[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Food and Farming Transition

[Bill Totten]

MuseLetter 199 (November 2008)

by Richard Heinberg


The only way to avert a food crisis resulting from oil and natural gas
price hikes and supply disruptions while also reversing agriculture's
contribution to climate change is to proactively and methodically remove
fossil fuels from the food system.

The removal of fossil fuels from the food system is inevitable:
maintenance of the current system is simply not an option over the long
term. Only the amount of time available for the transition process, and
the strategies for pursuing it, can be matters for controversy.

Given the degree to which the modern food system has become dependent on
fossil fuels, many proposals for de-linking food and fuels are likely to
appear radical. However, efforts toward this end must be judged not by
the degree to which they preserve the status quo, but by their likely
ability to solve the fundamental challenge that will face us: the need
to feed a global population of seven billion with a diminishing supply
of fuels available to fertilize, plow, and irrigate fields and to
harvest and transport crops.

If this transition is undertaken proactively and intelligently, there
could be many side benefits - more careers in farming, more protection
for the environment, less soil erosion, a revitalization of rural
culture, and more healthful food for everyone.

Some of this transformation will inevitably be driven by market forces,
led simply by the rising price of fossil fuels. However, without
planning the transition may be wrenching and destructive, since market
forces acting alone could bankrupt farmers while leaving consumers with
few or no options.

The Transition
-----------------

To remove fossil fuels from the food system too quickly, before
alternative systems are in place, would be catastrophic. Thus the
transition process must be a matter for careful consideration and planning.

In recent years there has been some debate on the problem of how many
people a non-fossil fueled food system can support. The answer is still
unclear. But we will certainly find out, because there is likely to be
no alternative, given that substitute liquid fuels - including
coal-to-liquids, biofuels, tar sands, and shale oil - are all
problematic and cannot be relied upon to replace cheap crude oil and
natural gas as these deplete.

There are reasons for hope: a recent report on African agriculture from
the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) suggests that
"organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which
were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the
environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings
with it".

Nevertheless, given that we do not know whether non-fossil fuel
agriculture can in fact feed a population now approaching seven billion
- and given that current fuels-based agriculture cannot be relied upon
to do so for much longer, given the reality of fuel depletion - the
prudent path forward would surely be to tie agricultural policy to
population policy.

Indeed, coordination will be essential also between agriculture policies
and education, economic, transport, energy policies. The food system
transition will be comprehensive, and will require integration with all
segments and aspects of society.

This document is intended to serve as the basis for the beginning of
that planning process. Our aim is to develop a template that can be used
to strategically plan the transition of food and farming across the
world, region by region, and at all scales (from the farm to the
community to the nation), beginning here in the UK.

Elements of Transition
---------------------------

The following are some key strategic elements of the food systems
transition process that will need to be addressed at all levels of
scale, from the household to the nation and beyond.

Re-Localization

In recent decades the food systems of Britain and most other nations
have become globalized. Food is traded in enormous quantities - and not
just luxury foods (such as coffee and chocolate), but staples including
wheat, maize, meat, potatoes, and rice.

The globalization of the food system has had advantages: people in
wealthy countries now have access to a wide variety of foods at all
times, including fruits and vegetables that are out of season (apples in
May or asparagus in January), and foods that cannot be grown locally at
any time of year (eg, avocadoes in Scotland). Long-distance transport
enables food to be delivered from places of abundance to areas of
scarcity. Whereas in previous centuries a regional crop failure might
have led to famine, its effects now can be neutralized by food imports.

However, food globalization also creates systemic vulnerability. As fuel
prices rise, costs of imported food go up. If fuel supplies were
substantially cut off as the result of some transient event, the entire
system could fail. A globalized system is also more susceptible to
accidental contamination, as we have seen recently with the appearance
of toxic melamine in foods from China. The best way to make our food
system more resilient against such threats is clear: decentralize and
re-localize it.

