Cultivating the Future:Food in the Age of Climate Change

Head Office, Hamburg

Stiftung World Future CouncilBei den Mühren 7020457 Hamburg, GermanyPhone: 0049 (0)40 3070914-0Fax: 0049 (0)40 3070914-14info@worldfuturecouncil.org

UK Office, London

World Future Council Foundation100 Pall MallLondon, SW1Y 5NQ, UKPhone: 0044 (0)20 73213810Fax: 0044 (0)20 73213738info.uk@worldfuturecouncil.org

EU Liaison Office, Brussels

World Future Council FoundationRue Marie-Thérèse 211000 Brussels, BelgiumPhone: 0032 (0)2 2101780Fax: 0032 (0)2 2101789info.eu@worldfuturecouncil.org

US Liaison Office, Washington

World Future Council Foundation660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, #302Washington, DC 20003, USAPhone: 001 (202)547 9359info.us@worldfuturecouncil.org

www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Pictures in this brochure:cover: Resource Centres on Urban

Agriculture and Food Security,www.ruaf.org

0: Herbert Girardet1: Paulo Fridman4: Copyright: WTO6: NASA’s Goddard Institute

(data source)7: Energy and Food, University of

Michigan, Center for SustainableSystems, www.umich.edu/~ccs(data source)

9: SEKEM, www.sekem.com11: WFC13: Kelpie Wilson / International Biochar

Initiative14: Herbert Girardet17: Herbert Girardet

Authors:Prof. Herbert Girardet, Dr. Axel BreeDesign: Anja Rohde, HamburgPrinted by Hilmar Bee, HamburgPrinted on recycled paper.2009

Traditional rice terraces in Bali

IIn an age of climate change, policies for thesecure supply of food to the world have tobe a major priority for national govern-ments and the international community.Security and sustainability of food supplyis of the utmost importance for the well-being of an ever increasing world population,and for future generations.

But climate change is a major concern inthis context: If current greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions trends continue, theEarth’s mean temperatures could increaseby anything up to 6° C by 2100. Whilstcrop yields in many developed countriesmay benefit from global warming, mostdeveloping countries will face worseningconditions. According to the UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), theAmazon, the Sahel, large parts of India andnorthern China will be particularly badlyhit. Climate change has already started tosignificantly affect agriculture and rurallandscapes: In recent years both droughts

and floods attributed to changing climaticconditions have been getting morepronounced. In the coming decades, risingtemperatures are expected to bring crop-shrinking heat waves, melting glaciers andice sheets, and rising sea levels, with majorconsequences for global food security.

There is no doubt that the modern foodsystem is a major part of the global climateand environment problems we face. It iswell known that it now takes 10 calories offossil-fuel energy to produce one calorie ofmodern supermarket food. Meanwhile fuelis getting ever more expensive. Theprogressive industrialization of the foodsystem is depleting fossil fuel resources,and it negatively affects the climate,biodiversity, soil conditions, water supplyand -quality as well as human healththrough emissions and hazardous sub-stances. The FAO estimates that agricultureand forestry account for a third of all GHGemissions.1

1

Introduction

Conversion of Amazon Rainforest into soybean fields is releasinghuge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When thesoybeans are fed to cattle and pigs, methane is produced whichfurther contributes to climate change.

2

Meanwhile the need to assure that all theworld’s people are adequately fed isbecoming ever more urgent. The FAOestimates that even today 1.02 billionpeople still suffer from hunger2 – probablythe worst disgrace of world politics.3 In thericher countries, a billion people are obese,whilst between 30 to 50 percent of food inthe rich countries is wasted. These numbersmake clear that hunger is not the result ofinsufficient harvest4, but a problem ofallocation. It is important to make aconnection between these issues, and todevelop policies for access to sufficientfood for all people. But meanwhiledeveloping countries have been gettinglittle support for optimizing their farmingpractices: during the last 30 years,agriculture’s share of foreign aid has droppedfrom 17 to 3 percent of total spending.

Now climate change is making it evenmore imperative to rethink the world’sagriculture and food system. As claimedduring the 2009 FAO World Summit onFood Security, governments must “takenecessary steps to enable all farmers …to adapt to, and mitigate the impact of,climate change through appropriate tech-nologies and practices that improve theresilience of farming systems, thusenhancing their food security.”5 Todaypolicy makers cannot afford to neglect therole that the food system plays in theclimate agenda. The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) hascalculated a climate change mitigationpotential in the agriculture sector of up to

6.4 Gt CO2 eq per year.6 Our researchindicates that no country has, so far,developed and implemented specificpolicies to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from its food system, or indeedto ‘climate-proof ’ its food policies, thoughin some countries government policieshave indirectly had this effect. Consequent-ly, in this booklet we present three policyconcepts which effectively combine foodsecurity and climate protection … and wealso introduce two theoretical policyproposals:

