Regenerative Agriculture as Climate Change Solution

"If we made proper use of plants and water,
we could solve the problem of current climate extremes in one year." 

~Peter Andrews OAM, Australia

To be regenerative in farming, it is crucial to re-instate the water cycle with nature based solutions. Vegetation and water are the key to rapid climate recovery.

In Australia alone, over the last 200 years, a staggering 95% of all old growth forests have been burnt and logged and 95% of wetlands drained. The result: An disrupted short water cycle and long water cycle ('Biotic Pump' - the former 'Tanami Wind' in Austraila), with ever-increasing extreme climate events.

Find out more about importance of a functioning water cycle at "Rivers in the Sky - How Deforestation is Affecting Global Water Cycles" by Fred Pearce, 24 July 2018, and the scientific papers listed on the Science web page of The Australian Landscape Science Institute (TALS Institute). 

For the importance of rapid growing first succession plants, read the book "Weeds - Guardians of the Soil".

We can recover our climate. Projects are planned as part of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration that started on 1 January 2021. See for example 'Restoring the Central West', a project by TALS Institute.

Pesticides: Bad Health and ​Ecocide

Australian agriculture still uses many highly toxic chemicals. Approximately 30 of our commonly sprayed chemicals are no longer permitted in most other countries due to their high toxicity. 

Atrazine for example is one of the most widely used pesticides in Australian agriculture. It ends up in drinking water. Its primary manufacturer is the Swiss chemical company Syngenta. Ironically, Atrazine is not permitted to be used in Switzerland due to its high toxicity. 

Spraydrift and overspray have become a real problem. In the Central West NSW, it is killing trees and affects people's health, See Stop Poison Planes. 

Not even National Parks are safe from dangerous toxins. Watch the touching short film “Save the Locust” by farmer Eris O'Brien. It shows how the spraying of dangerous pesticides in National Parks affects our wildlife, people and water collected on roofs and running into rain water tanks.

More and more farmers have stopped purchasing expensive chemicals that do not yield the promised results. In his book 'The Call of the Reed Warbler', Charles Massy tells the stories of farmers, including himself, who have chosen to leave chemical agriculture behind and embrace regenerative farming.

Unfortunately, many well-meaning so-called "environmental" or "conservation" groups still use poisons in the impossible and destructive task of seeking to "eradicate" so-called "weeds".

A fundamental change in Government policies is required if we want to avert the collapse of our civilisations due to expanding deserts. The continuing "war on [so-called] weeds" poisons soil live, birds and frogs, and even us. See Johnson v Monsanto, Superior Court of California, and Organic Consumers Association: "Monsanto to Pay $289.2M in Landmark Roundup Lawsuit Verdict", 10 August 2018.

The nativism argument needs to urgently be re-examined. It is not based on the latest science but an outdated paradigm that has only existed since the end of the second World War. That's when pesticide companies created a new business model - Industrial Agriculture - to push their toxic products onto the world. "Invasion Biology" was invented. Before, no ecologist would have ever dreamt of supporting the large-scale poisoning of plants.

Let's stop poisoning all plants. Otherwise, Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" awaits.

Food Security with Agroecology Versus the 'GMOs Save the World' Myth

Food Security has been recognised as an essential task for our governments. 

Australia’s Food Security and farmers are under threat from many sources. Granting Coal Seam Gas (CSG) licences on prime agricultural land is only one example, planting of Genetically Modified Organisms ('GMOs') combined with heavy pesticide use is another.

The large seed and pesticide multinational corporations (Big Ag) insist on perpetuating the myth that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are the solution to world hunger.

This is simply not the case. Agroecological systems have been shown to be vastly superior in productivity - in addition to ecosystem services - to industrial agriculture systems. See the books 'Wealth Per Acre' and 'Health Per Acre' by Navdanya. 

The use of genetically engineered crops in combination with toxic pesticides depletes Australia's soils, resulting in desertification and ever more extreme climate events. In addition, Big Ag have abused the term 'sustainable'  to green-wash their unsustainable business practices and sell their highly toxic products.

This is nothing new of course. Misleading terminology has been used by Big Ag for decades. Some decades ago, the term 'Green Revolution' was coined - for a highly toxic industrial agriculture system. The 'Green Revolution' almost destroyed India. Yet, it is now being pushed into Africa.

What is now called 'Regenerative Agriculture' was not so long ago referred to as 'Sustainable Agriculture', a type of agriculture that provides long term stewardship for the land, a type of agriculture that does not deplete the precious topsoils but regenerates them. Examples of “Sustainable Agriculture” are Permaculture, Agroecology and Biodynamic Agriculture. When will the term 'Regenerative Agriculture' be hijacked by the chemical industry? It seems only a matter of time.

