FOOD, FARMING AND Food, Farming & THE ENVIRONMENT … · Environmental Fact Sheet VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1 FOOD, FARMING AND November 2008 THE ENVIRONMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND Food, Farming

Environmental Fact Sheet

VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1

November 2008

FOOD, FARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF

NORTHERN I RELAND

Food, Farming & the Environment

F o o d , F a r m i n g & t h e E n v i r o n m e n t N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8

N O R T H E R N I R E L A N D E N V I R O N M E N T L I N K E N V I R O N M E N T A L F A C T S H E E T

At the start of 2008, UK consumers were spending a smaller •proportion of their income on food than ever before: around 9% compared to 35% of income 30 years ago.

The farmers’ share of the money for a basket of food staples fell by •23% between 1988 and 2006.

Agricultural activity contributes around 22% of total greenhouse gas •emissions in Northern Ireland.

IntheUK,weareonly60%selfsufficientforfood,wewasteone•third of the food we buy, we import £24bn food and export £10bn.

Over 900 million people do not have enough food to meet their daily •nutritional needs.

Three times as much agricultural land in Northern Ireland was used •for the cultivation of crops 50 years ago.

The UK pays for but does not eat £10 billion of food every year.•

Around 30 million tonnes of household waste is generated in the UK •every year, of which 5.9 million tonnes is packaging and 6.7 million tonnes is food waste.

Globally we produce 2.13 billion tonnes of food crops; only 1.01 •billion tonnes of this are eaten by people.

Agriculture uses around 70% of available fresh water globally.•

Tofindoutmore,usethecolour-codingtolocatetheappropriatesectionoftheFactSheet.

Food Facts: Appetisers

AcknowledgementsThis report was compiled by David McCann, designed by David McCann and Karen Nicholson, and edited by David McCann, Professor Sue Christie and Seamus óg Gallagher.

We would like to thank all of the authors for the time and effort they put into producing their articles and to all speakers and delegates at the Sowing the Seeds Conference (June 2008) which formed the basis of this publication.

Every effort has been made to acknowledge all copyright owners.

Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), 2008

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 i

N O R T H E R N I R E L A N D E N V I R O N M E N T L I N KE N V I R O N M E N T A L F A C T S H E E T

F o o d , F a r m i n g & t h e E n v i r o n m e n t

What, and how much, we eat has obvious impacts on our personal health. Although perhaps not so clearly acknowledged, what we grow and how we grow it has just as profound an impact on our environment. Many factors determine what we grow and where and how it is grown; government policy, consumer demand, funding regimes, international trade agreements, competing pressures on land, soil quality, weather, and more. Balancing these competing pressures is not easy, especially as many of these factors now change every year and often even more frequently.

This Fact Sheet looks at some of these issues and attempts to devise some practical suggestions for how we use land

in Northern Ireland. There is now increasing need and demand for local food production, and consumers are more inclined to question how their food has been produced, packaged and transported. Top quality land has many uses, but much of Northern Ireland’s countryside is not so versatile. However, even lower quality land offers many options, including grazing, amenity, forestry or energy production.

What factors need to be considered by the farmer as he decides what crops to grow this year, or for several seasons to come? How can agricultural policy and support assist in the development of a healthier population? How can society ensure that the available land is used to maximum benefit to

provide food, energy, wildlife, amenity and ecosystem services? How can we reduce the huge amount of food we currently waste? Can using waste materials – food, slurry, straw, forest brash – provide a significant and carbon-effective source of energy as oil becomes an increasingly scarce and expensive commodity? How can the way we use our land help in both adaptation to and mitigation of climate change?

This Fact Sheet investigates these issues and many others. It is centred around papers given at the Sowing the Seeds conference in June 2008, but additional papers have been provided to cover a broader range of topics.

Introduction

F o o d , F a r m i n g & t h e E n v i r o n m e n t N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8ii


CAP ReformThe Health Check will see further changes to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and it is anticipated that these will be agreed by EU Member States in November. Although it will not become a radical reform, it will deal with significant issues that will impact on the industry here. These include simplification of the Single Farm Payment (SFP) scheme, the arrangements for modulation (reduction) of direct payments to fund rural development programmes, an option to move towards a flat rate SFP and ensuring a soft landing for the dairy sector when milk quotas are ended in 2015.

It is also proposed to abolish set-aside from 2009. This will also bring simplification and it is generally accepted that set-aside is no longer needed as a supply control measure. Concerns have been raised in relation to the environmental impact but this needs to be placed in the context of the relatively small area of set-aside in the North (1,800ha) which will be far outweighed by the expansion of the coverage of our

agri-environment schemes over the next few years.

Overall, I am expecting that the Health Check will bring significant simplification to the SFP scheme. It will also move the EU as a whole further towards the full decoupling from production of all support payments, and see modulation rates in other Member States increase towards the higher rates which we have had to adopt in order to fund our rural development programme.

Energy CropsThe growing demand for renewable energy production and utilisation, in association with the need to mitigate against climate change, has encouraged DARD to continue to support the growing of energy crops and production of biomass. DARD support takes the form of establishment grants for short rotation coppice willow and aid for the growing of energy crops, along with research, technology-transfer activities and advice. These support activities take

cognisance of the need for a balanced and sustainable approach to the production and utilisation of renewable energy within the rural context.

Local FoodThere is a growing demand from consumers about the origin of food. DARD is responsible only for beef labelling down to retail level. All other food labelling is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. However, conscious of this growing public demand for information, we have initiated a pilot scheme in a number of local restaurants for the origin-labelling of beef. Information from this initiative will inform future policy decisions regarding origin-labelling of beef in the food service sector.

For the second year running, my Department is funding a Regional Food Programme, the aim of which is to promote quality regional produce. It has funded activities, such as the Food Pavilion at the Balmoral show, which have acted as platforms for a range of sectoral bodies to promote the wide range of fresh and healthy local food available.

ForewordMichelle Gildernew, MP, MLA Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 iii



BiodiversityDARD aims to protect and enhance biodiversity through its Agri-Environment Programme, which rewards environmentally sensitive management of farmland, as well as the management or creation of habitats. This Programme is open to all farmers within the North of Ireland, and between June 2008, when it was launched, and September 2008 DARD had received 4,570 Programme applications.

Through its Biodiversity Implementation Plan, DARD is committing to a range of targets to enhance biodiversity in line with the NI Biodiversity Strategy.

Increased Production Costs The rising global oil price has translated into an increased diesel price for both farmers and contractors, resulting in higher costs for field work, transportation and processing. The rise in the price of oil and natural gas, which play a vital role in the production of fertilisers, has resulted in higher fertiliser costs, adding significantly to agricultural production costs. While the Department has no influence over these market prices, it remains committed to achieving the sustainable development of the agricultural industry here and will continue to provide

advice and support for the industry through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute.

Through the Farm Nutrient Management Scheme, DARD is providing capital grant support for improved slurry and manure storage facilities on some 4,000 farms. The resulting investment of approximately £200 million in farm infrastructure will enable farmers to make better use of the nutrients in slurry during the growing season. The forthcoming Manure Efficiency and Technology Scheme (METS) will also help to increase nutrient efficiency by providing grant aid for advanced slurry spreading equipment. Achieving greater nutrient efficiency from manures will help farmers reduce chemical fertiliser usage and nutrient losses to the environment.



Contents Section One: THE ISSUES

1 Who’sforaLow-CarbDiet? Jim Kitchen.

3 FoodToday Seamus óg Gallagher.

6 Biodiversity and Agriculture:ASummaryConvention on Biological Diversity.

8 FarminginaChangingClimateJim McAdam.

11 MakingtheSumsAddUp Seamus McErlean. 13 ConsumerConstraints Carol Edwards

Section Two: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 14 CreditCrunch:WhereDoesItBiteHardest?

Deborah Doherty. 16 IAASTD Global Report:ASummary

Dan Sullivan.

Section Three: AGRICULTURAL POLICY

18 FoodProduction:TheNeedforSelf-SufficiencyKate Cairns.

20 FarmingandPublicHealthFaculty of Public Health & David McCann.

23 Beyond the Pillars:ASummary Wildlife and Countryside Link.

25 Agri-EnvironmentSchemesAlan Galbraith.

27 BeyondAgri-EnvironmentSean Convery.

Section Five: WASTE AND RESOURCES 39 FoodWaste

Andrew Parry. 41 PackagingOptimisation

Rhiannon Davies. 43 Bioenergy:TheChallengesandOpportunities

Geoff Nuttall. 46 FarmManures:AValuableResource

Peter Frost. 48 AgricultureandBioenergy

Lindsay Easson.

Section Six: CONCLUSIONS

50 AFutureWayforNorthernIreland’sCountryside?Sue Christie.

52 Recommendations.

Section Four: FOOD CHOICES

28 ALocalBusinessPerspective Martin and Tracy Hamilton.

29 RetailLeadersinSustainability? David McCann.

32 PracticalExperiencesinLocalProduction John Witchell.

33 ‘GetUp&Grow’:GrowingPlants,GrowingPeople Ann McGlone.

34 GrowingYourOwnFood:SowingtheSeedlings! Andy Griggs.

36 CommunityGardens Mick Marston.

37 OrganicFood The Organic Centre.

38 TheFairtradeApproachtoFood Patricia Mackey.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 1



In many ways the success of the farming industry in the last 50 years has been astonishing. This productivity has been underpinned by ingenuity, technology and sheer hard work, but also by cheap oil.

The ecologist Howard Odum has remarked that our food is made wholly of oil with oil left over. His pithy observation is based on the fact that intensive farming can use several times as much fossil-fuelled energy as it returns in food energy. Certainly, the efficiency gains of the past half-century in the provision of our food have been heavily oil-dependent - in its growing, processing, distribution and retailing.

In turn, that means that the food economy makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions; the Cabinet Office report, Food Matters, notes that UK food production and consumption accounts for 18% of UK GHG emissions1. SDC Commissioner, Professor Tim Lang, has identified what he calls the ‘food hotspots’, those elements of our diet responsible for the highest emissions – meat and dairy foods, glasshouse vegetables, air-freighted produce and heavily processed foods2. For example, a study from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan has calculated that a single kilogram of beef is responsible for the same amount of carbon dioxide as is emitted by the average European car over 150 miles.3

Food is a commodity we truly must have, but our changing consumption has led to major health impacts. In his first annual report, our Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Dr Michael McBride, claimed that ‘Northern Ireland is facing an obesity timebomb’. Two thirds of men and

over half of all women here are either overweight or obese and face the associated increased risks of coronary heart disease, diabetes and cancer.4

The twinning of arguments on the environmental and health implications of the food chain makes a powerful statement of support for the low-carbon diet or, as Tim Lang terms it, eco-nutrition.

The health benefits of eating fresh food have been well-rehearsed. There cannot be many people who have not heard the ‘Eat Five a Day’ mantra – which even has its own website. It is a consistent medical message – eating more fruit and vegetables is essential for good health. Some meat and dairy products are high in fat, particularly saturated fat, which has links to an increased risk of heart disease. At the same time, meat and dairy foods are important sources of dietary iron, calcium and zinc, all important nutritional elements.

In terms of environmental impact there is less ambiguity. Globally, meat is the most resource-costly form of food. A recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, listed the environmental damage and ‘deep footprint’ of animal husbandry – producing 18% of greenhouse gases, 9% of human-related CO2,

using a third of global arable land for animal feed, responsible for the degradation of 20% of pasture land and very damaging to water resources.6

The implications of our consumption of animal protein are clear. Food Matters concludes that the evidence on health and the balance of environmental analysis suggests that a healthy, low-impact diet would contain less meat and fewer dairy products than we typically eat today.

However, long before we get to implementing a sustainable food system in this country, there are daunting complexities in seeking to define what it is, not least because there are around 20,000 red meat producers alone in Northern Ireland. That singular fact and its economic significance may impede progress towards our shared understanding of what a sustainable food system may look like.

Our agri-food industry is of great importance, of course, with food processing accounting for around 20% of total manufacturing, and half of that coming from the meat and dairy sectors. Food for export from Northern Ireland represents some 60% of total sales so it is critical that we retain vibrant agri-food businesses that are responsive to consumer demands, which may begin to change.

Some emerging changes are very unwelcome. The global demand for meat and dairy products is booming, with a World Bank report, Livestock Development, predicting its further growth by over 50% by 20207. Globally rising affluence does tend to be accompanied by an increased consumption of animal produce. This shift in the traditional diets of many countries towards a

Who’s for a Low-Carb Diet?

Jim Kitchen, Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)

TH

E IS

SU

ES

“It is now clear that diet is oneof the leading causes of ill-

health in our society, with our current patterns of consumption

leading to thousands of earlydeaths each year. We also needto take measures to lessen theenvironmental impact of thefood we eat, producing more

food with fewer resources and fewer GHG emissions“5 GordonBrown,PM



‘Western’ model will have complex impacts. The World Bank and FAO alike are beginning to be aware that the expansion of ‘cattle culture’ could severely affect global food security, the natural resource base and rural equity.

It’s an issue which is causing concern in Whitehall, too. Defra recently issued a consultation paper entitled Ensuring UK Food Security in a Changing World, although it was somewhat lacking in the kind of sustainable development thinking that SDC would have applauded. Once again, Tim Lang’s observations are pertinent. “We are sleep-walking into a crisis”, he says, predicting the end of the era of cheap food and even actual commodity shortages8. The UK produces around 60% of its own food and its ‘just-in-time’ distribution around the country is incredibly vulnerable to interrupted fuel supplies. During the fuel tax protests a few years ago, supermarkets by their own admission were ‘a few days away from the spectre of empty shelves’.

Defra published a review in 2006 which judged that the UK food system was broadly resilient but a Chatham House food supplies project, reporting in November 2008, has pointed to vulnerabilities at the global systems level such

as water, climate change, rising population and the growing purchasing power in developing countries. Our food supply may not be vulnerable in the short-term but to assume that ‘world markets’ will automatically be open to a food dependent UK might be a risky policy.

Certainly, the current food chain is infinitely more complex and varied than it has been in the past, with computerised logistics at the centre of ‘just-in-time’ systems. There are no easy solutions to the problems being identified by the new analyses of the food system but policymakers and the public alike need to be aware that the world of food is changing and act accordingly.

One obvious conclusion is to buy much more of our food from local sources. That’s attractive on many levels – more support for our agri-businesses, fewer food-miles, more resilience against external factors. In addition, it is certainly the case that changing what we eat is as important as where it comes from. Another sore in food policy is waste. WRAP estimates that around a quarter of all food purchased by consumers is thrown away in one form or another. The recent Northern Visions report for the DoE illustrates the reduction in Northern

Ireland’s ecological footprint that can be derived from reducing food waste and changing our diet.9

The Green Alliance’s report, Cutting our Carbs,10 draws two key conclusions, both of which seek the development of a healthy, low-impact diet. Its list of recommendations includes the challenge to government to make it compulsory for the public sector to meet its own Healthier Food Mark in all its food procurement by 2012. That would provide the sort of leadership by example that could boost the efforts of the CMO to tackle obesity, help local businesses and reduce our carbon footprint – all right there in the Programme for Government.

References1) Cabinet Office (2008). Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century.www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_matters1%20pdf.ashx

2) Lang, T (2008). Food Security, Peak Oil and Climate Change: the policy context – talk to All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil.www.warmwell.com/08timlang2.html

3) Porritt, J (2007) New Horizons, in Feeding the Future, a Green Futures supplement (October 2007).www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/newhorizons

4) DHSSPS (2006). Your Health Matters Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland.www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/cmoannualreport2006.pdf

5) Cabinet Office (2008). Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century – PM’s Foreword.www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_matters1%20pdf.ashx

6) FAO (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow. Rome: FAO www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

7) World Bank (2001). Livestock Development – Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment and Global Food Security.www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/12/11/000094946_01112104010387/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

8) The Times (2008). Who knows there’s a food crisis? www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article3492123.ece

9) Maguire, C., Curry, R. and McClenaghan, A (2008). Northern Visions – Footpaths to Sustainability.www.s-r-i.org.uk/Northern%20Visions%20Final%20Report.pdf

10) Green Alliance (2008). Cutting our Carbs – Food and the Environment.www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea_p.aspx?id=3100

Carbon Footprint of 3 Different Diets

TH

E I

SSU

ES

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_matters1 pdf.ashx



http://www.warmwell.com/08timlang2.html

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/newhorizons

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/newhorizons

http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/cmoannualreport2006.pdf

http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/cmoannualreport2006.pdf




http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/12/11/000094946_01112104010387/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article3492123.ece



http://www.s-r-i.org.uk/Northern Visions Final Report.pdf

http://www.s-r-i.org.uk/Northern Visions Final Report.pdf

http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea_p.aspx?id=3100

http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea_p.aspx?id=3100

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 3



Food Today

Seamus óg Gallagher, Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL)IntroductionMany commentators have described the current food crisis as having been caused by a ‘perfect storm’; its severity exacerbated by both increasing demand and reduced supply.