Organic agriculture: The IPCC foundthat a large share of agriculture’s tech-nical mitigation potential lies inenhancing soil carbon sinks throughincrease of organic matter in degradedsoils. To this end governments shouldprovide a policy framework in which anorganic agriculture sector can prosper.Recommended measure include abolitionof detrimental subsidies, support forrecycling organic waste, certification andlabelling schemes, and education andinformation about organic farming andfood for both farmers and the generalpublic.Biochar cooking: When biochar –produced by low-oxygen combustion ofbiomass – is added to soils, its structurecan be enhanced by the biochar carboncontent that can be stored in the soil.Whilst large scale biochar productionfrom forest plantations is unacceptablefor many reasons, alternative, sustainablesources of biochar are available. The

3

distribution and use of small scale bio-char cooking stoves in rural areas cancontribute to sustainable farming as wellas carbon-negative cooking without therelease of dangerous fumes.Urban agriculture: Producing foodlocally, in urban or peri-urban locations,means short transport routes. Less foodmust be processed or deep frozen, andpackaging can also be reduced. Limitingthese activities can substantially reducethe carbon footprint of each meal. Toinstall a successful urban agriculturesector, governments should enable alarge part of the population to gainaccess and usufruct ownership ofsmall lots of land. Further, cooperativeinitiatives should be supported and seedcenters set up. Cuba’s urban agriculturepolicy has proved that these measurescan be very effective.Carbon labelling: The carbon footprintof food products varies considerably.Across the world, consumers play a

major role in shaping the food system,and they must be given better informa-tion on the climate impacts of their foodconsumption habits. This implies muchmore comprehensive consumer informa-tion, including explicit food labellingpolicies, particularly in the developedcountries. Labelling schemes can bevoluntary or mandatory. Further, endorse-ment and comparative labels should bedistinguished.In the UK a new private ‘food carbonlabel’ has been set up recently underwww.climatefriendlyfood.org.uk.Carbon tariff: The IPCC has calculatedthat the climate mitigation potential inthe agriculture sector would be greatlyincreased if a price was put on carbonemissions. To this end, emission tradingschemes and carbon taxes might be mostsuitable. An alternative policy instrumentcould be a flexible trade tariff whichinternalises external environmental costs.

The differences in climate, wealth andinfrastructure between regions make itimpossible to propose one-size-fits-allsolutions. It is important to assess theparticular situation at stake, and to developan appropriate policy framework on thisbasis. This booklet and its policy conceptsare intended as food-for-thought – as acollection of facts, ideas and proposals thatcan be discussed by the stakeholdercommunity, with the potential to beingadopted nationally and internationally.

Farmers’ markets are making a come-backin Europe. In the US there are now over4000 across the country.

4

Climate change andits impact on farming

The above map, published by UNEP inFebruary 2009, is a product of many yearsof research by hundreds of climatologistsand agricultural scientists. It clearly showsthat the areas of our world in which most

Projected changes in per cent in agricultural productivity by 2080 due to climate changeSource: WTO, adapted from Cline, 2007.

Note that the effects of carbon fertilization are incorporated.

people suffer from hunger, are – in general– those which are most affected by thenegative impacts of climate change onagricultural productivity.

S

5

Scientists have alerted global policy makersto the perils of climate change over thecoming decades and it remains to be seenwhether major international agreements canbe reached to avert some of these.

Agriculture is considered to be one of themost vulnerable sectors. The Declarationof the World Summit on Food fromNovember 2009 stated: “Climate changeposes additional severe risks to food securityand the agriculture sector. Its expectedimpact is particularly fraught with dangerfor smallholder farmers in developingcountries, notably the Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs), and for alreadyvulnerable populations.”7 In a newlypublished report the WTO and UNEP statethat in low-latitude regions, even a smalltemperature increase of 1°C would lead toreductions of 5–10 percent in the yields ofmajor cereal crops. By 2020, crop yields inAfrican countries could fall by up to 50percent.8

Few researchers now dispute that over thenext 100 years, accelerated warming andexpansion of water in the oceans, andincreased melting rates of low-lying glaciersand ice caps are expected to raise sea levelsby a metre or more. This will have majorconsequences for low-lying farmland acrossthe world. For instance, a one metre sealevel rise would affect half the rice land ofBangladesh. A two metre rise wouldinundate much of the Mekong Delta inVietnam, the world’s second mostimportant rice exporter, etc. The melting of

mountain glaciers is another global threat.Already the snow caps on Mount Kenyaand Kilimanjaro in East Africa have largelydisappeared. The shrinking of glaciers inthe Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateauis particularly alarming since they feed theIndus, Ganges, Yangtze, Yellow and MekongRivers on whose waters hundreds of millionsof Asian farmers depend.

As GHG concentrations increase and tem-peratures rise, the frequency and intensityof extreme weather events such as cyclones,floods, droughts and heat waves may alsochange. Rising ocean temperatures, inparticular, are expected to affect storm andcyclone development.

Across the world in the last few years,flooding and other extreme weather,attributed to climate change, is affectingfarmers and agriculture. For example:

In 1995, half of Bhola Island, Bangla-desh, became permanently flooded,turning 500,000 people, mainly farmers,into the world’s first climate refugees.Since 2001, much of the Murray-DarlingBasin, Australia’s breadbasket, isexperiencing unprecedented droughts.Storage levels will take many years ofabove average rainfall to recover.9

Threats to Uganda’s coffee crop areincreasingly threatening the country’smain export income.Increasingly erratic monsoons are causingmajor problems for farmers in India.

