Food has not been the focus of climate change discussions as much as it should have been. (...)  We can still act and it won’t be too late”   

Barack Obama, 26 May 2017.¹

Of course, Barack Obama can speak more freely now that he’s not in the White House with the agribusiness lobby breathing down his neck. But he is right in that the climate–food connection has been largely absent from the climate discussions – at least in the official circles. This issue of Farming Matters focuses on this connection. It shows how the industrial food system is a main culprit when it comes to the climate crisis, and illustrates how agroecology and food sovereignty offer solutions by addressing the root causes of this crisis – political, social and environmental.

The latest studies calculate that the global food system – from farm to fork – is responsible for at least one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that seems to increase with the release of each new report.² GRAIN puts the figure closer to 50%, and stresses that it is the industrial food system which is mostly responsible for this.³ Besides not feeding the people with enough healthy, culturally appropriate and sustainably produced food, the industrial food system is also leading us down the path of a global environmental crisis, of a scale and impact that humanity has never faced before.

Agriculture is supposed to be about turning the energy provided by the sun into food and fibre. But the corporate-driven global food system mostly relies on fossil energy: for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, mechanisation of the farm, pumping water for irrigation, etc.

Deforestation driven by ever expanding commodity crop plantations, soil erosion driven by unsustainable practices, transport, processing and freezing of food produced in places far away from where it is consumed, and the tremendous energy waste in the increasingly centralised corporate retail and supermarket systems aggravate the problem. Each of these emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Despite the obvious connection between the industrial food system and the climate crisis, and the obvious potential that agroecology and food sovereignty offer to turn the tide, these links are nowhere to be seen in any of the governmental climate negotiations. Instead, government officials seem to be betting on financial carbon markets and other corporate-driven ‘solutions’ that get us in deeper trouble. As Michel Pimbert explains, these false solutions include ‘Climate-smart Agriculture’ initiatives which merely conform to the dominant industrial food and farming system and are working against a truly transformative agroecology . REDD+, carbon markets and biofuel policies are additional examples of false solutions that work against agroecology and food sovereignty. In another article, GRAIN shows how industrial meat and dairy production is encouraging over consumption of meat with a disastrous impact on the climate and human health.

It doesn’t need to be this way. A radical shift towards food sovereignty would go a long way in solving the climate crisis: agroecological practices would massively build back organic matter (carbon) into the soils and largely eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers, and a focus on local markets and fresh produce would reduce the need for long distance transport, freezing and processing. Agrarian reforms aimed at supporting small scale food producers rather than promoting plantation farming would give back the land to those who produce food rather than those who produce commodities and help stop deforestation in the process.

Nurturing the soil, cooling the planet

The food–climate intersection is rooted in the earth. The expansion of unsustainable agricultural practices over the past century has led to the destruction of between 30-75% of the organic matter in soils on arable lands, and 50% of the organic matter on pastures and prairies. This massive loss of organic matter is responsible for a large part of the current CO₂ excess in the earth’s atmosphere. But the good news is that the CO₂ that we have sent into the atmosphere can be put back into the soil simply by restoring and supporting the practices that small farmers have been engaging in for generations. This has the potential to capture more than two thirds of the current excess CO₂ in the atmosphere.⁴

Nicholls and Altieri provide plenty of examples outlining the role of diversity, soil organic matter and soil cover in reducing farmers vulnerability to climatic shocks. Another article documents the efforts being made in the United States to learn from farmers’ innovative practices developed to take care of the soil. Increased intensity and frequency of drought is becoming a more common phenomena in many parts of the world. Soil and water conservation that promotes ecological resilience has been a key strategy for farmers in Haiti to continue producing food. But, these Haitian farmers also know that building resilience is not just an ecological question, and they are also challenging state power and defending their rights. The struggle against the climate crisis is also a question of equality and justice.

Climate justice

Those who are most gravely affectedly climate change are those who are the least responsible for it. Shalmali Guttal asserts that: “The struggles of local communities against forced evictions, industrial agriculture, extractive industry and large dams, and to protect their lands, territories, seeds and breeds are all struggles for climate justice.” Today, small farmers are squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmlands, but they continue to produce most of the world’s food.

Over the past 50 years, a staggering 140 million hectares – the size of almost all the farmland in India – has been taken over by four crops grown predominantly on large plantations for industrial purposes: soybeans, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane. The global area under these and other industrial commodity crops, is set to further grow if policies don’t change.

All too often alliances between states and corporations conspire to promote market-driven ‘development’ that undermines small scale producers’ rights to land and natural resources. In the context of climate change and natural disasters, ‘disaster capitalism’ exacerbates this kind of dispossession and permanent displacement of people. For example, in the Philippines, the devastation caused by Typhoon Yolanda, was used to defeat farmers who had been resisting land grabbing for decades before the disaster struck.

