Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable

Agriculture
H U G H LEHMAN

Department of Philosophy
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario, Canada

E. ANN CLARK and STEPHAN F. WEISE

Department of Crop Science

University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Abstract A number of distinct definitions of sustainable agriculture

have been proposed. In this paper we criticize two such definitions, pri-
marily for conflating sustainability with other objectives such as eco-
nomic viability and ecological integrity. Finally, we propose and
defend a definition which avoids our objections to the other definitions.

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, economic viability, ecological

integrity.

Introduction

We shall understand agriculture as consisting of activities which foster biologi-

cal processes involving growth and reproduction to provide resources of value.
Typically, the resources provided are plants and animals to be used for food and
fiber, although agricultural products are used for m a n y other purposes also.
In our view, modern societies ought to take steps to ensure the sustainability
of all agriculture which is necessary to satisfy essential nutritional and certain
other requirements of modern h u m a n populations. We shall not argue in sup-
port of the above moral judgment in this paper. Indeed, this is no longer a
highly controversial assumption. Disagreement may arise as to whether it is
morally acceptable to tolerate any non-sustainable agricultural practices. We
suspect that the claim that we should have sustainable agriculture is not under-
stood as implying t h a t we should be able to sustain all modern agricultural
practices or all existing farming units.
Arguments can be offered in support of the above moral judgment which
appeal either to utilitarian or to non-utilitarian moral principles. As indicated

Journal of Agricultural and EnvironmentalEthics, 1993, 6(2), 127-143

128 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

in the d o c u m e n t s of t h e Science Council of C a n a d a , s c i e n t i s t s are concerned

about p r e s e r v i n g h u m a n c a p a c i t y to s u s t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n at suffi-
c i e n t l y h i g h levels (Science Council of C a n a d a , 1991) Reflection on such t h i n g s
as loss of topsoil, d e s e r t i f i c a t i o n in some p a r t s of t h e world, a n d u n d e r m i n i n g of
t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s of a g r i c u l t u r e h a s given rise to such concerns.
The adjectives "conventional" and " a l t e r n a t i v e " are sometimes applied to agri-
cultural practices. H o w e v e r , t h e specific p r a c t i c e s to w h i c h t h e s e t e r m s a r e
a p p l i e d a r e u s u a I l y not s p e l l e d out. Those f a v o r i n g a g r i c u l t u r e w h i c h does not
employ m a n u f a c t u r e d additives, m a y use the t e r m "conventional" agriculture to
refer to practices which do use such additives. Those favoring a g r i c u l t u r e which
involves complex rotations of a n u m b e r of crops, m a y use the t e r m "conventional"
to refer to f a r m i n g practices which do not involve such rotations. In this paper,
we use the t e r m " c o n v e n t i o n a l " to refer to the range of a g r i c u l t u r a l practices
which, at the present time, are employed most widely. We do not want to beg any
controversial questions concerning t h e n a t u r e of s u s t a i n a b l e agriculture.
While some scientists m a y continue to insist t h a t conventional a g r i c u l t u r a l
practices a r e sustainable, we cannot be sure t h a t this is so. If some currentIy
conventional methods of producing essential r e q u i r e m e n t s are not s u s t a i n a b l e
t h e n , given our m o r a l a s s u m p t i o n above, such p r a c t i c e s m u s t be changed.
However, t h e n a t u r e of t h e c h a n g e s t h a t w o u l d be r e q u i r e d , to i n s u r e t h a t agri-
c u l t u r e is s u s t a i n a b l e is a m a t t e r of ongoing i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d controversy. In
t h i s paper, we s h a l l not e n t e r into c o n t r o v e r s i e s such as w h e t h e r to t h e sustain-
able f a r m i n g m u s t be organic, w h e t h e r use of p e s t i c i d e s a n d f e r t i l i z e r d e r i v e d
from oil is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l practices, or w h e t h e r t h e r e
m u s t be w i d e s p r e a d a d o p t i o n of complex crop r o t a t i o n s . W h i l e such issues a r e
i m p o r t a n t , we b e l i e v e t h a t in o r d e r to resolve such c o n t r o v e r s i e s we m u s t also
have a clear view of t h e n a t u r e of s u s t a i n a b l e agriculture. It is our i n t e n t i o n in
this paper to m a k e a contribution to developing such a view. In other words, we
shall try to define t h e t e r m sustainable agriculture. To this end we shall first
review and criticize two d i s t i n c t definitions of sustainable agriculture. On t h e
basis of our criticisms we shall propose a t h i r d definition. We shall not a t t e m p t
to a p p l y our d e f i n i t i o n in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of s u s t a i n -
able practices. T h a t w o u l d be a t a s k of m u c h l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s t h a t can be
e n c o m p a s s e d by t h i s p a p e r . F u r t h e r , it is r e a s o n a b l e to expect t h a t c u r r e n t a n d
f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h will l e a d to m o r e k n o w l e d g e and t h e r e b y to
improved t e c h n o l o g i e s for s u s t a i n a b l e practices.