M

The climate impacts ofthe global food system

6

Modern agriculture is not only a victim ofclimate change, it is also a major contributor,led by countries with highly mechanisedfood supplies. Agriculture is directlyresponsible for almost 14 percent of totalgreenhouse gas emissions, and broader ruralland use decisions have an even largerimpact. Deforestation currently accountsfor an additional 18 percent of emissions.10

Even worse, the global trend is still for evergreater use of fossil fuels, fertilizers andpesticides in agriculture and for long-distancefood trade, increasingly using air freight.

Some people worry about peak oil, but wemay need to worry even more about peaksoil. Globally, some 24 billion tonnes ofsoil erode every year, some 3.5 tonnes perperson. Worldwide soil erosion was estimatedin 1997 to cost in the order of $ 400 billiona year, or half the world’s military budget atthat time.11 Soil erosion is contributing toincreases in GHG concentrations andreduced soil carbon storage.

In this context, a historical perspectiveneeds to be considered: Professor Rattan

Lal (Ohio State University) has beenresearching the connections between landuse changes and the transfer of carbon intothe atmosphere for many years. Heestimates that since the beginnings ofagriculture up to 250 billion tonnes ofcarbon have been released by land usechanges,12 an amount similar to thequantities of carbon discharged by theburning of fossil fuels over the last 200years. These huge reductions of carbon heldin soils and vegetation have resulted from

deforestation,loss of soil organic matter andbiodiversity andaccelerated soil erosion.

Soil erosion by water, wind and tillageaffects both agricultural potential and thewider natural environment. It is probablythe least well-known of today’s majorenvironmental problems and the resultingreduction of soil carbon storage needs to bereversed by appropriate national and inter-national policies. Regarding GHG emissions,the discharge of methane by the world’sfarm animals is also very significant:

Methane emissionsper animal per year

7

The global food system as a whole isestimated to produce nearly 40 percent oftotal carbon emissions – encompassingGHG release from the conversion of forestto farmland, all aspects of food production,as well as the transportation and processingof food. This huge climate impact obvious-ly has major implications for food policyand consumption habits. An increasinglyimportant component is the connectionbetween rising affluence and meat con-sumption. Methane discharges from animalhusbandry have been increased significantlybecause of the trend for every greater use ofgrains as fodder, particularly for cattle. Thetraditional practice of relying on grass asthe main source of cattle fodder had farless climate impact. Livestock farming nowgenerates 18 percent of the planet’s green-house gas emissions. By comparison, allthe world’s cars, trains, planes and boatsaccounted for a combined 13 percent ofgreenhouse gas emissions.13

Another major concern is the vast amountof fossil fuel energy that goes into produ-cing, packaging, transporting, storing andcooking food. For example, in the UK, halfthe vegetables and 95 percent of all fruitsare imported.14 Buying from local farmers,vegetables only have to travel about 100kms or less. Many organisations emphasisebuying organic and purchasing produce atthe local farmers market to save on trans-portation and packaging, but this graphshows that the largest energy expenseoccurs after food arrives in the home.15

Energy and food production in the US:

Use Percent total energy use

Food Retail 4 %

Packaging 7 %

Restaurants / Caterers 7 %

Transport 14 %

Processing 16 %

Agricultural Production 21 %

Home Refrigeration / Preparation 32 %

Reducing the impacts of farming on theglobal climate is one of the greatest policychallenges facing humanity. So far theglobal trend is for ever more mechanisedfarming, greater distance between foodproducer and consumer, ever morepackaging and greater meat consumption.There is no question that these inter-connected trends must be addressed ina world threatened by climate chaos.

A

8

The climate mitigationpotential of agriculture

Agriculture now extends to about half theworld’s land surface. With the right policymeasures, farmland can play a crucial roleas a carbon sink. Until now, the main thrustof trying to manage greenhouse gases byland use has been to increase CO2

sequestration by trees and plants throughcarbon storage in biomass. But thepotential for sequestering carbon in soils isstill underexposed. Soils are already thelargest carbon reservoir of the terrestrialcarbon cycle. The 4th IPCC AssessmentReport found that 89 percent of agri-culture’s carbon mitigation potential can beachieved through increase of organic matterin degraded soils and by use of carbon-neutral bio-energy.16

Techniques such as agroforestry and organicagriculture require less tilling of the landand thus keep more carbon stored in thesoil. By introducing policies for helpingfarmers with access to up-to-date know-ledge and tools, the clearing of naturalhabitats for agriculture can be prevented,and forests and grasslands can be keptintact as vital carbon sinks.

To better exploit this potential, morepolicies to support organic low-carbon

agriculture need to be adopted. In thefollowing, we present and discuss differentpolicy approaches to sequester greenhousegases by better agricultural practices.