Re-localization will inevitably occur sooner or later as a result of
declining oil production, since there are no alternative energy sources
on the horizon that can be scaled up quickly to take the place of
petroleum. But if the transition process is to unfold in a beneficial
rather than a catastrophic way, it must be planned and coordinated. This
will require deliberate effort aimed at building the infrastructure for
regional food economies - ones that can support diversified farming and
reduce the amount of fossil fuel in the British diet.

Re-localization means producing more basic food necessities locally. No
one advocates doing away with food trade altogether: this would hurt
both farmers and consumers. Rather, what is needed is a prioritization
of production so that lower-value food items (which are typically staple
calorie crops) are mostly sourced from close by, with most long-distance
trade left to higher-value foods, and especially those that store well.

This decentralization of the food system will result in greater societal
resilience in the face of fuel price volatility. Problems of food
contamination, when they appear, will be minimized. Meanwhile,
revitalization of local food production will help renew local economies.
Consumers will enjoy better quality food that is fresher and more
seasonal. And transport-related climate impacts will be reduced.

Each nation or region will need to devise its own strategy for
re-localizing its food system, based on a thorough initial assessment of
vulnerabilities and opportunities. The following are some general
suggestions that are likely to be applicable in most instances:

* The process will benefit enormously from policy support at both
national and regional levels. This could include, for example, the
provision of grants to towns and cities to build year-round indoor
farmers' markets.

* Food-safety regulations should be made appropriate to the scale of
production and distribution, so that a small grower selling direct off
the farm or at a farmers' market is not regulated as onerously as a
multinational food manufacturer. While local food may have safety
problems, these will inevitably occur on a smaller scale and will be
easier to manage because local food is inherently more traceable and
accountable.

* Governments can require that some minimum percentage of food purchases
for schools, hospitals, military bases, and prisons are sourced within
100 miles of the institutions buying the food. Channelling even a small
portion of institutional food purchasing to local growers would greatly
expand opportunities for regional producers while improving the diet of
people whom these institutions feed.

* Cities and towns can rework their waste management systems so as to
collect food scraps that can then be converted to compost, biogas, and
livestock feed - which can in turn be made available to local growers.

But government can do only so much. Consumers must develop the habit of
preferentially buying locally sourced foods whenever possible, and they
can be encouraged in this by "Buy Local" educational literature
distributed by retailers - who can also assist by clearly labeling and
prominently displaying local products.

Growers themselves must rethink their business strategies. Instead of
growing specialty crops for export, they must plan a transition to
production of staple foods for local consumption. They must also
actively seek local markets for their food. The Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA) movement provides a business model that has proven
successful in many communities. Small producers can also create informal
co-ops to acquire machinery (such as small threshing machines for cereal
and oilseed processing or micro hydro turbines for electricity).

The strategy of re-localizing food systems will be more challenging for
some nations and regions than others. Given that the food footprint of
London encompasses essentially all of England, the challenge for Britain
is greater than is the case for many other nations. More urban gardens
and even small animal operations (with chickens, ducks, geese, and
rabbits) within London and other cities should be encouraged, but even
then it will be necessary to source most food from the countryside,
delivering it to the city by rail. Thus re-localization should be seen
as a process and a general direction of effort, not as an absolute goal.

Energy

As society turns away from fossil fuels, the energy balance of farming
must once again become net positive. However, the transition process
will be complex and problematic. Farms will still need sources of energy
for their operations, and will need to provide much or all of that
energy for themselves. Meanwhile, farmers could also take advantage of
opportunities to export surplus energy to nearby communities as a way of
increasing farm income.

Farms must be powered with renewable energy. However, many energy needs
on farms - such as fuel for tractors and other machinery - are currently
difficult to fill with anything other than liquid fuels, which currently
come in the form of diesel or petrol made from crude oil. Farmers should
first look for ways to reduce fuel needs through efficiency or
replacement of machines with animal power or human labor. This is most
likely to be economically feasible in dairy, meat, vegetable, fruit, and
nut operations. Where fuel-fed machinery is still required, which is
likely to continue being the case for grain production, ethanol or
biodiesel made on-site could supplement or replace petroleum. Farmers
could aim to apportion one-fifth of their cropland to production of
biofuels for their own use.

