Unlike the very visible farmed landscape, the sea is mysterious and largely unseen. Few of us are aware of what lies beneath the surface and how we exploit it. Beyond an awareness of dwindling fish stocks and rising sea levels, many of us have little understanding of how our exploitation of the sea threatens its ecosystems, or how the sea threatens the land.

Key themes

Some key themes emerged from the presentations and discussions:

• All are agreed that policy on the sea must change;
• Environmental, social and economic factors must be addressed together in a complex system;
• We need more protected areas, such as the proposed Marine Conservation Zones;
• There are clear examples of unsustainable practice, such as beam dredging in coral areas, fishing for orange roughy, or favouring the top of the food chain in general (described as “like eating lions”);
• There are also good examples of sustainable practice (eg Waitrose’s sourcing policy) but more needs to change;
• Consumer demand is changing (largely thanks to Hugh’s Fish Fight) but needs to change more;
• Small vessels are more sustainable – the only part of the fleet with net economic, social and environmental gain;
• The loss of land to the sea would have severe economic, as well as social and environmental, consequences;
• We all have a part to play – citizen participation and action is essential in changing policy and everyday choices.

The speakers

Dr Jason Hall-Spencer of Plymouth University described the abundant life of the sea, particularly on the seafloor where 98% of marine species live, dispelling the assumption that it is just a boring expanse of mud. Drawing on a 10 year census of marine life, he introduced recently discovered species, the flourishing habitats of giant underwater mountains – seamounts – and the teeming life of the cold water coral reefs in deep north European waters. Photographs of reefs pulverised by trawlers graphically illustrated the damage of some fishing methods, while the life cycle of the orange roughy, which takes decades to reach reproductive adulthood, offered an example of a “stupidly” unsustainable fishery.

Despite such gloomy insights into the damaged sea Jason highlighted some areas of hope. Steps are being taken in the right direction. Tracking systems help guide fishermen away from fragile areas, protecting breeding grounds for stocks and helping the fishermen avoid the corals that rip their nets and macerate the fish in them. The UK Government is currently considering the creation of new Marine Conservation Zones to protect important areas, though more democratic support is needed to give politicians confidence and impetus to take bold decisions. Where areas have been set aside there’s evidence that they can regenerate. We should all choose sustainably fished seafood, using MSC certification and the Good Fish Guide to navigate a confusing array of choices. We all have a part to play.

Dr Stuart Rogers of CEFAS discussed changes to local fisheries from climate change and over-fishing, where the once dominant herring is long gone, remaining cod stocks are moving north, and non-native species like anchovies are rapidly growing in number, along with less welcome comb jellyfish and harmful bacteria. He explained the role of CEFAS to provide scientific advice and evidence to the Government, balancing the complex social, economic and environmental factors that affect the sea. He described the problem of marine litter, both large (visible plastic that harms albatross chicks and other species) and small (micro-plastics from cosmetics that can disrupt the digestive systems of young herrings etc). The growth of offshore renewable energy presents new challenges though efforts are being made to co-locate turbines and fisheries. Dredging of sand and gravel banks is thought by some to aggravate coastal erosion though CEFAS has found no evidence of a possible mechanism.

Jeremy Ryland Langley, specialist fish buyer at Waitrose, explained that fish very important to Waitrose and demonstrates its commitment to corporate social responsibility. Believing that good food should not only taste and look great, but must be sourced in ethical and sustainable way, Waitrose pioneered sustainable fish sourcing, requiring that all the fish they sell is sourced from sustainable fisheries or responsibly farmed aquaculture. To be sustainable seafood must be managed and fished using practices that will ensure there will be plenty more fish to catch in the future. Waitrose also needs to offer its customers  great quality fish at affordable prices. While it doesn’t promise to agree with everything it will always listen, engage and debate – and sometimes argue. Waitrose has four pillars for sustainable fish buying:

1. Species must not be endangered or threatened, taking a precautionary approach and avoiding doubtful species, and encouraging sustainable alternatives (demand much increased after Fish Fight);
2. All fish must be caught with responsible methods (eg no beam trawled fish is bought because of the high fuel costs and effect on the seabed; line-caught fish are favoured for better quality, minimal impact on environment, less fuel use, and better targeting of species; discards are reduced through appropriate methods);
3. Everything must be traceable from catch to consumer;
4. All fish must be from well managed fisheries.

50% of fish sold by Waitrose is farmed, where a similar set of principles is applied:

1. Welfare must be maximised;
2. Farming methods must ensure long-term sustainability of the environment and community;
3. Feed must be from long-term sustainable sources (vegetable sources are being explored);
4. Everything must be fully traceable from farm to consumer.

In the future small inshore vessels will have increasing role to play though supplies are currently all through central hubs apart from initiatives in Wales, Cornwall and the Channel Islands. Waitrose buys fish from 35 different countries; some is shipped and some air-freighting, though this is likely to end. The buying policy applies to own-label tinned fish and pressure is increasingly applied to other brands, some of which have adopted similar sourcing policies.