Organic solutions formitigation

Agricultural carbon sequestration has thepotential to substantially mitigate globalwarming impacts. According to the RodaleInstitute, organic agriculture, if practiced onthe planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, couldsequester nearly 40 percent of current CO2

emissions.“We call this approach regenerative organicagriculture to signify its focus on renewingresources through complementary biologi-cal systems which feed and improve thesoil as well as avoiding harmful syntheticinputs.”17

Regenerative organic farming, focused onenhancing long-term biological inter-actions, turns soil into a carbon reservoir,while conventional farming with largechemical imputs has the opposite effect ofreleasing carbon into the atmosphere. In

9

addition, organic management also changesthe structure of the soil, improving itsability to store water and deliver nutrientsto plants over time as soil carbon levelscontinue to increase. Rodale research showsthat no-till organic farming can reduce theenergy input into farming by about 70percent. Further, organic food offers healthadvantages and has become a lifestylechoice in many societies. For these inter-connected reasons, much more policyassistance for the organic sector is needed.

Case studies (UNCTAD 200818, IFOAM200819) have shown that the developmentof organic farming has, so far, been initiatedmainly by NGOs or private companies.

SEKEM – An Egyptianpioneer in organic farming

In 1977, Dr. Abouleish, a member of the

World Future Council, initiated

SEKEM, cultivating desert areas near

Cairo using sustainable agricultural

practices. By 2009 SEKEM’s work

extended to 4500 hectares and directly

involves 2000 people. Moreover circa

30,000 people from the surrounding

community make use of the cultural and

social services offered by the SEKEM

Development Foundation and other

related NGOs.

An important point is that SEKEM’s

agricultural practices are helping to

tackle climate change. Firstly they emit

less greenhouse gases by avoiding the

use of chemical fertilizers and due to

lower needs for irrigation. Organic

practices introduced by SEKEM led to

a reduction of synthetic pesticides in

Egypt by over 90 percent, from over

35,000 tons per year. Secondly, the

healthy soils built up by the application

of organic material store much higher

levels of carbon than conventional

agricultural soils that are cultivated by

using chemical fertilizers. Thirdly,

SEKEM’s farming practices also help

farmers to adapt to effects of climate

change such as droughts and heavy

rainfall. The average yield of raw cotton

was increased by almost 20 percent.20

10

Still, governments should play an impor-tant role in providing a supportive frame-work for organic farming. Policy strategiesshould consist of a combination of marketsupply and demand measures.21 Sinceappropriate measures depend on the stateof the organic agriculture market in therespective country, an in-depth integratedassessment of existing agriculture policiesshould be the first step.22 Based on thisinitial assessment a selection of policiesshould be considered:

On the supply side, a policy priority mustbe the critical stocktaking of all agriculturesubsidies (e. g. for chemical fertilizer)looking at overproduction, health andenvironment hazards and climate impli-cations. If socially feasible, and withoutrisking the food security of a given country,detrimental subsidies must be abolishedand partially transferred into the organicagriculture sector.

An area particularly worthy of state supportis the recycling of urban bio-waste intoorganic fertilizers23. This contributes tosanitation and environmental protection,and it provides carbon storing materials forfarms. To trigger this process, governmentscould give financial incentives (e. g. low-interest loans) to recycling plant operators,or to erect recycling plants under statesupervision. A way to directly supportorganic food producers is to compensatethem for certification costs. In Denmark,

Thailand and Malaysia, governmentcertification is for free for farmers, and inTunisia the government covers up to 70percent of certification costs.24 Producerorganizations can be supported to organizeefficient distribution of processed bio-wastes.

On the demand side, government cansupport the development of a domesticorganic standard. More than 70 countrieshave enacted such standards. Governmentsmust carefully assess how appropriatestandards can be initiated and harmonizedwith international reference standards,based on the recommendations of theInternational Task Force on Harmonizationand Equivalence in Organic Agriculture.

Government can also play a strong roleregarding consumer education by drawingattention to the health and environmentalbenefits of organic products. To this end,organic agriculture can be introduced to themandatory curriculums in schools anduniversities in agricultural regions25. Localgovernments can also promote organicfoods by allocating space in open marketsand in trade fairs. Integrating organics intopublic procurement (e. g. for schools andhospitals) stimulates market demand andimproves public information and consumerexposure. Finally, if not already existent, acommon label for organic products shouldbe established and promoted.

11

Seed sovereignty – Navdanya

In her book ‘Soil Not Oil’, World Future Council

member Vandana Shiva strongly endorses regenera-

tive organic farming strategies. She makes a connec-

tion between food insecurity, peak oil, and climate

change and examines why any attempt to solve one

without addressing the others will get us nowhere.26

A further component of the book, and the work of her

organisation Navdanya, is to call for seed sovereignty,

assuring that farmers are not forced to rely on seed,

fertilizers and pesticide ‘packages’ supplied by multi-

national companies. Navdanya has worked with local

communities and organizations, now serving more

than 200,000 farmers from 14 Indian States.

Navdanya’s efforts have resulted in the conservation

of more than 2000 rice varieties from all over the

country, including indigenous varieties that have been

adapted over centuries to meet different local

ecological demands. Members have also conserved

31 varieties of wheat and hundreds of millets, pseudo-

cereals, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, as well as multi-

purpose plant species, including medicinal plants.