Many other farm operations require electricity, and this can be
generated on-site with wind turbines, solar panels, and micro-hydro
turbines. Effort first must be devoted to making operations more
energy-efficient. Because these technologies require initial investment
and pay for themselves slowly over time, assistance from government and
from financial institutions in the form of grants and low-interest loans
could be instrumental in helping farmers overcome initial economic
hurdles toward energy self-sufficiency.

Eventually farmers are capable of being not just self-sufficient in
energy, but of producing surplus energy for surrounding communities.
Much of this exported energy is likely to come in the form of biomass -
agricultural and forestry waste that can be burned to produce
electricity. While farmers can also grow crops for the production of
biofuels, the ecological and thermodynamic limits of this energy
technology require that the scale of production be deliberately
restricted. Otherwise, society's demand for fuel could overwhelm
farmers' ability to produce food - and food must remain their first
priority. In exporting biomass from the farm, growers must always keep
in mind the productive capacity of sustainable agricultural systems, and
they must strictly monitor soil health and fertility.

The transition of farms to renewable energy will require planning.
Farmers, ideally with the assistance of regional and national agencies,
should plan to increase energy efficiency, to reduce fossil fuel inputs,
and to grow renewable energy production according to a staged,
integrated program designed for the unique needs and capabilities of
each farm. As a general guideline, the plan should aim to reduce oil and
natural gas inputs by at least half during the first decade.

Soil Fertility

In industrial agriculture, soil fertility is maintained with inputs
provided from off-site. Of these inputs, the most important are nitrogen
and phosphorus. Nitrogen comes from ammonia-based fertilizers made from
fossil fuels - principally, natural gas. Phosphorus comes from phosphate
mines in several countries. While sufficient low-quality phosphate
deposits exist to supply world needs for many decades, high-quality
deposits that are currently being mined are quickly depleting, which
means that phosphate prices will likely rise within the next few years. {1}

Both nitrogen and phosphorus are essential to agriculture. And our
current ways of supplying both are clearly unsustainable. Unless
alternative ways of maintaining soil fertility are quickly found, a
crisis looms.

The long-term solution will surely depend on a two-fold strategy:
designing farm systems that build fertility through crop rotations, and
recycling nutrients.

Crop rotation can help with maintaining nitrogen levels. Simply planting
a cover crop after the fall harvest significantly reduces nitrogen
leaching while cutting down on soil erosion. Meanwhile, introducing
leguminous crops into the rotation cycle replaces nitrogen.

Cleverly designed polycultures can sustainably produce large amounts of
food, as has been shown not only by small-scale "alternative" farmers in
Britain and America, but also by large rice-and-fish farmers in China
and giant-scale operations (up to 15,000 acres) in Argentina. There,
farmers employ an eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual
crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture, farmers then grow
three years of grain without applying fertilizer. The need for
herbicides is also dramatically reduced: weeds that afflict pasture
cannot survive the years of tillage, and weeds of row crops don't
survive years of grazing.

Most industrial farmers have left behind the practice of cover cropping
because commercial fertilizers have become the cheaper option. That cost
equation is about to shift. It is therefore important that farmers begin
planning for higher fertilizer prices now by gearing up their rotation
cycles and building natural soil fertility ahead of the immediate need.

In industrial agriculture, the soil is treated as an inert substance
that holds plants in place while chemical nutrients are applied
externally. Without efforts to maintain natural fertility, over time
organic matter disappears from the soil, along with beneficial soil
micro-organisms. In the future, as chemical fertilizers become more
expensive, farmers will need to devote much more attention to the
practice of building healthy soil. But rebuilding nutrient-depleted soil
takes, at minimum, several years of effort.

