Abstract: Between 2013 and 2015, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) undertook a survey of innovative approaches that enable markets to act as incentives in the transition towards sustainable agriculture in developing countries. Through a competitive selection process, 15 cases from around the world provide insights into how small-scale initiatives that use sustainable production practices are supported by market demand, and create innovations in the institutions that govern sustainable practices and market exchanges.

These cases respond to both local and distant consumers’ concerns about the quality of the food that they eat. The book evidences that the initiatives rely upon social values (e.g. trustworthiness, health [nutrition and food safety], food sovereignty, promotion of youth and rural development, farmer and community livelihoods) to adapt sustainable practices to local contexts, while creating new market outlets for food products. Specifically, private sector and civil society actors are leading partnerships with the public sector to build market infrastructure, integrate sustainable agriculture into private and public education and extension programmes, and ensure the exchange of transparent information about market opportunities.

The results are: (i) system innovations that allow new rules for marketing and assuring the sustainable qualities of products; (ii) new forms of organization that permit actors to play multiple roles in the food system (e.g. farmer and auditor, farmer and researcher, consumer and auditor, consumer and intermediary); (iii) new forms of market exchange, such as box schemes, university kiosks, public procurement or systems of seed exchanges; and (iv) new technologies for sustainable agriculture (e.g. effective micro-organisms, biopesticides and soil analysis techniques). The public sector plays a key role in providing legitimate political and physical spaces for multiple actors to jointly create and share sustainable agricultural knowledge, practices and products.

Download PDF here.

A critical analysis of the post World-War II industrial agriculture and food system showed a number of drawbacks. To overcome these difficulties a new paradigm is needed: sustainable food security that requires a focus on local resources. Starting from recently published articles and new research the book „Local Food for Global Future“ by Dr. Harry Donkers presents a structured approach, which  offers opportunities and challenges for local and regional food systems, that we se re-emerging globally.

Based on a new classification of local food system the book goes into adequate governance structures. This is demonstrated by a number of examples chosen from all over the world. Special attention is given to developments in The Netherlands and in Russia. A thorough overview is presented of the specific types of knowledge and innovation that is needed for a strong development of the local food systems.

The book uncovers the power of local food beyond the local territory. Questions are answered about the consequences when developing regional food systems worldwide. A clear vision is presented on local and regional food and its significance and potential impact on global future, with a fascinating perspective for all people involved.

About the author: Dr. Harry Donkers has a broad experience on research and -management. He was first author of the books „With every bite a better countryside“ and „Regions, finger-licking good“ and wrote about 200 publications on societal subjects. From 2006-2010 he joined the Arc of Taste Commission of Slow Food Netherlands.

Download full text PDF here.

Am 08. August ist es leider schon wieder so weit: Der globale Erdüberlastingstag, Earth Overshoot Day für das Jahr 2016  ist erreicht, d. h. die natürlichen Ressourcen für das jahr sind aufgebraucht, alles was wir danach angreifen, geht zu Lasten der Natur und der Zukunft: Wir leben auf Pump.

Wie viel Natur haben wir – wie viel nutzen wir? Auf diese Frage gibt die Footprint-Methode eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Antwort.

Die maßgeblich von Mathis Wackernagel, Präsident des Global Footprint Network in Oakland/Kalifornien und Genf entwickelte Footprint-Methode (oder ökologischer Fußabdruck) ist für die Planung und Risikoabschätzungen von Unternehmern, Investoren, Entwicklungsfachleuten, Stadtplanern und politischen Strategen unverzichtbar.

Mathis Wackernagel & Bert Beyers: FOOTPRINT. Die Welt neu vermessen, Neuausgabe 2016 mit aktuellen Zahlen und Kommentaren, Grafiken und Tabellen, 256 Seiten, broschiert, € 19,90 bei der Europäischen Verlagsanstalt. Das Buch kann man zum Beispiel bei Buch7.de bestellen, wo 75% des Gewinns an soziale, kulturelle und ökologische Projekte gespendet werden.

The 2016 edition of the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook provides an assessment of the medium-term prospects of global agriculture. The report highlights that for the sector to meet the expanding demand for food, feed and raw products for industrial uses, significant production growth is needed.

This expansion will have to take place in the face of declining land and water availability for many areas in the world, compounded by the effects of climate change. It is clear that the majority of growth will have to come from more efficiency in agricultural production, but also from improvements throughout the wider value chain.

The international community has recognised the key role of agriculture in addressing society’s goals. Agriculture is a key sector for the achievement of many goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which aims to end poverty and hunger and promote prosperity and people’s wellbeing, while protecting the environment. This Outlook outlines how agriculture can actively contribute to the attainment of these goals.

