Two weeks ago, the BBC’s Farming Today looked at the impact rising fuel costs are having on local food distribution networks - a discussion which raised some interesting questions about the resilience of emerging local food supply chains. Unfortunately the podcast is no longer available because I didn’t get around to writing this quickly enough!

Local shop owners and their suppliers were interviewed - for example, a village shop and their local bakery - about the impacts of rising fuel costs on their ability to continue working together. As expected, the increase in fuel costs was reported to be putting these relationships under strain, with distribution costs claiming higher and higher percentages of turnover for local suppliers.

In response, many suppliers are increasing wholesale prices or increasing distribution charges, leading to some suppliers being dropped by retail outlets, or the costs being passed on to the consumer.

In some cases, suppliers are looking for more inventive ways to beat the rising overheads. In some areas, local suppliers are joining together to share the cost of fuel by using a common delivery system, which picks up from multiple suppliers and delivers to a range of retail outlets.

Local shops are also under pressure to change their model, in some cases accepting fewer deliveries from each supplier to lessen the effect of distribution charges. This means that where customers were used to a constant supply from known local suppliers, they may now have to plan their shopping more carefully in order to purchase the same products, if they are only available on fewer days each week.

Hopefully we will see more innovative solutions to the lack of middle-level distribution infrastructure in response to these problems.

A report from the World Resources Institute contains the following interesting charts and information about global greenhouse gas emissions, and the role that agriculture plays in contributing to the total. The report is called Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, and dates from 2005. The following flow chart, which breaks down global greenhouse gas emissions, was the one that caught my attention, when Clark Williams-Derry posted it over at WorldChanging. Click on the image for a larger version.

I think it is a great attempt to display some very complex data visually, and it certainly deserves a close look. It leaves me with a lot of questions though, particularly regarding the role of agriculture and food production in contributing to global greenhouse gas emission totals.

These questions mainly regard the splitting of emissions into different categories - for example, the production of agricultural chemicals certainly uses significant amounts of energy and is the source of significant emissions, yet I assume this is accounted for under the “Industry > Chemicals” section, rather than the purple agriculture section near the base of the chart.

The line between agricultural activities and “Land Use” activities is also blurred. The main reason for deforestation is the clearance of land for pasture and crop-raising (see here), suggesting that the 18.3% of emissions attributed to deforestation cannot meaningfully be separated from those of agriculture.

The most interesting point is that this chart, from 2005, pre-dates the recent surge in biofuel production. This shift would cause further complex interactions and overlaps between sectors, as agricultural land is used for energy production, reducing transport emissions, but potentially increasing emissions from “Land Use” and agriculture, as deforestation accelerates and more land has to be brought into agricultural production to meet existing food needs.

There are a couple more charts later in the report which add some interesting context - from the chapter on Agriculture.

The first breaks down agriculture’s emissions by source and gas:

(Source: WRI (2005) - click for larger version)

The second demonstrates the total and per capita agricultural emissions by country. This demonstrates the distinction between total CO2 emissions - 1,100 Mt in China - and per capita - just under 200 Mt. This backs up this week’s editorial in the New Scientist, which points out that at present, blaming China (or India) for GHG emissions, pushing up food prices, etc. seems to be common practice, yet when you consider that 1 in 5 people is Chinese and switch to per capita figures, blaming China makes much less sense. As this second chart shows, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Canada stand out in terms of agricultural CO2 emissions per capita.

(Source: WRI (2005) - click for larger version)

Speaking at the Royal Highland Show outside Edinburgh, the Rural Affairs and Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead suggested that GM food will not be on the menu, as the Scottish Government develops the new National Food Policy.

Speaking to the BBC, Lochhead recognised that consumers are uneasy about GM food, and stated that “GM food is not the answer to Scotland’s food and drink future”, and suggested that GM crops are unlikely to have a part in the National Food Policy, under development at the moment.

Not everyone is convinced, however. At Westminster, the UK Government is signaling a willingness to reopen debate around the role GM could play, both in the UK and around the world in addressing the current food crisis (see yesterday’s morning press briefing).

Also speaking at the Highland Show, Professor Peter Gregory of the Scottish Crop Research Institute called for a renewal of the debate about GM and about the benefits that it could bring to the UK.

Click the image below to watch the BBC’s video report.

I thought I’d pass on the video of this presentation from Eliot Coleman, who farms at Four Season Farm in Maine, US, about growing organic veg year-round. Coleman is also the author of a book entitled Four Season Harvest.

As Coleman explains, light isn’t a problem (southern Maine being parallel with southern France), it’s temperature. And the solution - custom greenhouses, unheated, of course. The presentation comes in three parts:

Thanks to Chelsea Green for the links.

Here’s an interesting interview with Frances Moore Lappé from the Wall Street Journal - click the image below to watch. She argues that there is plenty of food available around the world, and that the reason people go hungry is an inability to grow and access that food - a lack of power, and of democracy in food systems. Lappé is the author of the books Diet for a Small Planet and Getting a Grip.

I want to draw your attention to the official launch of 350, a campaign to increase the pressure on political leaders not just to respond to warnings about global climate change, but to introduce 350ppm atmospheric CO2 the target - the level recommended by the most recent scientific guidance (see previous post here).

Check out their great non-verbal launch video:

The campaign’s new website is now up and running (in 8 different languages!), gathering submissions from volunteers and activists around the world working to raise awareness. Click on the screenshot below to have a look - organise some 350 action in your area.

