differ

from one another (Blewitt, 2008: 28). The actors who take part

in this debate make the concept and definition work for

themselves and their views.

One of the first and most notable uses of the word

underdeveloped was when President Truman used it in a speech.

The use of this word was no accident, but the expression of

his personal worldview. He considered the entire world to be

moving along the same developmental trajectory. The west and

in particular the US, was leading while those countries in the

South and the East was lagging behind. His world-view was that

the degree to which a country is developed is in direct

correlation with its level of production (Sachs, 1999:25). By

imitating the USA and following their development blueprint,

poverty and the many problems associated with the

“underdeveloped” can be alleviated.

6

This opened the door to the notion of development and to how

it can be achieved. The general consensus back then and still

in many cases is, that underdeveloped countries should imitate

Europe or the USA in order to obtain the same developmental

results.

Since then the mechanisms of global capitalism and open

markets has only provided a small part of the world with some

economic expansion on a large scale, while the world’s economy

already has caused a number of extremely detrimental effects

on nature (this is clearly shown in the Millennium eco-systems

Assessment). If all countries followed this industrial

example, more than five planets would be needed to serve

society with the resources needed (Sachs, 1999:26). It is

clearly evident that this is not possible, this is where the

first issue regarding capitalist development paradigm arises.

The entire development paradigm rested on two important points

of departure. That development could be universalized in both

space and, be durable in time. However, development has

revealed itself as finite in both cases. The crisis of justice

and the crisis of nature stand in an inverse relationship to

each other. In other words, any attempt to ease the crisis of

justice threatens to aggravate the crisis of nature, and vice

versa (Sachs, 1999:27). Furthermore, the development paradigm

and some permutations of sustainable development rely on the

notion of universalism3 (Korhonen, 2008:1340). This and several

3 Universalism is a temptation in scientific inquiry. It is tempting toargue that, once a phenomenon has been observed in an adequate number ofdifferent settings, the phenomenon can be explained in terms of a universal

7

reasons have caused the development and growth paradigm to

decline.

C) Sustainable Development a brief historyFrom the ashes of its father, sustainable development has

risen. The concept has promised two bridge the gap between the

crises in justice and nature. It promotes both ecological

sustainability and international justice (Sachs, 1999:28). The

first most notable use of the concept was used in the

Bruntland commission in 1987. Sustainable development was

described as: “development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising future generation’s ability to meet their

own needs” (Swilling and Annecke, 2012:26). Since then the concept and paradigm has grown and evolved into

the various subgenre’s we know and presumably understand

today. The concept of sustainable development and how it was

conceived and how it evolved can be categorized into three

historical periods: Pre-Stockholm, covering the period until

the Stockholm Conference on Environment and Development (–

1972); from Stockholm to WCED (1972–1987); and Post-WCED

(1987–1997) (Mebratu, 1997:497).

One of the most unique features surrounding the industrial

society and industrialism as a whole is that of pollution, and

environmental concern is linked to industrialism alone.

However, historically environmental concerns such as those we

face today have been part of humanity and society for most of

its existence. It is no new phenomenon, even though many

theory applicable everywhere

8

believe it to be. (Mebratu, 1997:497) This is an important

notion, because many believe that the ecological crises can

and will only be solve through technological advancement. This

view makes sense, but it is important to note that the crises

we face today can be overcome to a certain extent without

technology, because it has done so in the past. Technology

must however certainly be used to reduce environmental

degradation and to resolve injustices.

D) Sustainable development As mentioned before, sustainable development has various

variations and layers. There is the distinction between strong

and weak sustainability, but in actuality it comes down to

needs and limitations. Needs refers to the needs of the

world’s population and in particular the poor. Limitations

refers to that of technology and social structures as well as

the finite amount of resources we need (Mebratu, 1997:501). It

is evident that sustainable development aims to address many

of society’s and planet Earth’s problems. And even though the

majority of the environmental literature on sustainability

agrees on the limitations of reductionist, scientific thinking

in understanding and addressing the environmental crisis

(Mebratu, 1997:503) there are still many debates and opinions

as to what sustainability is and more so on how it is to be

achieved.

The crux of the matter and everything surrounding the

sustainability debate is that we only have a finite amount of

certain resources, by which to fulfil the population’s needs.

9

We have to use what we’ve got sparingly and wisely. The

management of these resources has to be impeccable, and also

the distribution of what we have has to be fair. How we

extract and use what we have also has to be of such a manner

that it does not damage our stocks of capital any further.

Environmental degradation has to be reduced and economic

growth has to be decoupled from environmental degradation and

resource use, while addressing the issue of social justice.

Finally we must do the above mentioned in such a way that

future generations has the same amount of actual (not

converted and manufactured) capital, from which they can

survive and flourish.

E) The Questionability of Sustainability thinkingThis thus gives rise to many questions being asked with

regards to sustainability and if it isn’t a bunch of

theoretical jargon being thrown around by theorists and

politicians which could never be successfully be put into

practice. There are several reasons to ask questions about our

general acceptance surrounding the concept of sustainable

development. The reason being is, “because it rests highly on doubtful

and uncertain assumptions that do not help in curbing the exploitation of natural

resources and people. Furthermore, objections are often raised to the highly

moralistic overtones that accompany much of the propaganda for sustainable

development” (Hattingh, 2001:2).

It is important to question a widely used and sought after

phenomenon. By questioning theories on sustainability and how

it can be achieved we move closer to actual sustainability and

10

progress. From questioning and scientific deduction we can

weed out the improbabilities as well as the fallacies.

Through this exercise of questioning we move closer to a

theory that might actually work in practice, whereby the

shortcomings of previous development paradigms can be

overcome.

From all of the debates, opinions and questions has risen

various theories or worldviews on sustainable development and

each see themselves as being the true answer to overcome the

issues surrounding environmental degradation, social justice

and in some cases economic and political stability and

ultimately sustainability.