Traditional farmers increase organic matter in topsoil through the
application of compost - which not only builds soil fertility, but also
improves the soil's ability to hold water and thus withstand drought.
There is also mounting evidence that food grown in properly composted
soil is of higher nutritional quality. Currently, in typical modern
cities, consumers, retailers, wholesalers and institutions discard
enormous quantities of food. Some communities have already instituted
municipal programs for composting of food and yard waste; such programs
could be expanded and made mandatory, with compost being given free to
local farmers. This would reduce the amount of garbage going to land
fills, as well as farmers' needs for fertilizers and irrigation, while
improving the nutritional quality of the British diet.

In addition, recent research with "terra preta" (also known as "bio
char"), a charcoal-like material that can be produced from agricultural
waste, suggests that its introduction to soils could reduce plants' need
for nitrogen by twenty to thirty percent while sequestering carbon that
would otherwise end up in the atmosphere.

The potential of composting and the use of terra preta to mitigate the
climate crisis is hardly trivial: a one-percent increase of soil organic
matter in the top 33.5 centimetres of the soil is equivalent to the
capture and storage of 100 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per
square kilometre of farmland.

Ultimately, there is no solution to the phosphorus supply problem other
than full-system nutrient recycling. This will entail a complete
redesign of sewage systems to recapture nutrients so they can be
returned to the soil - as Chinese farmers learned to do centuries ago.
But if sewage systems (or simpler variants) are to become primary
sources of phosphorus and other soil nutrients, they cannot continue to
be channels for the disposal of toxic wastes. It is essential that
separate waste streams be developed for the disposal of all
pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, and industrial wastes. Thus the
problem of soil fertility is one that farmers cannot solve on their own:
it is a crisis of the food system as a whole, and must be addressed
contextually and holistically.

Diet

The consumer is as important to the food system as the producer. During
recent decades, consumer preferences have been shaped to fit the
industrial food system through advertising and the development of
mass-marketed, uniform, packaged food products that, while often
nutritionally inferior, are cheap, attractive, in some cases even
physically addictive. The advent and rapid proliferation of "fast food"
restaurants has likewise fostered a diet that is profitable to giant
industrial agribusiness, but disastrous to the health of consumers.
However lamentable these trends may be from a public health standpoint,
they are clearly unsustainable in view of the energy and climate crises
facing modern agriculture.

Because processed and packaged foods and fresh foods imported out of
season add to the energy intensity of the food system, rich and poor
alike must be encouraged to eat food that is locally grown, that is in
season, and that is less processed. Public education campaigns could
help shift consumer preferences in this regard.

A shift toward a less meat-centered diet should also be encouraged,
because a meat-based diet is substantially more energy intensive than
one that is plant-based.

Government can help with a shift in diet preferences through its own
food purchasing polices (see "Re-Localization", above). The process can
be helped even further by a more careful official government definition
of "food". It makes no sense for government efforts intended to improve
the nutritional health of the people to support the consumption of
products known to be unhealthful - such as soda and other junk food.

Farming Systems

During the past few decades farming has become more specialized. Today,
a typical farm may produce only meat of a single kind (turkey, chicken,
pork, or beef), or only dairy, or a single type of grain, vegetable,
fruit, or nut.

This narrow specialization seemed to make economic sense in the era of
cheap transport and cheap farm inputs. But because nature is diverse and
integrated, the deliberate elimination of diversity on the farm has led
to problems at every step. For example, animal feedlot operations (also
known as concentrated animal feed operations, or CAFOs) produce enormous
amounts of waste that end up in massive manure lagoons that pollute
ground water and foul the air. Meanwhile, grain diets fed to the animals
result in digestive problems requiring the large-scale administration of
antibiotics that find their way into both the human food system and
ground water, and that lead to antibiotic resistance among disease
organisms that afflict humans.

Farm specialization also impacts the grain or vegetable grower: soils
that annually produce these crops need a regular replenishment of
nitrogen; but if the farmer keeps few animals, there may be no option
other than to import fertilizers from off-site.