Navdanya has established 34 seed banks across the

country as it believes in operating through a network

of community seed banks in different ecozones of

India, and thus facilitating the rejuvenation of agri-

cultural biodiversity, farmer’s self-reliance in seed

locally and nationally, and farmer’s right. Navdanya

has also established a conservation and training

centre at its farm in near Dehradoon in Uttarkhand.

In this region more than 70,000 farmers are primary

members of Navdanya. Today, biodiversity conser-

vation programs linked to Navdanya are underway in

Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Orissa, West Bengal, Karnataka, Haryana.

It remains to be seen if and when the Indian govern-

ment may decide to make Navdanya’s practices into

government policy.27

Dr. Vandana Shiva,Founder of Navdanya

Sustainable biochar

Biochar can be produced by pyrolysis (low-oxygen combustion) of a great variety oforganic materials. The potential benefit ofbiochar as a carbon storage medium inagricultural land is now widely recognised.Its production from monoculture tree plan-tations is vigorously opposed by an inter-national coalition of environment groups.However, biochar produced from forestthinnings, sawdust, agricultural wastes,urban organic wastes or sewage solids iswidely regarded as a sustainable carbonstorage medium and soil conditioner.

On the farm, simple, innovative cookstoves that employ pyrolysis, can enablerural families to cook their food and toproduce biochar at the same time. Thesecooking stoves can burn crop residues andother biomass fuels without releasing CO2

and other dangerous emissions.

When biochar is added to soils, its structurecan be enhanced, contributing to agriculturalproductivity. A further benefit arises becausebiochar, which contains 70–80 percentcarbon, remains in soils for long periods oftime, storing potentially large amounts ofcarbon.28

Although the production costs of pyrolysiscooking stoves are only between h 10 andh 20, this still makes them unaffordable formost of the targeted market. National andregional governments could, therefore,support the local production, distributionand installation of biochar cooking stovesin people’s homes. Both NGOs andgovernment agencies can be importantagents in distributing stoves. In addition,there needs to be adequate instruction onthe correct methods of using the stoves andthe resulting biochar.29 Changing habits thathave developed over generations is not aneasy task. Therefore, it is of paramountimportance that substantial efforts bedirected to the training of promoters and tomaking the technology as user-friendly aspossible.

12

13

Terra Preta

Use of charcoal as a soil conditioner

has ancient origins, and is best docu-

mented with reference to the ‘terra

preta’ – meaning ‘dark earth’ in Portu-

guese – soils found in parts of the

Amazon basin. Much evidence now

exists that charcoal was mixed by

Amazonian Indian cultivators with food

and human wastes to enrich poor and

acidic soils. The predecessors of today’s

Amazonian Indians left behind ‘terra

preta’ soils rich in organic matter in

some 10 percent of the Amazon terri-

tory. Research has shown that charcoal

incorporated in this way can last in the

soil for hundreds to even thousands of

years. Its persistence has attracted the

attention of research scientists who

believe that carbon locked up in the soil

as biochar can prevent the discharge of

CO2 into the atmosphere.

Biochar stoves

L‘Locavores’ is a term for those who subsiston produce from their local area. The‘locavore’ movement encourages consumersto buy from farmers’ markets or even togrow or pick their own food, arguing thatfresh, local produce is more nutritious andalso taste better.

The issue of local food is one of the mostcommonly and enthusiastically embracedof all the issues around localisation. Aparticular challenge is the issue of foodsovereignty for urban areas, given that by2030 an estimated 60 percent of all peoplewill live in cities (FAO, 2009).30 FromBritish allotment gardening, to communitysupported agriculture, to Cuban urbanagriculture, to Japanese rooftop gardens –there are more and more examples of intra-urban and peri-urban areas being trans-formed into productive food-growing land.Producing food locally, even in an urbanenvironment, means short transport routes,less processing and packaging. In the US,these parts of the value chain consumemore than a third of all energy used forfood production. Limiting these activitiescan substantially reduce the carbon foot-print of each meal. In addition, urban foodpolicies encourage consumption of

nutritious food, provide food security andsovereignty. Members of the communitycan be become involved. Jobs and occupa-tion, and income opportunities are created.Local agriculture projects create solidarityand purpose among the communities,sustaining morale and help buildingcommunity pride.

To set up an urban agriculture programme,a framework of policies is needed. First,people should be enabled to gain accessand usufruct ownership of land to be used

14

From globavoresto locavores? –Local policy solutions

In Shanghai, and in other Chinese cities,local vegetable production is still the norm.

15

for agriculture purposes. Depending on thesocial structures of the region, land shouldbe leased for free or for a low rent. Thelease of land must be organised and moni-tored by the municipal government, en-couraging a wide range of fruits, vegetablesand spices to be cultivated in the area. Thegardeners and farmers can work on theirown or establish production cooperatives.In addition, they can be organized in looseassociations to facilitate the disseminationof information and technical knowledgeamong themselves, and to exchange seedsand to share tools.