Demand for all resources, including fuel and food, is increasing as the world’s population continues to rise. Demand for grain is further increasing as more affluent consumers in India and China eat more meat and dairy products; several kilograms of grain are required to produce a kilogram of meat. The supply of grain has also been affected by crop failures caused by recent flooding and drought events around the world; for example, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has said the 12-year drought, which is devastating southwest Western Australia, southeast South Australia, Victoria and northern Tasmania, is “very severe and without historical precedent”. The diversion of grain and other food groups into biofuel production has also been shown to have a detrimental impact on world food markets; the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) The State of Food and Agriculture 2008 states that “biofuels have a major impact on global agricultural markets, on the environment and on food security”.

Increasing demand, reduced supply and the high cost of fuels have all contributed to the rapid food price increases experienced in 2008. However, while this may represent a particularly severe ‘spike’, the trend for fuel and thus food prices is likely to continue upwards as both demand and supply pressures are set to continue. The FAO estimates that demand for cereals in 2030 will be 52% above the 1999 level and

that “biofuel demand will continue to exercise upward pressure on agricultural prices for considerable time to come”. The IPCC predicts that “climate change is, overall, likely to reduce food production potential, especially in some already food-short areas”.

It is imperative that global leaders look for long term and global solutions to ensure equitable food supply in the future. However, we all must also look at the situation locally to ensure we are contributing to finding solutions to the food, climate and wider sustainability challenges we are now facing.

Food TodayAt the start of 2008, UK consumers were spending a smaller proportion of their income on food than ever before: around 9% compared to 35% of income 30 years ago. Global agricultural commodity prices have increased markedly (over 60%) this year and the Governor of the Bank of England noted in May that in the past 12 months retail food prices have increased by 8%.

The value of the food market in the UK is staggering, with consumers spending almost £160 billion annually. Half of this is spent on groceries, with the four largest supermarkets controlling 70% of the market. While the market share of the ‘big four’ has been increasing, the farmers’ share of the money for a basket of food staples fell by 23% between 1988 and 2006.

Over a third of the household food budget is spent on meat and dairy products. These goods are carbon intensive, with the livestock and dairy sectors accounting for 8% of total UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One of the most surprising and disappointing statistics about food today has to

be how much we waste. Consumers throw away 30% of the food purchased, equating to about £250-£400 per person per year. This represents a tremendous waste of resources that must now be seen as a major target for savings. Food waste makes a significant contribution to our carbon footprint. Much of the 11.9 million tonnes of food and food-packaging waste generated by UK consumers every year is avoidable.

The food industry is economically significant but it also has significant environmental costs. Agricultural activity contributes around 22% of total GHG emissions in Northern Ireland, mostly from methane and nitrous oxide emissions associated with livestock production and fertiliser use. When transport, packaging and waste disposal considerations are included the figure rises to one third of our total emissions.

Agriculture uses around 70% of available fresh water globally. With increasing demand and uncertainty of supply this percentage will surely have to be reduced.

Although some recent improvements have been made, a considerable number of rivers in Northern Ireland are affected by nutrient enrichment: agriculture (alongside poor sewage treatment) is a major contributor to this.

TH

E IS

SU

ES



Food Solutions?Organic FarmingTypically organic farming is about 30% more energy efficient for producing the same quantity of food compared with conventional farming. This is mainly because organic systems do not rely on nitrogen fertilisers which are extremely energy/carbon intensive to produce and result in significant nitrous oxide emissions during application.

It is worth noting that these savings do not apply for all food products. For example, organic production is less energy efficient for ‘long-season’ glasshouse vegetable production because the same amount of heating is required as for conventional agriculture but the yields are lower. However, there are other advantages. Organic production:

Improves the quality of soils: •this is particularly important as some scientists have suggested that global soil quality is rapidly declining.Reduces the threat of water •contamination: by avoiding pesticide and fertiliser use.Supports higher levels of •biodiversity than conventional systems: lowland mixed organic farming supports twice as many numbers and species of plants, and a third more birds and bats.

Local FoodAlthough we could meet over 70% of our food needs locally, half of the food consumed in the UK is imported and it is estimated that

since 1995 self-sufficiency in all foods has decreased by about 20%. This trend also has an impact on ‘food miles’. The distance travelled by food today is 23% higher than 30 years ago.

Local food is often produced to higher environmental and welfare standards than imported produce. Northern Ireland’s landscape and much of its biodiversity are a product of and rely on farming practices. Buying locally produced foods will help support the local economy. However, it is worth noting where the money we spend on food goes, e.g. only 18% of the

sale price from the meat of a pig goes to the farmer. The turnover from direct selling by farmers in farm shops, at farmers’ markets and through box schemes is thought to be worth £2 billion per year in the UK. Supporting these schemes will help increase the proportion of food spend that stays in the local economy.

However, locally produced food is not always less carbon intensive. Tomatoes grown in hothouses locally are often more energy intensive than imported European tomatoes even after transport emissions are included.

Seasonal FoodTwo thirds of people now say they make attempts to buy seasonal produce. Seasonal food requires less energy in production and, if it is locally produced, will also result in lower transport emissions.

However, modern consumers demand a range of products all year round. Innovative schemes may ‘extend’ the Northern Ireland growing season without increasing the region’s carbon footprint. For example, food and energy production could form a symbiotic relationship so that waste heat from conventional power stations or geothermal resources is used to heat glasshouses.

Copies available from Northern Ireland Environment Link

TH

E I

SSU

ES

Transport is the single biggestuser of fuel in the food chain:most of this is due to domesticand international road freight

but consumers’ vehicle emissions are also a

significant factor.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 5



TH

E IS

SU

ES

International TradeGlobal food price rises have a huge impact on developing countries. The urban poor in the developing world spend up to 70% of their income on food. International trade is very important to developing economies but these represent only a very small element of UK imports; most UK food imports come from other EU countries.

It is important to note that the price we pay for food imported from the developing world does not necessarily reflect the money going to the growers. For example, for every £1 spent on cashew nuts in UK supermarkets just one penny goes to farmers.

Air freight accounts for 15% of food-related transport emissions. Food grown out of season in the UK may require more embedded carbon than a similar product transported from the developing world, so it’s likely that our diet will continue to consist of a mix of imported and home grown foods.

Farmers here and in the developing world should receive a fair price for their products but in return should deliver a sustainable product. This will require improved environmental standards being applied globally.

A New ApproachFood prices are almost certain to increase further over the years. This is a reversing adjustment and could actually be described as a reconnection with the true value of food. However, price increases will present real difficulties for the poorest, here and around the world.

Globally the availability of water will probably become a widespread limiting factor on food production but climate change will also have an impact on food production locally. Projected changes in seasonal rainfall are likely to have significant impacts on water availability and quality in Northern Ireland,

particularly during the summer months, while the projected increases in winter rainfall are likely to result in more frequent and widespread flooding. However, there will be a longer growing season in Northern Ireland so some areas may be able to adapt by growing crops that previously were not viable here. Predicting the impacts of climate change on food production in Northern Ireland is complicated, but as noted by the IPCC for the global situation, climate change is expected to have a detrimental impact on food production.

Climate change has been described, by Sir Nicholas Stern, as the worst-ever market failure. The Stern Review states that strong early action to mitigate climate change would cost 1% of global GDP by 2050, but if no action is taken, damages from climate change could reach up to 20% of global consumption. Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture will have to be reduced. The EU, UK government and the Northern Ireland Assembly have accepted that emissions reductions are necessary and targets have been set. Most scientists and now the UK government recommend that emissions will have to decrease by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This will not be achieved without a significant reduction in agricultural GHG emissions.

Transport and fertiliser costs are likely to fluctuate over time but the trend will be upward; therefore, less resource intense agriculture will also make financial sense. To achieve a less intensive agricultural sector, mixed farming and the recycling of farm nutrients will become more important.

Food waste must be addressed urgently. Research should be conducted on food lifecycle analysis to capture the impact of the food we eat. It is only through this research that we can help people make changes. Sustainability labelling, to detail the carbon, water and social costs and to certify proper waste management of products, should be introduced. This will require agreement on what a sustainable food system should deliver.



Biodiversity and Agriculture:A Summary Extracted from The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

What is Agricultural Biodiversity?Agricultural biodiversity encompasses all the components of biological diversity that contribute directly or indirectly to food provision and agriculture; including animals, plants and micro-organisms at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels. This includes the genetic diversity of agricultural crops and livestock (i.e. breeds and varieties), the diversity of species that support food production and agro-ecosystems (e.g. pollinators, predators and soil biota) and the diversity of agro-ecosystems themselves (i.e. various forms of pastoral and arable farming). Its composition is a result of interactions between resources, the environment and management approaches; including natural and artificial selection.

Why is its Conservation Essential?

Biodiversity and Agriculture are Strongly InterdependentBiodiversity is the ‘grass roots’ of agriculture. It enables species and ecosystems to adapt to changing conditions and also provides the foundation of ecosystem services

(e.g. soil and water conservation, pollination and nutrient cycling) essential to sustain agriculture and human well-being. At the same time, agriculture can contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

The importance of agricultural biodiversity encompasses socio-cultural, economic and environmental elements. All domesticated crops and animals result from human management of biodiversity, which is continually responding to new challenges to maintain and increase productivity under constantly varying conditions. Conservation of agricultural biodiversity is inherently linked to sustainable use with much of it now conserved ex situ in gene banks or breeders’ materials, e.g. Irish Seed Saver Association.

ThreatsAlthough agriculture can contribute significantly to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, it is also a major driver of biodiversity loss. Human activities, mainly land-use conversion of natural habitats (in particular forests and wetlands) to agriculture, are driving biodiversity loss at a rate of up to 1000 times the natural rate. This is jeopardising the sustainability of agriculture and ecosystem services and their ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Other direct threats include natural resource limitation (in

particular water), intensification and specialisation (monocultures), excessive chemical use leading to pollution, nutrient loading leading to eutrophication of adjacent water bodies, introductions of aliens, overgrazing, climate change and loss of genetic diversity.

The rapidly growing human population and associated food demand, coupled with changing consumption patterns (e.g. increasing protein and milk intake in some Asian countries) will put increased pressure on agriculture to meet the rising demand.

Although farmers’ traditional knowledge is key to sustaining biodiversity and ensuring global food security, farmers do not control all the factors involved including those related to agricultural policies, incentives, markets and consumption patterns, and therefore need support from government policy.

Tackling the Challenge

International Partnerships

ConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)The CBD programme of work on agricultural biodiversity is designed to address the challenge facing agricultural biodiversity. It is structured to take into account the different dimensions of agricultural

TH

E I

SSU

ES

The ChallengeThe major challenge for

agriculture is to ensure food security, for the present and

future, by increasing food production while adopting sustainable and efficient

approaches which preserve biodiversity.

It is estimated that about three-quarters of the genetic diversity found in agricultural crops has been lost over the last century.

Nowadays 90% of our food energy and protein comes from

just 15 plant and 8 animal species with wheat, rice and

maize providing more than 50% of the global plant-based energy

intake. FAO

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 7



TH

E IS

SU

ES

biodiversity and is based on four elements:

Assessing the status and trends • of the world’s agricultural biodiversity, the underlying causes of change, and knowledge of management practices.Identifying adaptive • management techniques, practices and policies.Building capacity, increasing • awareness and promoting responsible action.Mainstreaming national • plans and strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity into relevant agriculture sectors.

The ecosystem approach is promoted as a tool to address multiple issues and objectives across cultural, socio-economic and environmental dimensions, resulting in balance between the production of food and the sustained delivery of other ecosystem services necessary to sustain human well-being.

Their programme of work identifies policy issues that governments can consider when addressing such matters, while considering various ways and means to improve the capacity of stakeholders and to promote the mainstreaming and integration of agricultural biodiversity into sectoral and cross-sectoral plans and programmes at all levels. The programme of work also studies the impacts of trade liberalisation on agricultural biodiversity.

In addition, three cross-cutting initiatives have been adopted under the programme of work to address specific issues:

International Initiative for the • Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators.International Initiative for the • Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity.International Initiative on • Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition.

FoodandAgricultureOrganisation(FAO)Global food security cannot be guaranteed without biodiversity. The FAO, an intergovernmental organisation, has been actively promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture for more than three decades. Their goal is to alleviate poverty and hunger by promoting sustainable agricultural development, improved nutrition and enhanced food security. FAO technical support and field activities focus on building capacity, identifying best agricultural practices, disseminating information and mainstreaming agricultural biodiversity into national policy and decision-making processes.

They deal with complex biodiversity issues for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors and have negotiated new international instruments and frameworks such as the:

International Plant Protection • Convention.Code of Conduct for Responsible • Fisheries.Forest Resources Assessment• International Treaty on Plant • Genetic Resources.Global Plan of Action for Animal • Genetic Resources.

ConsultativeGrouponInternational Agricultural Research(CGIAR)CGIAR is a strategic partnership of countries, international and regional organisations and private foundations supporting the scientific research and related work of 15 international centres in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy and environment. In collaboration with national agricultural research systems, civil society and the private sector, the CGIAR fosters sustainable agricultural growth through science aimed at achieving sustainable food security and reducing poverty in developing countries.

CGIAR’s main areas of focus are:Sustainable land management • and production.Enhancing National Agricultural • Research Systems.Germplasm improvement and • collection.Policy research.•

Biodiversity and Agriculture Publication:www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-booklet-en.pdf

RecommendationsPolicymakers

Conservation of agricultural • biodiversity should be incorporated into national and international agricultural policies to ensure sustainable development. This may require training and will need to be incentivised to encourage uptake and regulated to ensure adherence. Important ecosystems should • also be protected and restored to ensure the provision of ecosystem services to agriculture.

Farmers and Agricultural Producers

Adopt sustainable agricultural • practices, such as mixed farming, with a balance of modern and traditional varieties and breeds to ensure conservation of genetic diversity. Improve efficiency of resource • use (e.g. land and water) and reduce agrichemical use. Conserve and protect riparian • buffer zones to reduce soil erosion and nutrient run-off entering waterways.

ConsumersBe aware of the environmental • impact of your food choices.Eat a healthy diet following • correct portion sizes.Support local food and • sustainable food.Demand more information • so you can make informed decisions.Grow your own fruit and • vegetables, grow native plants to support pollinators.Recycle food waste by • composting.Reduce water use.•



IntroductionThis paper aims to present current climate change scenarios for the region, a review of the agriculture industry, the predicted effects of climate change on farming, the trends and opportunities food production can deliver, the reality of the food versus biofuels debate in Ireland and future markets and opportunities.

Climate Change PredictionsIt is widely accepted that temperatures in Ireland will increase by 1 to 5 oC, with a greater change observed in summer and autumn than winter and spring. Autumns and springs will be wetter, summers hotter and drier, and winters milder and wetter (with increased variability of rainfall and increased frequency of high wind speeds). Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will also be higher.

Agriculture in Northern IrelandAgriculture in Northern Ireland covers 1,015,000 hectares (75.1% of the total land) and is largely based on livestock production, with roughly 2.7 million sheep and 1.7

million cattle grazing on grassland which accounts for 78% of agricultural land. Of the total farmed area, 54% is improved grassland, 36% is unimproved and semi-natural and 5.5% is in arable production. Although the horticultural industry (mainly apples and mushrooms) covers a small area of land, it is financially very valuable.