3. Deep ecology as a worldviewhe worldview I find is most promising as well as

applicable to addressing the ecological crises and that

of injustice, is Deep Ecology. Although it has several

shortcomings and is often widely criticized by eco-feminists

and social ecologists, deep ecology will be the foundation and

the core to my personal worldview, but I will supplement it

with some features from other theories in order to make it

more applicable, inclusionary and more realistic to implement

and sustain.

T

To address the crises of justice as well as that of the

environment it is important to define what our needs as humans

are, since sustainability revolves around needs and

limitations. Bartelmus (1994:2) lists several basic human

11

objectives and needs, on which human survival and happiness is

dependent on. They are as follows: Affection and love,

recreation and entertainment, education, security and freedom,

shelter, aesthetic and cultural values, political equity,

health, physiological needs and finally future quality of

life. If we take this as the basis of human needs on which

sustainability should be built upon, we find that many of the

world’s population lack these basic fundamental elements of

human life and happiness. Inequality is central to these

concerns, especially with regards to the distribution of

resources and wealth. It is the overabundance that the

minority has and the suffering of the majority that has led to

the crises of nature and justice. Taking sustainable

development into account, this inequality gap has to be

bridged. Deep ecology offers the tools in order to build this

hypothetical “bridge”.

A) Basic breakdown of Deep EcologyThe concept of deep ecology was formulated by Arne Naess, in

the early 1970’s as a response to the various limits of

shallow ecology and also to address the shortcomings that the

current development trajectory posed. His view was that, in

the long run, environmental reforms of social and economic

systems are not a suitable solution to offset the accelerating

destruction of the environment.

Deep ecologists propose to replace anthropocentric hierarchies

with biocentric egalitarianism. In other words, humans are

equally as important as all other things on earth, living and

non-living. In order to quantify this egalitarianism, deep

12

ecologists have developed the concept of Gaia. “Gaia is a

total self organizing and self reproducing, organic, spatio-

temporal and teleological system with the goal of maintaining

itself” (Mebratu, 1997:511). Sustainability is thought of as a

means to save humanity and not earth or “Gaia” as Gaia will

survive, but we might not.

Viewing the earth out of a systems approach can be helpful in

substantiating an argument for deep ecology. One must see the

earth as an open system. Earth as a system can be defined as a

set of interrelated subsystems/ elements. The elements can

represent machines, molecules, organisms etc. The relations

between the elements may also have different manifestations.

All physically existent systems are open, having exchanges of

energy, matter and information with their environment that are

significant for functioning. The system’s behaviour depends

not only on the system itself, but also on the variables

coming from the environment of the system; the system however

also generates variables that exert influence on the

environment (Gallopin, 2003:9). By seeing as earth as s

system, we can realise that we are not above the system, but

part of it and that all the parts of the system are equal to

one another. It strengthens the notion of “Gaia”, and the

nature of earth’s interrelatedness between the living and non-

living entities, and that each entity is part of an open

system.

Central to Deep ecology is the principles surrounding

ecological limits and the need for human life to live in

harmony with all other forms of life and also with nature. The13

wellbeing of all that is living including humans is that

everything has intrinsic values. Diversity as an example

contributes towards these values and we as humans have no

right to reduce or have a significant impact on this

diversity. Society may only affect or undermine these values

and if it will serve to satisfy vital human needs. At present

human interference with the non-human world is extremely

excessive and thus is non-sustainable (Blewitt, 2008:29-31).

As society we should move beyond anthropocentricism as it is

only a form of human chauvinism, human altruism and separatism

should ultimately be avoided. This is the way in which

oppression and exploitation can be overcome and ultimately

live within sustainable bounds in together with “Gaia” (Macy

and Young-Brown, 1998: 46-47).

In essence, humans should revert from anthropocentrism and

altruism and see ourselves as part of the system and equal to

all other living and non-living entities on earth. We should

respect the inherent values of all entities on earth, and

should only use the environment to fulfill our basic needs.

The notion of over abundance should be avoided; this is how

the crisis of justice and the environment can be overcome and

how we can move closer towards a sustainable future.

B) Deep Ecology in PracticeThere is a notion within deep ecology thinking in moving

towards a simpler life, “simple in means, rich in ends”. Deep

ecology encourages “rich” experiences which are rich within

the bounds of nature. As modern life encroaches on our daily

lives, more people are less likely to have these “rich”

14

experiences. For Naess, this rich experience in nature

contributes to a sense of maturity (Devall, 2001:24).

By respecting the basic principles of Deep Ecology we will

inevitably move into a simpler life, but one with meaning.

Excess will be nullified and so will exclusion, oppression and

injustices. Decentralisation of the state, together with a

non-hierarchal society, democracy, small-scale communities

etc. is needed to reduce society to simpler ways, so that we

can live a simpler, yet more meaningful life (Bookchin,

n.d:8).

Whilst moving into a “simpler life” economic growth has to be

decoupled4 from environmental impacts. We need to become eco-

efficient5, and become dematerialized6. Technological

advancements are crucial in improving eco-efficiency.

Substitution7 is another important factor to take into account

in ensuring sustainability and the achievement thereof (Naess

and Hoyer, 2009:74). There are however several problems with

the notion of decoupling in current times and they have to do

with institutional and regulatory frameworks (e.g.,

legislation, regulations, taxation, and subsidies) for

4 Decoupling refers to the notion of breaking or cutting the link betweeneconomic growth and resource use and ultimately environmental degradation5 Eco-efficiency and the improvement thereof, refers to the production ofcommodities of equal or better quality while reducing the resourceconsumption and negative environmental impacts associated with theproduction of that particular commodity6 Dematerialization is a joint concept including both eco-efficiency andsubstitution7 Substitution refers to the change in the pattern of consumption ofenvironmentally harmful products to those that are less so

15

changing the quality of growth. In addition, private

enterprises as well as many politicians have been strong

opponents of the introduction of such institutional changes

(Naess and Hoyer, 2009:82). Institutional reform needs to

occur for these tools to become viable and successful

implementation options.