Government should set up informationcenters. These could sell agriculturalsupplies to the public that would otherwisebe difficult to obtain, such as vegetable andmedicinal seeds and seedlings, biologicalpesticides, organic fertilizer and tools. Forsale of the produce, spaces at farmer marketsshould be provided for subsidised rent. Ifnecessary, municipalities have to organisemarkets or other sales opportunities. Also,on-site sale should be encouraged. Finally,it must be ensured that produce is sold atprices that are affordable to the localcommunity. This could be made a condi-tion for accepting a farmer to participate inan urban agriculture programme. Helpfulassistance can be provided by NGOs, andorganizations such as the UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) whichsupports urban agriculture in its ‘Food inthe City’ programme.31

Urban agriculture in Havana

After the collapse of the Soviet Union

and the reduction of its imports of

machines, food, and fertilizers in 1989,

Cuba was forced to move towards food

self-sufficiency. When food shortages

due to the lack of fuel for tractors and

lorries caused serious food supply

problems, the government decided to

encourage people to practice agriculture

within Cuba’s cities. Soon gardens

sprouted up everywhere – at housing

estates, schools, community centres,

hospitals and factories.

Cuba’s urban agriculture program aims

to provide each person with at least 300

grams of fresh vegetables per day.

By 2002, over 35,000 hectares of urban

land were used for the intensive

production of fruits, vegetables and

spices. 117,000 people working in Cuba’s

urban gardens produce over half the

country’s vegetables, fruit, chickens and

rabbits with zero transportation costs.

The main source of compost is bagasse

trucked in from Cuba’s sugar cane fields

as an organic growing medium. Cuba’s

urban agriculture program provides good

quality seeds, advice on composting,

crop rotations earthworms, and on

dealing with bacterial and fungal

diseases without relying on chemical

pesticides.32 Cuba’s food policies have

been developed out of necessity but

they are highly relevant for a world faced

with the need to assure food security for

all in an age of climate change.

IIt has been shown that the carbon footprintof food products (‘foodprint’) can varysubstantially. Depending on its productionmethod (organic versus chemical), itscontent (meat versus vegetarian or vegan),transport routes (air freight, sea freight orlocal), processing method (fresh versusdeep-frozen) and disposal of residues (useas organic fertilizer versus waste), each fooditem is responsible for a certain amount ofGHG emissions during its life-cycle. Makingthis information available to the consumerincreases transparency in the food market,raises awareness of the consumer, createsincentives for the industry to lower its carbonfootprint, and rewards climate friendlyproducts. Consumers should know whetherthe organic kiwi from New Zealand or thehome grown chemically fertilized appledoes more harm to the climate.

In general, environmental labelling hasbeen a success story since the 1980s.Labels, such as the Energy Star, energyefficiency ratings or the Nordic Swan labelhave changed the behaviour of consumersand manufacturers.33 An Eurobarometersurvey showed that for an overwhelmingmajority of Europeans (83 percent) theimpact of a product on the environmentplays an important aspect in theirpurchasing decisions.34

An evaluation of the specific circumstancesof the political and regulatory environmentwill determine the best choice in each case.Whereas a mandatory label ensures a broadparticipation, voluntary schemes mighthave a better acceptance in the industry.A food label should be based on total life-cycle emissions, as opposed to consideringonly the use-phase. First examples such asthe ‘Carbon Label’ of the UK CarbonTrust35 show that this is possible. Possibleare both comparative labels which provideconsumers with product informationthrough use of a specific number (e. g.‘1 kg CO2’) or rating (e. g. A–F or 1–5 stars),or endorsement labels which prove that theproduct meets certain criteria (e. g. belowaverage carbon footprint).

Implementing new labelling schemesnecessitates conformity assessment proce-dures involving testing, inspection, certifi-cation, accreditation and metrology.36

These processes are essential for theeffective implementation and acceptanceof the scheme.

Carbon labelling policies

16

The EU Commission has taken a first lookat this issue but, not surprisingly, hasreceived opposition from the foodindustry.37 However, the example of the UKCarbon Label shows that the concept canbe implemented and, with the assistance ofgovernments and industry, can be establishedon a larger scale.

In the US and the UK new voluntaryschemes are being set up under the termClimate Friendly Farming and Food.38

In Sweden, the first countrywide andcomprehensive food labelling initiative hasbeen launched recently.

17

The Carbon Label Company

The Carbon Label Company was set up

by the Carbon Trust in 2007. Its label is

privately set up and voluntary. The label

shows a footprint icon along with the

total greenhouse gas emissions from

every stage of a product’s life-cycle,

including production, transportation,

preparation, use and disposal. Its primary

objective is described as “to help busi-

nesses to measure, certify, reduce and

communicate the lifecycle greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions of their products

and services, including food and drink.”

The secondary objective is to educate

consumers on lowering their carbon

footprints39. The Carbon Trust, along

with the UK Department of the Environ-

ment (Defra), developed a standard

based on PAS 2050 Standard for

assessing GHG emissions of products

and services. PAS 2050 is an internatio-

nally applicable standard, the develop-

ment of which was informed by 20 pilot

projects that examined supply chains

that stretched across international

borders. In addition, organisations from

40 countries were involved in the

consultation process.40

In and around many US cities, such as herein the Bronx in New York, local gardeningis increasing rapidly.