Part I: Alternative Definitions of Sustainable Agriculture

Science Council of Canada

I n t h i s p a r t of our e s s a y we s t a t e a n d criticize a d e f i n i t i o n of sustainable agri-
culture w h i c h is d e r i v e d from s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s p r e p a r e d by t h e Science
Council of C a n a d a . A c c o r d i n g to one account, sustainable agri-food systems a r e
s y s t e m s " t h a t a r e e c o n o m i c a l l y viable, a n d m e e t society's n e e d for safe a n d
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 129

nutritious food, while conserving or e n h a n c i n g . . . n a t u r a l resources and the

quality of the environment." (Science Council of Canada, 1991). While this is
proposed as a definition of sustainable agri-food systems, it may be t a k e n as a
definition :of sustainable agriculture. Similar definitions are expressed in other
Science Council publications (Science Council of Canada, 1992).
According to this definition, for agriculture to be sustainable it must be eco-
nomically viable, conserve or enhance n a t u r a l resources, meet society's needs
for safe and n u t r i t i o u s food and preserve the q u a l i t y of the environment. This
definition implies t h a t sustainab!e agriculture is a g r i c u l t u r e which achieves a
numer of objectives. Each of these objectives, and the relationship among
them, requires some clarification. We shall discuss each objective briefly.

Economic Viability
According to the science council's definition, for agriculture to be sustainable, it
must be economically viable. But how are we to understand the term economic
viability? This is an obscure t e r m and the definition proposed by the Science
Council wilt provide unsatisfactory as a basis for determining social practices or
policies unless this term is clarified. While it is tempting to dismiss this term as
devoid of objective or factual content, we shall t a k e a more sympathetic
approach and consider a number of possible interpretations.
One significant sense of the t e r m viable is in r e g a r d to living organisms. A
viable organism is one t h a t can live more or less independently within normal
environments. For mammals, this means the a n i m a l can live without being
physically a t t a c h e d to its mother. Clearly, this notion of v i a b i l i t y contains a
number of obscurities also. One might question the implications of the t e r m
independently. Few, if any m a t u r e human beings can survive without some
assistance from other humans. We might speak of degrees of independence.
Taken to the extreme, the concept of independence leads to a notion of complete
self-sufficiency. No individual human or human society is completely self-suffi-
cient. If we are to speak of viable individuals we must make some, possibly arbi,
t r a r y distinction in order to m a r k off those degrees of independence which are
required for viability from additional degrees of independence. Further, one
might wonder what environments are included within the scope of the term nor-
mal.
Assuming t h a t this brief characterization gives us a sense of what might be
suggested by the use of their term viable, we might extend the notion of viabili-
ty in various ways. On extension would be to say that an organism is viable
providing its own activities are sufficient to provide it with the means of
supplying its own biological needs, such as for food and shelter within normal
environments. In this sense, infants or toddlers are not viable even though they
a r e no longer ate.ached via an umbit-ical cord.
9 he connotation of viability in e i t h e r of the ~bove senses can be l i t t e r a l l y
applied neither to the term agriculture nor to the term economic. Agriculture is
not literally an individual living organism. We can, .of course, envisage a num-
130 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

ber of distinct ways of extending or modifying the term viability so as to be able

to make sense of the term economic viability. Were we to develop a notion of eco-
nomic viability on analogy with the notion of a viable organism, we would need
to think in terms of units of agriculture on some analogy with living organisms.
F u r t h e r , we would have to consider the ways or degrees in which such units
could be said to function on t h e i r own w i t h i n normal environments. Such units
might then be said to be viable. We shall m a k e some t e n t a t i v e efforts in this
direction though we shall not pursue these ideas at length.
A social unit, whether it be a farm, a rural community, or a larger unit, might
be said to be economically viable in what we shall call the self-sufficiency sense
of the term, if the operations of t h a t unit can y i e l d enough produce to satisfy
all basic needs of the people and other creatures whose lives depend on t h a t
unit. The basic idea u n d e r l y i n g economic viability, in this sense of the term,
is t h a t the needs of all the creatures dependent on the unit in question are satis-
fied t h r o u g h the use of the resources of the unit and without the provisions of
resources from external sources. In this sense of the t e r m a farm which is lack-
ing in some resource, whether fertile soil, h u m a n labor, water, etc., so t h a t even
with the best use of a v a i l a b l e resources it cannot produce enough to satisfy the
needs of those who live and depend on t h a t farm, is not economically viable
(in the self-sufficiency sense of t h a t term).
Clearly, economic viability in this sense of the term, is relative. A particular
farm, occupied by some particular individuals, considered by itself, might not be
economically viable. However, the same farm, may well be a part of a larger
community which is an economically viable community. The operations of the
community, including the farm, may well be a part of a larger community which
is an economically viable community. The operations of the community, includ-
ing the farm, using resources of the community provide for the needs of all the
people and other creatures of the community. Of course, a community which
could be economically viable might choose not to be economically viable~ t h a t is,
self-sufficient in all a g r i c u l t u r a l respects. For example, it could be b e t t e r on
both economic and ethical grounds for C a n a d a to import some food staples.
Such a policy could make for more efficient use of fuel, less disruption of wild
ecosystems, and cheaper commodities. We can readily conceive that some com-
munities would better promote sustainable agriculture if those communities did
not strive to be economically viable in the self-sufficiency sense of the term.
We suspect t h a t the use of the term economic viability in the Science Council
documents is not intended to convey the ideas indicated by the self-sufficiency
sense of the term. Nonetheless, it seems useful to note this as one possible sense
of the term economic viability. Someone who refers to a viable economy with ref-
erence to a community may mean t h a t it is an economy which enables the com-
munity to manage in a satisfactory way all processes required to satisfy all
conditions essential to the survival of the community. This sort of economic via-
bility or self-sufficiency might well be a desirable objective regardless of
whether this is the notion t h a t the Science Council had in mind.
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 131