By switching to multi-enterprise diverse systems, farmers can often
solve a range of problems at once. Feeding much less grain to livestock
while giving them access to pasture that is in rotation with other crops
maintains soil fertility while leading to better animal health and
higher food quality. The farmer, the environment, and the consumer all
benefit.

The post-hydrocarbon food transition may also compel a rethinking of the
size of farm operations. The mechanization of farm operations and the
centralization of food systems favored larger farms. However, as fuel
for farm machinery becomes more costly, and as farming once again
involves more labor, smaller-scale operations will once again be
profitable. In addition, a smaller scale of operations will be needed as
farms become more diverse, since farmers will have more system elements
to monitor. Agriculture will thus become more knowledge-intensive,
requiring a curious, holistic attitude on the part of farmers.

In urban areas, micro-farms and gardens - including vertical gardens and
rooftop gardens that in some cases include small animals such as
chickens and rabbits - could provide a substantial amount of food for
growers and their families, along with occasional income from selling
seasonal surpluses at garden markets.

Farm Work

With less fuel available to power agricultural machinery, the world will
need many more farmers. But for farmers to succeed, some current
agricultural policies that favor larger-scale production and production
for export will need to change, while policies that support small-scale
subsistence farms, gardens, and agricultural co-ops must be formulated
and put in place - both by international institutions such as the World
Bank, and also by national and regional governments.

Currently the UK has 541,000 farmers, depending on how the term is
defined. In the UK in 1900, nearly forty percent of the population
farmed; the current proportion is less than one percent. Today, the
average farmer is nearing retirement age.

In nations and regions where food is grown without machinery, a larger
percentage of the population must be involved in food production. For
example, farmers make up more than half the populations of China, and
India, Nepal, Ethiopia, and Indonesia.

While the proportion of farmers that would be needed in Britain if the
country were to become self-sufficient in food grown without fossil
fuels is unknown (that would depend upon technologies used and diets
adopted), it would undoubtedly be much larger than the current
percentage. It is reasonable to expect that several million new farmers
would be required - a number that is both unimaginable and unmanageable
over the short term. These new farmers would have to include a broad mix
of people, reflecting the UK's increasing diversity. Already growing
numbers of young adults are becoming organic or biodynamic farmers, and
farmers' markets and CSAs are also springing up across the country.
These tentative trends must be supported and encouraged. In addition to
Government policies that support sustainable farming systems based on
smaller farming units, this will require:

* Education: Universities and community colleges must quickly develop
programs in small-scale ecological farming methods - programs that also
include training in other skills that farmers will need, such as in
marketing and formulating business plans. Apprenticeships and other
forms of direct knowledge transfer will also assist the transition.

* Financial Support: Since few if any farms are financially successful
the first year or even the second or third, loans and grants will be
needed to help farmers get started.

* A revitalization of farming communities and farming culture: Over the
past decades UK rural towns have seen their best and brightest young
people flee first to distant colleges and then to cities. Farming
communities must be interesting, attractive places if we expect people
to inhabit them and for children to want to stay there.

Seeds

Today's seed industry is centralized and reliant upon the very
fuel-based transport system whose future viability is in question. Most
commercial seeds are of hybrid varieties, so that farmers cannot save
seed but must purchase new supplies each year.

Worldwide, a growing proportion of the commercial seeds that are
available are genetically modified. GM seeds have primarily been
developed by chemical companies to support the sale of their proprietary
herbicides. The promise of more nutritious foods, or crops that can
produce biofuels more efficiently, is years from realization. Given that
the need for transition is immediate, efforts to build a post-fossil
fuel food system cannot wait for new technologies that may or may not
appear or succeed. In any case, the GM seed industry is based upon
current systems of transport, and fuel-based inputs such as chemical
fertilizers and herbicides, that are all inextricably tied to the wider
fossil-fuel based provisioning systems of society. Thus GM crops would
be unlikely to be of much help in the transition in any case.

