The Green Revolution has had a massive impact on humanity. Thanks to massively increased productivity, we have been able to feed the additional billions of the last and the current centuries. With the world's population still rising, there is an obvious need to ensure that as much food as possible is wrung from the land.

The major area of research is biotechnology, using genes from one species and splicing them into another to obtain specific benefits: Pest resistance, drought hardiness, for example.

Other research continues into improving pesticides and fertilisers or breeding new strains to improve yield.

Yet, there are well-founded concerns that the Green Revolution may be buckling under its own weight. There appears to be an upper limit on yields, and some seem to be decreasing. Hunger continues, largely due to poverty rather than through a lack of food.

The Green Revolution requires larger expensive inputs (such as fertiliser) to maintain yield. Meanwhile, rivers are polluted with fertiliser run-off, food chains are disrupted by pesticide use and soils become depleted.

One possible answer to this is biotechnology, being pursued with vigour by the Malaysian government. However, the technology is still in its infancy. And there are serious problems on the horizon.

Problems from large plantations

But what exactly is meant by sustainable agriculture? According to one Malaysian paper, there are three elements to sustainability: income generation, expanded food availability and consumption and conservation and enhancement of natural resources. The paper unconvincingly goes on to argue the ecological benefits and sustainability of large plantations.

Why do I say unconvincingly?

Firstly, in terms of income generation. Large plantations are generally monoculture. With price fluctuations, their profits are put at risk. This is used to ensure that estate workers are not given a wage guaranteed to keep them above the poverty line. Guthrie's main profits in its last annual report derived from property speculation rather than estate management, for example.

Independent smallholders have also been hit by price fluctuations. Recently the government established a fund to aid ailing oil palm cultivators.

Secondly, in terms of food availability and consumption. The plantations are often planted in place of forests, a rich food source for those with the knowledge to harvest it. No food is forthcoming from rubber, timber or oil palm plantations.

And lastly, in terms of the conservation and enhancement of natural resources. Again, cloned monoculture harms rather than protects biodiversity. Pollutants from palm oil factories are a major source of water contamination.

However, it doesn't have to be this way.

Advantages of agroforestry

Firstly, plantations do not have to exist as monoculture. Another study by Faridah Ahmad, assistant director in the Department of Agriculture's Soil Management Division, indicates that this can substantially increase revenue. From an annual income of RM15,000 per hectare under rubber monoculture, revenue can increase to RM159,000 under an agroforestry system based on rubber.

The system has other advantages. It increases biodiversity, allowing a larger number of species of both harvestible plants and indigenous wildlife to flourish. The same paper indicates that introducing livestock can save up to 50 percent of weeding costs, increase the number or weight of fresh fruit bunches by up to 30 percent, reduce the need for chemical fertilisers and improve the soil structure. This also gives the livestock owners another source of income (around RM160 annually per hectare, for beef cattle) and cushions them from price fluctuations in the main commodity.

Other experiments have seen the income of farmers rise from RM200 per month to RM1,000.

This leads to a system which improves sustainability on all three factors identified in the earlier survey. However, it still appears to require expensive inputs, such as chemical fertiliser. This need can be reduced by changing plantation practices.

Chicken droppings and recycled palm oil waste can provide significant sources of organic fertiliser, for example. Another improvement identified by the paper was to cease burning during replanting, instead recycling old trees for fertiliser.

Safety of genetically modified crops

Another threat to sustainability comes from genetically modified crops. This hits on all three factors identified as key to sustainability. Firstly, income generation. Genetic modification is the stronghold of large chemical companies. The modifications are often geared to particular chemical fertilisers or pesticides (Round-Up Ready Soya by Monsanto, for example, is tolerant to their Round-Up herbicide). This causes farmers to rely heavily on expensive inputs from foreign multinationals.

Studies have shown that planting a field with Round-Up Ready Soya requires around twice as much money as with ordinary soya. The popularity of the genetically-engineered species is due to much-advertised benefits, few of which appear to have materialised.

The other is the much-discussed terminator gene. This would render seeds infertile. Rather than the traditional method of keeping back some seeds from a harvest to sow in the coming season, farmers would be forced to buy a new batch of seeds.

It is, however, possible to imagine genetically-modified products where neither of these are built-in.

On the second factor, however, the problems are more serious. This is the issue of the safety of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Environmental and consumer organisations both point to the problems with claims that GMOs are safe. The major concern is that testing just hasn't occurred. In the United States, a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration revealed that scientists had shown substantial doubts about the safety of GM foods. Insurance companies have been unwilling to cover harm caused by GMOs.

There are also inconclusive experiments that point to side-effects of GMOs. Though debatable, these documents still point to the need for further testing, something industry has been reluctant to pursue.

If GMOs are taking over vast tracts of our agricultural land, and infecting supposedly non-GM foods, this could seriously endanger world food sources. There is an urgent need to address the safety of genetic modification.

Reassess emphasis

These issues are of vital concern to Malaysians. The government has proposed building a biotech version of the Multimedia Super Corridor. This year sees a large biotech fair, sponsored by the Science, Technology and the Environment Ministry. Ministers are confident that Malaysia will be able to tap into a significant portion of the projected biotech revolution, worth billions.

There has been talk of biosafety legislation. But legislation in Malaysia, particularly relating to environment and industrial safety, has a sorry history. Our legislation, in a number of areas, is well-regarded by environmentalists. Our implementation is not.

If we are, as the Eighth Malaysia Plan indicates, dedicated to sustainable agriculture, the country needs to seriously reconsider its emphasis on plantation monoculture and biotechnology. Moving back to agroforestry, harvesting and cultivating indigenous species could not only improve the profitability of the agriculture industry, it could also ensure more environmentally friendly and sustainable use of the land.

SONIA RANDHAWA is a volunteer with Save Our Sungai Selangor, a coalition of NGOs and concerned individuals [still] trying to halt the completion of the Selangor dam.