A second sense of the t e r m economically viable is suggested t h r o u g h t h i n k i n g

of f a r m s (or o t h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s ) as u n i t s o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n a n
economic s y s t e m such as exists in w e s t e r n Europe or N o r t h A m e r i c a . To e n d u r e
w i t h i n such systems, most economic u n i t s m u s t yield sufficient income to enable
t h e e n t e r p r i s e to avoid b a n k r u p t c y . I n order to o b t a i n such income, such u n i t s
m u s t engage in profitable commercial relations. U n i t s which are operated so as
to yield a sufficient level of income m i g h t be said to be economically viable with-
in such an economic system. Let us call economic viability in this sense of the
t e r m , t h e profitability sense of economic viability. We s h a l l refer to such
economies as " f r e e - e n t e r p r i s e " economies t h o u g h c l e a r l y , t h e r e a r e v a r i a t i o n s
among those economies in m a n y respects, for example, in r e g a r d to the extent to
which m a r k e t s a r e subjected to l e g a l l y enforceable r e g u l a t i o n s of s u p p l y or
o t h e r factors, or in r e g a r d to t h e e x t e n t or n a t u r e of social a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d
to such u n i t s in t h e form of subsidies. C l e a r l y , even t h o u g h we refer to t h i s
sense of t h e t e r m economic viability as t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y sense of t h e t e r m , it
should not be i n f e r r e d t h a t an economically v i a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e e n t e r p r i s e neces-
s a r i l y e a r n s g r e a t profits. I n m a n y cases such e n t e r p r i s e s a r e o p e r a t e d on a
p a r t - t i m e basis. The owner of t h e e n t e r p r i s e subsidizes t h e e n t e r p r i s e h e r s e l f
t h r o u g h c o n t r i b u t i o n s of income from o t h e r sources such as e m p l o y m e n t or
savings.
Clearly, these two senses of economic viability are not equivalent. A g r i c u l t u r e
m i g h t be e c o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e in t h e self-sufficiency sense a n d not in t h e prof-
i t a b i l i t y sense or vice versa. F o r e x a m p l e , a c o m m u n i t y m i g h t be economically
v i a b l e in t h e self-sufficiency sense in t h a t t h e produce of all of t h e u n i t s m i g h t
be sufficient to m e e t t h e needs of t h e m e m b e r s of t h e c o m m u n i t y for food and
fiber, etc. However, if t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l u n i t s a r e not f u n c t i o n i n g as b u s i n e s s e s
o p e r a t i n g in a c o m m u n i t y t h a t is o r g a n i z e d as a f r e e - e n t e r p r i s e economy, t h e
a g r i c u l t u r e of t h i s c o m m u n i t y need not be economically v i a b l e in t h e second
sense. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e a g r i c u l t u r e of a c o m m u n i t y could be economically
v i a b l e in t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y sense of t h e t e r m , b u t not be economically v i a b l e in
t h e self-sufficiency sense. In c e r t a i n countries, a g r i c u l t u r e is sufficiently prof-
i t a b l e a n d so is economically v i a b l e in t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y sense b u t does not pro-
vide sufficient n u t r i e n t s or o t h e r p r o d u c t s for all m e m b e r s of t h e c o m m u n i t y so
t h a t s u r v i v a l of some m e m b e r s of t h e c o m m u n i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t resources be
imported.
Economic viability in t h i s second sense c o n t a i n s s i g n i f i c a n t obscurities. We
s h a l l b r i e f l y cbnsider t h e s e obscurities. As m a n y economists h a v e r e c e n t l y
r e m i n d e d us, often, so-called " e x t e r n a l i t i e s " a r e not counted as costs. Yet often
such e x t e r n a l i t i e s a r e produced as a consequence of p r o d u c t i o n practices.
Suppose, for example, t h a t an a g r i c u l t u r a l production system d a m a g e s a wilder-
ness area. Is the value of such damage, a cost of production even t h o u g h no one
will force the production u n i t to p a y to r e p a i r the damage? F u r t h e r , we m a y
ask, w h a t counts as a subsidy? If the a g r i c u l t u r a l production system is not
forced to pay t h e cost of r e p a i r i n g the wilderness area, does t h a t a m o u n t to
132 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

granting it a subsidy? If the workers in such a unit are made ill by their work
but need not be compensated by the production unit for expenses incurred to
recover from the .illness, does that count as a subsidy to the unit? In a word,
does any cost that the production unit will not be forced to pay count as a sub-
sidy? (This is a rather broad sense of the term subsidy. We believe, that when
controversial trade issues are debated among nations that trade with each
other, relieving enterprises from paying some of these externalities is often not
counted as a subsidy.) If we count any such failure to cover costs as a subsidy,
then economic viability in this second sense boils down to the following: To say
that an enterprise is economically viable is to say that it can pay the costs that
it would be forced to pay. Clearly, to speak of economic viability under such cir-
cumstances is to use the term in a way which does not place any limitations on
what counts as a sustainable unit. In order that the requirement concerning
economic viability (in the profitability sense) have any significant content, it
must be understood in conjunction with further assumptions concerning costs
and subsidies.
It is very likely that the members of the Science Council, in stipulating that
sustainable agri-food systems be economically viable, were making assumptions
concerning costs that the agri-food system should be required to pay and, in
addition, concerning what subsidies would be made available to such systems. If
such assumptions were made explicit then, the stipulation that sustainable sys-
tems be economically viable would not be vacuous. However, in that case, their
use of the term economic viability would fall under the scope of some version of
what we have called the profitability sense of the term. Given certain assump-
tions concerning costs or subsidies, to say that an enterprise is economically
viable is to say that given those subsidies, it can make sufficient income to sur-
vive. The Science Council's definition could be improved by making assump-
tions, such as we have indicated regarding costs and subsidies, explicit.
Let us briefly consider whether economic viability in either of the first two
senses of this term is essential for sustainable agriculture. In order to consider
this question, we must briefly explain what we mean by the term sustainable.
For the time being we can regard this explanation as a tentative hypothesis. We
will return to our definition of sustainable agriculture subsequently. Let us
assume that to say that a social practice, such as agriculture, is sustainable is
to say that people can keep going, that is, that they are not losing the capacity
to make practice endure. That is what dictionary definitions of the term sus-
tainable say (Webster's New Twentieth-Century Dictionary of the English
Language, 1968.) Given that explanation of the meaning of the term, it makes
perfectly good sense to ask whether economic viability is essential for sustain-
able agriculture as is implied by the definitions affirmed by the Science Council
of Canada. We should consider both senses of the term economically viable
which we have considered above.
Must agriculture be economically viable, in the self-sufficiency sense, to be
sustainable? We noted above that economic viability, in the self-sufficiency
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 133

