“What ‘organic food’ and its localised market was in those days bears little resemblance to ‘the industry’ that it is today: an industry that is heavily and centrally policed, has a compendium of regulations and is ‘big business’ on a global scale.”

He goes on to describe how, despite rapidly growing demand for organic food over the last two decades, the area of land certified organic in the UK has remained pretty much static at around 3 or 4 percent. Rose believes that this is because the UK retail sector is now dominated by the supermarkets who care little where or how produce is grown or raised so long as it can be sold:

“Their green credentials include the import of some eighty percent of organic foods, shipped and flown in from all over the world and from farms that are often as big and as undistinctive as their conventional monocultural lookalikes.”

Rose’s argument is not new and represents one side of a perceived schism in the organic sector with those who are committed to the organic movement – a philosophical as well as practical position – suggesting that many new entrants see organic as no more than a collection of on-farm production techniques and supply chain assurance measures that, if applied and recognised, will attract a price premium.

Those committed to the organic movement bemoan what’s become cast as the ‘conventionalisation’ of organic production and supply systems and worry that this process erodes trust, compromises quality and limits access to markets for those ‘genuinely’ committed to organic production and so operating from a higher cost base. And it certainly is the case that the price premium has attracted new entrants to organic production, many of whom do apply organic standards to the same kinds of monocultural systems, supply chains and business practices as are used by ‘conventional’ producers. (Of course, agribusinesses and the big retails argue that they are democratising organic products – reducing prices and increasing access, whilst at the same time increasing demand and opportunities for producers: wherever they are in the world.)

Organic certification bodies have struggled to capture the economic and social elements that should complement the environmental aspects of organic production and supply in their standards. It is therefore perfectly possible for organisations and businesses with no real interest in the philosophy of organic production to produce food that meets a given set of standards, yet makes no contribution to a more generalised understanding of sustainability. Part of the problem is the difficulty of coming up with a set of practices and measurements that will consistently deliver and capture the sorts of social goods that the organic movement feels organic production should deliver. Another important factor is the time at which the first standards were written; in the 70s a technocratic approach to certification presented an opportunity for the older organisations to escape an at times slightly difficult history and once those standards had been written it proved hard to find space for anything that couldn’t easily be quantified.

Personally I have a lot of sympathy with Rose’s position, yet through my work for Provenance I’ve noticed that conventionalisation isn’t a one way street – or at least that the boundaries between organic and conventional systems are fuzzy.

A prime example is Home Farm Nacton, a 2500 acre estate on the Suffolk coast. The farm produces field scale vegetables and cereals for the conventional market and in the late 1990s it began a rolling process of organic certification to Soil Association standards – now over 300 acres are organic. As this has happened, far from the organic land becoming ‘conventionalised’ the rest of the farm has become much more organic: mechanical weeding and companion planting have almost completely eliminated pesticide and herbicide use in the conventional rotations whilst manure, compost and lay crops have significantly reduced the need for synthetic fertilizers.

Though much of Home Farm’s production still goes to the supermarkets (marketing 300 acres of organic vegetable production locally would be almost impossible at present), a significant trade with smaller shops, box schemes, caterers and wholesalers has begun to develop and continues to grow. Farm manager Andy Williams believes that organic production has made him think more about the rest of the land and “farm better”.

Unlike many of the really big vegetable producers (whose holding run into tens on thousands of acres here and on the continent), Home Farm Nacton is still family owned and is still very much part of the community and so, perhaps, is not open to the criticism of ‘conventionalisation’ in the first place. Nevertheless it does demonstrate that organic production can capture the spirit of the movement and effect wider change on larger farms where not all the land is certified.

The speakers, Prof. Martin Wolfe, Patrick Mulvany, Dr. Julia Wright and Dr. Michel Pimbert, argued that taking an agroecological approach to agriculture could help address environmental issues while maintaining and increasing food production: indeed, this was a key finding of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which DFID Ministers approved in June 2008. More recently the APPG report “Why no thought for food” has recommended that DFID should implement (as well as approve) the IAASTD findings. The implications of the IAASTD and APPG findings are a need for fundamental changes to agricultural policy and practice, if hunger is to be averted in ways that will ensure equity and restore the environment.

Patrick Mulvany, senior policy adviser to Practical Action and co-chair of the UK Food Group, began the meeting with an overview of agroecology and a call for an increase and strengthening of agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) towards agroecological sciences (as recommended by the IAASTD). He wryly observed that agroecological approaches – often farmer controlled, invariably low cost, generally focusing on smaller landowners and never dependent on expensive proprietary inputs – unlike new crop varieties or synthetic inputs, do not generate income through licensing. As a result they were of little interest to ‘UK Plc’.

The two presentations that followed focused on examples of agroecological approaches in action. In the first Prof. Martin Wolfe of the Organic Research Centre , talked about Waklyns Agroforestry, his own research farm in Suffolk. Martin explained that modern agriculture tended toward monocultures which are high yielding and require little labour input but are not particularly resilient (to, for example, climate variability or disease) and so are reliant on the unsustainable use of artificial inputs. By contrast diverse systems (both within and between species) like Waklyns produce high (complex) yields, are resilient and sustainable but do require a higher labour input.

