|
作者 Donella H. Meadows 06.07.99
前陣子，二位可持續研究院的研究員Beth. Sawin和Phil. Rice，整合了一張至今仍在我腦海中揮之不去的圖表。那張圖表顯示，從1950年起，中西部玉米的每日平均產量，從每英畝的60 莆式耳（約36公升），變成現在的120莆式耳，增加了2倍。雖然有雙倍的產量，但每英畝的整體收入基本上卻沒有增加。玉米成本上漲後，農民淨賺的所得回報也幾乎是維持一個常數。要不是政府支付農地補貼，一般的玉米農可能已是無酬工作幾十年了。
 看到那張圖表，我第一個想到的問題是：怎麼會有這種制度存在呢？是什麼使農民根本無法賺錢呢？接下來我想到，為何農民可以忍受？
後來，Beth.和Phil.又拿些圖給我看，解釋農民為何忍受。二個明尼蘇達州鄉鎮的農家，可賺到比種植多出一半以上的收入。近幾年來，他們的收入有85%都是來自於農耕以外的收入。這些農民的生活，主要是依賴補助金及出外工作。到了晚上才利用牽引機上的燈光一一耕田。
為什麼？兩個為什麼。為什麼我們付餵養我們的人這麼少？為何他們還要持續餵養我們？
比較符合第一個問題的答案是：農民太多了。產量升高，農民種植的植物供過於求，價格偏低，甚至使得有些人不得不退出經營。所以產量愈增加，價格也就降得愈低，也使農民地位變得更低。我的經濟學教授教過我，這種過程合理且令人讚賞。這是市場淘汰無效率者的結果，他讓我們當中極少百分比的人餵養其他人，為大家降低食物成本。
現在我提出我自己的想法，我不認為這是合理的，我也不欣賞這種過程。當市場並不需要更多的食物時，為何產量要持續地增加?土壤侵蝕、水污染、被毒害的生態系、化石燃料使用、破碎的社區、破碎的生命及令人質疑的食物品質，又該怎麼說呢？市場以不把所有成本併入計算過程的方式，使食物價格看起來低廉許多。
第二個問題 - 為何農民仍要繼續耕種呢？答案是，他們必須要做，實際上，他們熱愛耕種。Angelic Organics in Caledonia III的約翰彼得森說明為何他要農耕：土地能讓人感到腳底就要融入大地之中。那是種韻律 - 穀倉門開了又關，雁子去而復返，而鳳梨草颼然輝打…我不待在農場，就是因為鳳梨草颼颼沙沙的聲音。那是邊緣利益。我所最能貼切地描述為何我離不開土地的，是一種戰慄發抖的感覺…當該是在農田裡工作的時候…我的腳驅使我工作，把我放在牽引機上，我完全地投降。而且，把土壤推往周圍的喜悅，將小綠秧苗在光禿的土地上插成直線排列的悸動----這些都讓我不可思議的精神錯亂。
「一排排的胡蘿蔔伸向西邊，隨著眼界放遠而變得模糊，側面削向一束束扇形的紅、綠萵苣。棕櫚樹狀的布魯塞爾芽甘藍，形成蔭林大道。大型包心菜逐漸緊包住自己形成一顆大球。大量的蕃茄則是果肉飽滿地垂吊在格子架的林蔭道上。對這嫩綠色質地、形狀、顏色的凝視，對這些每日變化的關注，是身為一位農民的特權。
彼得森並不是在晚間利用牽引機從垂直到水平種植單一穀物。他為一個「社區支持農業(CSA)」的農場培植有機蔬菜 - 該農場提供作物給鄰近的認購者，這些認購者可以一週採一大束任何成熟的植物。
新鮮的食物，從農田直接進到廚房。沒有化學藥劑，沒有補助金。報酬直接從消費者送給農民，沒有中間商，對農民來說這是高尚的生活方式。那是一個有效的食品系統，雖然當中的許多利益不能以金錢來計算。Pat. Mannix，一位紐約州Genesee Valley Organic CSA 的認購者，花了4小時幫助「她自己」的農場克服困難，並發現了新視野。「我發現自己正以愛、尊敬的方式來準備這些蔬菜。 我充滿熱情地規劃，所以一點一滴都不會浪費掉。當我品味著我所收成的食物時，我清楚地了解到…地球是活生生的，並且，它也給予並支持其他生命…食物對我而言再也不一樣了。
Wendell Benny曾在一次訪問中提到：「農耕是一種困苦的生活。因為它困苦，所以沒有人應該靠此維生。多麼令人震撼的結論啊！中間有些步驟被省略掉了。是什麼原因導致如此困境呢？過程中會產生自由嗎？家族的驕傲、團結凝聚也隨之而來了嗎？社區的一些理念伴隨出現了嗎？有管理的想法了嗎？情感、愛、忠誠、忠實的理想隨之而來了嗎？」
自由、管理、忠誠、家庭、社區等，都是選擇低廉、窄化的測量效率的機制的因果關係。這種選擇使具活力的農田成為機械化、被化學藥劑化的單產物工廠。
這裡有個好消息。新的一套食品系統正快速成長而無以追蹤，這項系統利用金錢而非受制於金錢。至少有600個CSA農田橫跨整個美國。且有機產物的業務每年以20%增加。農夫市場、消費合作社和CSA農田正操作一種新的經濟，就像E.F Schumacher曾說：人類是關鍵，就如同土地般。也如我們尊重那些以愛和美麗來工作，而為我們全體帶來地球健康的農民一般。
原文與圖片詳見： http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/
citizen/citizen060799.stm
版權歸屬 Earth Day Network，環境信託基金會 (曾秋莉 譯，梁明煌審校)
中英對照全文詳見：http:/news.ngo.org.tw/reviewer/
donella/re-donella19990607.htm |
|
by Donella H. Meadows 06.07.99
A while ago, Beth Sawin and Phil Rice, researchers at the Sustainability Institute, put together a graph that I can't get out of my mind. It shows Midwest corn yields doubling from about 60 bushels per acre in 1950 to 120 bushels on average today. Despite the doubled yield, gross earnings per acre have stayed essentially constant. The net return to the farmer, after the costs of growing the corn, has also stayed constant, right around zero. If it weren't for government farm payments, the average corn farmer would have been working for decades for free.
