Roles of Agriculture in Water Conservation

Huian Lyee^*
*Correspondence: Huian Lyee, Department of Hydrology and Environment science, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, Email:

Opinion

Agriculture has undergone many ‘revolutions' throughout history, from its inception around 10,000 years ago to the well-known European agricultural revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Rural settings in most regions of the world have likewise witnessed enormous modifications during the last century. These have been the most far-reaching in terms of the pace with which new technologies have spread and the nature of their consequences on social, economic, and ecological systems. These agricultural developments have been dominated by two driving principles. One of them has been the necessity for more food production to fulfil the demands of rising populations.

The other has been a desire to prevent the depletion of natural resources, which is seen as being mostly caused by an increase in the number of people and their poor habits. Governments have pushed for the adoption of a variety of conservation practises and technologies, such as soil and water conservation to prevent soil erosion, grazing management plans to prevent rangeland degradation, and the exclusion of people from forests and other high-biodiversity areas to protect wildlife and plants. These types of agricultural and rural development seem to have had a lot of success.

Both food production and land conservation have grown considerably, yet both of these achievements were made possible by modernisation. Scientists and planners determine the issue that must be addressed, such as excessive deterioration. Rural residents and farmers are given access to technology that have been proven to operate in a research station or other controlled situations. As a result, the issue is to intervene in order to assist rural people to modify their ways. The concept that technologies are universal and hence independent of social context is central to this modernisation process. New technologies are thought to be superior to previous ones, and so to symbolise 'progress.'

The old and 'traditional' are displaced by the new and modern, which is frequently represented as a linear process. This symbology has a lot of power in a lot of fields, and it typically means that what came before isn't as excellent as what we have now. The notion that technologies are universal has necessarily led to more uniformity. Farmers have only been able to comply "in their own best interests" by radically restructuring their livelihoods and streamlining their operations in order to accommodate new technology. External institutions have operated as though they are the only ones who have the answers. The homogeneity of settings is the result of such universality of approach or technology. Farmers used to plant tens of different crop kinds, but now they may only grow one or two of them.

They may just have terraces now, instead of a variety of biological and physical techniques to limit soil erosion. Where people once relied on natural plants and animals for food, medicine, and fuel, they may now have to rely only on marketplaces. Cultural and biological diversity have been steadily eroding as a result of modernization. This idea isn't new. Modernity has attempted to construct a new order by sweeping away the muddle of many local customs and pluralistic roles that have developed over time. This arrangement is meant to provide freedom from historical restraints as well as liberty in modern technology and activities. This is encapsulated in one of Le Corbusier's mantras, "By order, bring about freedom."

Institutions dedicated to improving soil and water conservation have had all of the elements of modernism throughout recent history. Farmers have been urged, then compelled, to use technology that have been proven to work. When these farmers fail to sustain these measures, or when others spontaneously adopt them, interventions have switched to remoulding local social and economic settings to suit the technologies. The difference between what is necessary for more sustainable natural resource management is critical.