It is important to value things (living and non-living)

inherently and to regard and respect everything as equals.

Nothing should be more important than anything else and humans

should only use resources to satisfy vital needs. The concept

of vital needs however is debatable, because it would range

regionally as well as culturally. However, there should be

room for economic growth and technological advancement but

only if we can sufficiently decouple it from resource use as

well as other negative externalities, and if it is to improve

the well being of others.

C) A personal, altered Deep Ecology as worldview1. All things have inherent values within themselves, and

things should not be valued as to how they are valuable for

humans.

2. All things are equal and part of an open yet integrated

system (Gaia) and this should be acknowledged and respected at

all times

3. Humans should only use the environment and disregard the

inherent values of entities to satisfy vital needs.

16

4. Patriarchal and in particular capitalist systems of over-

abundance, oppression, sexism, racism and classism have to be

abolished.

5. Respect the notion of culture and that it is our

interactions between one another that make us human, but still

not more important than any other entity on earth.

6. Decouple, and dematerialize through substitution and

improving eco-efficiency through technological advancement,

institutional changes and consumption patterns.

7. Lead a “simpler” life, but ultimately a richer one that has

value and meaning.

8. Doing so will lead to a more egalitarian society, where

equality is king but diversity is celebrated. Where

environmental degradation is minimal, economic growth is not

destructive and justice is the norm.

D) Critique on Deep EcologyEco-feminists have criticized Deep Ecology on various fronts,

but notably for being gender blind. Deep Ecology in their

thought has failed to conceptualize human beings as connected

and social beings; there is a disregard for the differences

between humans and nature. Eco feminists believe that the

unifying process between humans and nature is too extreme,

there is an over emphasis on the unification of all living and

non-living entities, which is a bit farfetched. The

differences of being human and social creatures should be

celebrated and not ignored (Blewitt, 2008: 32).

17

Social ecologists have critiqued Deep Ecology as being “vague,

formless and in some cases contradictory, due to the fact that

deep ecology does not take into account the way in which

humans interact with one another. This is a fundamental

principle in addressing the ecological crises according to

social ecologists (Blewitt, 2008:34).

4. Literature review and critique of other

worldview’s

A) Ecological modernizationEcological modernization is currently the dominant worldview

with regards to sustainable development. Environmental and

social scientists developed ecological modernization as a

critical response to radical environmentalism and movements

such as deep ecology. Its aim is to shift concerns and focus

from failures of state, industry and technological systems to

address both environmental problems and success stories of

environmental improvements. It is thus a tool and motivation

for those continuing to believe in the process of modernity.

Key to ecological modernization is to place a monetary value

on the environment in order to include the various

environmental issues better in decision making. The ecological

modernist does not see environmental protection as a burden on

the economy instead, sees it as a potential source of future

growth. In essence, ecological modernization is business as

usual with a slight green tinge (Korhonen, 2008:1331). Most

Ecological Modernizers support the status quo, although some

18

see the need for reform. They support the market, which in

some sense is the core to ecological modernization, because it

stimulates money for businesses. Most supporters of the status

quo have a weak commitment to environmental sustainability

(Hopwood, 2005:42).

Ecological modernization’s core rests on the notion that

growth in already affluent societies will contribute to

improve rather than reduce environmental quality, because

increased wealth implies that more money may be spent on the

development of environmentally friendly technologies (Naess

and Hoyer, 2009:79). This might be true and can be realistic,

but only economic growth is decoupled from environmental

impacts and if the wealth that is used to obtain these

technologies is not built on environmental degradation.

Ecological modernization’s key failure is that it only

quantifies the environment for how and what it can serve us as

humans. Thus, if it offers no value to society, it has no

value. It disregards Inherent values for the living and non-

living. Furthermore, there is still the lingering notion on

economic growth with regards to alleviating social injustices.

There is a over emphasis on the possible “trickle down”

effect, but only acts as a mask for the developed to continue

in a business as usual fashion, which is not acceptable and

ethically correct.

Economic growth is mostly possible due material flows and this

will inevitably lead to environmental degradation.

19

Furthermore, ecological modernization does not emphasise the

need for institutional reform as well as the change that is

needed in our consumption patterns. Ecological modernization

does not place eco-efficiency in a high enough priority. It is

a short term solution and allows for our current development

trajectory to continue. This will inevitably not be

sustainable in the long term; it might reduce ecological

degradation, but most probably will not address issues of

social justice.

B) Eco-feminismThe term eco-feminism was first coined by Francoise d’Eaubonne

in the 1970’s, who identified the destruction of natural

resources and overpopulation as the most destructive and

important threats to humanity (Mebratu 1997:506). Much of Eco

feminism has been developed as a response on a critique

towards Deep Ecology. As a point of departure emphasis is

placed on a “rethink” of the human side and its dualism,

humans have to start seeing the world in a non-mechanistic

way. Eco-feminists see our relationships as the most important

feature in being human. Environmental degradation and

exploitation are feminist issues because they are

fundamentally to do with acts and relations of oppression

(Blewitt, 2008:32). It is only the oppressed who can solve the

problems caused by the oppressor and not that of the

oppressor.

The conceptual juncture that is considered to be Eco-feminism

is concerned with the oppression of race, gender, class and

20

nature (Mebratu, 1997:506). Nature, as it is with women, has

been oppressed by patriarchal systems of development and

environmental management. The patriarchy and oppressive

systems need to be overthrown and altered. This is the only

way in which the ecological crises and injustice can be

overcome. Eco-feminists also argue that a conceptual framework

that rests upon hierarchies will only act as protagonists for

dualism and will ultimately build the foundation for

oppression to continue to subsist (Blewitt, 2008:32).

Eco-Feminism’s foundation lies upon 8 key principles as

identified by Karen Warren: “1. No “ism” that promotes

oppression is acceptable. 2. Ethical discourse and practice

must be contextual within time and space. 3. A feminist’s

ethic must be pluralistic. 4. Ethics is an ongoing process.

5. Inclusiveness is the guiding principle. 6. Feminist ethics

are value neutral. 7. Feminism offers a central place for

previously downplayed values. 8. A feminist ethic

reconceptualises what it is to be human” (Blewitt, 2008:33).

The argument surrounding oppression especially of women and

race is a sound one. These issues need to be addressed and

should not be prevalent in a modern world. However, the notion

that change can only be put into action by the oppressed is

flawed. Change should be driven by everyone, and everyone

should take part in it, otherwise it is just another form of

exclusion and oppression. If change is not for everyone and by

everyone (race, class, gender, age) inequality and oppression

will never be resolved and a truly egalitarian world will

never exist. Furthermore, eco-feminism dwells upon the human21

nature, humanity and social relation, with eco-feminism;

people are still the most important entities on earth.

C) Social ecology With the rise of modern environmentalism in the 1970s, a new

debate between red and green politics emerged, which led to

the evolution of the concept of eco-socialism. Social Ecology

morphed into existence when then theorists and philosophers

started to realise that there is a tie in the way in which

people deal with one another, and how we behave as social

beings. Philosophically, social ecology stems from a solid

organismic tradition in Western Philosophy (Bookchin, n.d:7).

Eco-socialism considers capitalist oppression as the major

source of the environmental crises. It is based on the

assumption that sustainable, ecologically sound capitalist

development is a contradiction in terms that never can be

realized. For social ecologists, the way in which human beings

treat each other and “exploit” one another is the root cause

of the ecological crises and a social harmony has to be

reached in order for ecological crises to be resolved Blewitt,

2008:34).The ecological crisis we are facing is a

manifestation of the inherent crisis within the capitalist

system, and it can be overcome only through ecologically

oriented socialist development (Mebratu, 1997:507). Strong

emphasis is placed on decentralisation and the need for a new

developmental path which can be followed by less developed

regions. The systems within which society is trapped should be

22

broken down so that we the crises of justice and the

environment can be overcome (Blewitt, 2008:34).

Mebratu (1997:507) lists the key principles of social ecology

as the following: Eco-socialism is anthropocentric, it rejects

the bio-ethic as well the anti-humanism. It however does not

attach significance towards human spirituality; the current

socio-economic system is the prevailing cause for pollution

and environmental degradation and not humans per se; animals

are different from humans, how we perceive nature is a social

construct, and human actions are ultimately natural; thus,

alienation from nature enforces compartmentalization and

separation from ourselves; humans should not dominate over

nature.

Social ecologists state the importance to note and understand

how human beings deal with each other as social beings in

order to address the ecological crises. The underlying human

problem is hierarchy and inequality and this leads to

exploitation and oppression of all forms (Blewitt, 2008:44).

Social-ecology implicitly states that we are vastly different

in our nature from that of animals. Furthermore, it does not

take into account that of the non-living. Eco-socialism thus

makes way for the control of the environment by humans,

because we are “different” than that of the rest of the

natural. By stating that what we do as humans is natural only

makes room for the prevalence and continuation of exploitation

23

and oppression, because our actions will always be justifiable

within the framework of social-ecology.

D) BioregionalismAt its core bioregionalism suggests and explains that there

could be no ecological balance without human balance. A

dynamic equilibrium should be reached and this could be

achieved by the building of “good” places. These utopian

places will be similar to Ebenezer Howard’s decentralized

garden cities.

Blewitt (2008:35) indicates three core elements with regards

to bioregionalism: 1. Equilibrium in the environment –

indicates towards the regeneration and conservation of the

land and the environment, the use of clean and renewable

energies, the re-use of certain materials to satisfy human

needs into the pattern formed by the region as a whole.2.

Equilibrium in industry and agriculture – A balance of

industry in all regions, the decentralization of the

population and urban conurbations and shift towards market

gardening and mixed agriculture, this will reduce

environmental exploitation. 3. Equilibrium in population -

Birth rates should be balanced with that of the death rate

together with that of the rural and urban areas and the

abolishment of industrial centers.

Within bioregionalism there is the over arching sense that we

have to re-inhabit the places we live in. The notion and

concept of what it means to be native needs to be recovered

and reinstalled in our daily lives. Our relationship with the

24

environment needs to be replenished and we should reject our

current machine like behavior and view of the world. There is

a sense and need for returning “home”, but this requires a

restoration of the self. The first step to achieving this is

by rethinking urban areas to recognize that we are all

situated within bioregions, which can be made self sustainable

(Blewitt, 2008:36).

(Mebratu, 1998:506)

5. Conclusiont is evident that we face an ecological crisis as well

as crises of justice. There is a need to overcome these

issues while simultaneously trying to ensure economic

growth. Through this paper we have explored the need for

sustainable development and why it is crucial for humanity to

strive towards sustainability. The origins of development and

sustainability thinking have been discussed as well as their

I25

meaning, the uncertainties and questionability surrounding

these ideas has also been looked at.

Through the need for sustainable development and the right

means to achieving sustainability I have described deep

ecology as my personal worldview by which this ultimate goal

of humanity can be achieved. Although deep ecology has several

flaws I have supplemented it with various aspects from other

theories and worldviews in order to make my worldview more

watertight and inclusionary. The argument for my worldview is

built and substantiated on the need for sustainability and the

issues which has to be addressed (economic growth,

environmental degradation, social justice) and ultimately by

looking critically at the other theories and worldviews and

their flaws.