Predicted Effects on FarmingThe predicted effects of climate change on farming in Northern Ireland are likely to be:

A) Arable Crops:There will be a longer growing season (species-dependent) and potential for new crops. Increased CO2 will give more yield though there will be increased problems of drought stress and increased transpiration. Sugar beet, potatoes and vegetables will be highly susceptible, whereas maize will be less susceptible as it is a C4 plant, meaning it uses water more efficiently. Pests will attack earlier and storms will be more prevalent, resulting in more damage and higher risks.

These effects will generally have a positive impact on the arable sector, increasing the opportunity for expansion, particularly in the range of crops to be grown, e.g. sunflower, maize and lupin. This will impact on the livestock sector through imported feed substitution. It could also enable a move from winter to spring cereals and this could have a positive impact on biodiversity. There will be greater opportunity for energy crops, e.g. willow and hemp. However, increased CO2

and decreased summer rainfall could work both ways for energy cropping. On the downside, crop-water relations will become more important and potatoes could cease to be viable without irrigation. There will also likely be an influx of ‘new’ pests and diseases which will create the need for new strategies of crop protection to avoid much increased agrichemical use. Overall this could favour a return to mixed farming which may have landscape and countryside implications.

B) Grassland and Livestock production:Grass growth will start earlier and finish later, more grass will grow but it will be harder to utilise and grass/clover swards will be favoured. There will be a need to breed new ryegrasses for changing management scenarios. It is also clear that, given the globalisation of our markets and food supply, what happens in the rest of the world will have a greater bearing on farming here than local effects.

The impact on the livestock sector will likely be that upland conditions may be ameliorated, and the grazing season extended. However, extreme weather (such as gales and flash floods) could have serious implications. This could affect EU designations, e.g. the ‘Less Favoured Area’ concept,

Farming in a Changing ClimateJim McAdam, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI)

TH

E I

SSU

ES

Maps Showing the Predicted Changes in Ave. Annual Temperature by the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s for both low and high ghg emission scenarios.

Prepared by the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP).

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 9



TH

E IS

SU

ES

although this is a policy-driven decision. There will be an impact on agri-environment schemes and a reduction of intensification. Livestock farming will be more difficult in the west and easier in the east, due to the diversified arable impact. Traditional low-intensity livestock farming will be more difficult and welfare issues will be dominant.

Farmers will need to manage winter forage growth, integrate trees into farming systems, store water for summer availability, breed for grass/clover pastures, consider fodder banks (drought resistant grasses, shrubs, etc.) and manage pasture to ensure moisture retention and good root reserves.

In the wider scenario, farming will need to consider the issues of biomass crops, feedstock crops, greenhouse gas emissions, landscape management (water catchment, pollution, etc.), delivery of ecosystem services and breeding (e.g. high sugar ryegrasses reduce nitrogen output and white clover improves crumb structure).

Food Production: Trends and OpportunitiesCurrent rises in food prices are a threat to world stability. The broad conclusion is that most world food production is heavily oil-dependent and therefore unsustainable.

In the UK, we spend on average 9% of our income on food (compared with the EU average of 15%), prices have risen 15% in the past year, we are only 60% self sufficient for food, we waste one third of the food we buy, we import £24bn food and

export £10bn. Imports have tended to be foods that are ‘good’ for us nutritionally, whereas our exports are ‘poor’. With serious concerns over global food security, this is an unsustainable position.

The Land-Use Debate:Food vs BiofuelsGlobally, biofuel production and drought are pushing up world food prices because of grain displacement. The world food price index is based on grain, not meat. If all U.S. farmland went to biofuel, only 12% of local demand would be met. There is 38 million hectares of formerly grassland and forested land in Latin America in biofuel crops.

On the island of Ireland we have 4.45million hectares farmland (of which 0.4million is arable). To meet our 2010 biofuel target of 5.75% we would need, for example, 1.3 million hectares of rapeseed, and 0.15 million hectares of wheat and sugarbeet. If we were to go down the biogas route, we could meet our obligations from 70,000 hectares of grass, i.e. only 1.6% of our farmland or 17.5% of our arable area (see article on pg48-49). Countries like Brazil can produce biofuels eight times more efficiently from their crops than we can in Northern Europe or the US. The question must be asked, should we go down the biofuels route at all?

Locally, biofuel options include short rotation coppice (SRC; ideal on marginal grassland) and other energy crops like Miscanthus species, reed canary grass and oilseed crops (higher quality, arable land). However, this is an inefficient (and irresponsible?) use of good, arable, food-producing land where food production should be given priority. Almost all SRC planted under the Challenge Fund is on good land. This is an illogical situation, though this trend may be reversed if high grain prices continue.

We should confine energy cropping to supplying embedded local units, running on SRC grown on marginal land, which can utilise slurry/sewage sludge in a bioremediation capacity.

Market and OpportunitiesIf we look at the value of the UK food market, only 0.58% of food is traded through local farmers’ markets – the vast majority is sold through supermarkets. There are huge opportunities for expansion

Embedded Water Adds Up.Source: Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004

Cost of Bioethanol Production.



of the local market. Local food has security, safety, quality and a low carbon footprint. There is no reason why we could not grow more of our own food. In the past, our cereal area has been five times what it is now and our area of potatoes (one of the most efficient crops we could grow in terms of embedded water per calorie of food grown) almost 10 times. We should consider what is the best method to reduce the carbon footprint of our food. Local, grass-based, low-fat milk production has a very low carbon footprint. Water is also a key issue to consider; 65% of the water we use is embedded in our food, for example, it takes 2,400 litres to produce one 150g burger.

The issue of genetic modification of crops will eventually have to be considered as the world population continues to rise. New ways of increasing yields will also have to be explored against a backdrop of reduced water availability and increased pests and diseases.

Key Issues to AddressDo we have the research base to support sustainable multi-functional land-use?

Our research base is not • integrated.Research cannot be entirely • profit driven - needs vision.Carbon footprint and water • use efficiency will be big determinants of cropping patterns. This poses a huge challenge for our local farming industry.The restoration of food • production as an important function of local agriculture and the channeling of more locally produced food into markets.Farming has a good future but • society and government need to invest in support, skills, and environmental compatibility.

Nutrient and other resource • management (e.g. slurry, etc.) will be major issues, as will be the continuation of viable agri-environment measures in parallel with pressures to produce more from the land.

ConclusionsClimate change will affect • agriculture in a big (but manageable) way.Initially, global impacts will • be far more significant, e.g. population growth.We need a proactive policy.• We need to re-evaluate local • biofuel policy.We need urgent political and • scientific action to improve economic, environmental and social sustainability of UK agriculture.Most importantly, we • need to retain a workforce which can manage the land with the most modern technology and information to deliver wholesome food in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.

TH

E I

SSU

ES

Change in Land Area Under Crop Production in N. Ireland.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 11



IntroductionThis paper provides some economic context to decision making with respect to projects that aim to maintain or enhance the environment. In particular, the paper highlights some of the problems in measuring economic benefits and costs associated with environmental projects. The main conclusion is that more research is needed to fill the gaps and to improve the quality of environmental cost and benefit valuations.

The Context for Government InterventionThere are numerous drivers for change in social and environmental systems. All these drivers, whether financial, environmental or societal, result in economic impacts. Drivers for change impact directly or indirectly on the market economy or lead to government intervention or changes in the levels of voluntary activity. For many goods, the market economy will provide the correct quantities of goods from society’s point of view. In these cases, the allocation of resources is efficient and there is no need for government intervention or voluntary effort. However, for some goods the market fails to provide the correct quantities from society’s point of view. This is known as market failure and it is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for government intervention.

Market failures often occur with public goods and externalities. In the case of a public good, the market fails to provide any of these goods, for example defence, wetland habitat, etc. A key characteristic of a public good is that no one can be excluded from its consumption and so a major

incentive to pay towards the cost of provision is missing. Externalities are effects from production or consumption decisions by one set of parties on unrelated third parties who cannot avoid the externality and whose interests were not taken into account. These ‘external’ effects may be negative, such as pollution; or positive, such as a firm producing trained labour. Therefore, from society’s point of view, the incorrect amount of the economic activity with which an externality is associated is taking place because the positive or negative impacts of the externality are not being accounted for.

Public goods and externalities are often referred to as non-marketgoods. A problem with non-market goods is that it is difficult to establish the total demand for these goods. This is a significant problem for government, as it attempts to supply public goods and deal with the problems of externalities.

Government intervention normally requires positive answers to at least the following questions:

Is there market failure?1. Can government fix it?2. Can the value of the costs 3. and benefits to society be measured?Will benefits exceed costs?4. Can the necessary funding be 5. found? Is it a priority? 6.

In an environmental context the quantification of costs and benefits is one of the most difficult issues to address. Imperfect (or conflicting) information is a major hindrance to ‘efficient’ efforts to protect, maintain and enhance the environment. The issue of whether or not many bio-fuels deliver real savings in greenhouse gas emissions is a case in point.

Assessing Agricultural ‘Sustainability’Lack of information proved to be a major difficulty for a recently commissioned research project that was completed during 2008. The project was entitled ‘Environmental Accounts for Agriculture’ (EAA) and a copy of the final report can be found on the DARD website at the address given at the end of this article. The aim was to provide a framework for adjusting the aggregate agricultural income figures to take into account positive and negative impacts of agriculture on the environment in order to provide an economic measure of the sustainability of agriculture. The project, which was commissioned by DEFRA, DARD, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government was focused on primary agriculture. Food processing and pesticide manufacture were excluded.

The ‘ideal’ methodological approach to producing ‘environmental accounts’ is based on ‘green accounting’ which at the national level requires that Net National Product (NNP is defined as national consumption plus real savings) is adjusted for the value of net changes in natural (environmental) assets, plus flows of additional annual environmental costs and benefits, minus government expenditure on the environment (e.g. through agri-environment payments). This is known as ‘green NNP’ or ‘gNNP’. The same approach to adjusting income can be adopted at sector level as is used at national level.

The actual approach used in the study was one that involved some compromise because of dataavailability. In this case it was annual flows of environmental costs and benefits associated with

Making the Sums Add Up

Seamus McErlean, Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)

TH

E IS

SU

ES



agricultural activity that were used. The first step was to identify the physical impacts of agricultural activity on the environment. The next was to identify published economic values for these impacts (in most cases the economic values were derived from other studies where the estimates were produced by methods such as ‘willingness to pay’). In following this methodology the project was heavily dependent on a wide range of existing published valuation research.

The relevant data was available for many annual flows of environmental costs and benefits (due to agricultural activity). Unfortunately, air emissions were an exception and the valuations for landscapes, habitats and biodiversity are thought to be underestimates. For these reasons the figures obtained in the EAA study are for information only as they do not present the full picture. Overall the benefits have a total value of +£1,027m and the damages -£373m, giving an overall net positive impact of +£654m for the environmental impact of agriculture.

The EAA study required annual flow data. Such data was not available for air emissions (climate change and air quality damage). There were data available on air quality and climate change damage costs arising from agricultural activity, but the available data reflected present and future (discounted) impacts (rather than annual flows). Climate change damage costs are £1,413m and air quality damage costs are £656m, giving an overall cost of £2,069m. These figures were reported to give an indication of the problem that methane emissions, in particular, cause. As these figures are not annual flows (the annual impacts are likely to be much smaller) they cannot be included in the estimate of ‘overall net impact’.

Some of the estimates (published as a result of other studies) used in the EAA study are very reliable whilst

others are subject to a significant level of uncertainty. There are also a number of gaps where no published estimate of a given impact was available. The main conclusion of the research was that more work is needed. This project highlights the fact that the values of environmental cost and benefits are not always readily available and this, of course, complicates decision making with respect to the implementation of environmental projects.

ConclusionsThe market economy has a very important role to play in the allocation of resources throughout our economy. Where markets are in perfect competition and full information is available then the ‘efficient’ allocation of resources can be expected. Nevertheless, there are well known instances such as environmental public goods where the market fails to provide the correct allocation of resources. In these circumstances there may be a need for government to intervene.

Evidence of market failure is pre-requisite for government

intervention to maintain or enhance the environment. However, if such intervention is to lead to an efficient outcome then full information on the costs and benefits (including environmental impacts) to society must be known.

This paper highlights some of the full information shortfalls that exist with respect to the value of environmental costs and benefits. Given this information shortfall and the fact that the optimal level of supply of environmental non-market goods is typically unknown, the whole process of decision making with respect to the implementation of environmental projects is complicated. Although decision making with less than full information is undesirable, it cannot and does not block all decision making in most areas of interest to society. Nevertheless, better decision making requires better information and the provision of more supporting information remains a priority.

Environmental Accounts for Agriculture Publication:www.dardni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-dard-strategies-reports-and-accounts/publications_strategies ,_reports_and_accounts-gateway.htm

TH

E I

SSU

ES

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/publications/pubs-dard-strategies-reports-and-accounts/publications_strategies



N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 13



TH

E IS

SU

ES

Consumer Constraints

Carol Edwards, The Consumer CouncilAs the cost of living soars, thousands of Northern Ireland consumers could be plunged into financial hardship. This was the stark finding of the Consumer Council’s latest research, which highlighted just how big the current crisis is for consumers. These findings pose an immediate challenge to individuals to take whatever steps they can to help themselves, and to government and business to ensure that everything that can be done to help is being done.

This is not scaremongering or whipping up the credit crunch story. We have heard first hand the hard choices facing consumers who are experiencing the biggest drop in disposable income in a decade. With an average family having to find around an extra £33 per week for food, heating, fuel and mortgage payments there is a real worry about the sheer scale of the problem and how consumers are going to cope.

Many consumers are struggling to make ends meet with two out of three households having trouble keeping up with bills. On average we are having to find an extra £10.35 per week or £538 per year for food alone. Some consumers manage by changing their behaviour by shopping around, budgeting and cutting down on waste - each household loses a startling £420 in food waste each year. However, hard times are forcing them to make difficult decisions about what to cut back on as financial belts tighten. Instead of saving money each month, people are dipping into savings to make ends meet. This raises important questions about how the 44% of people in Northern Ireland who do not have any savings can cope when times get hard.

Consumers will have to be resourceful and resilient in how they manage their budgets and make choices. But they can’t face this challenge alone. The Consumer Council is focused on identifying ways in which the government and businesses can help and support consumers now and in winters to come through financial assistance and providing a fair deal.

The Consumer Council is working hard to provide practical help and guidance to consumers on how to manage their money. For example, our home budget planners get people thinking about what money they have coming in, what they really need and how much they actually have to spend. In addition the Consumer Council’s Christmas food shopping planner will help people decide what food they need for Christmas and how to budget for it. Free copies of both planners can be downloaded from the Consumer Council website.

The Consumer Council’s website is updated every week with tips to help consumers make their money go further. Visit www.consumercouncil.org.uk.

Practical Tips to Help You Save Money and Reduce Food WasteBe PreparedTry to pre-plan your meals, write a shopping list and stick to it.

Shop AroundThere can be a big difference in how much you pay for food items and it is a good thing when times are tough to be aware of prices.

Waste Not, Want NotEvery year, we throw out £420 worth of food, so try to cut down waste where you can.

Shop AloneLeave the kids at home if you can. This avoids any surprise purchases appearing in the trolley and cuts out “pester power” that can cost you dear.

Go TogetherIf “three for two” and “buy one get one free” offers leave you with food you can’t use, try splitting it with a friend and share the food at half the price.

Get a Loyalty CardIf you’re a regular shopper at a particular supermarket, see if they have a loyalty card but check whether it suits you.

Ask for a Rain Check VoucherIf a special offer item is out of stock, many supermarkets will give you a voucher for the same deal at a later date.

Try Different BrandsIf you always stick to particular brands, why not try own-brand names or value brands instead?

Look for BargainsCheck out clearance shelves and look on lower level shelves too - lower cost brands are more likely to be displayed here.

Make Reductions Go Further Buy food that has been reduced as it reaches its sell-by date and freeze it for later.

Take Advantage of Late Night ShoppingShop later in the evening when some fresh food prices are reduced.

http://www.consumercouncil.org.uk

http://www.consumercouncil.org.uk



Behind the headlines of the credit crunch, there are millions of poor men and women struggling to feed their families.