Vertical farming is a new idea in urban agriculture that’s got its fair share of media attention in recent months, so here are a few links for any interested.

The idea is this: growing food in skyscraper-type towers in urban areas, as a solution to the environmental damage caused by extensive agriculture, and the transport of food from rural to urban areas. This excerpt from the Vertical Farming website introduces the benefits:

The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world’s urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.

On the same site, there’s a great page of design images, which demonstrates how futuristic some of these ideas are. There’s a similar post over at Treehugger which lists some of the leading Vertical Farming designs.

Leading the charge for vertical farms is Professor Dickson Despommier of Columbia University, who describes the project as a theoretical construct through which to look at the possibility of ‘agricultural sustainability in cities’. The project would offer create urban local food systems, but in a radically different way to the farmers’ markets and community gardens that currently characterize urban agriculture.

For a light-hearted interview with the man himself (brought to us by everyone’s favourite newshound), see below:

I just want to draw your attention to interesting exchange I read recently (yes… in the blogosphere) about our understanding of the term locavore, and the relative benefits of localism.

The starter comes from Urban Psychosis under the heading Locavor-ism, and is followed by a response at The Daily Cloud. The post at Urban Psychosis argues that interest in eating locally should not be seen as something sinister or regressive, and that a connection to the places in which we live through food is valuable and important. The author writes:

Human beings require a connection to their place. That is, we require a “home”. I use quotation marks because I want to stress that the idea of home is exactly that, an idea. It exists outside of our immediate need for shelter. It is our geography, our sense of peace within a certain environment. There is a reason why we pine for a home-cooked meal when we’re on the road. We feel less anxious when surrounded by familiar smells, familiar sounds, familiar air, familiar tastes. Food is an essential element in this idea. [source]

Jumawood, writing at The Daily Cloud shares the enthusiasm for local foods, but points to the common failure to point to a working alternative to the conventional food system, one that works everywhere, and not just in locations where food can be raised year-round. This is the what-about-in-the-desert? critique.

Jumawood cites Michael Pollan’s recent response to the US Farm Bill as an example:

Critics of farm-policy-as-usual — and I count myself among them — did a much better job of demonizing subsidies than they did proposing alternative forms of farm support that would have won over some percentage of the farmers now receiving subsidies. [source]

This points towards one of the big questions I’m thinking about now when thinking about alternative food networks - what does alternative really mean here?

When you put farmers’ markets, farm shops, CSA, community gardens together into an alternative food network, do you get a food system which could stand as a viable alternative to shopping in supermarkets? Year-round?

Or will these more localised food projects always be limited to valuable add-ons to the conventional system?

In order to maintain some continuity, I’ll start this quick update with an apology, as I did a few weeks ago… The blog has definitely been a little neglected, but I think this is inevitable - busy times. I’m going to drop the weekly Local Food News posts for now, but will keep the research updates and other posts coming over the coming couple of months.

It is writing up time - I have a big stack of papers (all neatly organised of course):

a cup of coffee (not local, but fairly traded of course):

some books (not all relevant):

and two months…

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) High Level Conference on World Food Security opened this morning in Rome, attended by Heads of State from around the world, government ministers handling agriculture, fisheries, energy and the environment, and heads of selected NGOs.

The conference aims to coordinate responses to rising food prices around the world and to address the twin challenges of climate change and the rise in bioenergy production, changes to which the rising cost of food is widely attributed.

Speaking at the opening of the conference this morning, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated:

“The threats are obvious to us all. Yet this crisis also presents us with an opportunity. It is a chance to revisit past policies. While we must respond immediately to high food prices, it is important that our longer term focus is on improving world food security - and remains so for some years … The world needs to produce more food. Food production needs to rise by 50% by the year 2030 to meet the rising demand. We have a historic opportunity to revitalize agriculture - especially in countries where productivity gains have been low in recent years.” (pdf)

The stated outcomes of the conference are to:

1. achieve a better understanding of the nexus between food security, climate change and bioenergy;
2. agree on steps to be taken towards climate-responsive food security policies and programmes;
3. agree on steps to be taken towards sustainable bioenergy policies and programmes, taking into account food security and rural development.

For more introductory information about the conference, have a look at the brochure (click the image to the right).

In terms of immediate impacts, the conference is likely to agree on some short term redirection of aid towards agricultural programmes in the global south. Over the past 20 years the majority of overseas  investment has been directed to non-agricultural industries, and structural adjustment has stripped many countries of the ability to control their agricultural sector.

More significant, perhaps, will be the inevitable push to resolve the current Doha round of world trade negotiations, currently stalled over the reluctance of western countries to reduce agricultural subsidies. This is a thorny issue, both for the US where the 2007 Farm Bill has not removed federal subsidies, and in Europe, where direct payments to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) continue.

As an aside, a significant amount of media attention relating to the conference so far has been in response to the presence of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, whose Government has been widely blamed for the collapse of the country’s agricultural sector, and for the broader economic collapse.

Robert Malloch Brown, a UK Foreign Office Minister, is cited in today’s Guardian as saying

“This is like Pol Pot going to a human rights conference … Zimbabwe is one of the few countries whose food crisis is not due to climate change or global prices, but due to the disastrous policies pursued by Mugabe.”