If sustainability is broken down at its nucleus lie the

problems surrounding needs and limitations and ultimately this

is what the entire debate boils down to. What do us as humans

need to live rich, happy and meaningful lives, while

overcoming the many limitations towards fulfilling these

needs? This is where deep ecology is able to unlock the door

towards a more sustainable future. By only looking at needs

and limitations we are only focusing on the human and that

which can serve us. We need to move away from the

“anthropocene” towards a collective consciousness where we are

merely just a part of a much larger system in which we luckily

take part in. If this can be realized we will be able to live

within a more egalitarian society, where equality is king but

diversity is celebrated. Where environmental degradation is26

minimal, economic growth is not destructive and justice is the

norm. And unfortunately if we are not to realize this soon

enough, we will ultimately be discarded from the system like a

piece of outdated technology.

27

6. ReferencesBartelmus, P. (1994). Environment, Growth and Development: The

Concepts and Strategies of sustainability. London: Routledge. Chapter 1.

Blewitt, J. (2008). Understanding Sustainable Development. London:

Earthscan. Chapter 2.

Bookchin, M. (n.d). Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A

Challenge for the Ecology Movement. Zabalaza Books. Fordsburg, South

Africa.

Devall, B. (2001). The Deep Long Range Ecology Movement. Ethics

and the Environment, 6 (1): 18-41.

Gallopin, G. (2003). A Systems Approach to Sustainability and Sustainable

Development: Project NET/00/063. Santiago: Economic Commission

for Latin America.

Hattingh, J. (2001). Conceptualizing Ecological Sustainable

and Ecologically Sustainable Development in Ethical Terms: Issues

and Challenges. Annale no. 2, University of Stellenbosch.

Hopwood, B. et al. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping

different approaches. Sustainable Cities research Institute,

University of Northumbria.

Korhonen, J. (2008). Reconsidering the economics logic of

ecological modernization. Environment and planning A. Vol, 40.

Macy, J. and Young-Brown, M. (1998). Coming back to life.

British Columbia: New Society. Chapter 3.

28

Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and Sustainable

development: Historical and Conceptual Review. International Institute

for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University.

Naess, P. and Hoyer, K. G. (2009). The Emperors Green Clothes:

Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism,

20(3): 74-95.

Sachs, W. (1999). Sustainable Development and the Crises of

Nature: On the Political Anatomy of an Oxymoron. Oxford University

Press.

Swilling, M. and Annecke, E. (2012). Just Transitions:

Explorations of sustainability in an unfair world. United Nations University

Press. Chapter 2 & 10.

Individual Assignment 1 (Part B): Application

Kyle Petzer 16340574

South African Agriculture: A Deep Ecological Perspective

29

Contents1. Introduction....................................................32. Reason for Case study of choice.................................4

3. Brief summary of worldview......................................44. Agriculture.....................................................5

A) Agriculture in South Africa...................................5B) South African agriculture policy objectives and strategies....7

C) Detrimental environmental impacts.............................95. Food Security...................................................9

6. Recommendations................................................10A) Sustainable agriculture......................................10

B) Improve management practices.................................11C) Policy and institutional reform..............................11

D) Food systems.................................................11F) Community supported agriculture..............................12

G) Organic & biodynamic farming agriculture.....................127. Conclusion.....................................................13

8. References.....................................................14

30

1. Introduction ith the global population growing and food prices

continually escalating, food insecurity is an

increasingly important problem facing the world and

especially developing regions. Food insecurity and food

production is a hot topic within the developmental debate. The

magnitude of the problem is exacerbated within the millennium

development goals, as it is one of the top priorities along

with poverty eradication. But is the equitable access to food

for everyone possible?

W

The fact is though, that food production and provision thereof

is a difficult and complicated task. Weather is unpredictable

and land is often not suitable to plant crops. Climate change

will only further impede the strides made by the agricultural

sector towards the provision of food. Agriculture has had many

detrimental effects on the environment. Deforestation,

overgrazing, the excessive use of herbicides and pesticides

has scarred the world’s landscape and degraded the quality of

soils. But, billions of people are still malnourished and

starving while others live in excess and throw many tons of

quality food away each year.

The provision of food and agriculture fits perfectly into the

sustainability debate especially with regards to the crisis of

justice and in nature. It emphasizes the need for sustainable

development, but clearly encompasses the needs and limitations

argument. It is our constitutional right to not starve and is

one of our key vital needs as humans (Bartelmus, 1994:2).

31

So, how can this problem be addressed? How can the crises of

nature and justice be solved? Clearly something has gone wrong

in the way in which society has tried to provide the global

population with food if such inequalities exist with regards

to provision of food. It is also clear that current mass

agricultural processes cannot continue due to its destructive

qualities.

I will try and prove my point and build my argument by looking

at agriculture in South Africa as well as food security.

Agricultural policy and the impacts thereof will be critically

analyzed to see whether it has been successful in addressing

the crises of justice and nature. Then, recommendations will

be given from a deep ecological point of view on how

agricultural practices can be changed to move towards a more

sustainable future.

2. Reason for Case study of choicehe reason for choosing agriculture in South Africa is

because I believe it fits perfectly into the

sustainable development debate. Agriculture is also one

of the oldest human professions, the cultivation of food was

the key corner stone in building civilization and has enabled

humans to settle in one place and flourish as inhabitants on

earth.

TAgriculture fits perfectly into the entire sustainable

development debate. It is needed to provide food for those on

earth, but has caused widespread destruction to the

environment, and has lead to biodiversity loss, soil

32

degradation, deforestation etc. It is evident that

agricultural practices has to change in order to move towards

sustainability, but this will probably be the most complex

problem within the sustainability debate.

As to what is so unsustainable, namely: eco-systems

degradation, climate change, oil peak, urban futures, poverty

and inequality, food insecurity and material flows (Swilling

and Annecke, 2012:29-44) agriculture is central to many of

these problems and concerns. Agriculture is widely responsible

for eco-systems degradation. Climate change will impact food

production tremendously. Oil peak and oil prices is also of

key concern for the agricultural sector due to its high

dependence on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides as

well as for fuel. Agriculture sits in the middle of the food

security debate. Finally, the poor cannot afford rising food

prices. So, clearly agriculture is in some aspects, the core

of the sustainability debate.

