Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 May 2022 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Stephen Collett
Prof Linus Franke delivered his inaugural lecture on the topic Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture.

Conducting research on weed control for India at the Scottish Agricultural College in Scotland, studying soybean at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria, and working with genetically modified crops at Agrosystems Research, Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (DLO) in Wageningen in the Netherlands, grain legumes in sub-Saharan Africa, and potatoes in South Africa. 

These are some of the agricultural practices that Prof Linus Franke, Academic Head of the Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS), has seen and experienced in several countries, which contributed to his extensive knowledge on this matter.

More specifically, sustainable agriculture is his passion and the focus of his life’s work. In celebration of his academic career, this was also the topic of his inaugural lecture: Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture, delivered on the Bloemfontein Campus on 4 May 2022.

With years of experience in the field, he reflected on sustainable agriculture, firstly stating that it would be good if we could have discussions on sustainable agriculture and the future of agriculture based on empirical evidence. “However, the reality is that ideology and a strong involvement of non-specialists is unavoidable,” he says.

Secondly, he adds, it would be a major improvement if we could move away from embracing universal principles for farming practices and forcing them into a local context. “It would be better if local contexts and aspirations could guide the way in which general production principles are applied.” Adding to that, he states the importance of measurements. “If you want to embrace the concept of sustainability, you must be able to measure it.” 

Solutions to environmental problems 

In his lecture, he took the audience back to years ago when he was doing his master’s research on organic farming systems, excited about organic agriculture as an approach that holds the promise of tackling major environmental problems in a radical manner. This bout of excitement about the prospects of organic agriculture was, however, short-lived. Fed up with the “dogmatic and anti-science attitude and the tribalism in the sector”, he saw his flirt with organic agriculture as youthful foolishness.

After spending years in India and Nigeria, Prof Franke produced reports on the sustainability and trade impacts of genetically modified crops. People in the organic and green movement, however, have expressed opposed views. “In their eyes, I was one of those short-sighted scientists unable to recognise the dangers of genetically modified (GM) crops.”
Investments in regenerative agriculture have become a means to reduce the pressure to invest in curbing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use elsewhere. – Prof Linus Franke

This made him wonder what drives these polarised discussions on GM crops and sustainable agriculture in general. “I learned that the strong and almost irrational position that the green movement has taken against GM crops and in favour of organic agriculture is merely a reflection of underlying emotions and preferences,” he says.

He explains two different lines of thinking about how to deal with the ecological challenges associated with agriculture, namely looking at nature to find solutions to environmental problems associated with agriculture, versus the idea that technology will come to our rescue. “The ecological problems we face in relation to agriculture are caused by modern farming technologies. Genetic modification is seen as an extension of the technologies that were responsible for the problems in the first place. To solve the problem, we need to look back at nature, learn from nature, and apply ecological principles to farming. You could argue that this view is rather unscientific and techno phobic. But believing that new technologies will come to recue us in the looming ecological crisis is equally based on a gut feeling, there are no guarantees that this will happen.”

Regenerative agriculture

Despite the strong position taken by the green movement in favour of organic agriculture, the organic movement became stagnant. “In Europe it represents only 5% of the total agricultural production and in South Africa it never really took off. GM crops have been relatively easily accepted here.”

GM crops and organic agriculture may not be major issues in South Africa, but regenerative agriculture has become a big topic and the discussion and dynamics around regenerative agriculture resemble those around organic agriculture.

Prof Linus Franke delivered his inaugural lecture on the topic Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture. (Photo: Stephen Collett) 

"Over time, new approaches to agriculture have emerged, promising radical improvements in sustainability. Including conservation agriculture, holistic grazing, permaculture, and agro-forestry, these new approaches are grouped under the flag of regenerative farming and are attracting much attention. This has stimulated interest in using knowledge of ecological processes to improve agricultural production. 

“This is truly positive,” states Prof Franke. “It is great to see farmers in South Africa coming together and thinking about ways to apply some of these principles in their farming practices.”

Many of these approaches have proven their merits, but only under certain conditions. “Although many see regenerative farming approaches as globally applicable solutions to the big ecological challenges of today, it is important to take note of the context and the empirical evidence of the claimed benefits. Inspiration by nature does not necessarily lead to farming practices that are ecologically superior,” he says. 

Conservation agriculture, for instance, worked on large-scale mechanised crop farms in Australia and the Americas and it gained a firm foothold in the Western Cape. “But in Africa, including South Africa, conservation agriculture is widely promoted among smallholders, often with disappointing results,” he says.

Another challenge he addressed during his lecture, was that of expectations of regenerative agriculture being way beyond what farmers actually achieve. He found that large food corporations had announced major investments in regenerative agriculture, and by doing so, hoped to reduce their carbon footprint regarding production activities. The big issue here is that it is highly uncertain and questionable whether these improvements in carbon sequestration can be achieved. Prof Franke believes that for some companies, investments in regenerative agriculture have become a means to reduce the pressure to invest in curbing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use elsewhere.

Watch recording of the Inaugural Lecture below:




News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept