By Bradley Phelps
Protecting or enhancing biodiversity is not new as a policy objective. As ecological systems are threatened in greater amounts due to climate change and human development, biodiversity will likely be even more front of mind for policymakers, scientists, and the public. [1] As authors from Chatham House argue in their report, the global food system is the primary driver of this biodiversity loss. [2] Moreover, they specifically cite monocropping as an unsustainable agricultural practice. [3] If the subaks of Bali mostly grow rice, do the common concerns of monocropping apply? Is the critique of a lack of biodiversity fair to level against rice growing in subaks? Biodiversity may not be the right way to evaluate ecological health for subaks. Here those questions will be considered and some first insights offered.
To begin, when do the concerns of monocropping apply? In other words, what are the broad issues with monocropping, or planting only one crop year after year? As some researchers note, diversity is needed to ensure agricultural systems are ecologically resilient. [4] Commodity agricultural production in various parts of the world has resulted in biodiversity loss. [5] In some cases, a lack of plant diversity can negatively impact the availability of pollinators needed to service the monocrop. [6] In short, monocropping may be concerning when it results in inhibited ecological resilience, biodiversity loss, or results in inherently unsustainable (as is the case in the pollinators case above). Though this list is surely not exhaustive, it may offer a starting point for thinking about rice growing in subaks.
Firstly, the question of resilience has been asked and answered of subaks which are considered to be complex adaptive systems, perhaps along multiple dimensions including an ecological one. [7] Its governance system and subsequent water distribution network is able to adapt to changing conditions and stressors. [8] Secondly, the question of biodiversity loss may be more open as “loss” implies a deterioration relative to some state, and whatever that other state may be is up for interpretation. If one were to compare the diversity of species in rice terraces of a subak versus mountain forest in higher elevation of Bali, there may likely be a difference in the number of species, but it would be difficult to collapse such a difference into “biodiversity loss”. Thirdly, the role of pollinators is not as relevant here given rice is mostly self-pollinating. [9] The broader criteria of sustainability is arguably upheld by the centuries of history of subaks on Bali. [10] Perhaps subaks do very slowly deplete some nutrients in the soil, but the performance and continued rice yields do not seem to indicate any inherent weakness of sustainable practices. While in Bali, fertilizer use was evident, and some farmers and academics discussed the need for fertilizer. Fertilizer doesn’t necessarily indicate larger scale lack of sustainability, but it could indicate that some nutrients are not being fully recycled or replenished through more traditional methods.
Subaks offer an interesting case for which to probe questions around agricultural practices. A brief reflection is offered here, but much more is to be said of the following questions. If monocropping is relatively unsustainable in the abstract, in what ways, and can the same be said for subaks? Is there a lack of biodiversity that makes rice terrace landscapes of subaks ecologically susceptible over certain time frames? And, importantly, is biodiversity even an important or correct criterion for which to apply to subaks? Hopefully probing such questions can provide valuable insights into the bounds of monocropping, biodiversity in agricultural contexts, and the application of biodiversity (which arguably is an idea from Western science) toward an ancient agricultural/social/spiritual adaptive system like subaks.
References
[1] Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. Hm Treasury. The Economics of Biodiversity : the Dasgupta Review. (ciren.cl). Pg 51.
[2] 2021-02-03-food-system-biodiversity-loss-benton-et-al_0.pdf (chathamhouse.org). Pg 2.
[3] Ibid.
[5] Path dependencies in US agriculture: Regional factors of diversification – ScienceDirect
[6] Global Change Biology | Environmental Change Journal | Wiley Online Library
[7] Lansing book
[8] Ibid.
[9] Matsui, T., & Kagata, H. (2003). Characteristics of floral organs related to reliable self‐pollination in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Annals of Botany, 91(4), 473-477. https://academic.oup.com/aob/article-abstract/91/4/473/213374
[10] Lansing book
Public Policy Indonesia 