What is needed instead is a coordinated effort to identify
open-pollinated varieties of food crops that are adapted to local soils
and microclimates, and a program to make such seeds available to farmers
and gardeners in sufficient quantities. In addition, local colleges must
begin offering courses on the techniques of seed saving.

Processing and Distribution Systems

The transition process will undoubtedly be fraught with challenges to
food processing and distribution systems, which currently rely on large
energy inputs and long-distance transport.

For example, the meat industry now depends upon centralized facilities
for slaughtering livestock - which must be transported long distances to
these facilities. Re-localizing food systems will entail creating
incentives for the emergence of smaller, more localized slaughterhouses
and butcher shops. One interim solution would be for a fleet of mobile
abattoirs to go from farm to farm, processing animals humanely and
inexpensively.

Many health regulations were originally designed to check abuses by the
largest food producers, but such regulations may now inhibit the
development of smaller-scale and more localized processing and
distribution systems. For example, farmers should be able to smoke a ham
and sell it to their neighbours without making a huge investment in
nationally approved facilities. A small producer selling direct from the
farm or at a farmers' market should not be subject to the same food
safety regulations as a multinational food manufacturer: while local
food may occasionally have safety problems, those problems will be less
catastrophic and easier to manage than similar problems at
industrial-scale facilities.

Food processors must look for ways to make their present operations more
energy efficient, while government, consumers, and retailers find ways
to reduce the need for food processing and also for food packaging. This
gradual shift will require institutional support for families in
storing, processing, cooking, and preserving food within the home.

Meanwhile, in view of inevitable problems with existing transport
systems, national and regional food storage systems must be
reconsidered. Reserves of grain, sufficient to provide for essential
needs during an extended food crisis, should be kept and managed to
avoid spoilage.

Packaging of food should be regulated to minimize the use of plastics,
which will become more scarce and expensive as oil and gas deplete - and
which are implicated as sources of toxins in any case.

Government should institute policies that prioritize the distribution of
food within the nation by rail and water, rather than by road, as trucks
are comparatively energy inefficient.

Supermarkets are currently the ultimate distribution sites for food in
most instances. However, this model presupposes near-universal access to
automobiles and petrol. A resilient food system will require smaller and
more widely distributed access points in the forms of small shops and
garden or farm markets. Government regulations and tax incentives can
help accomplish that shift.

Wholesalers and distributors will have a changed role in a transitioning
food system. They will still be needed to manage the supplies of various
seasonally produced foods moving from producers to consumers. However,
rather than favoring large producers and giant supermarket chains, they
must alter their operations to serve smaller, more distributed farms and
gardens, as well as smaller and more distributed retail shops.

Resilience Action Planning
-------------------------------

The transition process will succeed by creating more resilience in food
systems. Resilient systems are able to withstand higher magnitudes of
disturbance before undergoing a dramatic shift to a new condition in
which they are controlled by a different set of processes. One quality
of resilience is redundancy - which is often at odds with economic
efficiency. Efficiency implies both long supply chains and the reduction
of inventories to a minimum. This "just-in-time" delivery of products
reduces costs - but it increases the vulnerability of systems to
disturbances such as fuel shortages. As more attention is paid to
resilience and less to economic efficiency, redundancy and larger
inventories are seen as benefits rather than liabilities. Other
resilience values include diversity (as opposed to uniformity), and
dispersion (rather than centralization) of control over systems.

Building resilience into our food systems as we move toward a
post-fossil fuel economy will entail all of the Elements of Transition
detailed above. It will also require planning at four levels:
Government, Community, Business, and Individual or Family. At each level
the planning process will necessarily be somewhat different. The purpose
of this section is to delineate the main planning steps that will make
sense at each of these levels. In some instances, steps within an action
plan can or should be undertaken concurrently. In any case, what is
offered here is merely a skeletal outline for a process that must be
developed to fit unique needs of those it will serve.

