Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 7, 2016
Food: Trading away our future
The increase in trade has big environmental repercussions as well as a big social and cultural impact. The increasing distance makes it easier for market actors to externalize costs and more difficult to citizens and the political system to influence the way things are produced. Trade is not only a response to market demand, it creates demand and therefore recreates the need for it; trade becomes its own justification.
In a previous post I demonstrated the rapid growth of international trade in food and agriculture commodities. Global food production increased with over 50% between 1986 and 2009. Meanwhile the trade in food for direct human consumption has increased from 15% of total production in 1986 to 23% in 2009, thus about one fourth of food production is traded.
This globalization of food commodities has led to, or enabled, an increasing disconnection between human populations and the land and water resources that support them through crop and livestock production. The graph of global agricultural trade below from Graham K. Macdonald et al 2015 (reproduced with permission), says more than thousand words. [1]
| Click to view |
Trade has improved food access, but primarily for those that are rich. In 1965 insufficient domestic production meant insufficient food supply, but in recent years the deficit has been increasingly compensated by rising food imports.[2]
Of course, you have to afford food in order to buy it in international markets; the average per cap GDP in countries that achieve sufficient food supply by imports was approximately tenfold compared to countries with insufficient food supply and production. [3]
But isn’t it more efficient that countries with good conditions produce food for those with less good conditions?
Perhaps, but this is really not driving trade. For example, Sweden has good conditions for arable farming and even better for livestock production. Despite this it imports almost 50% of its beef and a lot of other agriculture products it could grow. Meanwhile Sweden has let more than 1 million hectare of arable land and even larger areas of pasture revert to forest or lie idle. The reason that beef is imported is simply that it is cheaper to produce somewhere else.
As I showed in my previous post trade can very well go from places with scarcity of resources to places where these are abundant, as other economic factors (or government support programs or tariffs) will determine where production will be most competitive. The water use efficiency of food trade (i.e., food calories produced per unit volume of water used) has declined in the last few decades. [4]
The global food trade has also affected agricultural landscapes, fully in line with trade theory. Competition drives farmers in to more and more specialization and larger scale in order to cut costs. This first leads to that farms go into monocropping and, ultimately, economies of scale will make whole landscapes devoted to one or a few lines of production/commodities. The implication on bio-diversity is huge and ironically some of these bread baskets are increasingly becoming food deserts. *
Trade puts pressure towards harmonization of standards which has a number of non-desirable effects.
First, the development of international (harmonized) standards is dominated by the richer countries and as they are the main markets, exporters and exporting countries tend to go along with the standards demanded by main markets. This puts producers in exporting countries in a disadvantage as their needs are mostly not listened to. Other stakeholders in exporting countries, such as consumers or farm workers have even less say in the development of these standards.
Second, while some environmental problems are global (global warming), most are local or regional in scope. For example, in some countries, limiting erosion or water use in agriculture may be a primary objective, in others eutrophication or pesticide contamination of waterways might be central and in a third country with intensive agriculture the loss of bio-diversity in the agriculture landscape. It is highly unlikely that international standards can encapsulate all this. It is equally unlikely that the various social and cultural situations will be well reflected in international standards.
Third, there is a tendency for international standards to move towards lower standards. For example, the EU farm lobby in Copa & Cogeca requests that the license for glyphosate as a pesticide shall be renewed as a ban would “put us at an unfair competitive disadvantage vis a vis non-EU countries who export to the EU.” Similar arguments can be heard in almost all countries. *
Trade can allow population densities larger than those that would prevail if these regions would have to rely solely on domestic supply. But the increasing distance between consumers and producers comes with a lot of problems. As Jeniffer Clapp[5] outlines in Distant agricultural landscapes, ”…distance enables certain powerful actors to externalize ecological and social costs, which in turn makes it difficult to link specific global actors to particular biophysical and social impacts felt on local agricultural landscapes. Feedback mechanisms that normally would provide pressure for improved agricultural sustainability are weak because there is a lack of clarity regarding responsibility for outcomes.” Consumers are mostly unaware of the ecological and social consequences of their consumption choices and even if they wanted to it makes it hard for them to influence.
There is a similar effect on the political level. When the costs associated with a products are externalized onto other actors and landscapes that may be half way around the world, the politics of addressing those problems is fraught with challenges and governments in the country where the products are consumed have no jurisdiction in the places where it is produced. This is one of the drivers behind the efforts to use “the market” and “consumer choice” to favour sustainable production. But the ability of “consumer choice” to have a real influence on the production in distant places is very limited (I elaborate my arguments around this in the post Ethics for sale? and even more in my book Global Eating Disorder).