For the last 12 years Dr. Julia Wright has carried out ground-breaking work on the coping strategies of Cuba’s food system in the absence of fuel, agrochemical and food imports (this research is captured in her 2008 book: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity: Lessons from Cuba). Her presentation (see below) described a project that developed rainwater harvesting and water protection strategies for drought resistance in Cuba. The first two slides also provide a useful comparison between agroecological and industrial approaches to agriculture.

As I’ll be writing about some of the activities ECCE-Bio is involved in over the next few months I thought some background information would be helpful.

Developing international links

In 2001 two organic farmers from Norfolk, encouraged by Clive Peckham of East Anglia Food Link, visited the El Tamiso organic producer cooperative in Padua, Italy, to learn about their direct and cooperative marketing initiatives.

Nine years on that initial relationship has evolved into ECCE-Bio, a European cooperative of five organic producer organizations involved in an exchange of people, expertise, information, and inspiration. At the heart of this organization is a common vision that in order to change the current industrial and impersonal food system (rather than be subsumed by it), the organic world has to create an alternative model that works. This model is based on ‘convivial economics’; developing real long-term relationships with like-minded organic producers and consumers, ensuring not only a more stable and fairer market, but an open exchange of expertise and information.

In 2008 the decision was taken to create a formal organization as a means not only to create a common image, a common message, and common resources, but also as a common platform to put forward cooperative, ecological and ethical message to a wider audience.

Two years later, and having weathered the recession, ECCE-Bio’s members are keen to find new partner groups of farmers and growers and new projects to work on. ECCE-Bio’s members are particularly interested in work that focuses on farmer-led knowledge and advocacy networks, crop genetic diversity (including issues such as seed exchange, GM and IPRs), and that challenges the ‘conventionalisation’ of the organic sector.

ECCE-Bio’s founder members are:

Somerset Organic Link
La Terra e Il Cielo
Leitrim Organic Farmers
El Tamiso
Agricola Pueblos Blancos

Download the ECCE-Bio Charter…

Provenance has also developed a new website for SD Scene. Sitting within the Sustainable Development Programme website, the dynamic SD Scene section allows frequent updates and user comment and discussion.

A monthly e-newsletter rounds up the highlights of each month’s updates on SD Scene. Featured in the first issue of the relaunched newsletter are an interview with Will Day, Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, and news stories on the International Year of Biodiversity, the government’s Food 2030 strategy, a recent study on education and sustainable development, and much more.

Nick Saltmarsh of Provenance is acting as external editor of SD Scene over the coming months. Why not subscribe and keep up to date on developments in sustainable development?

Of course it has always been easy to measure money but not easy to measure the environmental and social effects of a purchase. This must sound very simplistic but we see that the most compelling driver for public procurement , and our own shopping baskets is the cheapest option especially in these troubled financial times. But what if we could measure those environmental and social issues. We now have Fair Trade products, although it beats me as to why this should not apply to UK farmers. Fair Trade allows a more informed social discussion when shopping. But the environmental issue is the confusing aspect. Is it better to buy a tomato produced in a heated greenhouse that one that come in a diesel burning lorry from Spain where only the sun heated the crop ? We have one pointer towards sustainable production and that is the Organic growing system.

Food miles contribute approximately 2% of the carbon produced in food production while making artificial fertilizer contributes about 30%. Blended fertilizers are better but we are running out of the mined ingredients for artificial fertilizer. So why do we not try to do something about that. Organic production uses natural methods of fertility building. This does compromise yield a little but at least to does not harm the soil, produces far less carbon and is probably sustainable.

I am seeing so many references to sustainability when policies are written, specifications are compiled and instructions for procurement are given. They are often followed by the caveat that Organic produce is not purchased. This is not hard to research, there is miles of information on the internet. So why do so many people only have a subjective opinion about these matters. The facts are out there although you may be blinded by the vested interests of companies desire to maximize profit at any environmental or social cost.

Thank you for reading my rant of the day.

I make all my preserves by hand in Pulham Market, Norfolk, following family recipes, creating new recipes and using the finest own-grown, wild and local produce. My latest seasonal speciality is a tart crab apple and chilli jelly, made with a bumper harvest of garden crab apples and Apache chillies from my mother’s greenhouse; it is fantastic with roast beef.

Janet Peachey’s handmade preserves have until now only been available through selected markets and shops in Norfolk and Suffolk. Now Provenance has launched a website and online shop for Peachey’s Preserves offering the year-round range for delivery across the UK.

Like many local producers, Peachey’s Preserves works with a network of local growers, brewers and others, to produce superb and locally distinctive foods. The apple, cider and sage jelly is made with garden sage and Aspall’s cyder from Debenham in Suffolk; apricot and Norfolk Ale chutney uses Norfolk Nectar Ale from the Humpty Dumpty Brewery at Reedham; date and Chestnut Ale chutney draws rich flavours from the ale of Alburgh’s Grain Brewery.