Government

The following steps are applicable at any level of government -
national, regional, or local. At the highest level of scale (the
nation), each step will itself be the subject of planning and
delegation. At the lowest level of scale (small villages), government
may lack the capacity to undertake any of these steps and can do more
than offer symbolic official support to volunteer citizen initiatives.

1. Assess the existing food system. Begin with a study of current
systemic vulnerabilities and opportunities. How are farm inputs
currently sourced? How much food is currently imported? What proportion
of those food imports are staples, and what proportion are luxury foods?
What are the environmental costs of current agricultural practices? How
would the current food system be impacted by fuel shortages and high prices?

2. Review policies. How are current policies supporting these
vulnerabilities and environmental impacts? How can they be changed or
eliminated? Are there policies already in place that are likely to help
with the transition? How can these latter policies be strengthened?

3. Bring together key stakeholders. Organizations of farmers, food
processing and distributing companies, and retailers must all be
included in the transition process. Many will wish simply to maintain
the existing system; however, it must be made clear that this is not an
option. Many companies involved in the food system will need to change
their business model substantially.

4. Make a plan. The transition plan that is formulated must be
comprehensive and detailed, and must contain robust but attainable
targets with timelines and mechanisms for periodic review and revision.
A scoping exercise must be undertaken to assess the impact of the plan
on agricultural output and to quantify the changes in kinds of
commodities produced and in their volumes and prices. Simon Fairlie's
paper, "Can Britain Feed Itself?", is an initial attempt at such an
exercise, and can be used as a model to be built upon and supplemented {2}.

5. Educate and involve the public. The public must not only be informed
about the government-led aspects of the transition process, but must be
included in it to the extent that is practical. Citizens must be
educated about food choices, gardening opportunities, and ways to access
food from local producers. Their successes and challenges in adaptation
will inform new iterations of the plan.

6. Shift policies and incentives. This is the key responsibility of
government, as it either limits or enhances the ability of community
groups, businesses, and families to engage in the transition process.
Policy changes must reflect stakeholder input, but must nevertheless be
designed primarily to further the Elements of Transition, rather than
the short-term interests of any particular stakeholder group.

7. Monitor and adjust. An undertaking of this magnitude will inevitably
have unforeseen and unintended impacts. Thus it is essential that
progress be continually be reviewed with an eye to making adjustments to
pace and strategy, while maintaining absolute adherence to the central
task of methodically removing fossil fuels from the food system.

Community

The following are action steps for adoption by voluntary community
groups, as opposed to governments (see above). The Transition Network
provides an excellent model for this kind of community action. Such
efforts seem to work best when the scale of community is such that
meetings are manageable in size and meeting participants need not travel
long distances. Thus in large cities, neighborhoods could apply
Resilience Action Planning while sending delegates to occasional
city-wide coordinating meetings. The overlap and mutual support between
community organizations and local government efforts must be a matter
for discussion and negotiation.

1. Assess the local food system. This assessment process should be
undertaken in cooperation with government, so as not to duplicate tasks.
Volunteer citizen groups are in position to provide perspectives that
otherwise might elude government assessment efforts - such as
opportunities for community gardens, or problems with access to food
from local producers.

2. Identify and involve stakeholders. Local growers, shop owners, public
kitchens, restaurants, schools, and other institutions that produce or
serve food should all be contacted and invited to join a voluntary
re-localization initiative and to offer input into the process.

3. Educate and involve the public. Community groups can stage public
events to raise awareness about food transition issues. "Buy local"
brochures and pamphlets, paid for and distributed by a consortium of
local businesses (but organized by volunteer groups), can list local
producers, farm markets, restaurants, and shops.

4. Develop a unique local strategic program. This can include farmers'
markets, CSAs, school lunch programs, and public kitchens, networked
with local producers, including community gardens. The program, based on
input from stakeholders, should feature targets and timelines developed
through a "backcasting" process, beginning with a collaborative exercise
aimed at envisioning the local food system as it might look in 2025
after fossil fuels have ceased to play a role.