sense, is relative to the unit under consideration. Suppose our units are the
nations of the world at the present time. Then it is arguable, as we have done
above, that it is not necessary that any single unit (nation) be economically
viable (self-sufficient) in order to sustain the agricultural practices of the vari-
ous nations. Conceivably all the needs of members of any community could be
satisfied through imports of agricultural products from other communities.
However, suppose that the unit under consideration is not a nation but is the
global h u m a n community. We can ask whether this community must be eco-
nomically viable (self-sufficient) for agriculture to be sustainable. Again, the
answer appears to be negative. We could sustain agriculture even it the total
population of the world were much smaller than it now is. Of course, there are
other reasons why we should strive to make the global h u m a n community eco-
nomically viable in the self-sufficiency sense of the term. In saying that econom-
ic viability (self-sufficiency) of the global community is not essential for
sustainable agriculture, we are not saying that economic viability (self-sufficien-
cy) is not an important objective. It clearly is.
Is economic viability in the profitability sense of the term, essential for sus-
tainability? We argue that it is not essential. Communities could preserve their
capacity to engage in agricultural practices even if those practices did not yield
sufficient profits. They could, for example, totally subsidize their agricultural
production units. It is readily seen that profitability can vary with a number of
factors that have no bearing on a community's capacity to engage in agricultur-
al practices. For example, as noted by Clark and Weise, changes in tax policy
could alter profitability without affecting the capacity to produce food and fiber.
Similarly, central bank policies regarding interest rates can lead to decreases
in profitability without undermining a community's capacity to maintain its
agricultural practices. [E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise (1992) A Forage-
Based Vision Sustainable Agriculture: Unpublished].
In arguing that economic viability be distinguished from agricultural sustain-
ability, we are not objecting to economic viability (in some sense) as an impor-
tant objective. However the reasons why self-sufficiency or profitability are
important are distinct from the reasons why agriculture should be made sus-
tainable. We believe greater clarity of thought is achieved if economic viability
is regarded as an objective which is distinct from sustainability of agriculture.
We cannot expect to achieve the wide range of our objectives, from preserving a
high quality of human life, to preserving environmental conditions to operating
in accord with ethical standards, unless our thought concerning the relation-
ships among our objectives and the means of achieving them is as clear and
coherent as we can make it. Conflating objectives that are important for distinct
reasons and that can vary independently of each other does not contribute to
this end.
We suspect that those who maintain that economic viability is an essential
part of sustainable agriculture do so because they recognize that unless there
are sufficient incentives for people to engage in agriculture, they will not do so.
134 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

However, while this is true, it does not entail that farms must be profitable
businesses or even that the farms must engage in commercial activities.
Social policy is critically important in determining both the profitability of
agricultural enterprises and their sustainability. However, until quite
recently, social policy addressed sustainability issues, such as soil and water
quality, wetlands preservation and resource use efficiency only indirectly, if at
all. Therefore, as we can reasonably expect, practices which have been made
to be profitable are not necessarily sustainable. Similarly, as Crews et al.
(1991) suggest, sustainable practices can be made to be profitable by
modifying social policies that currently favor other practices. It is therefore,
vitally important to recognize sustainability and profitability as distinct objec-
tives. If we want to achieve both we shall have to tailor our social practices
accordingly.

Conservation
The science council's definition of sustainable agriculture implies that such
agriculture must sustain or enhance natural resources. While questions could
be raised concerning the significance of both the terms natural and resources,
we shall not pursue them here. Rather, we shall assume that what is entailed
by this clause is that sustainable agriculture must not tend to exhaust those
resources on which agriculture depends. So interpreted, we have no quarrel
with this facet of the science council's definition. However, it should be
noted that we could have sustainable agriculture even though we failed to
conserve some resources providing that those resources were not essential,
either directly or indirectly, to agriculture. We might assume, for example,
that there are some species of insects which are vectors for some serious
human disease and which could be a resource for some human activity but
which we could eliminate without undermining any vital agricultural cap-
acity. We would not need to sustain such a resource to have sustainable
agriculture.