TThe proposals presented here have to besupported by progressive internationalclimate policy. The Fourth AssessmentReport of Working Group III of the IPCCmade it very clear that agriculture is thesector most sensitive to carbon pricingpolicies.41 Whereas the CO2 eq mitigationpotential with a carbon price of below20 US $/t is calculated at around oneGtCO2eq/year, this potential wouldincrease three- to fourfold at carbon pricesof < 50 US $/t and < 100 US $/t respectively.Consequently, an agreement to globally taxGHG, or to establish a global carbonemission trading scheme, would be the bestway to support local and organic agri-culture solutions. Such a clear price signalwould – in conjunction with the supportpolicies presented above – transformmarkets and mean a breakthrough forsustainable agriculture.

An innovative way to price the costs ofGHG emissions in the food sector wasproposed by Franz-Theo Gottwald andFranz Fischler in their book “Ernährungsichern weltweit – Ökosoziale Gestaltungs-prinzipien”: the introduction of trade tariffsfor agricultural produce equivalent to theexternal costs of transport, conversion into

farmland and emission of greenhouse gasesfrom food production and distribution.Countries that introduced appropriatenational food policies would benefit fromreduced trade tariffs. Such a policy wouldbe a significant step towards preventingenvironmentally unsustainable patterns offood trade. Gottwald and Fischer acknow-ledge that such an international food tradepolicy would be difficult to implement inthe short term, but that such proposalswould be a useful stimulus for national andinternational policy debates.42

Moreover, under the policies of the KyotoProtocol, developed ‘high emission’countries agreed to reduce their total GHGemissions but they could also choose tofund climate-friendly projects in developingcountries. The ‘Clean DevelopmentMechanism’ enabled developing countriesto participate in global agreements and toaccess funds to help them introducesustainable technologies into their econo-mic development. The successor agreementto the Kyoto Protocol should extend sucharrangements to bio-sequestration projects –with the explicit exception of ‘Round UpReady’ GMO crops – for both local andglobal benefit.

18

International policies –the need for a price on CO

2

TThe development of climate-resilientfarming systems is a major challenge forpolicy makers. Around the world, extremeweather conditions are forcing a rethink onland use strategies. It is clear that we needto develop appropriate policies for a foodsystem designed to feed the world withoutcontributing to the deterioration to thehealth of soils, the contamination of watercourses and detrimental impacts on theglobal climate.

In this brochure we have emphasised, aboveall else, that farmers can be encouraged andeven funded to become global carbonstewards, for the benefit for their localcommunities as well as for the benefit ofthe global environment and climate. Withall that is now known about the challengesof climate change for the global food system,a major paradigm shift in policy incentivesneeds to be implemented across the world.We need policies for a global food systembased on biology, not chemistry, one thatwill feed us indefinitely if we treat the soilright. Governments are now obliged to createpolicy incentives for lowering agriculturalgreenhouse gas emissions and expandingcarbon sinks by supporting farmers to:

sequester carbon in agricultural soils byorganic farming and reduced tillage,reduce nitrous oxide emissions throughminimal use of nitrogen fertilizer,capture methane emissions fromanaerobic manure handling facilities,

19

Conclusion: global policieson food and climate

substitute renewable fuels for gasoline,diesel fuel and natural gas used on thefarm,increase the generation of electricityfrom wind, solar and small-scale hydro,expand the use of practices like hedges,shelterbelts and forested riparian zones,expand local food supply for localconsumption,support the use of sustainable biocharderived from farm and urban organicwastes.

To this end, this booklet has tried tocompile a first collection of appropriatepolicies in this area. All in all, there is stillmuch to do to conceptualise policies thatfully respond to the new challenges ofcreating a sustainable global food system inan age of climate change. The climatenegotiations of the coming years will needto recognise the crucial role of agriculturalsoils and forests in absorbing greenhousegases and assuring global food security.There is little doubt that policy makersacross the world are beginning to recognisethe need for climate-proof food policies foran ever more environmentally challengedand crowded world. The challenge is totruly ‘cultivate the future’: to assuresustainable food supplies from healthyrural communities and soils, and within astable climate for the benefit of present andfuture generations, but we have barely begunto understand what this actually means.

20

Sources

1 FAO, Climate Change and Food Security, at 1

(available at www.fao.org/climatechange/

16606-1-0.pdf).

2 FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the

World, Rome 2009, p. 11.

3 Franz-Theo Gottwald, Schweisfurth

Foundation, Munich, private communication

4 FAO, www.fao.org/hunger/en/

5 World Summit on Food Security, November

16–18, 2009, Declaration, at 2 (available at

www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/

Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/

WSFS09_Declaration.pdf), p. 5.

6 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers,

in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.

Contribution of Working Group III to the

Fourth Assessment Report, of the IPCC,

p. 11.