James Thornton of ClientEarth, provides legal help and lobbying for the earth and its resources. Marine biodiversity a core concern with fisheries in severe decline but also the prospect of recovery if fisheries are better managed. An optimistic approach is essential: although 90% of the world’s sharks have been killed, at least we have 10% left. There is broad agreement between fishermen, conservationists and governments on the need for radical change (In contrast to climate change) but politics and vested interests are obstructive. Policy should follow clear principles for a more effective system (none of which are met by the current Common Fisheries Policy – possibly the worst law in the world and the main reason 80% of European fisheries are in decline):

1. Management of the sea must be based around ecosystems: with different approaches to meet different needs;
2. Quotas must follow scientific advice (politicians tend to set higher quota, on average 48% higher than advised);
3. Discards must be minimized – a system of annual credits (with limited transferability) to catch any species would give fishermen more choice, reduce the need for other regulations, and ensure that everything caught is landed and not discarded (with limited exceptions for species that can survive) – and providing better info on stocks;
4. Rules must be simple and make sense to avoid willing or unwilling violation
5. Policy must be consistency with other environmental law, eg not allowing fishing in protected areas;
6. The system must be transparent to allow citizens to participate.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is undergoing a 10-yearly revision through a 2 year process, with the first hearing in the European Parliament next month. The commission has high ambitions – the commissioner has said the new policy will reduce discards, encourage regional decisions, and follow scientific advice – but the proposal doesn’t do any of these things, leaving details vague and without mandatory timelines. The proposal must be changed by the European Parliament and Council – if we succeed we will continue to have fish and prosperous fishermen. We must all lobby.

Bill Parker, Suffolk Coast Futures Officer, described the engagement of the community in planning for the future of the Ore and Alde coastal area, which has long been threatened by the sea and faces continuing risk from sea surges. The project aims to ensure sustainable communities, to tackle the important local issues, to find new ways to multi-fund action, and to improve decision making with input from local community. Following advice from the Dutch, the approach is based on the whole area, looks at all major issues, recognises that solutions often found locally, and only tries to solve problems that can be solved locally.

Jerry Percy, fisherman and CEO of the Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, explained the history of North Sea fishing, the current methods used and state of the industry. While much current fishing is unsustainable, inshore fishermen rely on local stocks and have a strong incentive to protect them. Smaller vessels are challenged by economic and policy pressures and the the fleet is in decline, but where they survive they provide more employment and are the only part of the fishing fleet to offer a total net gain across economic, social and environmental values. Jerry echoed James Thornton’s suggestion that fisheries can be sustainable under the right policies, largely agreeing on the areas where the CFP must change and quoting the FAO’s assertion that properly managed fisheries could provide enough fish to feed everyone. Credits should be allocated according to environmental and social impact.

Sir Edward Greenwell, a farmer near Orford, described the findings of a field study into how the Suffolk economy could suffer if sea defences are not maintained. In the sandlings of the Alde and Ore area, production of high value potatoes and vegetables is only possible through irrigation that largely draws on water pumped from freshwater marshes, also providing necessary drainage. Incursion of seawater into the marshes would prevent this, leading to an annual loss of production to the value of £10.3 million out of current total production of £15.2 million. This would result in lost wages of £3 million and further lost local spending of £4 million. Communities must take imaginative action (eg through planning gain) to help maintain defences as the Government will not continue to do so.

Primary school children and young people working with Eastfeast ended the day by showing through dance and in an interview with Eastfeast’s director Yvonne Moores how they were developing skills and awareness through food and art.

This digest is a personal summary and interpretation of the presentations and discussion at the conference, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the participants. Please contact Nick Saltmarsh with any comments: email hidden; JavaScript is required

• If you are not a member of a CSA, please complete this survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CSA-non-member-survey
• If you are a member of a CSA, please complete this survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CSA-member-survey

It should only take 5 to 10 minutes. To thank you for your help, you’ll receive a discount code for books from Earthscan, a leading publisher of environmental books, and you’ll be entered into a prize draw for a selection of books.

So what’s this about?

Provenance is working with the Soil Association to research the impact of community supported agriculture (CSA), as part of the Making Local Food Work project to support CSA enterprises across England.

Community Supported Agriculture means any food, fuel or fibre producing initiative where the community shares the risks and rewards of production, whether through ownership, investment, sharing the costs of production, or provision of labour.

The survey and interview phases will be guided by the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach framework, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of CSAs and their members across the full range of social, human, physical, financial and natural capital / assets. The case studies will follow the more structured IDEA method, which can be repeated by the CSAs to measure future progress across economic, environmental and social criteria.

The results will be used to compile a full final report, summary report, and targeted factsheets for specific audiences – policymakers, funders, the media, CSA participants. We will also be providing feedback to individual CSAs on the findings from their members and local non-members (without any identification of individuals), which should be useful in guiding their future development.

We are carrying out this evaluation of the impact of CSA for the Soil Association’s CSA support work under the National Lottery funded Making Local Food Work programme.

We will shortly be contacting CSAs and their members across England to invite them to take part in our initial surveys. If you are involved with a CSA and would like to participate, please contact us.

Here’s the brief editorial intro from the recent newsletter:

After our break during the election and first months of the Coalition Government, SD Scene is back online and will be once again arriving in your in-boxes each month.

As the Government affirms its commitment to sustainable development and sets out its approach, we’ve articles this month on the developing relationship between the public sector, civil society and sustainable development.

Peter Madden, of Forum for the Future, considers the public sector’s record in embracing sustainable development and the greater potential to deliver public value. The Sustainable Development Commission watchdog report on sustainability in Government identifies significant progress and savings with opportunities for much more.

Meanwhile, Mike Perry, of the Plunkett Foundation, asks if community-ownership provides a big answer for the Big Society. The Sustainable Development Commission finds in The Future is Local that empowered communities can effectively deliver sustainable development at a local level.

We received the go-ahead to resume publication of the newsletter and regular updates to the website in July, with the first post-election issue of the newsletter sent out on 28th July.

These are interesting times for sustainable development as the policies and approach of the Coalition Government emerge: through SD Scene we’ll be keeping a close eye on developments in government, business and civil society.

For the latest news from SD Scene, subscribe to the monthly newsletter, watch for regular updates to the website, or follow our new Twitter stream.

SD Scene welcomes contributions from business and civil society: please contact Nick Saltmarsh with any suggestions.

“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.