The Peachey’s Preserves website also lists local outlets and special events, such as Gressenhall’s Apple Day celebration on 25th October, along with details of seasonal products and recipe suggestions. Even the recipes have a local emphasis, such as the irresistible baked gammon with apricot and Norfolk Ale chutney, recommending gammon from Cannells butchers in Diss.

Find out more about Provenance’s web services…

Who stands to gain?

The Global Harvest Initiative has identified this target as its express goal:

By 2050, we must eliminate the global productivity gap by sustainably doubling agricultural output to meet the needs of a growing world.

Feeding the world is an undeniably commendable aim, but is a rush to increase agricultural productivity really the best way to go about it? As Paula Crossfield, of Civil Eats, has observed, the target may do more to increase the profits of multinational agri-business than to feed the world’s hungry. Who’s behind the GHI? DuPont, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and John Deere.

More achievable and sustainable approaches to addressing hunger include reducing food waste along the food supply chain, distributing the world’s food more equitably and managing demand for resource-hungry meat and dairy products.

Profligacy

Tristram Stuart examines these issues in his powerful new book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Stuart developed a very personal interest in food waste from seeking swill for his pigs as a child to rescuing supermarket waste from bins as a campaigning freegan. He successfully combines personal experience with extensive research to present a compelling argument that profligate waste of food is at the heart of our dysfunctional food system.

Stuart digs up some truly shocking statistics from FAO data: of a total global edible food harvest of 4,600 kCal per person per day, only 2,000 kCal are consumed (1,700 are fed to animals, yielding just 400 in return; 600 are lost between field and food industry, 800 lost in distribution, retail, catering and households). The world is already producing more than twice the amount of food we actually consume.

One of many striking graphs in the book’s appendix plots countries’ GDP against edible crop harvest (including crops fed to livestock) as a percentage of nutritional requirements. In every country except the Democratic Republic of Congo, the harvest is over 100% of requirements, rising (in close correlation to GDP) to over 300% in most of the developed world and over 400% in the USA and Greece. Meat production is an important part of the story, but needn’t be such a drain on resources: another telling morsel of information is that livestock in Kenya are net contributors to food supply, feeding on residues and grass rather than arable crops.

Besides the abundance of informative data, a diverse collection of photos starkly illustrates rampant profligacy in farming, processing and retail.

Positive lessons

Stuart examines, and dismisses, possible arguments that waste is inevitable, identifying positive examples of less wasteful countries and cultures, particularly the Uighurs of China. The FAO identifies a food supply level of 130% as providing a sufficient buffer against crop failure and other supply problems; achieving this would leave enough surplus food at current production levels to feed an additional 3 billion people (without any change to dietary patterns), about the number by which the world’s population is expected to rise by 2050.

All of which suggests that we don’t need another Green Revolution to feed the world, rather to eliminate profligate waste from farm to table. Such a waste revolution will not even require drastic changes to our lifestyles, but will have to be achieved piecemeal, changing the attitude and behaviour of individuals, households, businesses and farms across the world.

Practical local steps to eliminating waste

At a local level, farms and businesses can take relatively simple steps to reduce waste. Production planning, supplying food through more diverse and direct markets, professional supply chain management, raising production standards, collaborating and sharing information, auditing sustainability and monitoring waste: all can contribute to a more efficient and less wasteful food supply system. Provenance hopes it can play a part in helping businesses achieve such vital steps.

William Stanley Jevons (left) was a leading 19th Century economist, as well as being a chemist, botanist, urban geographer and pioneering photographer. Jevons was central to the marginalist revolution in economic theory and perhaps his most important contribution was the eponymous paradox. In 1865 Jevons described how, in relation to coal, increased efficiencies of use lead to an increase rather than decrease in the use of that resource. At the time this was very much contrary to the prevailing wisdom, but it has since been identified in many situations – particularly in relation to fossil fuels and energy use but also, as we have seen, in the case of water use.

The Paradox has been used to argue that resource use efficiency – particularly energy conservation, is a waste of time. But this is to miss the point: Jevons was writing very specifically about technological improvements that improve efficiency. If those improvements are coupled with institutional changes – for example progressive taxation to increase fuel cost (this canceling the economic benefits associated with greater use efficiency), effective policies (that encourage the adoption of more efficient technologies) and campaigns to effect behavioral change then the Jevons Paradox will not manifest itself. In addition it’s important to consider where marginal utility in any goods or services reside. For example, in the case of low energy light bulbs it is the light emitted not the energy required that is ultimately of interest to consumers so their adoption is unlikely to lead to increased energy demands.

At Provenance, when we’re devising sustainability plans for clients, we endeavour to consider the perverse consequences that arise when too much emphasis is placed on any one aspect or outcome of a business or organisation’s activities. This isn’t always easy, particularly as the evidence base is continually growing and shifting, but we’ve got no intention of slipping into the trap of becoming too attached to a single indicator, such as carbon, or a single methodological approach, such as life cycle analysis (LCA) rather a suite of indicators and measures.

Earlier this year an excellent and timely book about the Jevons Paradox and its implications was published by EarthScan. Called Jevons’ Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements and written by John Polimeni, Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro and Blake Alcott it’s well worth a look (though it isn’t cheap!).