It is clear that food production has to increase, but to date;

agriculture has had a wide variety of adverse effects on the

environment. In moving towards a more sustainable future the

agricultural sector needs to be transformed, and also how we

see, and consume food. This will however be an immense task

and would be extremely difficult due to current institutional

and policy frameworks which are in place.

Using deep ecological principles and implementing them into

our daily lives and the agricultural sector, the changes

towards a more sustainable future and the alleviation of the

33

crises in justice and nature can hopefully become a

probability.

3. Brief summary of worldviewCore to deep ecology is the move away from anthropocentric

hierarchies of altruism towards a more biocentric egalitarian

society. Humans should be regarded equally to other things on

earth (living and non-living). Every single living and non-

living entity has inherent values within themselves, and we as

humans may not undermine these values and may only do so to

satisfy vital human needs (Mebratu, 1997). Deep ecology

recognizes the principles surrounding the ecological limits

and the need for human to live in absolute harmony with the

natural world (Blewitt, 2008).

All things are equal and part of an open yet integrated system

(Gaia) and this should be acknowledged and respected at all

times. Patriarchal and in particular capitalist systems of

over-abundance, oppression, sexism, racism and classism have

to be abolished. Humans should respect the notion of culture

and that it is our interactions between one another that make

us human. Society must try to decouple, and dematerialize

through substitution and by improving eco-efficiency through

technological advancement, institutional changes and

consumption patterns. As humans we should strive towards a

“simpler” life, but ultimately a richer one that has value and

meaning. Doing so will lead to a more egalitarian society,

where equality is king but diversity is celebrated. Where

34

environmental degradation is minimal, economic growth is not

destructive and justice is the norm.

4. Agriculture

A) Agriculture in South AfricaSouth Africa is known for its beautiful landscape, cultural

diversity and is known to have a wide variety of vegetation

types and has a wide range of biodiversity. The country can be

divided into distinct agricultural regions and this can be

attributed to the differences in climate from region to

region. The country’s agricultural regions range from the crop

intensive winter rainfall and high summer rainfall areas, to

cattle ranching in the bushveld and sheep farming in the arid

to semi-arid regions of the Karoo. Still, it is estimated that

combinations of soil and climate leave only 12% of the country

viable for crops that are rain fed. While only 3% of land is

considered to be truly fertile land (Goldblatt, 2004:3).

It is common knowledge that South Africa is a water scarce

region, and many of the country’s largest urban centres are

located on watershed divides. Agriculture is one of the

largest users of water in the country. It is estimated that

63% of water removal in South Africa is done so for irrigation

purposes. This exemplifies the dependence of the agricultural

sector on water (Goldblatt, 2004:1) and clearly illustrates

that current practices has to change especially when

considering population increases.

35

The number of commercial farms (excluding subsistence farming)

has decreased over several years. Those that have remained

have become more profit orientated and output intensive, and

have thus increased their irrigation, fuel, fertilizer,

mechanisation and genetically modified seed inputs. These

farms thus have had a dramatic and incredible impact on the

environment (Goldblatt, 2004:5).

The

table

shows

the

historical as well as current output shares within the

different agricultural sectors. Animal production currently

constitutes the largest share (42.68%), with field crops being

second (30.39%) and horticulture last (26.93%).

36

This Graph (above) illustrates the different areas used by the

various field crops, while the graph (below) illustrates that

of the area used by livestock production.

The graphs and table which were inserted above was done so

just to give a brief synopsis on the agricultural sector in

South Africa. It is useful to see what the key users of land

are and how large each of the sectors is. Livestock farming,

which is the largest sector within South African agriculture

37

is especially important, due it’s know detrimental effects on

the environment. Deforestation, overgrazing and the sheer size

of land which is needed to for grazing and not to mention

crops that act as livestock feed which has to be planted.

B) South African agriculture policy objectives and strategiesThis section will reflect on previous as well as current South

African policies and White Papers. This is observed in order

to determine South Africa’s political objectives with regards

to agriculture and how it aims to achieve the objectives of

food production, local economic development and employment

creation through the use of agriculture. This will enable us

to gain a better understanding of current agricultural trend

and those of the near future.

Vink (2008:2) identifies a list of specific agricultural

policy goals which the 1995 White Paper on Agriculture aimed to

obtain. They are as following:

1. Develop new economically viable, market-directed commercial

farmers, with the basis of this economic activity being the

family farm.

2. Using land reform to broaden access to agriculture, with

enhancement of quality policy instruments, and supported by

the provision of appropriate services.

3. Accommodate the provision of financial systems which focus

on beginner farmers and the resource poor to enable them to

purchase agricultural inputs as well as land.

38

4. Support trade and marketing of agricultural products which

reflect market tendencies.

5. Agricultural production should be undertaken via the

sustainable use of natural agricultural as well as water

resources.

6. Improving the development the important role agriculture

plays in regional development within South Africa as well as

abroad.

In South Africa’s Agricultural Policy the three major policy reform

goals are highlighted within this particular document:

1. An efficient and internationally competitive agriculture

sector should be built.

2. The emergence of more diverse production structures

together with an increase in the number of successful

smallholder farming enterprises should be supported.

3. Natural agricultural resources should be conserved and

policies and institutions which promote sustainable resource

use should be implemented (Vink, 2008: 2).

In South Africa’s Strategic Plan for Agriculture which main vision for

South African agriculture was that it should become a united

as well as a prosperous sector. The plan’s strategic objective

was to generate equitable access and participation in a

globally competitive, profitable and sustainable agricultural

sector which contributes to a better life for all. With aim of

achieving this vision and strategic objective three core

strategies were put in place.

39

1. Equitable access and participation within the agricultural

sector should be enhanced.

2. Global profitability and competitiveness should be improved

3. Sustainable resource management should be ensured (Vink,

2008:3).

