There is no such thing as sustainability. The only time a system is stable is when it has ceased to exist.
Agriculture is inherently a destructive endeavour. You are breaking down an established complex system to rebuild it into a system that you feel accomplishes some set goal.
We should not think of agriculture as sustainable at all. We should rather consider better agricultural practices as a way to slow down the damage we cause to a level, that we can all agree, as acceptable. Even if it isn't ideal.
The truth is, agriculture is an enterprise of production that introduces foreign fauna and flora and which also removes vast amounts of matter/energy from a system in the form of harvests.This means that a farming system can never even come close to sustainable, because you will always deal with an energy deficit in your system. No matter what you do to try and change this.
Measuring sustainability
In business, measuring sustainability means that we measure economic, social and ecological sustainability. The so-called triple bottom line that is all the rage in boardrooms.
Of the three, the only one that has defined guidelines for measurement is economic sustainability.
The problem with managing the other two bottom lines is that they function in an open system, which can differ widely between two farming systems. In practical terms this makes it almost impossible to measure accurately when compared to economic sustainability.
This is why, although in theory, each bottom line is considered equal and necessary to achieve sustainability. In practice, ecological and social sustainability gets heavily neglected and sometimes even actively undermined.
This has the effect of overemphasising economic sustainability leading to the so-called Micky Mouse model.
It's easy to measure economic sustainability in a business. At the end of the year, when doing your balance sheet, if you end in the black there is a good chance you are sustainable. If you see a company that is 20 years old, many would consider it as an economically sustainable business.
How do we define ecological sustainability? What is to be sustained and to what scale and in what form? How long do we see as ecological sustainability? Should you be able to farm a farm for 100 years, a 1000 before its resources are depleted? What social tradeoffs are we prepared to make? If not using a natural resource keeps 100 people from being lifted out of poverty, is it worth it? Or is it worth destroying an ecological system for a 1000 people?
At different hierarchies of society, the answer to these questions are different and even at odds with each other. What might be devastating to a single farm business might enhance the sustainability of a whole industry, or the destruction of an entire industry could lead to a more sustainable industry avenue being followed, leading to long-term sustainability for an entire country.
Greenwashing - a big issue in "sustainable" agriculture
There are over 400 “sustainability” certifications, depending on your product. Depending on where your shortfalls are in attaining environmental or social sustainability, there's almost certainly a certification for which you can qualify. This is widely known as “greenwashing”, and it's currently one of the big issues the agricultural sector is struggling with when trying to promote “greener production methods”.
It's been shown that there is a very large degree of confusion about how consumers understand different certifications and terms. If one wants to be cynical you might ask if that's not the idea. Many of these certifications are so diluted and nonsensical that they almost completely miss their own original lofty goals. Because of the intricacies of how we interact with the environment and how wildly it differs between farming systems, standardised certifications are basically useless.
As consumers, we feel better about our impact because “at least we are trying” when we buy these so-called sustainable products. This type of moral self-licensing helps us feel better about the other unsustainable choices we make. “A little good is good enough”.
Unfortunately, this mindset is keeping us addressing the bigger, more complicated issues. Our actions have both positive and negative consequences and have a much more nuanced impact than we are comfortable thinking about. We humans are not good at multitasking and long-term planning. It is therefore easier for us to get the quick satisfaction of buying the certified food. Instead of thinking of the broader impact of that product's lifecycle...
The food transport dilemma in South Africa
A great example of the impact food products have via their lifecycle is food transport.
In America the average food product travel distance from raw to consumer is 2 400 km. Given South Africa’s geographic location and increased demand for food imports, that distance would be even longer. This issue will become larger for South Africa from an export perspective, as we as society focus more on our carbon footprint and environmental impact, with potential export clients looking for alternatives closer to their consumer base. Therefore, it is not only important from an ecological standpoint, but also from an economic one to have a strong local consumer base for locally produced products.
South Africa is already quite good at not wasting food, with Sub-Sarah Africa having some of the lowest food wastage by consumers in the world. The reasons for this, unfortunately, are not as favourable as the positive outcome of the lessened food wastage.
Our less-advanced transport infrastructure and cold chain means we have most (97%) of our food wasted before it even reaches the customer. 45% of this is from the packaging and distribution stages. This is mostly the case for fast perishables such as vegetables, fruit, and meats.
As such, buying local and seasonal would have a far larger impact on the environment than any green certification.
Real change only comes when we're prepared to pay the premium, financial and non-financial, to lessen our footprint on the environment. We can't rely on the farmers' own willingness and will power to accomplish this. They simply don't have the resources. It is time we face the true impact we have on the world. We have to think of realistic ways we can minimise it.
So, buy that cabbage from the local market even if it is slightly wilted and a bit sandy. You will be doing a lot less damage than the organically grown, imported, freeze-dried veggies, even though it might not give you that instant warm and fuzzy feeling.