Organic agriculture to reduce climate crisis

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Annual Climate Report 2023, the combined temperature of land and sea has increased at an average rate of 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1850. Greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase global temperatures by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. Because of this, 150 kinds of species are disappearing every day, including increase in temperature, change in rainfall patterns, increase in natural disasters, adverse effects on human health. These species are essential for the ecological balance.

Young people in developed countries including European countries have changed their lifestyle. For example: eating only two snacks a day, prioritizing the use of electric vehicles, reducing the use of heating systems at home, etc. But in some developing countries, the issue of climate change has not been prioritized. In some countries, reforming or changing agriculture is one of the efforts made by the government to reduce climate change.

Globally, the agri-food system emits one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions. As the population is estimated to reach 9.7 billion by the year 2050, the global demand for food to feed this population is certain to increase accordingly. Adoption of organic/ecological agriculture has started in some countries of the world. Various researches have proved that the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture not only emit greenhouse gases but also adversely affect the health of the soil and the food produced in the said soil also adversely affects human health.

In other developed countries, along with the green revolution in the 70s, the chemical fertilizers and pesticides that have been widely used to increase agricultural production have not yet touched some of the Himalayan and mountainous parts of Nepal. Although the reason is geographical location, inconvenience of transportation, the results of these inconveniences are starting to look positive. Therefore, compared to countries with widely modernized agricultural systems, Nepal seems to have less of a struggle to return to organic agriculture than other countries. However, government policies and practices appear to be controversial. Nepal has already declared an entire province as an organic province, which is commendable.

However, duplicity is being practiced in the same place. Even now, there are many government and non-government organizations that provide subsidies and work in agriculture. These organizations are promoting and supporting both agricultural practices. Ironically, even after declaring Karnali province as an organic province, well-known non-governmental organizations are getting project approval from the government to distribute chemical fertilizers, pesticides and advanced varieties of seeds. On the other hand, some NGOs are promoting purely ecological farming practices. However, where there are such practices, there are also organizations that encourage modern agricultural practices.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the government's policy and its implementation are lax in such a situation. Otherwise, why is an organization that promotes modern agricultural systems at least in the organic province approved? Why are modern agricultural tools, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and seeds of advanced varieties being distributed even from the local government? It seems that even the farmers are confused. They are always in a dilemma as to which system to adopt.

In Nepal, not only food security but also food sovereignty has been enacted. While the regulations for the implementation of the Act have been made, the practice of promoting single crops, promotion of modern agriculture, etc. has raised a question mark on the said Act and the assurance of food sovereignty. Not only that, what kind of support or impact will such a dual policy have on the government's commitment to carbon zero-net by 2045? If you don't think about it in time, it seems that anything can happen.

Even though modern agricultural systems are accepted, promoted and encouraged to ensure food security, there is a need for clarity in the policy. Such as: Determining areas for modern and ecological agriculture, banning the distribution of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in provinces declared organic, not allowing non-governmental organizations promoting modern agriculture to work in that area, etc. The future concept of sustainable development is to create and implement policies such as protecting and promoting wild food, making changes in eating habits, and making programs related to the production of ecological agricultural tools according to geographical location.

If such policies are not clear, organizations and individuals working to reduce the impact of climate change and ensure food security and sovereignty are sure to be discouraged. Therefore, encouraging individuals and organizations to work on environmental agriculture and climate change in view of the emergency that may occur in the near future can be an exemplary option.