Right to Reply results

Dear Sir,

I fully agree with the linkage of natural resources with health, especially agriculture. Because humans inherit only two cells from their parents, the rest of the body (i.e. the physical health), requires nutrition, which is the product of agricultural departments. Therefore, I believe that the role of the Ministry of Agriculture on health is much more important than the Ministry of Health. Of course the role of the Ministry of Health may be more important in repairing ill health, exactly like a mechanic shop repairing a damaged vehicle. In these days of organ transplantation, it is more like changing the spare parts of the car.

Furthermore, the needs of the people are inter-related. If the full meaning of health is considered (i.e. complete physical, social, mental and spiritual well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity), we should think of meeting the inter-related needs of human beings. Since 1987, I have been involved in implementing a 'bottom-up', people centred, socio-economic programme called Basic Minimum Needs (BMNs). This is running in several countries, initiated by local people and supported by an inter-sectoral technical team, consisting of at least 10 to 16 ministries. The aim of the programme is to improve the quality of life of the people (including health standards), through meeting their basic minimum needs. Some people call the programme "A Solid Base for Health". I am now implementing the programme in Iran. I believe this is the best way to achieve sustainable development.

Thanks and kindest regards,
Dr.M.A.Barzgar
MD,MPH,and Representative of PHM Iran.

1 June, 2004

In the recent issue of 'Insights Health', it is estimated that agricultural productivity will have to double over the next few decades to keep up with population growth. Would it be possible to quadruple productivity in the next few years?

Bio Intensive agriculture and permaculture are both taught in over 100 countries. There are many good ideas from 12,000 years of agricultural history, but doing what is widespread, what is presently being done will not always get you better results. You need to be able to restructure your paradigm to release yourself from only doing tasks that you are already used to.

As long as you are thinking in "doubling in decades", you are blind to quadrupling in a few years. It doesn't take a single new discovery to make that quantum leap: it requires the 'undiscovering' of what you have been indoctrinated into believing is "best". As long as the answer is remotely in the future, decades from now, you cannot begin sifting the thousands of already proven methods laying all over the internet.

The 21st century is not in the future -- it is here now. 21st century agriculture, that has been good for 10,000 years of sustainable repetitions, is already here. You don't need to motivate US to join you in sitting on our hands for two decades for a mere doubling of productivity. BioIntensive agriculture has already proved over 20 years of experiments that four-fold to 20-fold increases of productivity are possible, and that is with old obsolete 20th century technology -- we know how to do better NOW.

Changeovers take several years. However, the benefits become permanent and improve over time. With instant global dataflow, improvements can only increase, never decrease. I am not going to speculate about better than four-fold increases in productivity, because we don't have any certainty of that yet, and we don't have any need for better yet. Four-fold is good - let's go with that. What are we waiting for?

Lion Kuntz
Santa Rosa, California, USA

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.