It is clearly evident from a brief examination of the 1995 White

Paper on Agriculture, the South African Agricultural policy and the Strategic

Plan for Agriculture, what the current state of agriculture in the

country is, what the aims are and which direction the sector

is moving towards. Deep ecologists will definitely object to

many of the core principles, strategies and objectives within

these policy documents.

It is clear that the sector aims towards increased global

competitiveness and improved profitability. Land should be

used to increase profitability and human well-being, while

rejecting the inherent values of the land. The key aim is to

improve wealth, via exports and market competiveness.

Sustainability is seen as a by product and is only briefly

mentioned in each of the policy documents. True sustainability

and the improvement of human lives are definitely not the main

objectives and this is truly problematic. One must come to the

conclusion that South African agriculture is currently

continuing with ecological modernistic methods of agriculture

and will continue doing so in the near future. It has been

ecological modernistic methods such as those proposed by the

40

“green revolution” that has caused such widespread ecological

damage (Fitzgerald-Moore and Parai, 1996).

Sustainability such as which deep ecology proposes will not be

reached as long as increased profitability is the key

objective of agriculture. By trying to improve profits every

last cent will try and be reaped from the land and this means

taking shortcuts and using unethical processes such as

drowning the soils with pesticides and herbicides so that crop

yields can improve. Farmers will try and cut costs and improve

yields no matter what. Deep ecology considers this to be in

direct opposition to its core principles. Such behaviour does

not recognise the inherent values of the natural world and

seeks only to improve personal well being at the cost of the

environment and in many cases other people.

C) Detrimental environmental impactsAgriculture has been known for being the sole cause in many

adverse primary and secondary ecological impacts. Impacts have

varied from land use change and biodiversity loss; the

leaching of nutrients and eutrophication of waters; has

impeded water availability; soil degradation and pollution;

greenhouse gas house emissions etc; overgrazing and

deforestation and not mentioning the many health problems for

humans (Walls, 2006).

41

5. Food Securityouth Africa had an estimated population of about 49

million in 2009, while this number is expected to

increase drastically in the near future. South Africa’s

population grows an estimated 2% every year. This tells us

that food production or imports must almost double in the

coming years in order to accommodate the rising food demand,

while using the same or less natural resources. This will be a

daunting task considering that so much of the country’s

surface is not suitable for agricultural practices and also

because water is scarce in the country (Goldblatt, 2004:1).

Climate change is also expected to amplify and exacerbate

these current challenges.

S

There are four important dimensions to the food security

problem: increasing demand for a wider range of products,

increasing food prices, increased prevalence of malnutrition

in developing regions and soil & eco-systems degradation

(Swilling and Annecke, 2012: 42). This quantifies the food

insecurity problem and is in many cases related to those

issues such as eco-systems degradation and inequality. Many

people are without food and are malnourished, while others

have an overabundance. Climate change, oil prices and eco-

systems degradation will definitely exacerbate these problems.

And is one of the key issues in South Africa.

Although South Africa is considered to be a food secure

nation, producing enough staple foods and having the capacity

42

to import foods an estimated 20% of households have inadequate

access to foods, especially in rural areas. It is considered

that an estimated 14 million people (35% of the population)

are considered vulnerable to food insecurity (Du Toit, 2011:4-

8).

6. RecommendationsIt is clear that current agricultural trends cannot be

continued for the sake of sustainability and justice it has to

change. In the sections below brief recommendations will be

given that fit in closely with deep ecological principles, and

if achieved might lead to a sustainable future and where the

crises in justice and nature is overcome.

A) Sustainable agricultureIt is important for South Africa to move towards more

sustainable agricultural practices. Inherent values of the

land should be taken into account and people’s needs to be

fulfilled and not their wants. Sustainable agricultural

practices aim to: change the way in which land and water

resources are managed; to contribute towards the social as

well economic well being of all; ensure the safe and high

quality provision of agricultural products; protect the well-

being and livelihoods of farmers, their workers as well as

their farmers; maintain healthy, functioning agricultural

ecosystems rich in biodiversity; adapt and mitigate to climate

change. The benefits of suitable farming and agriculture

should be as follows and will aim to achieve the following:

Reduced input costs; stabilised yields; reduced environmental

43

impacts and degradation; improved water use efficiency;

increased soil fertility; reduction in soil erosion; the

mitigation of climate change; enhanced, robust natural systems

protecting biodiversity as well as eco-system services

Goldblatt, 2004:6).

B) Improve management practicesPoor agricultural management practices can have a devastating

effect on the environment. It has the propensity to reduce

species diversity and the functioning of eco-systems. This is

worsened by the use of fertilizers. It is estimated that less

than 0.1% of pesticides which are sprayed reaches the intended

pest. The majority of these pesticides end up in the

environment where the bio-accumulate in plants and animals,

and persist for generations (Pimental and Levitan, 1986).

Knowledge for commercial as well as subsistence farmers has to

be improved in order to gain a better understanding on the

possible detrimental effects they might have on the

environment, and to ultimately reduce these impacts.

C) Policy and institutional reformIt is clear from the above section that South Africa’s

agricultural policies are centered on wealth creation, profit

and exports. Policies and institutions need to be reformed. So

that deep ecological principles can be accommodated and

adhered to. Agriculture should not be focused solely around

the creation of profit but rather in trying to provide food

for the people. Exports should be reduced especially due the

fact that food security is such a massive problem within South

Africa. Agriculture should shift away from its resource

44

intensive ways and move towards a more sustainable way of food

production, where land and the people working on the land is

respected.

D) Food systemsFood systems together with slow food movements do agree with

deep ecological principles to a certain extent. It promotes

local development and is not carbon intensive (Bratec, n.d:

1). It is definitely less damaging towards the environment as

well as people’s health. Land is used to provide people with

good quality food and not seen as an asset which can improve

profit. Finally food systems enforce a sense of community and

connect us to the natural world by building relationships

between the producers and consumers of our food. Furthermore,

it improves our knowledge on how our food is produced

Food systems pose an important opportunity for community

economic development and can vastly improve social well being

of a community. Food systems in general improve wealth,

connections, capacity etc. This is because the food system

brings the producers and consumers so close to each aspect of

the production and consumption cycle. Food systems are

socially embedded, economically invested, and integrated. Food

systems are also directly connected to social viability,

environmental stewardship and the viability of small and

medium scale farms, farmland protection, the health of

individuals, and overall food security (Bendfeldt, et al.

2011:15). Food systems in general clearly help with local

socio-economic advancement and build a sense of community. It

increases awareness of the environment and agricultural

45

processes, which ultimately builds awareness of the

surrounding social and natural environment.

Local food systems in generally comprise the following:

farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA’s),

roadside stands and “you pick” operations, food cooperatives

and chef collaborative, community gardens, farm to institution

programs, food and meat processors, produce and livestock

auctions, food banks and community food pantries, community

kitchens, producer cooperatives, and finally grocery stores,

restaurants and food services operations (Bendfeldt, et al.

201:16).

F) Community supported agricultureCommunity supported agriculture (CSA) consists out of a number

of individuals, usually within a community, who pledge support

to a farm operation. The farmland then becomes the community’s

farm either legally or vicariously. Consumers buy a “share”

for which they in turn receive a bag full of produce each week

of the season. The growers and consumers thus partner

together whereby the risks as well as the benefits of the

planting season and food production is shared (Ernst and

Woods, 2009:14).

CSA’s hold many advantages for local communities. It promotes

small farmers and community farming, which can be key to

alleviating certain socio-economic problems and can be a

valuable source of employment generation. Furthermore, CSA’s

are most often organic and in some cases can be biodynamic.

Ecologically sound agricultural practices are often used and

46

CSA’s are not solely focussed on profit margins, but rather in

providing the community with good, healthy food. CSA’s

strengthen community ties and improves the consumer’s

knowledge on food production and agricultural practices.

G) Organic & biodynamic farming agriculture Biodynamic and organic agriculture can be seen as good

agricultural and food provision alternatives than that of

commercial agriculture. It fits more or less within the deep

ecology framework and truly respects the inherent values of

the living and non-living entities. Both are absolutely

sustainable farming practices.

Central to biodynamics is the notion of seeing the farm as an

organism. Farms are seen as a self contained entity. Emphasis

is generally placed on the integration of crops and livestock,

nutrient recycling, soil maintenance, and the health &

wellbeing of crops and animals. Biodynamics can be seen as

more advanced than organic agriculture (Phillips, 2006:2).

Organic agriculture can be thought of as an ecological

production system that enhances and promotes biodiversity,

soil quality and biological cycles. Key to organic farming is

the reduction in inputs such as herbicides and pesticides.

Organic agriculture’s primary goal is to optimize the

productivity and health of soil, plants, animals and people

(Delate, 2000).

47

7. Conclusionn conclusion then, it is evident that current mass

scale agricultural practices cannot continue. South

African policy also is not necessarily a catalyst

towards sustainability. Policy and institutional reform needs

to occur where a move is made away from large scale profit

intensive agriculture and exports. Rural and small farmers

should play a larger role in food production and their

knowledge should be improved on sustainable agricultural

practices.

I

Current ecological modernistic agricultural practices such as

those proposed by the “green revolution” has been the main

cause in such widespread environmental degradation and has to

be averted. Deep ecological principles should be adhered to in

all forms of agriculture. By using farming options such as

organic and biodynamic and by respecting the land as well as

the people who work on it we can move towards a more

egalitarian society which is sustainable.

There is room for improvement here in South Africa and changes

should be made quickly before irreversible damage is done. It

is however possible to move towards a future where the crises

of justice and that of the environment is averted and a thing

of the past.

48

8. References Bartelmus, P. (1994). Environment, Growth and Development: The

Concepts and Strategies of sustainability. London: Routledge. Chapter 1.

Bendfeldt, E. et al. (2011). A Community-Based Food System:

Building Health, Wealth, Connection, and Capacity as the Foundation of Our

Economic Future. Virginia Tech, USA.

Blewitt, J. (2008). Understanding Sustainable Development. London:

Earthscan. Chapter 2.

Bratec, M. (n.d). Sustaining through Gastronomy: The Case of Slow

Food Movement in Slovenia, its Impacts on Socio-Cultural Environments and Tourism

Development. BEST EN Think Tank VIII, Sustaining Quality of

Life through Tourism.

Delate, K. (2000). Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture. Iowa

State University.

Du Toit, D. C. (2011). Food Security. Directorate Economic

Services, Production Economics Unit.

Ernst, M. and Woods, T. (2009). Community Supported

Agriculture. Department of Agricultural Economics, University

of Kentucky.

Fitzgerald-Moore, P and Parai, B.J. (1996). The Green

Revolution.

Goldblatt, A. (2004). Agriculture: Facts and trends South Africa.

World Wildlife Federation, South Africa.

49

Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and Sustainable

development: Historical and Conceptual Review. International Institute

for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University.

Phillips, J. (2006). Beyond Organic: An Overview of Biodynamic

Agriculture with Case Examples. California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona.

Pimental, D. and Levitan, L. (1986). Pesticides: Amounts Applied

and Amounts Reaching Pests. BioScience 36(2).

Swilling, M. and Annecke, E. (2012). Just Transitions:

Explorations of sustainability in an unfair world. United Nations University

Press. Chapter 2 & 10.

Vink, N. (2008). Presidency Fifteen Year Review Project: Review

of Agricultural Policies and Support Instruments 1994-2007. Department of

Agricultural Economics, University of Stellenbosch.

Walls, M. (2006). Agriculture and the Environment. MTT

Agrifood Research, Finland.

50