The pages in this magazine demonstrate how small scale farmers bear some of the biggest burdens brought about by the crisis, yet, the agroecology that many practice and the food sovereignty that many strive for provide a pathway to cool the planet and feed its people. We won’t be able to stop the climate crisis until this is recognised and accepted by those in power. Obama is right when he says that we can still act and it won’t be too late. But it has to involve challenging the corporate food system and putting agroecology and small scale farmers first again.

GRAIN (grain@grain.org) is an international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.

Jessica Milgroom (j.milgroom@ileia.org) and Madeleine Florin (m.florin@ileia.org) both work at ILEIA.

References

1 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/26/barack-obama-food-climate-change
2 Climate Change & Food Systems: Assessing Impacts and Opportunities. Meridien Institute 2017
3 Food sovereignty: five steps to cool the planet and feed its people. GRAIN 2014
4 Earth matters – Tackling the climate crisis from the ground up GRAIN, October 2009

The post Editorial: Agroecology getting to the root causes of climate change appeared first on Ileia.

Our global food system is one of the biggest drivers of climate change. It accounts for over one third of all global greenhouse gas emissions, according to latest estimates from the Meridian Institute. Livestock represent the biggest portion of this. Research done by GRAIN  shows that it is the industrial meat and dairy complex that produces this tremendous damage, not traditional livestock reared by smallholders. Deforestation, industrial feed crops, use of chemical fertilizers, manure lagoons, transport and refrigeration, and massive waste are all central elements of the industrial meat and dairy complex responsible for huge amounts of climate gases. The FAO calculated that, today, meat production alone – especially that of the industrial type – generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world’s transport combined.

Yet, meat consumption is soaring in many places of the world. If current trends continue global meat consumption will grow a further 76% from current levels by 2050, according to the latest studies, pushing us deeper into the  climate crisis. If, on the other hand, heavy eaters of industrial meat reduced their unhealthy levels of consumption to the World Health Organization’s recommended amounts, the world could eliminate 40% of all current greenhouse gas emissions.

So, why is meat consumption increasing so much beyond sustainable and healthy levels? The most common narrative is that the growing middle class in many newly industrialising countries can now afford to eat more meat, and thus jump on the opportunity. Indeed, the projected growth of meat consumption is especially stark in countries like China, Brazil, India and other countries in their regions. But that is only part of the story.

Meat-free Thursdays
 
The city of Ghent, Belgium, became the first city in the world to officially stimulate its citizens to have a weekly vegetarian day. The structural government support and involvement in this initiative sets it apart from other campaigns promoting reduced meat consumption. In partnership with the NGO, EVA (Ethical Vegetarian Alternative), the city of Ghent launched ‘Thursday Veggie Day’ in 2009. Response among local citizens and local public institutions has generally been very positive. People’s awareness of the issues concerning meat (and especially the global warming impact) is rising. Two years after its launch, 60,000 people indicated that they participate several times a month and, 94% of public school students were choosing the vegetarian meal on Thursdays. Beyond the city, from Cape Town to São Paulo, cities are launching similar campaigns that were inspired by Ghent.
 
Source: Leenaert, T (2016). Meat moderation: a challenge for government and civil society. In: Sustainable Food Planning: evolving theory and practice (Viljoen, A and Wiskerke, J. S. C Eds.).

The other side of the story is that the industrial meat industry actually facilitates the growth in consumption rates. It produces cheap meat surpluses which are traded as global commodities and pushed onto markets everywhere. As a consequence, industrial meat is the most rapidly growing segment of meat and dairy production, accounting for 80% of the global growth in recent years.

Propping up the corporate meat market

So, why can industrial meat be produced so cheaply and expand so fast across the globe? Confinement of animals at a high stocking density is one part of a systematic effort to produce the highest output at the lowest cost. Yet, at least three key structural factors are at play here: corporations are fighting off any regulation of their sector, industrial meat is highly subsidised, and trade deals are signed to get it to expand massively into markets across the globe.

Meat production alone generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world’s transport combined

Attempts by governments to regulate meat consumption is met with resistance by the industry. When Germany drafted guidelines to reduce meat consumption, demonstrating that a 50% cut by 2030 would be “crucial to climate protection,” the industry lobbied hard. By the November 2016 launch date, the country’s climate change plan had been stripped of any reference at all to greenhouse gases in the agriculture sector. Similar stories can be told of the meat lobby in the United States (US), Brazil and other countries where industrial meat is strong.

Furthermore, the industry receives subsidies in many countries. For example, in 2013, the European Union paid US$ 731 million to its cattle industry alone. The same year, the US Department of Agriculture paid more than US 300 million US dollars to just six huge meat companies in order to get industrial meat and dairy on school meal trays, compared to just a fraction of that to fruit and vegetable suppliers.

But, the big guns in the industry’s arsenal are ‘free trade’ agreements. These corporate trade deals artificially prop up production and consumption by promoting the dumping of cheap meat and dairy into low income countries. They include clauses that eliminate protection for local farmers from foreign competitors, that make it illegal to grant preference to local suppliers or products, and that allow foreign companies to sue governments that adopt social or environmental legislation that they think could undermine their profits.