My first question on seeing that was: How does the system do that? How does it so infallibly keep farmers from making money? My next question was, why do farmers put up with it?
Later, Beth and Phil showed me some figures that explain how they put up with it. Farm families in two Minnesota counties consistently get more than half their income from off the farm. In recent years, 85 percent of their income has been off-farm. The farmers are living mainly on subsidies and outside jobs. They are literally farming at night by tractor light.
Why? Two whys. Why do we pay so little to the people who feed us? Why do they keep feeding us?
The proper economic answer to the first question is: There are too many farmers. With those higher yields they raise more food than the market wants, so price goes down and forces some of them out of business. Then yields go up more, price goes down further, more farmers go under. My economics professor taught me that this process is rational and admirable. It's the market weeding out inefficiency. It enables a tiny percentage of us to feed everybody else, reducing food costs for all.
Now that I think for myself, I don't see the rationality, and I don't admire the process. Why should yields keep going up, when the market is not calling for more food? And what about soil erosion, water pollution, poisoned ecosystems, fossil fuel use, broken communities, shattered lives, dubious food quality? The market makes food look cheap only by not counting all the costs.
The answer to the second question -- why farmers keep at it -- has got to be, at bottom, because they love it. John Peterson of AngelicOrganics in Caledonia, Ill., explains why he farms: "The land has a feel underfoot that can melt a person to it. There's the rhythm --the barn door opens and closes; the swallows return; the brome grass swishes. ... I don't stay on this farm because brome grass swishes. That's a fringe benefit. The closest I can describe my bond to it is a shudder I get ... when it's time to work in the fields. ... My legs take me to the work, put me on the tractor; I am all surrender. And the joy of pushing dirt around, the thrill of organizing little dots of green into straight lines on bare soil -- these invoke in me a subtle delirium.
"Fuzzy rows of carrots streak to the west, flanking scalloped tufts of green and red lettuces. Palm-tree-shaped Brussels sprouts transform a service drive into The Grand Boulevard. Massive cabbage leaves gradually hug themselves into a big ball. Enormous heirloom tomatoes hang voluptuously on avenues of trellising. To gaze at the lush display of textures, forms, colors, to notice the daily changes, is a privilege of being a farmer."
Peterson is not farming a monocrop straight to the horizon by tractor at night. He grows organic vegetables for a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm -- a farm that serves nearby subscribers, who pick up once a week a bundle of whatever is ripe.
Fresh food, straight from farm to kitchen. No chemicals. No subsidies. Payment direct from consumer to farmer, no middlemen, a decent living for the farmer. That is a food system that works, though many of its benefits are not measured in dollars. Pat Mannix, a subscriber to the Genesee Valley Organic CSA in New York State, spent four hours helping out on "her" farm and found a new way of seeing: "I found myself preparing the vegetables in a loving, respectful manner. I planned with a passion so nothing would go to waste. When I ate what I had harvested, I clearly understood ... that the Earth was alive and that it gave and sustained other life. ... Food would never be the same for me again."
Wendell Berry said once in an interview: "Farming is a hard life. It's a hard life; therefore nobody ought to live it. What a remarkable conclusion! There are several steps that are left out. What causes the difficulty? Does
come out of it? Does family pride come with it, family coherence? Does some kind of idea of community come with it? Some kind of idea of stewardship, does that come with it? Do ideas of affection or love or loyalty or fidelity come with it?"
theFreedom, stewardship, fidelity, family, community, all are casualties of a mechanism that selects only for cheapness and a narrowly measured efficiency that turns a living farm into a mechanized, chemicalized, one-product factory.
Here's the good news. A new food system, one that uses dollars but is not ruled by them, is growing so fast that no one can keep track of it. There are at least 600 USA farms across America, some count as many as a thousand. Sales of organic produce have been growing by 20 percent per year. Farmers markets, consumer co-ops, and CSA farms practice a new economics, economics as if, as E.F. Schumacher once said, people mattered. As if the land mattered. As if we valued farmers who work with love and beauty to bring forth from the earth health for us all.
|