Society's Need for Food

The science council's definition of sustainable agriculture makes reference to
one accepted objective of agriculture, the provision of safe and nutritious food.
In our society, however, agriculture provides other materials, such as cotton
and wool, which are not used for food. Further, agricultural practices provide
material which may be used for energy, as in ethanol production, and material
which may be used in other manufacturing processes. Given that agriculture
continues to engage in activities aimed at producing materials in addition to
food, which are essential to the satisfaction of human needs, it seems that the
Science Council's definition is overly restrictive in being focussed exclusively on
food production. As some of the other products of agriculture are essential for
human well being, agricultural production of these other products should be
sustainable also.
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 135

Quality of the Environment

The term quality of the environment is unclear. Perhaps the term quality of the
environment was intended by the authors of the Science Council document as
meaning goodness of the environment, where goodness is to be understood as
some overall value of the environment. To understand this idea we may suppose
the authors of this document to have meant that there were many features of
"the environment" which are valuable, and that somehow all these values can
be combined to arrive at the overall goodness or value of the environment. They
would then be saying that sustainable agriculture is agriculture which does not
reduce this value overall. In our judgment, at this time, such a notion of the
overall goodness of the environment is so obscure as to be of no use at all in
giving direction to the future development of our society.
We have now explained and criticized several of the objectives specified in the
definition of sustainable agriculture suggested by the remarks of the Science
Council of Canada. The notion of "quality of the environment" is almost totally
obscure and serious obscurities undermine the notion of economic viability as
well. The goal of providing safe and nutritious food is clear; however, agricul-
ture also produces non-food products, such as fiber and energy and we may well
be concerned to make these aspects of agriculture, as well as food production,
sustainable. (However, see also Douglass (1984).) The goal of conserving or
enhancing resources, as we have explained it, is one that is clearly part of the
notion of sustainable agriculture, although questions regarding the meaning of
the terms natural and resources remain unanswered. In our judgment, while
some elements of the definition proposed by the science council are acceptable,
the definition as a whole is flawed. Prior to trying to develop a more satisfactory
definition, let us consider another definition of sustainable agriculture.

Ecosystem Integrity
Crews et al. (1991), in a generally excellent discussion, define sustainable agri-
culture by reference to two general constraints, that is, general conditions which
any form of sustainable agriculture would satisfy. These two constraints are:
(1) A sustainable agriculture uses only renewable energy sources and (2) A sus-
tainable agriculture does not degrade the integrity of the ecosystem of which it
is a part. The second constraint is conditioned by four more-specific contraints,
namely that (a) soil fertility is maintained, (b) water resources are not depleted,
(c) human health is not jeopardized and (d) species diversity is maintained.
This definition agrees with that of the Science Council in some respects.
Clearly, agriculture which degrades soil fertility or water resources is not con-
serving or enhancing natural resources. Further, if agricultural practices
deplete the sources of energy on which agriculture depends, then resources have
been exhausted, i.e., not conserved. Since all non-renewable sources of energy
will eventually be exhausted, (unless we stop using such sources) agriculture
which is dependent on those sources of energy cannot be sustained beyond the
time at which the essential energy resources have been exhausted. As such,
136 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

conserving resources would appear to entail using only renewable sources of

energy. Thus, Crews et al. (1991) agree with the Science Council in this respect
also. Because protecting h u m a n health and preserving species diversity may
also be regarded as conserving resources, the two definitions are also in
agreement in this regard.
The scope of the term non-renewable energy is usually taken for granted even
though, t a k e n literally, it would appear t h a t ultimately, in light of the second
law of thermodynamics, all energy available for agriculture or anything else will
eventually be exhausted. We assume that non-renewable energy refers to sup-
plies of energy of particular forms which are not maintained or increased by
natural cycles and which cannot be maintained by human intervention. At the
present time, supplies of oil and gas are non-renewable forms of energy.
The definition of the Science Council is more general than that of Crews etal.
(1991) in regard to conserving resources. The latter paper mentions four factors,
namely, maintaining soil fertility, water resources, h u m a n health and species
diversity, whereas the documents of the Science Council spoke more inclusively
of conserving resources. In this respect, the documents of the Science Council
are perhaps more satisfactory than that of Crews et at. (1991) though, as we
noted, there are significant questions concerning the nature of resources which
remain unanswered. After all, there may be other resources which are essential
for sustaining agricultural practices which Crews and his associates did not
mention, for example, air quality. Too large a concentration of ozone or other
toxic gases may lead to declines in agricultural productivity. :Similarly, it should
be acknowledged that h u m a n knowledge is essential for :stmtainabt~e agriculture
and so needs to be conserved as well. Contemporary agricultural practices could
lead to the loss of knowledge which is necessary for achieving ~sustainable
agriculture. However, the definition of Crews .etal. (1991) is superior in avoid-
ing reference to obscure notions such :as "economic viability" and "quality of
environment".
The recognition that "conserving resources" can be conceived as including all
of these objectives, should prompt us to ask whether the notion of sustainable
agriculture should be conceived in such a n inclusive way. It is reasonable to ask
whether providing safe and nutritious food~ maintaining species diversity,
protecting h u m a n health and m a i n t a i n i n g soil fertility can be achieved fully
and simultaneously for all humans. Conceivably, the only agricultnrat or social
practices which would tend to preserve our capacity to engage in those agricul-
tural practices which yield food, fiber and other essential commodities woutd
also put the health of agricultural workers in serious jeopardy. In other words,
we might be forced, in some circumstances at teass to choose beZween agricul-
tural practices which are sustainable and practices which seriously ,endanger
the health of some people, just as the h e a l t h of construct~ion workers or secre-
taries may he endangered by job-specific ~azards.
J u s t as we cr~tized the ~definition of t~he Science .Go~nci] for conflating eco-
nomic viability (profitability)with ~agricnit~rat sustainabil,i~y,, we suggest t h a t
it is a mistake ~o claim t h a t sustainable agriculture does not jeopardize h u m a n
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 137