Rising food prices hit the world’s poorest nations the hardest as they have less money to start with and already spend a greater proportion of their income on food (often as much as 70%). As food prices have soared, even doubling in some cases, many financially-restricted families have simply had to buy and eat less food.

The poor communities with whom Christian Aid works have become much more vulnerable to changes in global food prices over the last 10-15 years. The current rise in food prices shows how severely the poor are exposed to changes in global markets and we believe it is vital to tackle the causes of this growing vulnerability.

Food aid and other ‘safety nets’ are stretched to breaking point, especially where communities have been hit by storms or floods, destroying what food crops they had. And for the very poorest people, who already have barely enough to eat, such as slum dwellers, displaced people and people living with HIV, rising food prices means acute hunger of a similar scale to that associated with natural disasters.

There are a set of short-term triggers which have led to the current crisis. These include; basic supply and demand imbalances - at a time when the world’s population is continuing to rise;

world production of basic foodstuffs such as wheat, rice and maize has stalled, been diverted to other uses (such as animal feed or biofuels) or not been available on world markets due to export controls, hoarding and protectionist measures.

Long-term factors, to varying degrees and in different contexts, have also played a role in the current crisis. These include:

the effects of climate change;• rural to urban migration;• changing population and • consumption patterns; anda range of economic policies • including trade liberalisation and privatisation of state banks.

We accept that not all of the factors are relevant in all contexts; some are only marginal factors overall. Instead we see these long-term factors as crucial to understanding how the present situation has arisen and how it is difficult for many poor countries and communities to deal with it.

What Opportunities are there for People in Northern Ireland? Yes, we can where possible buy products with the Fairtrade trademark which guarantees producers receive a fair and consistent price for their produce but that really is not enough.

Christian Aid has long advocated tackling the structures which keep poor people poor. Our research and advocacy have highlighted how global economic, trade and other policy contexts undermine poor people’s capacity to develop

themselves from poverty to sustainable livelihoods.

Twenty per cent of the world’s population consume 80% of the world’s resources. So often people give money to agencies like Christian Aid to feed the poor but the reality is that the poor feed us. So many of the raw materials on which we depend are sourced from developing countries.

The proposals we have suggested over a number of years basically advocate for increased poor country policy space and a recognition on the part of poor country governments, rich country governments and institutions for support for marginal producers in poor countries.

Economic Partnership Agreements are deals struck by the European Commission (EC) with 76 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations. Christian Aid is among many development agencies who predict that these deals pose a major threat to development. One estimate put the potential losses to Zambia in signing an EPA at $15.8 million – what the country’s government spends each year on tackling HIV and AIDS.

Interim deals were signed in December 2007 but we want the deals to give domestic producers and farmers in poor countries a chance by allowing poor countries to protect certain markets from unfair competition and giving ACP countries more time to open their markets. We also want to stop the EC from extending the scope of these deals to include services such as banking.

The poor are not competing on a level playing field. The rich countries need to develop trade policies that advocate for the poor, enabling them to benefit from their wealth of natural resources and to add value to the raw materials they produce.

Credit Crunch: Where Does It Bite Hardest?Deborah Doherty, Christian Aid Ireland

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

PE

RSP

EC

TIV

ES

Even before this current crisis, over 800 million people did

not have enough food to meet their daily nutritional needs. The World Food Programme estimates that the price rises

have driven another 100 million into ‘urgent hunger’!

Figure 1: Price Rises in a Single Year, March 2007-08.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 15



INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

PE

RSP

EC

TIV

ES

The PhilippinesThe Philippines should be able to produce enough food for its citizens but following liberalisation policies, instigated in the 1980s, the emphasis shifted to prioritising production for export. The shortfall in domestic production has been made up by imports which have led to further deterioration of the domestic production market.

Despite the government’s policy to increase national rice production, dry upland areas suffer from a lack of investment in irrigation and, as most are tenant farmers, they are also locked into agreements where they must give up to half their yield to the landowner. These factors plus cheap imports from Thailand and China lead to small, even non-existent, profits for rice farmers.

BangladeshBangladesh is essentially food insecure and relies on imports of rice and other commodities to ensure its population has enough to eat. It is also particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change since a large proportion of the population lives in low-lying areas, by rivers or the sea.

Not only does the prospect of coastal erosion mean ultimate dispossession of land for millions of people, but the risk of floods leading to crop damage is high. The largely poor population are therefore ‘price-takers’ to a large extent, unable to insulate themselves against rising world prices. Some of the measures taken as part of structural adjustment packages have also limited the options available to the government, both in terms of supporting domestic agricultural production and protecting poor consumers.

AfricaIn a number of African countries poor soil quality has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change making crop yields unpredictable and in many cases more limited. Given that many farmers’ crops are rain-dependent, the changing weather patterns (often meaning prolonged drought in some countries) are having a devastating effect on many poor farmers.

Poor African countries are also likely to have undergone structural adjustment policies which often involve giving up policy tools that governments can use to intervene in agricultural markets to regulate the supply and price of food. Structural Adjustment Programmes were implemented by the World Bank with the purpose of enabling heavily indebted countries to pay off their loans, accrued in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But these policies often served to make the poor countries even poorer.

For instance, one of the conditions of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan package to Malawi in the 1990s was that the government sell off its grain surplus. The next harvest was poor leading to a severe shortage of supply, dependency on international aid and many unnecessary deaths from hunger. This year too, Malawi has faced further droughts and the few maize cobs available to buy at local markets sell for 20 kwacha each (9 pence), too expensive for the poorest people there.

HaitiThe long-term results of structure adjustment policies - often including the removal of subsidies for farmers or import tariffs - have meant that local small-scale producers are unable to compete with cheap foreign imports. Therefore, when global prices rise, poor consumers have no protection as there is little local production for the government to support. A particularly stark example of this long-running trend can be seen in Haiti which used to have thriving, government-supported, local chicken production, providing wide-scale employment, growing at an annual rate of 14% per year from 1980-1985. Economic liberalisation, with its corresponding competition from cheap imports, completely decimated the local chicken industry. Haiti is now food insecure and heavily dependent on American imports of rice, food aid and general economic assistance to provide basic services.

A specific country report produced by Christian Aid, Agricultural trade liberalisation in Haiti analysed the effects of conditional trade policies on domestic production, market prices, supply and demand. Lower import prices do not automatically translate into lower prices for consumers where competition is weak and regulation of the market poor. Diversification is an option but for poor farmers is difficult without support as they tend to lack ‘the necessary assets, technology and knowledge to invest in producing new crops and exploring new markets’. As a result, Haitian farmers have tended not to benefit from trade liberalisation, the government has very little revenue and its trade deficit leaves no room for manoeuvre.

The examples I have highlighted are from three different continents and I hope they help to illustrate the challenges faced by very poor farmers are about a daily struggle for survival wherever they are in the world.

http://division/site/er/team/irc/christianaidreports/Agricultural liberalisation in Haiti.pdf



IAASTD Global Report: A SummaryDan Sullivan, Rodale Institute

Agribusiness-as-usual was dealt a swift blow in Johannesburg April 7 as 57 nations signed up to a groundbreaking action plan that set a bold new course for developing nations to feed themselves while also addressing pressing environmental concerns.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Global Report, was commissioned in partnership with the United Nations after a group of biotech companies asked the World Bank what it thought of genetic engineering technology as an agricultural strategy for developing countries.

Ironically, the ensuing report roundly rejects biotechnology and modern industrial farming as a viable solution to the problems confronting the developing world, such as soaring food prices, hunger, social injustice and environmental degradation. The report instead calls for a major paradigm shift that would place strong focus on small-scale farming and agro-ecological farming methods to feed local communities, address social inequities and protect the environment while scaling back on energy-intensive, chemical agriculture and addressing trade imbalances that hurt the rural poor.

“Decades of industrial agriculture and harmful economic policies have contributed to massive chemical pollution, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity and climate change, and to the destruction of farmers’ livelihoods when Northern governments dump cheap subsidized produce overseas,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network and a lead author of the IAASTD report. “This (and unfair

trade regulations) has trapped rural communities in persistent hunger and poverty. The problem comes back to deep structural inequities in and between our societies that must be reversed.”

The good news, she said, is that the report concludes we have options. Investment in organic farming practices, ensuring poor farmers have control over resources, creating more equitable trade agreements and increasing local participation in decision-making are a few. “What remains is for governments to take action before it’s too late.”

“This marks the beginning of a new, real Green Revolution,” said Benny Haerlin of Greenpeace Germany. “The modern way of farming is biodiverse and labor intensive and works with nature, not against it.”

Authors of the report included more than 400 scientists from around the world representing a variety of disciplines, with input coming from governments, major research

institutions, industry and the public at large, including farmers, the rural poor and other traditionally underrepresented members of society.

“Agriculture is not just about putting things in the ground and then harvesting them,” United Nations Environmental Programme Executive Director Achim Steiner proclaimed at an intergovernmental plenary outlining the plan in Johannesburg. “It is increasingly about the social and environmental variables that will in large part determine the future capacity of agriculture to provide for eight or nine billion people in a manner that is sustainable.”

Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States are among a handful of countries that have yet to endorse the report, with the U.S. repeating allegations coming from the agrochemical and biotech industries some months before that the report was unbalanced. Those defending the process said the report’s lack of

Photo by Nathan McClintock.Diabou Balde (foreground) and Carrie Miner walk Diabou’s Systems of Rice

Intensification (SRI) fields. The rice transplants are spaced further apart to boost food production, which seems counterintuitive. The increased space per plant actually

triggers the development of secondary shoots that produce grain. So while the number of plants may be fewer in SRI, each plant generally yields more.

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

PE

RSP

EC

TIV

ES

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 17



support for further industrial and globalized agriculture—and for modern biotech in particular—was based on intensive, peer reviewed assessment of empirical data by development experts and scientists across a wide variety of disciplines. These experts, they say, were chosen by the same governments and companies now calling the report biased.

“This assessment is by far the most comprehensive and rigorous report of its nature, involving more than a thousand practitioners and scientists from all over the world,” said Rodale Institute International Program Director and IAASTD co-author Amadou Makthar Diop, PhD. “The scientists in the sub-Saharan Africa report are, in majority, Africans who have capitalized on many years of experience in research, extension and training in agricultural and rural development. Those industrialized governments who are still hesitant should realize that it is time that they listen to the voice of those whom they want to help. This is critical if we want development aid and assistance to be effective.”

Bob Watson, PhD, director of the IAASTD, and the World Bank’s chief scientist at the time the project got under way, echoed that plea in a press release sent out following the Johannesburg meeting. He said:

“To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message. But it is a message that has not always had resonance in some parts of the world. If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account.”

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

PE

RSP

EC

TIV

ES

Some Key Findings of the IAASTD ReportDevelopment and sustainability must go together.• Agriculture is as complex and diverse as the various cultures and • landscapes in which it takes place.Science and technology have increased production while failing to • address social and environmental consequences.Agriculture impacts biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate • change and water resources.Solutions moving forward must consider modern science and • technology as well as local and traditional knowledge.Policy and market incentives must encourage sustainable choices • that appeal beyond personal benefit. Business as usual is no longer an option.Choices made at this juncture in history will determine how we • protect our planet and secure our future.The adverse consequences of the new global economy have had • the most significant negative impact on the poorest and most vulnerable.Agricultural knowledge, science and technology must be retooled • to address the needs of the rural poor and small-scale farmers in diverse ecosystems.The mounting crisis in food security is like nothing we’ve seen • before.The new bottom line must take into account relationships among • production, social and environmental systems.Knowledge systems combined with human ingenuity and a shift to • nonhierarchical development preserving human dignity.Climate change may have the most adverse consequences where • the potential to improve productivity is lowest.Agricultural practices and policy must empower marginalized • stakeholders to sustain the diversity of agriculture and food systems, including cultural dimensions.Food, fiber and fuel must be produced in a manner that enhances • environmental and cultural services.New priorities in science, technology, institutions, development • and investment must recognize and address the multifunctionality of agriculture within diverse social and ecological contexts.Farming communities, farm households and farmers are producers • and managers of ecosystems.Institutional changes should benefit those who have historically • been served the least by agricultural knowledge, science and technology and must improve their access to food, land, water, seeds, germplasm and improved technologies.Organic, fair-trade and other value-added mechanisms should be • encouraged locally and provided markets for locally and for export.It is critical to assess the potential environmental, health and • social impacts of any technology.Appropriate technology can help rehabilitate degraded land, reduce • environmental and health risks associated with food production and consumption and sustainably increase production.Success will require reprioritized, redirected public and private • investment in agricultural, science and technology, supporting policies and institutions, acknowledgment and utilization of traditional and local knowledge, and an interdisciplinary, systems-based, holistic approach to knowledge gathering and sharing.



Food and food production have become very topical issues because of rocketing food prices. There are many factors affecting food production, having implications on the supply-demand balance.

Supply/Demand Balance

Population Growth 1. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that the world population will increase by 34% to 8 billion by 2030, with a 31% rise to 4.2 billion in Asia. As economic development advances, so too does the Westernisation of diet. In Asia consumption of meat will increase by 86% and dairy by 31% partially fuelled by government initiatives to improve nutrition, for example the introduction of milk in schools in China.

Climate Change: 2. Reducing Capacity of Agriculture in Warmer Regions

Climate change is having major negative effects on world food supplies. Droughts, weather extremes and flooding have evidently reduced supply. Last year Australia experienced severe droughts which significantly reduced grain yield and dairy production. Across the world water is becoming a limiting factor particularly because global land and water distribution does not mirror population distribution.

Renewable Energy: Shift 3. in Land Resources from Food to Energy Crops

With increasing volatility in fuel markets and diminishing supply, countries are looking for fossil fuel alternatives. As a result land-use is shifting towards crops used for energy production. Last year 40% of US corn production shifted to ethanol production, primarily driven by the US government. Forecasts predict this production to increase

further (Fig. 1). A similar trend is observed in South America where sugar cane production has shifted to ethanol and Asia where palm oil production is shifting to crops for biodiesel.

Increased Cost of Production: Feed, Fuel and FertiliserMost people are well aware of escalating fuel prices which is helping to drive up production, processing and transport costs in the food chain.

In May 2008 ammonium nitrate fertiliser was trading at £320 per tonne, up from £160 in just a year, and red diesel cost up to 65p per litre, up from 36p. This, together with supply issues, has led to increased cost of wheat, corn and soya, the major components in animal feed. The price of wheat has more than doubled in less than a year. This has dramatically increased feed costs in all livestock commodities, particularly in pigs and poultry. These sectors are not seeing enough return in the market place to cover the increased production costs and are being driven into a loss-making situation.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has led to 20 years of EU food surpluses, driving agricultural commodity prices below the cost of production and consumers not knowing the true cost of food. The wisdom within Europe is to open up markets to cheap food imports,

leaving Europe exposed in food security. However, food security is a global problem so imports are not the answer.

Food RevaluationWith the CAP being phased out, there will be an end to subsidised food. It is the end of the cheap food era. Like it or not, we are going to have to learn to live with more expensive food!

The last 20 years have seen the cost of living and food steadily increase, yet in contrast farmgate prices have declined (Fig. 2), for example pig farmers receive about 18% of the total retail price. Retailers have increased prices but farmgate prices have not increased enough to cover the increases in production costs. This is threatening our supply of high quality, safe food. To help financially sustain agricultural production there is a serious need to ensure profitability throughout the supply chain.

Predatory Pricing by SupermarketsCompetition between supermarkets creates forces that are transmitted down the supply chain, putting pressure on processes and producers to ensure full availability of products, streamlined distribution and efficiency savings in pursuit of lower prices. The consolidation trend has spread through the system as retailers seek to deal with fewer, larger suppliers and producers look for economies of scale.

Power is unbalanced in the food chain and the market is becoming more disconnected from traditional values, for example seasonality and locality. At a time when the local pig industry is in crisis, retailers continue to sell imported ham two for one!

Food Production: The Need for Self-SufficiencyKate Cairns, Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU)

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Figure 1: US Ethanol Production.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 19



Local FoodFood choices are influenced by what is affordable, but for many people, getting value for money is no longer about paying the lowest price. Consumers have become more sophisticated and diverse in their food interests, and more people are now prepared to pay a premium for better quality food.