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture reached an all time high in 2014, at 5.25 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year (Gt CO2eq yr-1). The data released by FAO (13 June 2016) in the FAOSTAT Emissions database to the year 2014, are the first to be made available to the public and scientific community. They form the base of a new collaborative report on agriculture and GHG emissions by the University of Minnesota, written together with FAO, the CGIAR system and various universities.

The new FAO data indicate that in 2014 methane and nitrous oxide emissions from crop and livestock management remain strong and may begin to grow faster than fossil fuel emissions, reversing decadal trends since the 1960s, during which fossil fuel emissions had grown several times faster than agriculture.

Emissions from agriculture represented only about 14.6% of the 2014 total carbon emissions from fossil fuels, but their growth rate compared to emissions from fossil fuels was more than double in 2014, at 1.3% annually. While global emissions from fossil fuels are expected decrease in 2015 for the first time in recent history, this is unlikely to happen for agriculture.

Historically, emissions from fossil fuels grew much faster than those in agriculture. Emissions from fossil fuels in 2014 represented a tripling of emissions since 1961, while those from agriculture nearly doubled in 2014 with respect to 1961. Since 1990 (reference year for the Kyoto Protocol) fossil fuels emissions increased by 60%, while those from agriculture grew from 1961 to 2014 by only 15%.

Thus the emissions trends observed in 2014 may represent a reversal between fossil fuels and agriculture emissions that should be monitored closely in coming years, as the world energy mix continues to decouple from carbon through increased use of renewable energy sources. By contrast, emissions from agriculture will continue to depend for many more years on crop and livestock processes with inherently higher carbon intensities.

Many influential studies have helped shape our understanding of the perilous situation our food systems are in, from the degradation of ecosystems to the fragility of farmer livelihoods in many parts of the world; from the persistence of hunger and under-nutrition to the rampant growth of obesity and diet-related diseases.

However, few studies have yet to provide a comprehensive view of how alternative food systems, based around fundamentally different agricultural models, perform against the same criteria. Even fewer have mapped out the pathways of transition towards the sustainable food systems of the future.

This report explores the potential for a shift to occur from current food systems, characterized by industrial modes of agriculture, to systems based around diversified agroecological farming. It asks what the impacts on food systems would be if diversity, rather than uniformity, were the key imperative. The ecological benefits of such a shift have been widely documented. The key question, and the one asked in this report, is where the trade-offs lie.

The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA, German: Solidarische Landwirtschaft) movement is being increasingly recognized for offering an alternative to the unsustainable industrial food system and thus as a concrete approach in the transition towards agroecology and food sovereignty.

In the “European CSA Overview”, the European CSA Research Group combines the knowledge of actors from 22 European countries. All these actors are from the interface of research and farming and have an intimate knowledge of CSAs in their respective countries. The Report thus gives an insiders’ perspective on the state and the dynamics of the CSA movement in the continent. With this Report, the European CSA Research Group aims to improve knowledge generation and sharing amongst CSAs in Europe and to create awareness among policy makers and the wider public that functioning alternatives to industrial food dependency exist.

Apart from presenting the results of a Europe wide census, this report analyses the agro-ecological dimension of CSA practice.

Eine große Mehrheit der Deutschen wünscht sich strengere Regeln und Gesetze für die Landwirtschaft. Landwirte sollen mehr Rücksicht auf Natur und Tierwohl nehmen. Den Einsatz von Genpflanzen lehnen die Deutschen klar ab. Das sind einige Ergebnisse der neuen Naturbewusstseinsstudie, die Bundesumweltministerin Barbara Hendricks und BfN-Präsidentin Beate Jessel Ende April in vorgestellt haben.

Hendricks: „Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger senden uns starke Signale im Bereich der Agrarpolitik. Die Deutschen wünschen sich eine Landwirtschaft, die naturverträglich ist und das Wohl der Tiere respektiert. Es gibt eine große gesellschaftliche Mehrheit für eine Agrarwende. Das bestärkt mich in meiner Forderung, das System der Agrarsubventionen vom Kopf auf die Füße zu stellen. Zahlungen an Landwirte soll es zukünftig nur bei einem gesellschaftlichen Mehrwert geben und nur bei konkreten Leistungen für die Natur. Was die Bevölkerung zu Recht nicht akzeptiert, sind gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen.“