Trade can and is more often a means to sustain affluent lifestyles of wealthy nations, while reducing negative environmental impacts of crop production on their own territories, allowing them to shift burdens elsewhere.[6] Meanwhile, trade often perverts the consumption of the resource-poor. In the article Taking Political Ecology Global antropologist Richard Wilk shares his observations from the Kekchi in Belize: ”I watched mothers selling the eggs from their family’s chickens, to spend the money on Coca-Cola and candy, while their children clearly needed protein more than sugar. I saw men selling their pigs to get money for a boom box, or a carton of cigarettes, when they could have been sending their kids to school, or building a latrine, or improving their corn storage, or planting some cocoa.”[7]*
Trade is not only a response to market demand, it creates demand and therefore recreates the need for it; trade becomes its own justification. The argument goes along these lines:
“Development makes people happy. Trade is good for development. We need free trade in order to promote more trade. Thus, free trade makes more people happy”
This post will be followed by two more on the trade theme, please stay tuned.
16 Comments on "Food: Trading away our future"
makati1 on Tue, 7th Jun 2016 6:31 pm
TV and the internet has made global brainwashing by the big corporations possible. The message is: “You need to buy XXXXXXXXX to be … (fill in the blank … popular, like Americans, beautiful, manly, rich, health, etc.)” I see it here.
The sooner global trade contracts, the better for the planet and its inhabitants. It will not end, but imports will get too expensive for the masses. Back to Lords and serfs. We are almost there.
Davy on Tue, 7th Jun 2016 8:03 pm
The issue is economics and overpopulation. The economics side of the equation is the dynamics of globalism. Food is now a full participant in the process of financialization, global production, and global distribution. Populations have been allowed to grow far past their local carrying capacity because of the combination of global economics, technology and fossil energy. The vast global financial and distribution networks have allowed global monocultures to dominate food production delocalizing all local’s food production. Gone are regions of subsistence farmers who could survive a collapse. We are all now in danger of few food options if the trucks stop.
Instead of an optimal mix for health, sustainability and resilience we have profit motive to sell food as a commodity generally from monocultures. Overpopulation is an issue now because we have come too far to make any real food changes except around the edges. We are too far into population overshoot to turn back this globalized food process without serious dangers of regional die offs. We are now so far into this globalized food system together with delocalized locals and locals in population overshoot we are no longer able to change food production without real dangers of collapse. A collapse that is coming anyway but a collapse sooner if we think we can change the way we grow food and disperse it to the multitudes.
makati1 on Tue, 7th Jun 2016 9:39 pm
Had to post this news… Americans, your tax dollars at work!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-07/veterans-affairs-wants-provide-sex-reassignment-surgeries-transgender-vets
“The VA says the surgical procedures were not deemed to be “medically necessary” in the past and there were questions over their safety and effectiveness. However, as the military prepares to allow transgender troops to serve openly and President Barack Obama’s administration wrangles with states over the rights of transgender people to use the restrooms of the their choice, it appears, as Military.com reports, that transition-related surgeries may soon be covered…”
LMAO I’m glad I do not pay any taxes now.
GregT on Tue, 7th Jun 2016 11:06 pm
“Smallholder farmers produce 70 per cent of the world’s food.”
The State of Family Farms in the World
Summary
2014 was the United Nations’ International Year of Family Farming, yet the importance of family farming for global food security is still surprisingly poorly documented. In a review of agricultural census data, we find that globally family farms constitute over 98% of all farms, and work on 53% of agricultural land. Across distinct contexts, family farming plays a critical role for global food production. We present two examples of policy approaches toward family farmers—Brazil and Malawi—to provide insight into some of the complexities and challenges behind the global numbers.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0305750X15001217-gr1.jpg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15001217
makati1 on Tue, 7th Jun 2016 11:31 pm
Very informative article, Greg. Small farmers can produce enough food if needed. There will just be fewer fat people in the world. lol
kanon on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 12:06 am
It is quite convenient to say we are so far gone there is no reason to bother with any effort. It is the same as going on endlessly about problems with renewable energy or repeating the mantra that we need enormous consumption of fossil fuels. We are in this mess because greedy, immoral oligarchs act while the supposedly perceptive good guys commiserate. If we all stopped serving the corporations this instant, the earth would continue its rotations without any change and humanity would continue as well. Perhaps this website should change its name from “Peak Oil” to “Yes, but…”
GregT on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 12:17 am
kanon,
Many of the posters here are already putting in an effort. The further one explores their options, the clearer reality becomes. There is no solution that does not include either a dramatic reduction in our populations, or extinction. The opportunity to ‘stop serving the corporations’ was lost about 40 years ago.
kanon on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 12:51 am
Well, I guess it partly depends on what you mean by “our” populations. While there is the possible future envisioned by Obama and Hillary with their trillion dollar nuclear weapons program, there are also more resources and ability for a decent future than we give credit for. If you cannot think it, then how do you expect to do it?
makati1 on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 1:20 am
Seems to me, kanon that climate change is going to negate any ‘resources’ that might be available now. By resources, I would guess you mean things like potable water, food, shelter, breathable air and a reasonable climate? All other ‘resources’ are luxuries and will not be of interest or available after the SHTF.