Why is Local Food ‘Value for Money’?

Local food comes with the • guarantee that it is safe, traceable, fresh, nutritious, of the highest quality and meets animal welfare standards. Northern Ireland farmers • actively participate in schemes that create and enhance habitat for wildlife, thus increasing biodiversity. Agri-food industry plays a vital • role in our economy; there are 400 food processing businesses with over 18,000 employees.Helps fight against climate • change and spiralling food miles. Farmers are custodians of our • countryside.

There is an increased level of debate on where our food comes from and how it is produced. Consumers want fresh food with minimum travel and shorter supply chains. However, there are factors that are preventing consumers easily finding these products.

Food LabellingCurrent food labelling legislation covering origin labelling is misleading and confuses consumers. Also, existing legislation only covers some products and does not cover the food service sector.

Giving the consumer what they want has always been a vital part of our members’ businesses. Our concern is that, in the absence of a suitable label, consumers make false assumptions about origin. These can be based on ID codes, brand, retailer, packaging, etc. The UFU believes that this misleads the consumer and could potentially compromise the ability of local producers to benefit from any interest consumers have in where their food comes from. We feel that proper, robust, statutory origin labelling could significantly benefit the consumer and industry by instilling confidence in the market.

Northern Ireland ‘Good Food is in our Nature’At home, the industry is working collectively on a generic marketing campaign, delivered to consumers locally and internationally. The campaign pays particular attention to the quality and provenance of local produce and is currently endorsed by major supermarkets and local retailers.

Double Standards The UK’s self-sufficiency in food has been falling. Europe has the highest standards in the world for its own farmers, yet is applying the lowest standards in the world for cheaper, unsustainable imports. For example, Brazilian beef inspections have highlighted systematic failures in traceability, including inadequate foot and mouth controls. Recent reports have also highlighted a lack of medicinal records and disease controls, while cheaper EU unapproved genetically modified feed is fed to the animals. In contrast, in the UK and Ireland, we continue to focus and invest in safety and traceability. Evidence shows that the majority of food alerts are prompted by food imported from outside the EU.

ConclusionThe major global factors that affect the supply/demand balance are not reversible. Oil and water will continue to dominate food production and as the world population grows and becomes more affluent, so too will demand for food. The EU needs to seriously consider how it is going to cope with this and introduce policies/strategies to encourage self-sufficiency.

In the UK we need to safeguard the future of our agri-food industry by looking at ways to make it financially sustainable. This in turn will lead to greater investment and innovation. Greater profitability will enable our farmers to continue to produce food to high standards and in an environmentally sensitive manner.

Locally, the UFU has called for government to reduce red tape and let producers get on with producing food. There is a serious need for more efficient and joined-up administration systems to reduce the amount of time farmers spend doing paperwork. The UFU has also called for better food labelling, providing consumers with enough information to make informed purchasing decisions. This would encourage greater public procurement of local, fresh and nutritious food.

As consumers we need to think about the food we buy - where it comes from, how it is produced, etc. By buying local food and thinking seasonally we will help secure our food chain and become more self-sufficient.

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Figure 2: Change in Food Prices Over the Past 20 Years.



The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is having profound impacts on public health, the environment and the economy. This article details the historical progression of the policy, its impacts on public health, recommendations for the future and the potential implications for Northern Ireland.

A Brief History of the CAP (Pre-2003)The CAP was introduced in 1962 to provide an equitable framework for supporting the agricultural economies of the six original member states and to help ensure that food supplies were widely available at affordable prices. These objectives were pursued through direct financial support (production subsidies) for farmers who produced certain products, namely dairy and beef, and guaranteed minimum market prices for cattle and produce that did not sell (floor prices). The production subsidies were awarded on a “per animal” basis encouraging expansion of the agriculture industry; however, the floor prices meant this expansion was not capped. Seasonal products (for example fruit and vegetables) were removed from the market and destroyed to avoid flooding the market, which could cause price collapses.

Current CAP (Post-2003)A major reform package was agreed in 2003 whereby subsidies would be awarded on the basis of a “whole farm package” under the Single Farm Payment Scheme. Three additional criteria were added:

preservation of the local rural • environment in accordance with a locally agreed protocol; maintenance of recommended • food safety standards; andadherence to legislation to • prevent animal cruelty.

This was implemented in 2005 and was designed to prevent

overproduction. The public health lobby had hoped the reform might also encourage some farmers to move away from dairy and beef production towards more health-promoting food products. However, the reform contained no direct stimulus to move production from one type of farming to another and, as a result, production of fruit and vegetables has remained low. CAP is therefore still having a profound effect on public health.

CAP BudgetThe CAP has an annual budget of approximately €55,550m, around 46% of the overall European Union budget. Figure 1 shows a comparison between recommended dietary targets for healthy eating and the associated expenditure by CAP. It is clear that significantly

more money is spent on meat, fish and dairy while significantly less is spent on fruit and vegetables. Also, slightly more is spent on other agricultural produce (such as sugar, wine and oil) while slightly less is spent on cereals.

Recommendations for the FutureIt has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of premature deaths can be attributed to past CAP subsidies. In order to reverse this trend and to narrow the gap in health inequalities, policymakers are being urged to:

Reduce overall subsidy of beef • and redistribute to encourage lean beef production.Reduce overall subsidy of dairy • products and redistribute to support low fat dairy products.

Farming and Public HealthFaculty of Public Health (FPH) & David McCann, Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL)

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Impacts of CAP on HealthAlthough initially established on the basis of the sound public health principles of preventing food shortages and rural deprivation, CAP has resulted in overproduction, leading to the ‘beef mountains’ and ‘milk lakes’ of the 1980s. It has also biased production in a way which has consequences for human health.

Agrichemicals: Expansion of the agriculture industry resulted in the indiscriminate use of vast quantities of agrichemicals (for example fertilisers and pesticides), many of which end up in the environment and the food chain.

Unbalanced Diets: The most significant determinants of food choice today are price and availability. The average UK family shopping basket is significantly influenced by CAP through its provision of financial support, favouring production of dairy products, red meat and sugar at the expense of fruit and vegetables.

Health Inequalities: The most striking effect of CAP policies has been on health inequalities. By heavily subsidising milk and beef, it ensures that foods with high saturated fat content are more affordable while fruit and vegetables, which receive little support from CAP, are relatively expensive. Low income households are therefore less likely to consume sufficient quantities and a good variety of fruit and vegetables.

Non-EU Countries: The EU is legally bound to dispose of excess food production with much of this being sold outside of the EU, shifting the health burden of excess dairy fat and meat to other parts of the world. This also has the effect of reducing world market prices, thus undermining domestic producers in developing countries. A recent report in the Guardian estimated that 62% of total water usage by the UK (46.4 billion m³/year) is associated with our agricultural imports. Therefore, we are depleting an essential resource in countries where it is already scarce due to our own inability to be more self-sufficient.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 21



Convert excess dairy fat into • industrial products (for example fuel or lubricants) instead of food.Increase production of • monounsaturated and polyunsaturated vegetable oils.Continue to encourage • production of cereal for human consumption.Concentrate CAP subsidies • on production of fruit and vegetables.

The establishment of a new combination of producer subsidies, reduction of minimum price guarantees, and the ending of the withdrawal of fruit and vegetables from the market will encourage the consumption of a balanced diet. These amendments should be implemented gradually to avoid disrupting rural economies, protect rural environments, ensure food safety and prevent animal cruelty.

Implications of a Healthy CAP for Northern IrelandA healthy CAP would require a restructuring of the agriculture industry to bring output more in line with WHO/FAO dietary requirements. This will have varying degrees of impacts on EU countries depending upon the current status of their agriculture industry.

The agriculture industry in Northern Ireland is the largest private sector employer and plays a critical role in the sustainability of rural communities. Agricultural land covers 75.1% of the region with nearly 80% of this used primarily for the production of grass and the animals which eat it while less than 6% is devoted to crop production and horticulture. Dairy and beef production dominate gross output, collectively accounting for 57%, whereas the UK as a whole has a more balanced output structure

including 21% from crops and 15% from horticulture (see Fig. 2). CAP reform based on improving public health would therefore have greater implications for Northern Ireland than the UK.

A healthy CAP would encourage diversification from longstanding practices (dairy and beef production) to fruit, vegetable and cereal production. It’s worth noting that three times as much agricultural land was used for the cultivation of crops fifty years ago. Barriers would inevitably be encountered; shortage of ideas, insufficient financial resources, lack of training/knowledge, lack of confidence, poor planning and scarcity of time/labour. These along with soil and weather conditions mean that such changes will take time and effort. Therefore grants/funding, appropriate training and monetary incentives would need to be made readily available to stimulate and encourage diversification.

A potential barrier to diversification would be the fact that milk prices are at their highest level since 1996 (22.21 pence per litre). This rise seems to be continuing

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Importance of a Balanced DietThe food we eat is one of the most significant determinants of our health. Consumption of high levels of energy-dense foods, saturated fats and sugar, and a low intake of antioxidants and nutrients are widely recognised as playing an important role in the development of many diseases and disorders, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer. It also results in low birthweights, increased childhood morbidity and mortality and increased falls and fractures in older people. According to the Faculty of Public Health, poor diet is accountable for 30% of life years lost to premature deaths and disability. Access to a choice of good quality, affordable food providing a nutritionally balanced diet is fundamental to public health. It is especially critical for children as nutritional intake during childhood is a major determinant of health in later life. The recommended composition of a healthy diet is: 33% fruit and vegetables, 33% complex carbohydrates, 14% protein-rich foods, 14% dairy products and 6% fatty foods.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommend that fat should constitute 15-30% of total food intake, with less than 10% made up of saturated fat. Currently, average saturated fat intake in the UK is 13.4% and 13.2% for men and women respectively and 14.2% and 14.3% for boys and girls respectively. Milk and dairy products are the main source of saturated fat in the average UK diet (24%), closely followed by red meat and meat products (22%).

Figure 1: Comparison of WHO/FAO dietary targets for healthy eating and the proportion of the CAP budget spent supporting broadly similar agricultural groups.



with the average milk price for 2008 currently at 23.44 pence per litre. These high prices are a result of strong global demand for milk products coupled with droughts affecting some major dairy producing regions. Although the price of milk has risen, the cost of feedstuffs has also risen (by 18% from 2006/07). This, coupled with the fact that dairy and beef production require more intensive labour, may aid in encouraging diversification (see Table 1). The rise in cereal prices by 40-50% last year and the growing interest in biofuels could promote an expansion in their production.

Benefits for Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland would benefit from a health-promoting CAP in a variety of ways. It is estimated that 29.6% of the population are living in food poverty, i.e. are unable to obtain a healthy, balanced diet. Also, in the UK, the gap in life expectancy between different socioeconomic groups (professional and unskilled/manual) has increased during the last 30 years.

This trend could be reversed and food poverty eradicated through increased public health awareness and improved accessibility to a healthy diet. This would improve public health, subsequently reducing demands on the health service. Improved public health would also have economic benefits as it would lead to increased productivity by reducing the number of legitimate sick days.

As already discussed, a health-promoting CAP would require diversification of N.I.’s agriculture industry. This would give a boost to the industry by opening new marketniches, reducing competition and increasing prices.

A ‘healthy’ CAP would act not only to improve human health but also to enhance the natural environment. Northern Ireland’s ecological footprint is 5.63 hectares per person (global ‘fair share’ average is 1.8 hectares), of which food contributes 26%. It has been estimated that if we were to follow a healthy diet, it would deliver a 16% reduction in this footprint. Currently, the UK is only 60% self-sufficient for food with £24 billion spent on imports and £10 billion gained in exports. A ‘healthy’ CAP would significantly improve our self-sufficiency, reducing the need for agricultural imports, consequently reducing our carbon footprint.

Currently, 28% of the UK’s agricultural output (57% in Northern Ireland) is derived from cattle. A major by-product is methane (36% of total UK methane emissions) which is a 21 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This is an input-intensive form of agriculture requiring 7kg of grain and 15000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef. Lower intensity beef and dairy production would therefore reduce pressure on limited resources (food and water) and the natural environment. By diversifying agricultural output, habitat variety will also be increased, consequently restoring and enhancing biodiversity in the farm landscape.

Closing NoteArticle 152 of the Amsterdam Treaty begins with the clause: “A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities”. Article 153 of the same Treaty requires that: “…the Community shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests”. As it currently stands, the CAP operates largely in contravention to the health element of these Treaty articles. What CAP requires is a new package of reforms which will ensure adherence to and promotion of the ethos of these Treaty articles.

The current discussions on the CAP reform should put public health considerations at the forefront of decision-making. An improved and visionary CAP could have significant positive impacts upon public health, the environment and the economic well-being of the farming community. There is a huge opportunity for addressing all of these issues in a coherent fashion that will bring substantial benefits to Northern Ireland’s people, economy and environment.

A Cap on Health Publication:www.fph.org.uk/resources/AtoZ/r_CAP.pdf

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Figure 2: Comparison of Northern Ireland’s gross agricultural output of 2007 with that of the United Kingdom.

Arable ProductStandard Labour

Requirements(hrs/annum/ha)

Grass 6Forage Crops 9

Cereals 30Potatoes 135

Outdoor Vegetables 150Fruit 450

Pastoral Product (hrs/annum/head)

Laying Hens 0.17Ewes + Rams 4.7

Beef Cows 12Sows + Gilts 16Dairy Cows 39

Table 1: Comparison of the standard labour requirements per agricultural

product.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 23



CAP was introduced in 1962 to ensure that food supplies were widely available and at affordable prices. It encouraged the intensification of agriculture without taking the environmental implications into consideration. The CAP reform in 2003 saw the introduction of basic environmental standards through increased cross-compliance conditions. However, wildlife, habitats and the quality of our landscape continue to experience decline, and our soil and water resources remain threatened. Climate change and increasing pressures to meet growing global demand will amplify current threats if they are not addressed immediately.

Environmental Impacts of Agriculture

SoilDegradation:• through pollution, nutrient loading and erosion. It is worth noting that UK soils store roughly 10 billion tonnes of carbon (more than the annual global emissions of CO2).ClimateChange• : agriculture accounts for 7% of UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 1% of CO2 emissions, 37% of methane (CH4) emissions (20x more

potent than CO2) and 67% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (310x more potent than CO2).WaterPollution• : an estimated £120 million per annum is spent removing pesticides from UK water courses.LossofNaturalandSemi-•NaturalHabitats: see Table 1 below for examples.LossofBiodiversity• : for example the index of farmland birds has nearly halved since 1970 (Fig. 1), worst-hit counties in England lost on average one native flower species every year throughout the 20th century and 36% of butterfly species have declined by over 50% in the last 25 years.

DegradationofCultural•Landscapes: agriculture has been responsible for 30% of all damage to ancient monuments in the last 50 years and 10% of destruction. Nearly half of the historic park land recorded in England in 1918 had been lost by 2005, largely as a result of changes and expansion in agriculture.

We seek a radical re-orientation of land management policies to ensure:

Protection of the prime natural • resources of water, soil and air, and measures for restoring them to good condition where they have been damaged.Land that is ecologically robust • which enables wildlife to adapt to climate change.Land management and farming • practices that minimise ghg emissions to the atmosphere.Land that delivers high quality • landscapes and habitats where wildlife can thrive.Extra protection and care • for special species, habitats, landscapes, archaeological and cultural features and recognition of the historic and cultural value of the countryside.Good quality public access • to promote better health and understanding of the environment and the land management practices needed to maintain it.

Beyond the Pillars: A SummaryWildlife and Countryside Link (WCL)

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Environmental and Animal Welfare Concern

75% of people in the UK • believe they can improve animal welfare through purchasing power.62% believe animal welfare • doesn’t receive enough importance in UK agricultural policies.59% prefer to buy goods • produced using the highest possible animal welfare standards.

Figure 1: Decline in Farmland Bird Index Since 1970.

Table 1: Habitat Loss in the UK.