BfN-Präsidentin Beate Jessel: „Die Naturbewusstseinsstudie zeigt eines ganz deutlich: Die Natur spielt für die Bevölkerung eine sehr wichtige Rolle und hat für die Menschen eine hohe persönliche Bedeutung. Bemerkenswert sind jedoch die Unterschiede zwischen den Generationen und zwischen der Stadt- und Landbevölkerung. So sehen junge Menschen seltener Handlungsbedarf als ältere. Großstädter messen der Natur eine geringere Wertschätzung bei als Menschen, die in kleineren Orten leben. Diese Erkenntnisse bestärken uns in unserem Ziel, uns für eine positive Mensch-Natur-Beziehung einzusetzen, insbesondere bei der jungen Bevölkerung und den Menschen in der Stadt.“

Die aktuelle Naturbewusstseinsstudie hat zum ersten Mal detailliert die Einstellung der Deutschen zum Themenbereich Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft abgefragt. Demnach befürworten 83 Prozent der Befragten strengere Regeln und Gesetze zum Schutz der Natur in der Landwirtschaft (45 Prozent „voll und ganz“/38 Prozent „eher“). 92 Prozent wünschen sich, dass Landwirtinnen und Landwirte die Auswirkungen ihres Tuns auf die Natur beachten. 93 Prozent fordern die Beachtung des Tierwohls bei der Lebensmittelproduktion. 76 Prozent halten es für wichtig, dass der Einsatz von Genpflanzen in der Landwirtschaft verboten wird.

Die Naturbewusstseinsstudie enthält zudem erstmals repräsentative Daten zum Thema „Stadtnatur“. 94 Prozent der Befragten sind der Meinung, Natur solle möglichst in allen Teilen der Stadt zugänglich sein. Die Daten zeigen, dass gerade einkommensschwache und ältere Menschen die Stadtnatur besonders häufig nutzen.

Hendricks: „Immer mehr Menschen ziehen in die Städte, wollen aber die Natur nicht missen. Stadtnatur ist auch eine Frage der sozialen Gerechtigkeit. Alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger sollen Natur in der Stadt zu Fuß erreichen können. Wir wollen darum dabei helfen, die Siedlungen grüner zu machen – mit Stadtparks und Straßenbepflanzungen, aber auch durch die Begrünung von Fassaden und Dächern oder die Förderung von ‚urban gardening‘ oder interkulturellen Gärten.“

European researchers have found substantially different climate change impacts for a global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C by 2100, the two temperature limits included in the Paris climate agreement. The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100, longer heat waves, and would result in virtually all tropical coral reefs being at risk. The research, Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, was published 21 April in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), and is presented at the EGU General Assembly.

“We found significant differences for all the impacts we considered,” says the study’s lead author Carl Schleussner, a scientific advisor at Climate Analytics in Germany. “We analysed the climate models used in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] Fifth Assessment Report, focusing on the projected impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C warming at the regional level. We considered 11 different indicators including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation and sea-level rise.”

The team, with researchers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, identified a number of hotspots around the globe where projected climate impacts at 2°C are significantly more severe than at 1.5°C. One of these is the Mediterranean region, which is already suffering from climate change-induced drying. With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.

In tropical regions, the half-a-degree difference in global temperature could have detrimental consequences for crop yields, particularly in Central America and West Africa. On average, local tropical maize and wheat yields would reduce twice as much at 2°C compared to a 1.5°C temperature increase.

“For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5°C increase marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions,” explains Schleussner.

The additional warming would also affect tropical coral reefs. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would provide a window of opportunity for some tropical coral reefs to adapt to climate change. In contrast, a 2°C temperature increase by 2100 would put virtually all of these ecosystems at risk of severe degradation due to coral bleaching.

Also, “Sea level rise will slow down during the 21st century only under a 1.5°C scenario,” explains Schleussner.

Co-author Jacob Schewe, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, says: “Some researchers have argued that there is little difference in climate change impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C. „We clearly show that there are significant differences in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”

William Hare, a senior scientist and CEO at Climate Analytics who also took part in the Earth System Dynamics research, adds: “Our study shows that tropical regions – mostly developing countries that are already highly vulnerable to climate change – face the biggest rise in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C.”

The Global Food System – An Analysis (January 2016) is a 156 pages strong study by Eva Gladek and colleagues on the current structure of the food system that lies at the center of a nexus of global problems, stretching from poverty to environmental degradation.

The study is focussing on four main challenges that need to be addressed simultaneously in order to transition to a sustainable and resilient food system: (1) Adaptive and Resilient Food System, (1) Nutritious Food For All, (3) Remaining Within Planetary Boundaries, (4) Supporting Livelihoods and Wellbeing.

From the summary: „Making food policy decisions for the global food system requires stronger and more cooperative international governance. Many impacts in the food system today can be traced back to a structural limitation of governance and enforcement.“