Small scale meat and dairy production is well tailored to local food systems that support the moderate meat and dairy consumption levels needed to mitigate climate change

Without permissive regulations, subsidies and ‘free trade’ agreements, industrial meat would simply be too expensive to buy. These structural factors give priority to profits for an elite few and dismiss the massive environmental and social costs incurred by the corporations.

Support smallholders, agroecology and local markets

Corporate lobby groups, scientists and development agencies often paint small scale livestock holders in poor countries as the climate culprits because of their animals’ low efficiency in converting calories to meat or milk on a per capita basis. Yet, a narrow focus on efficiency and emissions intensity ignores the multiple benefits of mixed, multi-functional and biodiverse small scale livestock production systems. These include providing local livelihoods, improving soil health, greater climatic resilience and other positive environmental and public health benefits. Small scale meat and dairy production is already well tailored to local food systems that support the moderate meat and dairy consumption levels needed to mitigate climate change (see figure).

Shrinking the water and carbon footprint of school food
 
Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) in the state of California reduced animal protein on school menus by 30% while increasing fruit, vegetables, and legumes. When kids ate meat, it came from local organic producers. The result: a 14% reduction in the school’s food carbon footprint. This translates into 600,000 kg of CO₂-equivalents saved per year – the same as driving 2.4 million kilometres less per year or covering all of OUSD’s roofs with solar panels with no additional cost. They also reduced their water footprint by 6%, from 428 to 401 litres per meal served, saving a total of 159 million litres of water per school year and US$ 42,000 in the cost of the meals. Perhaps most remarkable: the children reported increased satisfaction with the healthy, regionally sourced meals.
 
Source: Hamerschlag, K. and Kraus-Polk, J. Shrinking the Carbon and Water Footprint of School Food. A recipe for combating climate change. 2017.

We can only solve the climate crisis if we take meaningful steps towards agroecology and food sovereignty. To achieve this, we need bold moves to disincentivise the production and consumption of cheap industrial meat and dairy. We also need to stop trade deals that prop up the massive international trade in meat and dairy products. Instead, small scale, local and agroecological meat and dairy production and marketing should be supported.

In this process, livestock will once again become integrated into diversified farming systems, while meat and dairy regain their proper place in peoples’ diets. This is the approach that is needed to keep the world liveable for future generations. The task is daunting, but the stakes have never been higher.

GRAIN (grain@grain.org) is an international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems. This article is based on a series of publications produced by GRAIN. Full references and sources for the figures quoted in this article can be found at www.grain.org.

The post About climate, meat & markets: high time to move towards agroecology and  food sovereignty appeared first on Ileia.

As this issue of Farming Matters illustrates so impressively, the world is witnessing an explosion of popular initiatives and experiences to use, save and develop agrobiodiversity. At GRAIN we also see this happening. Seed saving projects, seed festivals, community seed initiatives and exchange networks are mushrooming everywhere. This is both extremely encouraging and dearly needed.

We can’t count on governments to help us with the tremendous task of keeping biodiversity alive. They tend to move in the opposite direction as they facilitate the corporate takeover of seed and animal breeding, and promote industrial farming.

Some 20 years ago, many of us were excited when the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Biosafety Protocol and the International Seed Treaty were signed. But none of them have contributed much to keeping diversity alive in the fields. The Seed Treaty is now almost exclusively focused on gene banks, and mostly serves corporate plant breeders. The Convention on Biological Diversity became a tool for governments to turn biodiversity into a commodity under the banner of access and benefit sharing. And governments use the Biosafety Protocol to adopt biosafety laws that permit rather than prohibit GMOs.

All of these agreements talk about the rights of farmers and indigenous communities, but these were never implemented, and never will be. Instead, in many parts of the world, governments are now pushing restrictive seed legislation that gives intellectual property rights to corporations while outlawing farmers’ traditional role in maintaining diversity on the farm.

Peasants are keeping agrobiodiversity alive, but their survival is under threat from the rapid expansion of industrial farming. Driven by the powerful food and agro-fuel industries, the world is turning over its fertile farmlands to grow commodities that don’t feed people. In the past fifty years the amount of land dedicated to just four crops – soybeans, oil palm, rapeseed and sugarcane – has tripled. They now use an extra 140 million hectares of fields and forests where small farmers used to live. This amounts to just a bit less than all the farmland in the entire European Union.

We can only save agrobiodiversity if we save peasant farming. Global farmer movements such as La Via Campesina are trying to do precisely that by advocating food sovereignty. Food sovereignty promotes the use of agro-ecology, biodiversity, local markets and indigenous knowledge. It pushes for agrarian reform, fights against the industrial food system and global trade and puts local food producers centre stage again.

Unless we all join and win the battle against the industrial food system and for food sovereignty, local agrobiodiversity initiatives won’t stand a chance of surviving. At most, they will become isolated pockets of interesting experiments in a world of uniformity, controlled by corporations.

Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)

The team at GRAIN, a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.
Visit www.grain.org or e-mail: grain@grain.org

The post Opinion: No agrobiodiversity without peasants appeared first on Ileia.