Habitat TypeLoss

(since 1950, unless stated)Ancient woodland 20%

Wild flower meadows 98%Open heaths 75%

Open peat bogs 96%Hedgerows 190,000 km

Countryside ponds 75% (since early 1900s)



Sustainable management of the • water environment within river catchments: rivers and streams, lakes and ponds, and ground waters.Sustainable use of soil and • protection of the living organisms within it.Sustainable food production and • high animal welfare standards.Sufficient incentives for the • delivery of public goods through sustainable land management, recognising the contribution a high quality environment makes to rural businesses.

In order to deliver this re-orientation we propose moving beyond the current two pillar mechanism of the CAP, split between a decoupled farm payment and rural development support, and in its place establish a single European Sustainable Land Management Policy. Although in some ways this is a simple concept, it has the potential to deliver an integrated and radical approach aimed at ensuring positive,

sustainable land management. It would also end the damaging division between the EU’s agricultural and environmental policies, reflected in the allocation of financial resources, by focusing on the common issue of good land management. There must be a full and inclusive consultation process at both the European and national level to develop a European Sustainable Land Management Policy and the way it is to be implemented in EU Member States.

An assessment of the value of the public goods will be required to ensure that payments (and therefore the total level of resource required) are matched to the value of the public goods that are provided. This will become even more important if the prices paid for agricultural commodities on the global market rise to levels that put pressure on farmers to choose intensive commodity production over participation in environmental management.

The CAP may only be one component of a vast matrix of

policies that affect how our land is managed, but over the last 50 years its major influence on Europe’s landscapes and environment has been undeniable. The way support is provided by the CAP for farming, with its ensuing effects on the environment and land management, needs amended – but with careful consideration of the consequences.

Beyond the Pillars Publication:www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Link_Beyond_the_Pillars_11Mar08.pdf

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Active Countryside Use and Enjoyment

77% of UK adults • (approximately 38 million people) say they walk for pleasure at least once a month.£6.14 billion spent annually • during 527 million walking trips to the English countryside, generating more than £2 billion income and supporting up to 245 000 fulltime jobs.

A possible tiered approach to securing payments for sustainable land management:

Level 3 (£££) – funding for significant environmental enhancement in target areas (individual sites and at landscape scale).

Level 2 (££) – funding for broad and widely distributed environmental measures for resource protection and environmental enhancements.

Level 1 (£) – conditional on meeting cross-compliance requirements going beyond environmental and animal welfare legislation and EU Directive standards.

Baseline – minimum legal requirements for land management.

In addition, support may be offered for particular agricultural systems which produce consistently higher environmental outputs. For example, organic, upland farming, etc.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 25



The emphasis of agricultural policy has moved from maximising output to integrating the production of wholesome food with responsible management of the countryside. Back in 1988 the first agri-environment scheme was introduced - the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Scheme. This scheme was designed to encourage agricultural methods compatible with the requirements for the protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside. In 1999, the introduction of the Countryside Management Scheme (CMS) marked another significant milestone in the development of agri-environment measures because it offered the opportunity for farmers outside of the designated ESAs to enter into agreements with DARD (to manage their land in an environmentally friendly manner).

By December 2006 some 13,000 farms were participating in these ESA and CMS Schemes (Figure. 1). This equated to 40% of agricultural land under agreement.

Making a DifferenceCross compliance was introduced in 2005 for anyone receiving direct agricultural support through the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme. This has two elements; Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and a requirement to maintain land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition

(GAEC). Essentially cross-compliance protects and maintains the countryside whereas agri-environment schemes give financial encouragement (paid on a cost incurred and income foregone basis) to farmers to adopt farming practices that enhance the countryside. These management practices can be integrated into everyday workings of the farm and deliver across the key issues – biodiversity, climate change, water quality, landscape and heritage. The following are a few examples of how agri-environment schemes have made a difference:

516 hectares of grass margins • managed by 1115 participants.625 hectares of native trees • planted by 2672 participants.555 hectares of ancient • monuments protected by 1381 participants.6500 hectares managed to • encourage breeding lapwing, curlew, redshank and snipe by 1167 participants.Changed participants’ attitudes • to the environment and raised awareness of environmental issues.

Looking to the FutureIn June 2008 the Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme (NICMS) was launched. Over 4500 applications were received, demonstrating that farmers are committed to improving the countryside through land management.

A priority target in the Northern Ireland (NI) Programme for Government 2008-2011 is to increase to 50% the area of agricultural land in Northern Ireland covered by environmental enhancement agreements by 2013. This will allow up to 18,000 farmers to participate in agri-environment schemes. NICMS is an element of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme (NIRDP) 2007-2013, funded under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The scheme will play an important role in the delivery of Axis 2 of the Rural Development Programme - improving the environment and the countryside through land management. In the DARD Strategic Plan, one of the five Goals – Goal 4 – is “to develop a more sustainable environment”.

Key targets addressed by the

scheme include:Maintain and enhance • biodiversity in line with the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy (NIBS) and the

Agri-Environment Schemes

Alan Galbraith, Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

Figure 1: Rise in the number of agri-environment scheme participants

from 1988-2007.



Programme for Government by maintaining species diversity through the positive management of wildlife habitats and to protect and enhance ASSI/Natura 2000 sites.Enhance the landscape and • heritage features.Manage our natural resources to • improve the quality of our water, air and soil.

The Scheme complements the on-farm management system and provides an annual payment which assists with the management of the farmland habitats.

NICMS - What’s Improved?

Farmers must achieve a • certain level of environmental benefit to be allowed entry into the scheme. Landowners must undertake to manage the specific habitats found on the farm. This will result in greater environmental benefit and add financial value to the agreement.Payment rates will typically • be increased on average by approximately 25% to reflect the increased costs associated with the new Scheme.The process of application, • through audit, to preparation of a scheme agreement has been simplified and scheme payments will be claimed on the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) Single Application Form.

NICMS - What’s New?NICMS is a single unified • Countryside Management Scheme for the whole of Northern Ireland.There are links with Natura • 2000 sites. These sites are a network of the most important nature conservation sites across the EU and together with Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI), their management will be a priority for the new scheme.

There is a new, more flexible, • special environmental project option, which will enable farmers to propose projects, both individually and jointly with other agreement holders, which are capable of delivering environmental benefits, particularly in relation to climate change.

There are several other new options, for example to:

Enhance waterways - farm • waterway and riparian zone management.Benefit insects - pollen and • nectar mixture.Positively manage land for the • Irish hare - delayed cutting/grazing of grassland.Enhance biodiversity - semi-• improved or semi-natural grassland - low input.

Targets(a) BiodiversityA key goal of the NI Programme for Government is to “halt the loss of indigenous species and habitats by 2016”. The scheme aims to make a major contribution to the conservation action required for many Northern Ireland priority habitats and species. The NICMS habitat management plans specify how farmers and land managers can best contribute to the conservation of these priority habitats and species.

(b) Water ProtectionAgriculture has been identified as one of the sources of diffuse pollution of the aquatic environment in Northern Ireland. Compliance with the Nitrates Directive will help Northern Ireland to meet its Water Framework Directive (WFD) goals. In addition, DARD and NI Environment Agency are working closely to ensure that agri-environment schemes deliver water quality benefits that will help with WFD compliance. A farm nutrient and waste management plan is a compulsory aspect of NICMS. This aims to improve the quality of our

waterways beyond a level that is required by current legislation and GAEC under cross-compliance. It will also help improve the visual appearance of the farm and farmyard.

(c) Climate ChangeThe Northern Ireland Programme for Government seeks to protect our environment by reducing GHG emissions by 25% by 2025 and increasing the area of forest and woodland by 1,650 hectares by 2011. Climate change objectives have been identified in the NICMS, where appropriate.

(d) EU Health CheckThe 2008 EU Health Check identified key priorities for rural development policy, including biodiversity, water management and climate change. NICMS has the potential to deliver on these important issues.

The Future Do agri-environment schemes have a role when priorities are changing with ever increasing pressure on land use? There is a strong commitment from EU and local governments to address environmental sustainability. Retailers and consumers are demanding locally sourced food, that has been produced with high animal welfare standards and consideration for the environment. With agri-environment schemes being the main vehicles to integrate the production of quality food with responsible management of the countryside, the need for effective agri-environment schemes has never been greater.

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 27



We are presently in an era of food inflation. The demands on agriculture have traditionally been the same: the production of food to enable human civilisation. Until the revision of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1992, food production within the EU had become such a success that it created a new problem – food surpluses.

Through the CAP second pillar, Rural Development, agri-environment schemes became agricultural policy across Europe. The objectives of these schemes are two-fold:

Reduce food surpluses by • compensating farmers to undertake non-farming actions.Stop environmental degradation • which was a by-product of the original CAP.

Commencing with set-aside (the policy of leaving 10% of land uncultivated each year on arable farms), agri-environment schemes were developed as a voluntary initiative where farmers could seek financial payments for maintaining the countryside. Depending on national implementation, agri-environment schemes are viewed as either a farming subsidy or a tool for environmental improvement. The early days of its implementation mainly reinforced the former belief.

At a Northern Ireland level, agri-environment participation has moved from low levels of participation in 1999 to a rapid uptake in scheme involvement from 2004 onwards. The latter can partly be explained by farming funds under the Single Farm Payment (SFP) being used to support the scheme (an instrument known as ‘voluntary modulation’). Agri-environment schemes have helped to maintain the Northern Irelandlandscape and to halt further

decline in biodiversity. The present participation of 12,500 farmers in the Countryside Management Scheme (CMS) bodes well for the future management of our natural farmland assets. More benefits should emerge over the next few years as farming initiatives start to yield dividends.

The old CMS took a ‘broad and shallow’ approach (quantity of land over quality of management). This approach had its merits, particularly in the early days of agri-environment schemes. The new CMS has biodiversity as one of its key themes and provides tremendous opportunity to bring about biodiversity gain to our farmed landscape. Elsewhere, organic farming, woodland and forestry grant schemes and producer driven (retailer demanded) initiatives provide more opportunity for farmers and landowners to enhance the environment.

All farmers in Europe are obliged to meet basic environmental and welfare standards via ‘cross-compliance’. This principle underpins agri-environment schemes – if you receive any income from the EU (the SFP being the most common) you must meet cross-compliance objectives. These include prohibiting hedge removal, reclamation and drainage of land and are an effort to halt the landscape change, which the original CAP encouraged.

The debate for the future of our farmed landscape rests upon the need to provide food security while providing environmental protection. Food inflation is the scourge of governments and the Bank of England. The long-term approach would favour continual environmental improvement and more sustainable farming methods. This seldom prevails in a political climate governed by a four-year voting cycle and economic priorities. It is my opinion that agri-environment schemes may come under pressure in such a climate. The push for greater food production could once again become the main driver behind farming in the UK and elsewhere. The withdrawal of the ‘set-aside’ requirement for arable farmers indicates that the environment and its protection are not at the top of the agenda. Is there any reason to believe that agri-environment schemes would prevail when it is viewed by the industry as a means of reducing food production?

We should recognise that our modern agricultural systems and the demands of a global food market do not favour positive environmental practices. Thus we should be thankful that cross-compliance is in place and is likely to become the basic agri-environment lynchpin if current pressures continue.

Agriculture is now in the hands of very few, big agri-businesses and is vulnerable to the business of speculation. For Western consumers, this may be a slight inconvenience and modulate our shopping patterns but for Third World nations this can mean famine and abuse of their agricultural systems. For the environment, it could mean that doing no further harm is deemed to be good enough.

Beyond Agri-Environment

Sean Convery, Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)

AG

RIC

ULT

UR

AL

PO

LIC

Y



Mash Direct offer a wide range of Irish vegetables traditionally cooked on their farm for natural taste and goodness. They recognise their responsibility for reducing the adverse environmental impacts associated with their activities, products and services.

1. Your website states that sustainable environmental management is important to you.Canyouexplainwhy;and also what action you are currently taking.Because of our traditional background in farming, for example field rotation of crops as opposed to intensive methods, these same values are embedded in our food business at Mash Direct. We have an active waste management process and are currently investigating novel ways of recycling our water waste. All our food waste goes to a beef farming unit where it is used as a supplement to food rations. We are also actively reducing our carbon footprint by use of simple awareness measures and more complex process control mechanisms.

2. Nothing about your environmental credentials appears on your packaging. With ethical consumerism becoming more and more prominent do you feel that it could feature in the future as a meansofboostingsales?This is a very relevant question given the emphasis on the environment; the problem we

face is meeting our legislative requirements and brand image within the confines of an environmentally small sleeve. The solution would be larger sleeves on the packs but this is defeating the purpose. Our solution is to use our website, which is just about to be relaunched.

3. What are you actively doing to reduce unnecessary packaging, improve packaging andencouragerecycling?We have just returned from an International Food Fair in Paris which will hopefully enable us to take a huge leap forward on containers; making them totally biodegradable and manufactured from a very fast growing, renewable source.

4. In a recent interview with BusinessBiteyoustatedthat the biggest challenge in establishing and growing Mash Directwasandistheever-increasinglegislation.Howdid/does this hinder you and how have you overcome the challenges?Fortunately we have recruited some excellent team members to Mash Direct to deal with all of the current legislation. They have added not only a great deal of professionalism,

but also a lot of substance. However, it still represents a huge overhead for a business of our size.

As a Company we attend numerous marketing and promotional type activities where we meet a lot of other companies. The general concensus would be that decisions regarding reducing legislation seem remarkably slow given the manifesto pledge from this government. The need to repeat the same information to a variety of government departments, for no perceived added value, is very tiresome.

A Local Business PerspectiveMartin and Tracy Hamilton, Mash Direct

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

At Mash Direct we are committed to:

Complying with all relevant environmental legislation, regulations • and requirements.Preventing pollution where possible and practicable, by using non-• polluting techniques and practices.Continually improving our environmental performance through the • setting and annual review of environmental objectives and targets. Improving the management of energy, resources, raw materials and • emissions in all activities.Ensuring safe and efficient storage and disposal of all waste. • Improving the management of waste through minimisation, re-use • and recycling. Informing and educating employees on environmental issues.•

Tracy Hamilton, Minister Michelle Gildernew and Martin Hamilton

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 29



FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

This article provides a comparison of two leading UK retailers’ approaches to environmental issues. Other leading retailers were also asked to provide responses but for various reasons did not do so.

1. Environmental protection is a global issue concerning everyone. The retail industry employs millions of people worldwide, providing the potential to make a huge difference to sustainability. As a retailer, what do you see as yourrole?

When it comes to the environment and sustainable development in general, we have to take responsibility for our impacts, both direct and indirect. Primarily this means reducing our carbon footprint, reducing the volume of waste we send to landfill and reducing our water usage. We also work ‘upstream’ with our suppliers and ‘downstream’ with our customers, encouraging them to change their behaviour and take responsibility for their environmental impacts.

At Sainsbury’s we don’t see a green shift as a hindrance, nor is it just a marketing opportunity, it is integral to our business and essential for society. In the retail industry you can’t separate environmental benefits from commercial and financial ones. This is going to increasingly be the case as fuel prices continue to rise and natural resources become more scarce. We have a long history of integrating environmental considerations into our decision-making process. For us, it is business as usual.

M&S has a proud history of acting with a social conscience for over 120 years. Then, as now, these values are enlightened self-interest. The belief is that customers, shareholders, employees and suppliers will reward socially and environmentally responsible business practices. We produced our first publication on environmental issues in 1992.

2.Shouldenvironmentallegislation set minimum requirements for retailers to ensure appropriate action is takenacrosstheboard?

The government has an important role to play in ensuring green issues are taken seriously. Environmental legislation can play a part in raising minimum standards and ensuring a level playing field. It’s crucial that any decisions are made from an informed position, based on rigorous scientific evidence and appropriate consultation. But it is also important to recognise that tackling environmental issues must involve multi-stakeholder collaboration. This is not something that can be addressed by working in isolation; it will require greater partnership between government, business, NGOs and the wider community, including individual consumers themselves.

We practice an approach characterised as ‘raising the ceiling and lifting the floor’. Pushing the boundaries of best practice, such as our commitment to carbon neutral operations by 2012, whilst

also supporting the development of carbon trading across the retail sector to deliver overall reductions in carbon emissions.

