VERSIONE ITALIANA
The Science of Where Magazine incontra il Prof. Tim Benton del think tank Chatham House.
– Qual è la tesi del lavoro di ricerca, svolto con Helen Harwatt e pubblicato da Chatham House (Sustainable agriculture and food systems), sull’agricoltura sostenibile e sui sistemi alimentari?
La tesi è che non si possa pensare ad un’agricoltura sostenibile indipendentemente dal fatto che renda il sistema alimentare più o meno sostenibile. Le opinioni di molte persone sulla migliore forma di agricoltura sostenibile dipendono da una serie di presupposti, in particolare se la domanda di cibo crescerà e se questa possa essere “modellata” da interventi che ristrutturino il mercato. Cito dal rapporto sopra indicato:
The following thought experiment serves as a useful illustration of the complexities involved. Let us imagine that research highlights a new farming system which reduces greenhouse gases, conserves biodiversity, stores carbon, maximizes animal welfare and preserves the cultural, recreational and amenity value of the landscape. While yields are only 70 per cent of those achieved through standard intensive farming practices, the public goods are improved to such an extent that they more than compensate, in terms of economic value, for the relatively lower yields at the level of individual farms. Whether this farming system is more sustainable is illustrated by considering the following two hypothetical cases:
- (1) Demand for food stays the same, i.e. consumers continue to eat the same types and amounts of food: in which case, if the ‘sustainable agriculture’ system were to be adopted globally, it would imply that the area of agricultural land would have to be expanded by at least 42 per cent (i.e. 1 divided by 0.7) to make up for the reduction in yield. Land clearance for this purpose would release greenhouse gas emissions, cause biodiversity losses, and degrade water quality and availability around the world. This would suggest that, despite being more sustainable locally, the proposed form of agriculture might lead to a less sustainable system as a whole.
- Alternatively, in hypothetical condition (2), demand for food changes: people are incentivized not to waste food, to adopt a healthy diet rich in plant-based foods, and to avoid excess consumption. With a fall in demand of 30 per cent, all farms could adopt the new, hypothetical, farming system, while delivering the raft of environmental benefits and without needing to expand the land ‘footprint’ of agriculture. So, the same farming system could be seen to be unsustainable in case (1) but sustainable in case (2).
Quindi le ipotesi fatte sulla domanda – e se il mercato aumenta la domanda aumentando i raccolti, riducendo i prezzi, trovando nuovi modi per aumentare i consumi – determinano se “agricoltura sostenibile” significhi più intensificare riducendo l’impronta di ogni chilo di prodotto (“intensificazione sostenibile”), insieme al risparmio di terra per la natura, o se l’adozione di approcci più agro-ecologici sia la strada migliore per costruire sistemi alimentari sostenibili. La “versione” preferita dell’agricoltura sostenibile incanala gli investimenti e le decisioni politiche e crea una dipendenza dal percorso a lungo termine.
– Le esperienze di agricoltura sostenibile si stanno diffondendo in tutto il mondo. Un esempio, in Italia, è la Fondazione Riccagioia. La sostenibilità è “glocal” perché risponde a una sfida globale a partire dai territori, da ogni “dove”. In che modo le tecnologie possono aiutare a costruire tali prospettive di sostenibilità?
La tecnologia è chiaramente importante per fornire un’agricoltura più sostenibile (vedi il nostro recente libro Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles Tailored to Distinct Agri-Food Systems) ma non esiste un chiaro “proiettile d’argento”. Un futuro agro-ecologico richiede diversi tipi di tecnologie rispetto a uno basato su monocolture intensive e su larga scala. La tecnologia da sola è solo una parte dell’innovazione richiesta, abbiamo bisogno di innovazione nei mercati, nella governance e nei sistemi sociali, non semplicemente cercando tecnologie che aumentino i rendimenti con un minor impatto ambientale. Ogni luogo, ogni sistema è diverso; e una tecnologia che produce più cibo con meno input avrà costi e benefici diversi in luoghi diversi e, se adottata su scale diverse, può anche compensare la necessità di nutrizione e conservazione della biodiversità…
– Non solo il cambiamento climatico, ma anche la guerra sta contribuendo ad aumentare il rischio di carestia, soprattutto nei Paesi più poveri. I numeri sono impressionanti. Come declini il tema della complessità della sicurezza, compresa quella alimentare?
L’agricoltura resiliente è correlata ai sistemi alimentari resilienti, ma non si mappano esattamente. Con l’aumento degli impatti sul clima e l’aumento delle tensioni geopolitiche, in un mondo in cui la cooperazione multilaterale sembra in declino, è probabile che i nostri sistemi alimentari subiscano ulteriori “shock” come vediamo ora con la guerra in Ucraina. I governi hanno sempre più bisogno di pensare al cibo attraverso una lente di sicurezza, dopo decenni – soprattutto nel mondo ricco – in cui si è pensato che il mercato risolvesse problemi come questo. Non è così, non lo sarà, quindi c’è una questione aperta sul fatto che un sistema alimentare locale resiliente debba essere più diversificato e con catene di approvvigionamento più brevi, con una maggiore conservazione degli alimenti. Tutte queste cose possono essere utili in qualche modo (rendendo il sistema più in grado di ammortizzare gli shock derivanti dal commercio o dal clima), ma renderanno il cibo più costoso in generale. Gli ammortizzatori sociali, il cambiamento dei modelli di consumo, possono quindi essere importanti tanto quanto rendere l’agricoltura e il commercio più resilienti.