health or cause extinctions of species. In our view these should be regarded as

objectives which are distinct from that of making agriculture sustainable.
Clearly, in general, h u m a n health ought not be placed in significant jeopardy
and so it ought not to be so endangered by our agricultural practices.
Nonetheless, we can readily envision possible situations in which agricultural
practices, whether driving a tractor or driving a team of horses, would endanger
the health of agricultural workers.
Similar remarks apply to such suggestions as that sustainable agricultural
must preserve species. While, as we note below, there are serious concerns as to
whether agriculture will be sustainable if various ecological relationships on
which agriculture depends are disrupted, the claim that all species must be con-
served to have sustainable agriculture, appears unwarranted (Pimentel and
Edwards, 1982).
The appeal to ecosystem integrity in the definition of Crews et al. (1991) intro-
duces further problems which are perhaps worthy of note. To indicate where the
problems arise, it is necessary to consider the terms ecosystem and ecosystem
integrity. The term ecosystem refers to a set of elements which, in virtue of the
causal relationships obtaining amongst those elements is thought of as united
into a whole having a degree of unity. The components of such a system include
both biotic, and abiotic factors. Such unity as exists in an ecosystem is deter-
mined by recognizable patterns of energy flow and of nutrient cycling within the
system. Presumably to constitute a system, such patterns must persist or be
repeated for some period of time. Further, there must be some disposition in the
system to reestablish the patterns when they are perturbed by some occurrence
either within or without the system. If, the patterns which constitute the
alleged ecosystem will be maintained only through the receipt of inputs derived
from external sources, then the system is lacking in ecological integrity.
Ecosystems with high integrity are self-regulated.
In our view, there are a number of obscurities concerning the term ecological
integrity in virtue of which the claim, that sustainable agriculture preserves the
integrity of the ecosystem of which the agriculture is a part, is an unclear claim.
Suppose, for example, that some agricultural practice is introduced into a
region and that, in virtue of this practice, energy that formerly went to pro-
duce some plants (which are now regarded as weeds) is now diverted to other
plants. Has the original ecosystem been replaced with a new one? Has the
integrity of the original system been reduced since now, the new system which
includes the agriculture can be maintained only through intervention of human
activities? Is the new system self-regulating?
Consider the last of these questions. In asking this question, we are asking
about the concept of self-regulation. Given that through human activities some
patterns of nutrient cycling in a region and energy flow in that region could be
maintained for long periods of time through use of energy derived from fossil fuel
and through importation of materials to the region which would not other-
wise have entered the region, we are not sure whether it is correct to say that
138 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

the system in question is self-regulating. Our question is not simply the result
of a lack of information, it is a result of obscurities in the concept of self-regula-
tion. Similarly, the term ecological integrity is obscure. Conceivably, either of
these terms could be developed so as to yield scientifically satisfactory concepts.
However, at the present time, we believe we should not rely on these concepts
in explaining the notion of sustainable agriculture.
Suppose however, that the concept of ecological integrity is sufficiently clear
and consequently, that when someone says that for some agricultural practice to
be sustainable it must preserve the integrity of the ecosystem of which it is a
part, we know just what the speaker means. Let us suppose that the speaker
means is that the introduction of the agricultural practice has given rise to an
ecosystem and that unless that ecosystem is preserved, it will not be possible to
sustain at agricultural practice. Now, we may ask, how we know t h a t this is
true. Perhaps the agricultural practice could endure as a part of any of a number
of distinct ecosystems. One might wonder then why Crews et al. (1991) were
claiming otherwise. Surely examples could be given in which sustainable agricul-
tural practices endured through extensive transformations of local ecosystems.

Part II: What is Sustainable Agriculture?

It is tempting to say that sustainable agriculture is agriculture which can be
carried on for an indefinitely long period of time. This notion is suggested by
remarks of Dover and Talbot (1987). However, defining sustainable agriculture
in this way is not useful, as it yields the conclusion that no agriculture is sus-
tainable. Ultimately, at some definite time in the distant future, the Earth will
become uninhabitable. By that time, if not before, regardless of what agricultural
practices we follow, we will be forced to discontinue engaging in agriculture.
Our capacity to engage in agriculture could be undermined as a result of activ-
ities over which human beings have no control. We can imagine, for example,
that as a result of volcanic activity on a vast and rapid scale, greenhouse gases
accumulate in the atmosphere and that, in consequence, the temperature on the
Earth increases to some point in excess of the boiling point of water. Under such
conditions no agricultural practices would be possible. However, when we are
considering whether conventional agricultural practices are sustainable, we are
not wondering whether they could be sustained even in the face of large-scale
volcanism or other comparable processes over which humans have no control. If
we were to say that sustainable agriculture is agriculture that could endure
through such processes, we would have to conclude that no agriculture is sus-
tainable. A definition which implied that no possible agriculture was sustainable
would be a useless definition. We need a definition which yields a meaningful
distinction between, on ~he one hand, agricultural and related practices which
we can successfully pursue without undermining our capacity to engage in agri-
culture in the future and which and so can be sutained by human acitivity, and,
on the other hand~ agricultural practices which will eventually fail to yields crops
in a sufficient quantity, regardless of what we attempt at the time, in consequence
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 139

of h u m a n activities l e a d i n g up to t h a t time.