3.Doyouknowyourcustomers’opinions and how do you balancetheirneeds?Doyouleadorfollowthem?

Consumers, in general, have higher expectations of retailers with regards to ethical and sustainability issues than they used to. However, they are often confused and overwhelmed by the many messages that are out there and as a result can feel disengaged because they feel unable to make a difference themselves. Our approach is to take our customers with us down a more sustainable path, offering them simple solutions and taking responsibility for some of these issues on their behalf. By moving too far ahead of our consumers, we could risk customers switching their loyalties or even switching off the sustainability issue altogether. By taking our customers with us on a step-by-step journey, educating them on the benefits and need for environmental sustainability and the underlying reasons behind our decisions, we feel that we can make a real difference.

Our Executive Chairman, Sir Stuart Rose, often quotes the need to be half-a-step ahead of our customers. We aim to be in a position to lead our customers on issues such as healthier foods and reducing carrier bags usage, but at an acceptable pace.

Retail Leaders in Sustainability?David McCann, Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL)



4.Couldyousummarisewhatyou are currently doing and what your future plans are with regards to environmental issues. HowdoesitapplyinNorthernIreland?

At Sainsbury’s we look to tackle sustainability in the round, rather than taking a single-issue approach. We take pride in trying to address all of the issues; social, environmental and economic. The majority of the climate change debate is currently concentrated on reducing carbon emissions. We feel that the breadth of this debate should be extended to include reducing waste and the use of other natural resources, including water. We think it is important to address sustainability in the wider context, paying consideration to the broader range of issues and looking to reduce our impacts both upstream and downstream. All of our corporate responsibility policies and strategies are applied across the entire estate. There are some necessary regional variations, where appropriate, however we strive to make comparable improvements across our estate.

We are making our operations in the UK and Republic of Ireland carbon neutral and helping our customers and suppliers to reduce their emissions too. We will stop sending waste to landfill from our UK and Irish stores, offices and warehouses; reduce our usage of packaging and carrier bags and ensure that our packaging and clothing can be easily recycled.

5. There are some areas not covered by your corporate responsibility plan that deserve some attention:(a)Whatisyourdecision-making process regarding which goods you offer (choice editing)?

Our approach is to provide customers with choice, whilst providing them with the information they need to make their own decisions. For example, one of our key commitments is to offer more environmentally responsible and sustainable products. It’s also important to distinguish between branded products and our own brand products: the former we have less control over but we are able to ensure the highest sustainability standards in our own brand products.

Virtually all our products are M&S own-brand. This means that we can exercise control and influence over most aspects of specification. Ranges are constructed by our merchandising functions based on M&S policies. One example is that we only sell white goods which are at least A rated.

(b) Where do environmental considerationsfitintothedecision-makingprocessforthe location and design of new stores?

Environmental issues are at the heart of the decision-making process regarding the construction of new stores and this has been

the case for a long time. Our Dartmouth store is a prime example of this and has excellent green credentials. It has a vastly reduced carbon footprint, both in terms of the operational running of the store and also lower levels of embodied carbon through the use of more environmentally sustainable materials and construction methods. Through our store development programme, we are aiming to open two new ‘eco stores’ per year, whilst continuing to improve the sustainability of existing stores.

We have developed a Sustainable Construction Manual in partnership with the BRE and have set targets to recycle all construction waste (currently 75%).

(c)Doyoufeelthatcurrentlabellingcriteriaaresufficientfor consumers to make an informedchoice?Forexample,integrating carbon footprints and embedded water content would allow consumers to make decisions based upon environmental criteria.

We have not yet gone down the carbon labelling route. Before taking such an important decision we would want to see the establishment of an effective standardised methodology. We would also want to see proof that carbon labelling is actually useful to consumers and results in the desired behavioural changes; we don’t want to take a single issue approach that may drive the wrong behaviour. For example, we wouldn’t want to feature a carbon label if this meant consumers assumed the product was ‘bad’ simply based on its carbon credentials, when there may be other non-environmental factors to take into consideration, such as the social benefits of Fairtrade and local produce. Again this boils down to our multi-issue approach, taking social, economic and environmental

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 31



FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

issues into consideration. We don’t want to confuse consumers with more labels, when the implications may not always be fully understood.

Labels play an important role in informing customers but they have to be clear, single issue and be considered relevant to the product to be effective. We use a range of labels such as MSC, FSC, Organic, Fairtrade and packaging and recycling information. We believe that messages on embedded carbon or water will be difficult to communicate effectively in the form of a label. Effective communications can take the form of choice editing, point-of-sale, and web based information as well as labels.

(d) Multiple purchase offers encourage unnecessary purchases, consequently increasing food waste and artificiallyincreasingdemand.Shouldoffersnotbelimitedtoprice reductions of individual items so that consumers buy to suittheirneeds?Doyouactivelyencourage a reduction in food waste?

We never force our customers to purchase more than is necessary. Consumers make their own decisions and need to take some responsibility for purchasing, storing and cooking their food appropriately. It is not in our interests to produce high levels of waste, as waste carries both environmental and financial costs. We also actively educate our customers in reducing food waste. We are currently engaged in the Love Food, Hate Waste campaign and are working alongside Women’s Institute and Good Housekeeping among others to educate our customers on ways to reduce waste, on how to store products properly, about correct portion sizes, how to cook from scratch and also how to incorporate leftovers into recipes.

At the same time, we have to remain commercially competitive on price: if we are not successful as a business, we will be unable to make an impact on many of the sustainability issues we care so passionately about.

Research by WRAP suggests that the main causes of domestic food waste are; poor planning (for example not using a shopping list), poor storage in the home and a lack of food preparation skills in knowing how to use leftovers. These are clearly complex issues to address and we are supporting WRAP’s Love Food, Hate Waste campaign which is addressing these causes.

(e) What is done with food that isbetweenitssell-byanduse-bydates?

Surplus food beyond its ‘display by’ date but still within its ‘use by’ date is donated to charity. Each of our stores has links with a local charity to which consumable food is donated. An ongoing project is also looking at using food that is unsuitable for donation to produce energy through anaerobic digestion. We also aim to help customers understand the difference between ‘best before’ dates (still consumable after but quality may be affected) and ‘use-by’ dates (need to be consumed by), to reduce the amount of unnecessary waste.

We sell foods approaching the end of their display-life at a discounted

price to customers and employees. In order to minimise waste in store there is often very little ‘window’ between sell by and use by dates, however, where possible (and safe) we donate food to a range of local charities.

6. What sets your company apartfromtherest?

Responsible retailing is part of our heritage. We always look to make decisions that are better all round, considering the consequences of our actions from a social, environmental and economic perspective. We are committed to being the best for food and health, treating our suppliers fairly and ensuring we have a positive impact on local communities. We have heritage in environmental considerations and a proven track record. Both the National Consumer Council and The Grocer recently rated us the UK’s greenest supermarket chain. Other retailers make big statements about what they’re going to do. Our approach is to really make a difference.

M&S is unique in selling virtually 100% own brand products. This means that when it comes to issues such as GM ingredients, animal welfare, and artificial colours and flavours we can offer brand values across all our products.

Sainsbury’s response constructed from a telephone interview with their Corporate Responsibility Team on 19/09/2008.

M&S response supplied by David Hordle, Head of M&S Plan A Delivery, on 10/10/2008.



Clandeboye Estate is a large estate three miles from Holywood, owned by Lady Dufferin. It comprises 800 acres of woodland and 600 acres of farmland in dairy production, boasting three of the best pedigree herds in the UK.

We are always looking at how to add value to its bottom line. Any diversification from standard dairy farming needs a hefty input of time, money and commitment as financial risks are involved. We realised very quickly that we needed to rely on what we do well - milk. The fact that 80% of milk is exported from Northern Ireland and 100% of yoghurt imported, helped enormously. We realised we had a really good idea and product in Clandeboye Estate Yoghurt.

Farmers generally like the ‘low risk’ approach. They sell unprocessed product, in bulk, off the farm. This in itself has several strengths and weaknesses. It allows the farmer to concentrate on primary production, enjoy the quiet life on the farm and leaves statements like ‘value added’ to the experts. It is a low risk lifestyle with low rewards.

But some, like ourselves under the leadership of Lady Dufferin, have aspired to greater things. We started by going shopping to ensure our product had a market. We then consulted with consumers and various experts, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Invest NI and our bank manager.

With the help of a local college, we looked at developing recipes. After we conducted the basic market research, we looked at project costs and, importantly, grant availability. This allowed us to construct a working business plan. We then visited equipment suppliers and a variety of yoghurt producers for ideas and guidance. This was both encouraging and insightful; we learned that Health and Safety restrictions vary with area. Consultations, along with grant aid, allowed us to look at brand design and to plan our production flow against our business plan.

We moved to the ‘medium risk’ state of small scale production once we sourced second hand equipment and learned how to produce yoghurt, keep records, manage cash flow and sell. We started selling at farmers’ markets, local shops and began the honesty box - where people can buy the yoghurt they want from our farm in an unmanned room. Amazingly, the honesty box gives very good returns. At the medium risk level, our marketing strategy was small scale; the ‘viral’ strategy, or word of mouth, worked very well while ‘guerilla’ tactics of flooding every market, free tasting, brand promotion and competitions all helped. We also started the process of setting up a farm shop which is a long and complicated process and is still ongoing. The medium risk level has no returns, takes an enormous amount of time and you still have a farm to run.

Recently, we moved on to the ‘high risk’ state of full scale production. This is the ‘big leap’ in terms of financial input and time with accountancy and traceability becoming even more important. We have to look at expanding production space to allow for better equipment, more staff and full

factory requirements. We have decided to try for British Retail Corporation Accreditation for our yoghurt and are looking at online ordering facilities.

The high risk, full scale production has a more extensive market and marketing requirements. At this stage it is beginning to pay off; we have more yoghurt going to export than we have on sale locally and we are even looking to develop new products (for example Greek Yoghurt) and partnerships (for example Clandeboye Estate Granola).

We started the whole process two years ago and are going strong. During all this, we have ensured our farm standards remain high.

At Clandeboye Estate all the work we undertake obviously has to make sense financially. But the economics are balanced with sustainable production that delivers environmental benefits. Clandeboye Estate Yoghurt is a high quality and healthy product for our bottom line, the consumer and the environment.

If we can link Northern Ireland’s future policies on production, agricultural economies and the sustainable development of farming, we can make the process of diversification easier and more worthwhile. Only then will it be possible to encourage farmers to leave ‘low risk’ farming and go into local production of food.

Practical Experiences in Local ProductionJohn Witchell, Clandeboye Estate

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 33



FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

Willowbank Ltd. was established in 1962 in response to a lack of facilities/services for persons with disabilities. It is from this origin of responding to community need that the various enterprises and services developed by Willowbank have grown. We are committed to working in partnership with people with disabilities to ensure rights, equality of opportunity and inclusion.

“Get up & Grow”We identified at the outset of the development of this enterprise that social exclusion and marginalisation from the wider community is an issue for persons with disabilities. Using the principles of community development, underpinned with a person-centred approach to identifying training and learning needs, we have sought to increase our individual and collective confidence and skills thereby ensuring maximum engagement in the socio-economic life of the community.

Purpose of the ProjectTo establish an experiential • learning environment for the delivery of horticultural training within the principles of organic production.

To develop a vibrant community • enterprise that will provide training and work opportunities for persons with/without disabilities.

Environmental ManagementAs a result of our involvement in a Community Eco Challenge, managed by the Southern Area Environmental group, we became much more aware of the impacts a project like ours could have on the global environment. These could be achieved by relatively small and achievable measures and more importantly the combined impact we could have if we implemented these over a wider sphere of influence.

The first thing we did was look at our own processes and see what we could do differently to minimise waste of material, and energy resources and from this we developed our own Environmental Management System. This was facilitated by the STEM project and we achieved BS8555.

Then we established a community composting scheme where staff and service users of the centre were provided with caddies to collect kitchen waste. This is transferred

to our composting bins and the resulting compost used as fertiliser in the garden. We then purchased a number of wormeries to speed up the composting process and the worm juice drawn from these is used as plant food.

The enthusiasm for this sparked a number of other initiatives that people could do in their own homes, like changing light bulbs to low energy use bulbs, turning down the heating and making sure electrical appliances are not left on standby.

This naturally led to looking at how we could reduce food miles and encourage people to eat seasonal, locally produced food. This led to the delivery of a number of sessions on healthy growing, cooking and eating.

The success of this is such that we are now trying to secure funding to roll this out to the wider community through engagement with schools and other community groups. This project demonstrates how acting locally can impact globally.

For information on the project or to arrange a visit please contact:Ann McGlone Willowbank Community Resource Centre,Carland Road, Dungannon, BT71 4AATel: 028 87 722821 Email: [email protected]

‘Get Up & Grow’: Growing Plants, Growing PeopleAnn McGlone, Willowbank Organic Producers Ltd



When I was a child, my father had an allotment, indeed he still has the same plot and is never slow to tell me how he has been working the same piece of land for the last 40 years. My childhood summers were spent helping to plant and weed, rake and dig. The best part, of course, was when we got to harvest the crops - there was a great joy to be had in picking and eating raspberries straight from the bush or helping to collect a variety of freshly pulled vegetables ready to take home for the table.

Unbeknown to me at the time, those experiences were teaching me some important lessons, ‘sowing the seeds’ of knowledge and understanding that many years later I would need as an adult. This knowledge was put into practice, when about 10 years ago I bought a house with a (small) garden.

There was no thinking about whether or not I should try to grow my own or even if I could, I just knew I had to try to make a contribution to what my family was eating. I didn’t know exactly where to start or what to plant and I had very little land to grow on, but armed with a spade and lots of enthusiasm I set off into the back garden to make my own mini-allotment.

How to Grow Your Own VegetablesFirst of all, when looking to grow some of your own food you should

look at the size of your growing area. Some people will have a large garden, others a smaller one. Some will have an allotment while others might be restricted to using the windowsill and a couple of small plant pots. But, whatever your situation, consider the types of vegetables that would be suitable within the confines of the space you have. A lot of people think that growing your own fruit and vegetables requires a lot of space. While this is certainly true if you are looking to provide a variety of produce for your family every day of the year, it is amazing that, with a little ingenuity and invention, you can utilise whatever small space you have and make a not insignificant contribution to your weekly food budget.

I started in my garden by building four small raised beds roughly 6ft x 4ft in size – these I planted with crops I knew would be fairly easy to grow in the first season; such as spring early potatoes (my Dad swears by the Pentland Javelin variety – obviously now so do I!), carrots, onions, lettuces, radishes, scallions, a few cabbages and the odd turnip or two. All these were quite easy to grow even with several thousand jaws in the shape of slugs and caterpillars doing their best to munch through the entire crop. After I gained some confidence I decided that I needed to plant

a greater quantity and variety of crops but unfortunately my growing confidence was restricted by the diminishing area of land I had available to cultivate. I started to use large pots in which to grow my salad crops, one reason being an attempt to keep them out of the reach of those munching menaces. This had the added advantage of freeing up space in the raised beds to grow other varieties of vegetables such as cauliflowers, brussel sprouts, broccoli and leeks. My patio area soon became festooned with pots of different sizes growing all manner of vegetables and I soon discovered that I could grow miniature apple trees, blueberry bushes and strawberry plants in pots as well.

Over the years I have progressed to building a greenhouse where I grow tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, amongst other things. When I have struggled for space on the ground, I have also set up hanging baskets to grow strawberries and tumbling tomatoes in.

Harvesting the Benefits Growing fruit and vegetables has always been one of the best aspects of gardening to me. There are so many benefits that can be derived from growing your own produce.

Growing Your Own Food:Sowing the Seedlings! Andy Griggs, Environmental Education Forum (EEF)

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 35



FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

Firstly, it can help you physically get in shape as it is a useful form of exercise. It can also boost your psychological well-being by being out and about in nature with all the relaxing qualities that this brings. Secondly, home grown food also scores very highly against similar produce found in your local supermarket on two counts - it will cost far less to grow your own and, secondly, your home grown vegetables are likely to taste better too as they will be fresher and have higher levels of vitamins and minerals. Furthermore, you and your family are far more likely to eat the recommended five portions of vegetables a day if you grow your own. There is nothing I hate more than seeing the food I grow go to waste or end up in the compost heap. I suppose that’s why those who grow their own food also end up being proficient in a variety of pickling, freezing, jamming and preserving methods.