– Cosa ti preoccupa di più, in questa fase storica, in tema di rischi emergenti ?
Ovunque c’è rischio. In ogni Paese è probabile che i poveri soffrano se l’aumento dei prezzi non è accompagnato da aumenti salariali e da sistemi di sicurezza sociale. Sono già in corso rivolte per il cibo e potrebbero destabilizzare alcuni Paesi, in particolare quelli a basso reddito, con una governance fragile e dipendenti dalle importazioni.
ORIGINAL VERSION
The Science of Where Magazine meets Prof. Tim Benton who leads the Environment and Society Programme at Chatham House.
– What is the thesis of the research work, carried out with Helen Harwatt and published by Chatham House (Sustainable agriculture and food systems), on sustainable agriculture and food systems?
That you cannot think about sustainable agriculture, independently of whether it makes the food system more or less sustainable. Many people’s views of the best form of sustainable agriculture depend on a range of assumptions, particularly about whether the demand for food will grow, and whether this can be shaped by interventions that restructure the market. To quote from the report:
The following thought experiment serves as a useful illustration of the complexities involved. Let us imagine that research highlights a new farming system which reduces greenhouse gases, conserves biodiversity, stores carbon, maximizes animal welfare and preserves the cultural, recreational and amenity value of the landscape. While yields are only 70 per cent of those achieved through standard intensive farming practices, the public goods are improved to such an extent that they more than compensate, in terms of economic value, for the relatively lower yields at the level of individual farms. Whether this farming system is more sustainable is illustrated by considering the following two hypothetical cases:
- (1) Demand for food stays the same, i.e. consumers continue to eat the same types and amounts of food: in which case, if the ‘sustainable agriculture’ system were to be adopted globally, it would imply that the area of agricultural land would have to be expanded by at least 42 per cent (i.e. 1 divided by 0.7) to make up for the reduction in yield. Land clearance for this purpose would release greenhouse gas emissions, cause biodiversity losses, and degrade water quality and availability around the world. This would suggest that, despite being more sustainable locally, the proposed form of agriculture might lead to a less sustainable system as a whole.
- Alternatively, in hypothetical condition (2), demand for food changes: people are incentivized not to waste food, to adopt a healthy diet rich in plant-based foods, and to avoid excess consumption. With a fall in demand of 30 per cent, all farms could adopt the new, hypothetical, farming system, while delivering the raft of environmental benefits and without needing to expand the land ‘footprint’ of agriculture. So, the same farming system could be seen to be unsustainable in case (1) but sustainable in case (2).
Hence assumptions made about demand – and whether the market increases demand by increasing yields, reducing prices, finding new ways to enhance consumption – shape whether “sustainable agriculture” is more about intensifying whilst reducing the footprint of each kilo of product (“sustainable intensification”), coupled with sparing land for nature, or whether adopting more agro-ecological approaches is the better route to building sustainable food systems. The preferred “version” of sustainable agriculture channels investments and policy decisions and creates long-term path dependency.
– Experiences of sustainable agriculture are spreading around the world. An example is the Italian Fondazione Riccagioia. Sustainability is “glocal” because it responds to a global challenge starting from the territories, from every “where”. How can technologies help build such sustainability perspectives?
Technology is clearly important in delivering more sustainable agriculture (see our recent book Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles Tailored to Distinct Agri-Food Systems) but there is no clear “silver bullet”. An agro-ecological future requires different sorts of technologies than one based on large-scale, intensive, monocultures. Technology alone is only part of the innovation required, we need innovation in markets, governance and social systems, not simply seeking technologies that raise yields with less environmental impact. Every place, every system is different; and a technology that grows more food with fewer inputs will have different costs and benefits at different places and when adopted at different scales, it may also trade-off against the need for nutrition and biodiversity conservation…
– Not only climate change, but also war is contributing to increasing the risk of famine, especially in the poorest countries. The numbers are very impressive. How do you read the issue of the complexity of security, including the food one?
Resilient agriculture is related to resilient food systems but they don’t map on exactly. As climate impacts mount, and geopolitical tensions increase – in a world where multilateral cooperation seems to be declining – our food systems are likely to suffer more “shocks” as we are feeling now with the war in Ukraine. Governments are increasingly needing to think about food through a security lens, after – especially in the rich world – decades of assuming the market will solve issues like this. It hasn’t, it won’t, and so there is an open question on whether a resilient local food system should be more diverse and with shorter supply chains, with greater food storage. All these things may be beneficial in some ways (making the system better able to buffer shocks coming through trade or climate) but they will make food more expensive in general. Social safety nets, changing consumption patterns, may therefore be important as much as making agriculture and trade more resilient.
– Finally, in terms of emerging risks, what worries you most in this historical phase ?
Everywhere is at risk. In every country the poor are likely to suffer if price rises are not matched by wage rises/social safety nets. Food riots are already occurring and may well destabilise some countries – particularly low-income, import-dependent countries with fragile governance.