Sustainable Agriculture Defined

To proceed, let us divide all processes up into two categories, those which
h u m a n s can influence or control and those which t h e y cannot influence or con-
trol. A g r i c u l t u r a l processes are clearly processes which h u m a n s influence or con-
trol. A m o n g the processes which h u m a n s can influence or control, some are
processes which u n d e r m i n e future capacity to successfully engage in agriculture
and others are processes which do not u n d e r m i n e this capacity. S u s t a i n a b l e agri-
culture consists of a g r i c u l t u r a l processes, t h a t is, processes involving biological
activities of growth or reproduction intended to produce crops, which do not
undermine our future capacity to successfully practice agriculture. F u r t h e r , if we
assume t h a t we will be able to continue to engage in agriculture successfully
only if our a g r i c u l t u r a l practices do not e x h a u s t any irreplaceable resources t h a t
are essential to agriculture, we can say t h a t s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e consists of
a g r i c u l t u r a l processes t h a t do not exhaust any irreplaceable resources which are
essential to agriculture.
To i l l u s t r a t e this definition let us suppose t h a t phosphorous is essential to
agriculture. A g r i c u l t u r a l practices t h e n which e x h a u s t accessible phosphorous
are non-sustainable practices. A g r i c u l t u r a l practices which e x h a u s t accessible
supplies of phosphorous u n d e r m i n e our future capacity to engage in agriculture.

Discussion of the Above Definition

Someone who wished to defend one of the definitions of sustainable agriculture
w h i c h we criticized above m i g h t contend t h a t our d e f i n i t i o n also r e s t s on a n
obscure concept; namely, t h e concept of processes t h a t we can influence and con-
trol, and so is no b e t t e r t h a n t h e i r definitions in t h a t it also contains a funda-
m e n t a l obscurity. In r e p l y to such an objection, we would agree t h a t this concept
is obscure. However, we would suggest t h a t our definition is superior to the pre-
vious two for t h e following reason: Their definitions presuppose t h e concept of
processes t h a t w e can influence or control in addition to additional obscurities.
Our definition avoids t h e additional obscurities. W h e r e a s we have explained
w h a t we m e a n by the t e r m agriculture the advocates of the previous definitions
took t h e definition of agriculture for granted. H a d t h e y a t t e m p t e d to define agri-
culture as we did, t h e y would have to fall back on the notion of processes t h a t we
can influence or control (or some a l t e r n a t i v e and even more obscure notion). H a d
we t a k e n the concept of agriculture for granted, this obscurity would not be
a p p a r e n t in our account either.
Our skepticism concerning the utility of the concept of ecological integrity as a
p a r t of the definition of s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e should not be i n t e r p r e t e d as
i m p l y i n g t h a t we believe t h a t we can develop s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l practices
without deep and extensive consideration of ecology. Given our g r e a t power to
modify e n v i r o n m e n t a l ecosystems in which a g r i c u l t u r e is practiced, it is over-
w h e l m i n g l y probable t h a t to preserve e n v i r o n m e n t s which are "friendly" to our
140 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

agricultural practices, we shall have to have knowledge of a wide range of inter-

actions among entities in those systems. We will need to understand the role
which microorganisms, insects, various cycles of energy, nutrients and other
entities perform for us, and without which our agricultural productivity would be
significantly reduced.
Calling attention to the idea that sustainable agriculture consists of certain
activities which we can influence or control is a significant point. Given that, as
our technological capacities change, what we can influence or control also
changes, we can see that what counts as a sustainable agricultural practice can
change over time. We had no agriculture, and consequently, no sustainable agricul-
ture, prior to our having at least a small capacity to control reproduction of plants
or animals. At present we cannot control rainfall to any significant extent. In
the future, should we develop power to control where rain falls, we could conceiv-
ably reverse current trends which are reducing water stored in underground
aquifers. Irrigation practices which are currently unsustainable, could at a later
time be sustainable. Genetic engineering enhances our capacity to control reproduc-
tive processes, it could thereby enhance our capacity to develop sustainable agricul-
tural processes.
We have been assuming that there is a distinction between agricultural and
non-agricultural practices. However, consideration of the conditions necessary
for sustainable agriculture should make it plain that the distinction is not where,
in our innocence prior to our being concerned about sustainability, we might
have expected it to be. Given that various human activities can impinge on pro-
duction of crops, achieving sustainable agriculture could (and likely will) require
changes in many aspects of human life. For example, it may be necessary to
devise means of waste and garbage collection which enable our communities to
recapture essential soil minerals which would otherwise be so dispersed that we
could not use them. If we come to envision waste and garbage collection to
include recapture of such minerals, then these activities come to be included
among our agricultural practices. Many other aspects of our lifestyles might
come to be modified for such purposes also and so would come to be agricultural
practices.

Spatio-temporal Considerations
Suppose, during some temporal period t, a set of agricultural practices in a
region is exhausting some essential agricultural resource in that region. Is such
a set of practices non-sustainable? Not necessarily. Period t could be a short peri-
od of a few weeks duration during which time the water available for agriculture
in the region declines. Nonetheless, over a longer time, the water resources
would be replenished by normal processes such as rain so that over the longer
interval of time the water available for agriculture remains within limits
appropriate for sustaining agriculture. Conversely, however, extracting ground-
water for irrigation at a rate which exceeds it's rate of replenishment would be
inconsistent with sustainable agriculture because, at some point in time, the
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 141

groundwater supply would be exhausted.