Patenting of Life & Plant Breeders Rights - Biopiracy?

For thousands of years, farmers have selected and saved their best seeds and animals to produce new varieties and breeds with improved qualities and yields. The Permaculture movement, started by Bill Mollison in the 1970s, has adopted this practice for organic agriculture and gardening, with a focus on high quality heirloom seeds, and by promoting its three Permaculture Ethics “Care of the Earth”, “Care of People” and “Fair Share”.

“Fair Share” is extremely important in an environment where we are faced with expanding deserts and mass extinction of species. To counter this, it would appear beneficial to share as freely as possible, both, inventions and discoveries, to enable us to come up with viable solutions fast. Stringent intellectual property rights on seeds, seed material and ultimately plants hinder fast research and development (R & D).

Over the years, it has become ever easier to obtain a patent, both in Australia and overseas. For example, the patenting of genes and biological materials, that is, the extension from patents on inventions to patents on discoveries, has led to some very unfair outcomes for farmers - as explained in the classic 1997 documentary on GM crops “The Future of Food” by Deborah Garcia. The film tells the story of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser who was infamously sued by Monsanto for breach of patent when his canola crop was contaminated with GM seed from Monsanto.

In 2012, an attempt was made to recalibrate the patent system, with the enactment of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) which amended the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). However, numerous shortcomings of the patent system, such as the practice of patenting genes, were not fixed with this Act. Instead the courts were left to deal with this. See Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc [2013] FCA 65, Federal Court of Australia, Nicholas J, 15 February 2013. This was a test case on whether gene patents could be granted in Australia, specifically whether a patent could be granted over the BRCA1 gene. Watch Prof Peter Cashman explain the law and the court case before the hearing and before the judgment was handed down: “Patenting of Genes - Ownership of Crops and Cures by Multinationals”. The applicants lost the case. Nicholas J held that an isolated gene, in contrast to a gene in situ, was patentable. Ms Yvonne D'Arcy, the second applicant, appealed the case. The appeal was heard in August 2013 in the Full Federal Court in Sydney. Sadly, Yvonne D'Arcy lost the appeal: see D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (5 September 2014). The Full Federal Court decision was the opposite of what the highest court of the United States decided on the same issue, namely, that isolated genes cannot be patented in the United States. See the following news articles on that Full Federal Court of Australia judgment: "Australian federal court rules isolated genetic material can be patented - Decision is likened to ‘being allowed to patent oxygen’, as critics warn of serious repercussions for medical research", The Guardian, 5 September 2015, and "Calls for patent law reform after Federal Court judgment", ABC, 5 September 2014. Ms Yvonne D'Arcy was then given leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. On 7 October 2015, Ms D'Arcy finally won. The High Court held that isolated genes cannot be patented in Australia. See D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35. The consequences of this judgment are far-reaching. Thousands of Australians patents appear to be void, confirmed by this test case.

Links

Education - Sustainable Farming Methods Reports that support changes to Australian Government policies on land management and agriculture - economic and environmental considerations Reports on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Pesticides Experts Seed Banks Not for Profits - Regenerative Agriculture, Seed Freedom and Food Security & Anti GMO and Chemicals Books on Land and Water Management Documentaries and Lectures Short Talks

Legal Links

Patents - Australia Patents - United States
  • "Myriad Genetics" case. First instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (held: genes not patentable). Second instance: Myriad Genetics v Association for Molecular Pathology, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (held: isolated DNA can be patented). Third instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Federal Court, second hearing, 16 August 2012 (held: isolated DNA can be patented). On 30 November 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit' ruling. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on 15 April 2013. See the transcript here. Myriad lost in The Supreme Court (the highest court in the United States) which decided on [insert date] that isolated genes cannot be patented: see [insert judgement details]
  • Prometheus case: Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc (Supreme Court of the Unites States, 20 March 2012)
  • “The Future of Food” - classic 1997 documentary on GM crops by Deborah Garcia
Patents - International Patents - Canada  Plant Breeder’s Rights Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”) Labelling Laws Pesticides - Law Suits Pesticides - Government Departments Pesticides. The following pieces of legislation deal with chemicals. Agricultural products include chemicals which destroy or repel pests or plants. Life Stock Farming Life Stock Farming. The following pieces of legislation deal with chemicals. Agricultural products include chemicals which destroy or repel pests or plants. Veterinary products are used to prevent, diagnose or treat diseases of animals. International Environmental Law - Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) and Biodiversity International Trade Law Foreign Investment