5. Coordinate with national programs. Local volunteer efforts can play a
significant role in informing national government policies, and in
implementing the national transition strategy. However, this will
require the maintenance of open channels of communication, which in turn
will be the responsibility of both government and the local groups.

6. Support individuals and families. Individuals are likely to change
food habits and priorities only if they see others doing so as well, and
if they feel that their efforts are supported and valued. Community
groups can help by establishing new behavioral norms through public
events and articles in local newspapers. Practical help can be offered
via canning parties, garden planting and harvest parties, and gleaning
programs. Local food and gardening experts can be made available to
answer questions and concerns. Neighborhood food storage facilities can
also be created to supplement household cupboards.

7. Monitor and adjust. All of these efforts must be continually adjusted
to assure that all segments of the community are included in the
transition process, and that the process is working as smoothly as
possible for all.

Business

Relevant businesses include farms, shops, processors, wholesalers, and
restaurants. However, the following steps could also be useful to
organizations such as schools, colleges, and hospitals that dispense
food as an ancillary part of their operations.

1. Assess vulnerabilities. Every business or organization that is part
of the food system must take an honest look at the inevitable impacts of
higher fuel prices, and fuel scarcity, on its operations. Examine
scenarios based on a doubling or tripling of fuel costs to highlight
specific vulnerabilities.

2. Make a plan. Develop a business model that works without - or with
continually shrinking - fossil fuel inputs. Then "backcast" from that
imagined future condition, specifying time-related targets.

3. Work with government and community groups. Given the fact that
government will be developing regulations to reduce fuel use in the food
system, and that community organizations will be offering support to
local farmers and food shops that spearhead the transition, it makes
good business sense to lead the parade rather than lagging at the rear.

4. Educate and involve suppliers and customers. No business is an
island. The transition will flourish through strengthened relationships
on all sides.

5. Monitor and adjust. For businesses, one obvious and essential
criterion of success is profitability. The bottom line will help
indicate which adaptive strategies are working, and which ones need
work. However, negative financial feedback is no reason to abandon the
essential goal of transition.

Individual and Family

1. Assess food vulnerabilities and opportunities. Whether at a family
meeting or by oneself over a cup of tea, take a long honest look at your
typical monthly food purchases and give careful thought to the
implications. How much of your food comes from within 100 miles? How
much is packaged and processed? How many meals are meat-centered? Where
do you shop? How would you be impacted if food and fuel prices doubled
or tripled?

2. Make a plan. Create an ideal food scenario for yourself, including
diet, shopping habits, and gardening goals. Then "backcast" a series of
time-related goals. Write these prominently on a calendar and attach it
to the front of your refrigerator.

3. Garden. Even if you don't have access to a plot of land, you can
still grow sprouts in a jar or a few food plants in a window box. Look
for opportunities to contribute work to a community garden. Develop your
skills by seeking out gardening mentors.

4. Develop relations with local producers. Even if you have a large
garden you probably can't grow all the food you eat. Rather than
shopping at a supermarket, begin to frequent your local farmers' market,
or join a CSA.

5. Become involved in community efforts. Get to know your neighbors and
compare gardening experiences with them. Together, form a "tool library"
from which members can check out garden tools and gardening books.
Organize or participate in planting, harvesting, food-swapping,
gleaning, and canning parties.

6. Monitor and adjust. At the end of each month, revisit your plan and
revise it if necessary.

Links
-----

{1} http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/PhosphatePrimer

{2} http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/CanBritain.pdf
_____

This essay is excerpted from a larger document-in-process, a
co-publication of the Soil Association and Post Carbon Institute, that
will be released in somewhat different versions in the UK and in the US,
both in mid-November.

(c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Post Carbon Institute

Post Carbon Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization incorporated
in the United States.

http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_199_the_food_and_farming_transition


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/