In the above example, the practices in question during period t are not under-
mining our future capacity to engage in agriculture -- even in that region, since
the water supply will be replenished within a short enough interval of time to
permit agricultural practices to continue without interruption. The same sort of
consideration might apply to agricultural practices which involve intensive use
of some land for a number of years followed by a number of years in which the
land lies fallow or to practices of crop rotation involving soil debilitating and soil
building crops.
In cases such as are envisioned in the last paragraph, we could still describe
the agricultural practices as sustainable over the long term even though during
phases of this term, some elements essential for agriculture are exhausted. In
such cases the resources are not really exhausted; they are only temporarily
unavailable. Of course, the length of the "long-term" under consideration has sig-
nificant practical limits so far as particular h u m a n societies are concerned.
These limits are determined by reference to sustaining the human society which
is dependent on that agriculture during the period under which the land or the
resources are regenerating.
Reflection on these temporal considerations reinforces a point noted above,
namely that such terms as "exhausting a resource which is essential to agricul-
ture" should be understood in relation to the technological capacities of particu-
lar societies. What is an essential resource for one society may not be for
another. Practices which so exhausted an area that it would recover only after
thousands of years would not count as sustainable agriculture unless such prac-
tices were those of a society which continued to function normally during the
regenerative period, perhaps on the basis of agricultural products derived from
other locations or times. If a society could not endure the period of time neces-
sary for agricultural regeneration, the practices which depleted the resources
for that agriculture would not be sustainable for that society, though they might
have been sustainable for society with different technological capacities.
Similar questions can be raised in regard to place as in regard to time.
Agriculture in a place, such as a barn, might not be sustainable without inputs
from a farm field. Conversely, maintaining the productivity of the farm field
might require inputs from the barn. Transfer of nutrients within a farm,
whether in feedstuffs or in manure is generally regarded as consistent with sus-
tainable agricultural practice. Would such a practice be considered sustainable
when applied at the macro-level, p e r h a p s between regions or subregions?
Perhaps, due to climatic or edaphic factors, specialized crop or livestock agricul-
ture evolves in different subregions. Sustainability in each sub-region depends
on inputs, e.g., grain or manure, from the other. As long as all other aspects of
specialized agriculture can be managed sustainably and as long as the energy
required to transport the feed and animal manure is obtained via a sustainable
process, then the agriculture of the entire region, consisting of both sub-regions,
might be said to be sustainable. Clearly, there will be practical limits to the
142 Hugh Lehman, E. Ann Clark and Stephan F. Weise

distance between such sub-regions, analogous to the practical temporal limitations

discussed above. Agricultural practices that may be sustainable if sub-regions
are combined must be understood in relation to the technological capacities of
the human societies engaged in the agriculture.

Conclusions
It has been our intention in this paper to provide a clear explanation of a distinc-
tion between sustainable and non-sustainable agriculture. To this end we have
suggested that sustainable agriculture consists of agricultural practices which do
not undermine our future capacity to engage in agriculture.
We have reviewed and criticized two definitions of sustainable agriculture, one
proposed by the Science Council of Canada and the second by Crews et al. (1991).
In both cases we have found that the proposed definitions confiate what we
regard as the proper objectives of sustainable agriculture with additional objec-
tives. The definition proposed by the Science Council includes "economic viabili-
ty" and "quality of the environment" among the objectives to include under the
scope of sustainable agriculture. While economic viability, in some sense, may be
an important social objective, it should be regarded as independent of the objec-
rive of sustainable agriculture, that is, the preservation of the capacity of the
Earth and its peoples to engage in agriculture to produce food and certain other
products. The definition proposed by Crews et al. (1991) also conflates distinct
objectives with that of sustainable agriculture. In addition their definition
appeals to a questionable concept of "ecological integrity." Conflating of distinct
objectives under the heading of sustainable agriculture and appeal to obscure
notions leads to confusion of objectives and renders more difficult the rational
assessment of agricultural policies.
Many issues concerning sustainble agriculture remain to be resolved. Being
optimists, we assume that relative to our current knowledge, sufficient sustain-
able agricultural practices are possible to achieve sell-sufficiency on a wordwide
basis. It may, of course, be possible that there are alternative methods of achiev-
ing sustainable agriculture. If this is true it is an important advantage in that
we will have greater flexibility in combining sustainable agriculture with other
important human objectives.

References
Crews, Timothy, Charles Mohler and Alison Power. 1991. Energetics and
Ecosystem Integrity: The Defining Principles of Sustainable Agriculture.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(3): 146-149.
Douglass, Gordon K. 1984. The Meanings of Agricultural Sustainability.
Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Dover, Michael and Lee Talbot. 1987. To Feed the Earth: Agro-Ecolagy for
Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute.
 Clarifying the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 143

Pimentel, David and Clive A. Edwards. 1982. Pesticides and Ecosystems.

BioScience 32(7): 595-600.
Science Council of Canada. 1991. Its Everybody's Business: Submissions to the
Science Council's Committee on Sustainable Agriculture. Ottawa, ON:
Science Council of Canada.
Science Council of Canada. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture: The Research
Challenge. Report 43, July, Ottawa, ON: Science Council of Canada.
Webster's New Twentieth-Century Dictionary of the English Language. 1968.
2nd Edition. New York, NY: World Publishing Company.