Davy on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 6:56 am
“Small farmers can produce enough food if needed.”
LMFAO, of course you think that Makati Bill you live in an overpopulated country with a collapsing ecosystem you want to believe the third world farmer will take up the slack when industrial agriculture fails but it is not the case. There are those here with romantic notions of what subsistence farming can do and even what it is. Makati Bill has little experience with farming and acts the expert. We are so far from a system that will work without globalism everywhere especially in the overpopulated 3rd world. We have the worst of overshoot in Asia for example. The amount of people there will be overwhelming in collapse. No local networks will survive that untouched. Get real Makati Bill.
kanon on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 7:50 am
Once I realized that half the urban areas in the U.S. are dedicated to automobiles, I began to see that there is more than enough space for ideas like urban agriculture. Also, realize that just because the current money system places absolutely no value on any resource that cannot be exploited to support monthly payments, does not mean there is no value there. So potable water can be had by not polluting the existing water supplies. I suppose for Asians this might not be true, since pollution in China is so pervasive. Climate change will probably ‘negate’ the very resources required by industrial agriculture, i.e. the ability to run a system on large unattended areas, so small farms will become a necessity. I think there is more than enough junk that can be ‘re-purposed’ to supply the needed resources.
Davy on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 8:43 am
Kannon, review the population employment figures for the turn of the 19th century and well into the 30’s where electricity was not found and you will find an overwhelming majority where involved in food production. Some of the reason was forced localization of food because we didn’t have refrigeration. Second was electrification and the advent of autos allowed mass movement of goods quick as opposed to slow movement of smaller quantities. This allowed differentiation of labor and economies of scale. Sustainability and resilience were sacrificed for efficiency and short term profit.
Reviewing this reality of pre-hyper modern complexity we see life revolved around food and shelter instead of consumerism and leisure. This focused life to the local. This is where we are going urban and rural alike. The sad reality is we are in both complexity overshoot and population overshoot to painlessly return to localism. We have discarded the tools and the know how. All this will need to be relearned. Yet, society is going in a paradoxical direction of the wrong way thinking it is right. The wrong way is more of the same.
We will not get through that door again of what was. We will have a new and painful door to go through of repurposing, reeducation, and destructive change. It will take hardship, pain, and loss to rebalance a system and a people who have completely lost their way from their true nature.
Most here will not make it to see this. Many here will die off especially the old like me. Extinction is a possibility unless we radically change. Crisis is our only hope. In crisis there is change and only crisis will change modern man. We are not yet in full blown crisis but we are in the vicinity.
makati1 on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 9:12 am
kanon, most water supplies are already polluted, even in the US. Take a sample of yours to a lab and have it tested. You might be surprised what you are drinking. And living in the countryside does not make a difference. Farm pollution is common most everywhere. My 310 foot deep well was contaminated with nitrogen from the farm fields nearby and needed treatment to be safe.
I like your word “re purpose”. Does that exclude anything that needs energy to be “remade” into something useful? You might salvage parts to repair an existing machine, but what is going to power it when you do?
BTW: you better check your local zoning laws and see if urban agriculture is legal in your area. In many place it isn’t. And many of today’s yards only have enough topsoil to grow grass, not veggies. Especially if it is a tract home. They sold the topsoil when they built the house. I used to work for a builder hat did that. Two feet of topsoil became 4 inches. I certainly would not want to eat something grown in the usual toxic chemical lawns of America. lol
Love how everyone in the US likes to point fingers at others but cannot look in the mirror.
Davy on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 9:38 am
Makati Bill, come to my farm and I will let you drink some of my delicious well water. If you would rather I have a spring water also. Ask me to drink Manila water? No thanks. Do you own a mirror?
beamofthewave on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 10:36 am
those poor people whose water has been ruined by fracking, not the place to be when scarcity really starts.
ghung on Wed, 8th Jun 2016 10:37 am
Relax, Davy. Mak always paints with a broad brush. In our case, we own the whole watershed where there has never been anything but forest, and our spring tests have been exceptional. Not every environment has been totally fouled by the misdeeds of humanity (not yet anyway). Methinks that Mak tends to project his own sense of doom on everyone, everywhere, especially in the west.