7 Declaration of the World Summit on Food

Security, Rome, 2009, www.fao.org/

fileadmin/…/Summit/…Declaration/

WSFS09_Declaration.pdf

8 WTO/UNEP, Trade and Climate Change,

Geneva 2009, p. 19.

9 Government of South Australia, Drought in

the Murray-Darling basin,

www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/…/

drought-in-the-murray-darling-basin/

10 FAO, Climate Change and Food Security, at 1

(available at www.fao.org/climatechange/

16606-1-0.pdf).

11 Norman Myers, Environmental services of

biodiversity, Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science, VOL Vol 93, 1995

12 Rattan Lal, Soil Conservation for Carbon

Sequestration, www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/isco/

isco10/…/K010-R%20Lal.pdf

13 www.bbc.co.uk/news/1/hi/magazine/

8329612.stm

14 Caroline Stacey for BBC, Food Miles,

available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/

food_matters/foodmiles.shtml

15 www.swivel.com/graphs/show/21368509

16 The WFC supports the wider deployment of

renewable energies through feed-in tariffs,

www.onlinepact.org and Mendonça et al,

Powering the Green Economy, London 2009.

17 www.rodaleinstitute.org/

18 UNCTAD/UNEP Capacity Building Task

force on Trade, Environment and Develop-

ment, Best Practices for Organic Policy,

2008, p. 16.

19 Källander, I. and Rundgren, G., Building

Sustainable Organic Sectors, IFOAM 2008,

pp. 20–21.

20 Sekem Group, www.sekem.com

21 Hamm, Groenfeld and Halpin 2002.

22 UNCTAD/UNEP, p. 13.

23 UNCTAD/UNEP, p. 33.

24 Belkheria and Kheder, 2006.

25 Källander and Rundgren, p. 102.

26 Vandana Shiva, Soil Not Oil, Environmental

Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis, Southend

Press, 2008

27 Navdanya, www.navdanya.org

28 James Bruges, The Biochar Debate,

Schumacher Briefing 16, Green Books, 2009

29 WFC, Carbon negative cooking, available at

http://onlinepact.org/?id=1494

30 FAO, Food for the Cities, 2009, at 2;

available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/

ak824e/ak824e00.pdf

31 Ibid.

32 Reuters, Cuba exports city farming

‘revolution’ to Venezuela, 22-4-2003,

www.globalexchange.org/countries/cuba/

sustainable/651.html

33 WTO/UNEP, p. 124.

34 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.

do?reference=IP/09/1201&format=HTML&

aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

35 www.carbon-label.com/index.htm

36 WTO/UNEP, p. 122.

37 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.

do?reference=IP/09/1201&format=HTML&

aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

38 www.climatefriendlyfarming.org, and

www.climatefriendlyfood.org.uk

39 www.carbon-label.com/business/about.htm

40 www.carbon-label.com/business/

international.htm

41 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers,

in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.

Contribution of Working Group III to the

Fourth Assessment Report, of the IPCC,

p. 11.

42 Franz-Theo Gottwald and Franz Fischler, eds.,

Ernährung sichern weltweit – Ökosoziale

Gestaltungsprinzipen, Murmann Verlag, 2007

The World Future Council brings the

interests of future generations to the

centre of policy making. Its 50 eminent

members from around the globe have

already successfully promoted change.

The Council addresses challenges to

our common future and provides

decision-makers with effective policy

solutions. In-depth research underpins

advocacy work for international

agreements, regional policy frameworks

and national lawmaking and thus

produces practical and tangible results.

In close cooperation with civil society

actors, parliamentarians, governments,

business and international

organizations we identify “best

policies” around the globe. The results

of this research then feed into our

advocacy work, supporting decision

makers in implementing those policies.

The World Future Council is registered

as a charitable foundation in Hamburg,

Germany. Our work is not possible

without continuous financial support

from private and institutional donors.

For more information see our website:

www.worldfuturecouncil.org

The World Future Council

Bank transfer

Stiftung World Future Council

Institution: GLS Bank

Acc. No.: 200 900 4000

Sort Code: 430 609 67

IBAN: DE70 4306 0967 2009 0040 00

BIC/SWIFT: GENODEM1GLS

Cheque

Please make cheques payable to

“World Future Council Foundation”

and send them to:

World Future Council Foundation

Bei den Mühren 70

20457 Hamburg

Germany

How to donate

With financial

support of

“Here’s the book we’ve been

waiting for, a thorough, up-to-date, andabove all proportionate response toour climatic predicament. When I sayproportionate, I mean: it tells us howto solve the problem we really have,not the one we wish we had.It’s truly important!

Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org”This book shows how the quadruple crisis facing humanity – of climate, energy,

finance and poverty – can be regarded as a unique opportunity for building a new,

global green economy. It is a book for those who want to influence the decision on

how we can turn visions into practicality.

The authors:Herbert Girardet is an author and consultant focusing on sustainable development.

He is a co-founder and Director of Programmes of the World Future Council.

Miguel Mendonça is a writer and sustainability advocate. He is Research Manger

of the World Future Council.

Green Books 2009 | 256 pages | Paperback | ISBN 978-1-900322-49-2

Distributed in the USA by Chelsea Green.