You will also benefit from knowing exactly where your vegetables have come from and what has been used in the growing process; unlike in the supermarkets where we are never quite sure how and where the produce has been grown or what has been used to preserve it to give it as long a shelf life as possible.

I also like to think that growing your own food is making a small but significant contribution to environmental issues, both locally and globally. I like to grow my produce organically at all times and this has led me to develop a variety of natural pest control methods, everything from feeding garden birds and providing nest boxes for

blue tits, who return the favour by eating huge amounts of caterpillars and grubs to feed their young, to providing bug boxes for over wintering ladybirds who will predate on aphids the following year. You can also plant marigolds and other flower species to encourage predatory insects and all this is adding to the biodiversity of your local area as well as helping to bring your garden alive with the sights and sounds of nature.

By growing your own food you are also helping to reduce your carbon footprint. Think of the savings that are being made when your food comes from outside your own back door, or at worst from your allotment several miles away, compared to all manner of produce that is grown and shipped or flown into Northern Ireland from right across the globe. The production of regular ‘shop bought’ food uses fertilisers, pesticides, packaging, transport and preservatives, all of which require some form of fossil fuel usage, thus contributing to climate change. Growing your own food (especially organically) involves significantly less of all of these things and in many cases can eliminate the need for them altogether.

Finally, as I extol to you the virtues of making a contribution to what you eat every day, I am reminded of one final crucial aspect that for me personally makes growing your own food an extremely important activity. It is something that all the family can join in with, especially younger generations. The joy and wonder expressed on children’s faces when they get to pick and eat the produce that they have sown,

watered, weeded and cared for is a fantastic culmination to all the effort and hard work. The very act of getting children involved in growing food helps them have a better understanding of where their food comes from, how nature works and ultimately instils in them many basic skills and qualities that will stay with them for life.

It reminds me of the educational model put forward by Patrick Geddes known as the 3 H model. At its core, Geddes says that experiences created on fun, authenticity and adventure start a cyclical chain between the heart, head and hands. Experiences that inspire the heart to care, inform the head with knowledge and guide hands to meaningful work are a potent cocktail. These very thoughts transport me back to my own halcyon days I spent in my father’s allotment learning the same lessons that I am now passing onto my children. It makes me very proud that I am able to empower them to make a difference to their own lives and the lives of others, now and in the future, by the simple act of growing a few vegetables in their own back garden.



Growing your own fruit and vegetables provides economic, health, social and environmental benefits. Shopping bills can be reduced, diets improved, physical activity encouraged, food miles reduced and biodiversity improved. However, many people do not take advantage of this for a variety of reasons, including lack of time, knowledge and land. This is where community farms and gardens come in. By pooling resources and knowledge, duties can be divided, plots tended when necessary and a wide variety of fruit and vegetables cultivated successfully.

Federation of City Farms & Community Gardens (FCFCG)The FCFCG supports, represents and promotes community-managed farms and gardens across the UK. These projects work with people, animals and plants and range from tiny wildlife gardens to fruit and vegetable plots on housing estates, from community polytunnels to large city farms. They are created by local people seeking to encourage strong community relationships and an awareness of gardening and farming. They are a place for people of all ages and walks of life and provide a wide variety of valuable, much-needed community facilities and services. The benefits that these projects can bring have long been appreciated by individuals and the communities in which they have been established.

‘The True Value of Community Farms and Gardens’In 2007, FCFCG carried out research

to assess the impact and value of

community farms and gardens to

individuals and communities.

ResultsCommunity-based farming and gardening projects provide a number of benefits including:

HealthyEating&Exercise•Gardening and farming can improve physical health through exercise while hands-on growing experience also promotes the uptake of healthier diets and bridges the gap from field to plate.

SocialInteraction•They provide important social opportunities that lead to lasting friendships and support networks. They also give a focus for communities, promoting inclusion, integration and acceptance. By appealing to a wide age range, these community projects offer an alternative to roaming the streets for young people.

Environmental Awareness •Garden creation boosts local biodiversity and encourages individuals to conserve wildlife. Community farms and gardens promote local action on global environmental issues through recycling; local, seasonal and organic food production; composting; and, education.

SkillDevelopment•Community farms and gardens offer valuable volunteer and training opportunities, both formally on accredited training courses and informally, in an alternative outdoor setting. They provide hands-on learning to engage and motivate young people, those with learning difficulties and those with limited qualifications.

Natural Therapy•Community farms and gardens offer ‘natural therapy’ - aspects of social and therapeutic horticulture and animal-assisted therapy provided in a holistic manner in a community setting. Benefits include feelings of safety, relaxation, achievement, responsibility, happiness and increased self-esteem.

ConclusionThe work of community farms and gardens provides tangible benefits to many people’s lives, increasing their well-being, community involvement and pride in their local environment. These benefits go a long way towards supporting government agendas in relation to health, education, climate change and social inclusion, amongst others. We hope that this research will increase recognition for these projects and influence policy development and resource allocation in their favour, at a local, regional and national level.

Community Gardens

Mick Marston, Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

Case Study: Eglantine Community GardenThe Eglantine Comunity Garden began life at a visioning day in Belfast for community, peace, social justice and environmental activists in February 2004. They now have a number of vegetable beds, a beautiful array of flowers, about 20 willow trees and some soft fruit. The garden is open to everyone and has a community atmosphere.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 37



What is Organic Farming?Organic farming is a modern, sustainable farming system which maintains the long-term fertility of soil, uses less of the Earth’s finite resources, strictly controls the use of a limited number of fertilisers and pesticides and ensures the highest animal welfare standards.

Why Should I Buy Organic Food?Environmental Benefits and Animal WelfareOrganic farming requires maintenance of high environmental standards to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services. This enables organic farmers to use a very limited selection of agrichemicals. To convert from traditional to organic farming, the condition of the land and associated biodiversity must first be improved and subsequently maintained, and in many cases leads to further enhancement.

Higher animal welfare standards are also associated with organic farming. When large numbers of animals are kept in cramped, stressful conditions they can become more prone to illness. As a preventative measure, farmers routinely put antibiotics in their feed. There are concerns that regular doses may result in these drugs becoming ineffective when they are used to treat disease in both humans and animals. Organic farmers can only use antibiotics when an animal actually becomes sick. They take many steps to prevent this from happening, for example keeping smaller flocks and herds, feeding them a natural diet, and allowing them to roam freely. Under organic standards, the time period between an animal having antibiotics and the meat or milk going on sale is double, or in some

cases triple, that of other standards. This reduces the risk of residues being passed on to consumers.

Health BenefitsA study led by Newcastle University indicated that organic fruit and vegetables contain 40% more antioxidants (believed to cut the risk of heart disease and cancer) and higher levels of other beneficial minerals, such as iron and zinc, than traditional equivalents. On average, organic fruit and vegetables contain 10-15% more phenolics than non-organics. Phenolics are important defence compounds; some medical experts believe they may help prevent cancer. Tests repeatedly show that up to a third of non-organic food contain pesticides. There are real concerns about the links between pesticides and cancers, decreasing male fertility, foetal abnormalities and chronic fatigue syndrome, to name but a few consequences. Organic farmers use mainly natural methods to control pests, weeds and disease. Buying organic will reduce the chances that your food contains pesticides.

Cows farmed organically produce milk which has, on average, 50% more Vitamin E, 75% more beta carotene (converted to Vitamin A in the body), higher levels of omega 3 essential fatty acids believed to protect against heart disease and brain disorders, and two to three times more antioxidants, lutein and zeaxanthine, than conventionally produced milk. Antioxidants are naturally occurring substances in plants that protect the body from free radicals - chemicals in the blood that contribute to hardening of the arteries. Higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids are found because organic animals eat a natural grass-based diet, as opposed to non-

organic animals whose diet may include a lot of processed feeds to help them put on weight. However, it must be acknowledged that on the island of Ireland, all cows feed mainly on grass.

Whether organic food is better for you is still very much contested. However, the evidence in favour of organic does appear to be growing.

Is Organic Food More Expensive?In some cases organic food can be more expensive, but this is because organic production is slower and more labour intensive. However, chemical farming speeds up growth rates resulting in the produce containing more water and less nutrients.

How Can I Ensure Produce is Organic?Organic produce is often marked with the logo of the certification body with which the producer is registered, and will always carry the individual code number of that certification body. Imported produce may also display EC registered logos, and/or certification codes.

Where Can I Buy Organic Produce?Organic food can now be bought from most, if not all, major supermarket chains, independent supermarkets, farm shops, farmers’ markets, and box delivery schemes.

Organic Food

The Organic Centre

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES



The Fairtrade Approachto Food Patricia Mackey, Sustainable Northern Ireland (SNI)

The story of Hull MP William Wilberforce’s struggle to abolish the slave trade is well known. He began his campaign to abolish the slave trade in 1798 and was rewarded for his efforts in 1807 when the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed, outlawing the British Atlantic slave trade and making it illegal to carry slaves on British ships.

As an important merchant town, Belfast was not unaffected by the pro- and anti-slave movement. In the 18th Century there was a campaign against sugar consumption because of the unethical mode of its production. Belfast’s leading anti-slavery

campaigner Thomas Russell wrote impassioned letters to the Belfast Telegraph and Northern Star declaring that: “on every lump of sugar I see a drop of human blood.” He insisted it was our duty to ask ethical questions about the government’s approach to trade. Petitions were drawn up urging the abstinence from the use of sugar and rum until the West Indies’ planters had prohibited the importation of slaves. Belfast newspapers put pressure on its readership of the time, encouraging individuals to cease consuming sugar. Belfast women practiced ethical consumption when cooking and also educated their children in what we would now call fair trade.

The line of ethical protest about trade and food still remains; Belfast itself is now officially a Fairtrade City, after a campaign begun in October 2004 by Oxfam Ireland, the Northern Ireland Co-op and concerned individuals. It has been supported by a range of organisations including Traidcraft, Queen’s University and Belfast City Council, as well as many voluntary and community groups. The campaign convinced a sufficient number of businesses, churches and schools to see the benefits of using fairly traded products on their premises to receive accreditation. In May 2007 Belfast was awarded its second Fairtrade City status from Fairtrade Mark Ireland.

Currently, almost 100 Belfast shops and cafés sell or serve Fairtrade products, and the number is continuing to rise.

Belfast Council’s Role in FairtradeBelfast City Council has signed a Fairtrade Charter and been involved in promoting this. The Council’s in-house caterer (City Hall & Cecil Ward Building) uses Fairtrade tea, coffee, sugar and biscuits in the Atrium staff restaurant and on trolley and function services. In addition, the organisation encourages outside caterers to use Fairtrade at large scale functions and events in the City Hall.

Fairtrade TownsIn April 2000 Garstang in Lancashire declared itself ‘the World’s first Fairtrade Town’. The campaign inspired towns, cities, boroughs, villages, islands, counties and zones across the country to make a collective commitment to Fairtrade and work towards Fairtrade status for their community.

Across the UK there are now over 300 Fairtrade Towns as well as more than 200 areas campaigning towards that status. In fact, there are now Fairtrade Town campaigns in 15 countries around the world and all of these have been inspired by the example in the UK. Belfast is the only Fairtrade City in Northern Ireland.

FO

OD

CH

OIC

ES

Fairtrade Goals

1) To improve the livelihoods and well-being of producers by improving market access, strengthening producer organisations and paying a sustainable price for their labour while at all times respecting the environment.

2) To promote development opportunities for disadvantaged producers, especially women and indigenous people, as well as protecting children from any potential exploitation during production.

3) To raise awareness among consumers of their positive purchasing power on counteracting the negative pressures and social injustices placed on small-scale producers through international trade.

4) To campaign for changes in the rules and practices of international trade by highlighting the need for development, resources and improved market access.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 39



The Size of the IssueWRAP’s recent The Food We Waste study found that the food we throw away at home makes the single biggest contribution to the UK’s overall food waste. In total, food waste in the UK is around 18-22 million tonnes, with:

6.7 million tonnes coming from • our homes;1.6 million tonnes from • supermarkets;4.1 million tonnes from food • manufacturing;3 million tonnes from the food • service and hotel and hospitality sector; and the,Remainder associated with • agriculture and non-household municipal sources (for example schools and prisons).

The cost of all this food waste is staggering - the UK pays for, but does not eat, £10 billion of food every year, equating to £610 per year for families with children. This costs local authorities £1 billion to collect and send to landfill.

Food waste also has a substantial environmental impact. Food accounts for 18% of the UK’s carbon emissions and food waste sent to landfill generates methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) which is far more powerful than carbon dioxide. As the majority of food-related GHG emissions are linked to production, storage and distribution it is important to prevent food waste from occurring in the first place rather than simply diverting it from landfill.

Data pertaining to the amount of household food waste generated in other countries is limited. However there is evidence that this is a serious issue faced by many developed countries, with reports from Australia, the US, Germany

and Japan all indicating a similar scale of food waste.

The Food We Waste StudyThis groundbreaking study of more than 2,100 UK households involved householders taking part in a questionnaire and having their food waste analysed. During the food analysis stage, the researchers extracted any items of food from the collected waste. The food was then identified, categorised and details recorded (for example whole/intact vs. part-consumed; raw vs. cooked; etc). Finally, the cost of each item was estimated using an average of current retail prices.

Results from the StudyThe study showed that in the UK we throw away around one third of the food we buy. And of the 6.7 million tonnes of food thrown away, 61% (4.1 million tonnes) could have been eaten. This is equivalent to 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or the same as taking one in five cars off UK roads.

Over a third, or 1.6 million tonnes, of the avoidable household food waste arises from ‘preparing or cooking too much’ food and nearly two thirds, or 2.5 million tonnes, is

generated by food being ‘left and unused’. The former includes food that is left in the pan/cooking dish and on the plate, while the latter is thrown away unopened (whole) or is opened but only partially eaten. An astonishing 340,000 tonnes of food waste is still in date.

Products from all of the food groups are thrown away. Examples of what is being thrown away daily include 7 million slices of bread, 5.1 million potatoes, 4.4 million apples, 1.3 million yoghurts and yoghurt drinks, 1.2 million sausages, 440,000 ready-made meals, 300,000 bags of crisps and 82,000 dessert cakes.

All age groups, socio-economic and household types are throwing away food. Statistical analysis at a household level shows two factors to be strongly related to the amount of avoidable food waste produced. There was a strong positive correlation with household size – the more people in the household the more food waste generated, and a negative correlation with age – as the age profile increases the amount of food wasted decreases. However, on a per capita basis all ages generate similar amounts of waste. Therefore the single most important factor in determining how much

Food Waste

Andrew Parry, Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP)

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

How Many Double Deckers Could We Fill Each Day With the Top 5 Fruit and Vegetables We Throw

Away Whole/Untouched?



avoidable food waste a household generates is the number of people living in the household.

There are a number of factors that contribute to why consumers throw away food, including not planning meals, checking stocks or making shopping lists; being tempted in-store; being unsure about storage before and after opening and whether food can be frozen; poor portion control and lack of confidence with leftovers; and, confusion over date labels, such as ‘best before’ vs. ‘use by’.

Key LearningsAs the study shows, the problem of household food waste is a serious one. Tackling it is a major challenge. There is a large opportunity for producers, manufacturers and retailers to help consumers reduce the food they waste. From innovative packaging solutions which carry clear consumer guidance on storage location and freezing options, to advice which increases consumer understanding and confidence of ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates. The former can be particularly helpful for fresh fruit and vegetables which can last up to two weeks longer when kept in the fridge and bakery items which can often be frozen.

Portioning is also important, both in terms of the amount of food consumers buy and getting portions right at home. Knowing what size of portion you need and using handy portioning tools and self-dispensing options can make a major difference. The use of divisible and ’eat me, freeze me’ packs are also key. Producers and manufacturers must also review the number of units in multipacks and the type of promotions on offer.

In addition, packaging can extend the shelf life of food once it reaches consumers, both before and after opening. Modified atmosphere packaging, novel materials and improved resealability are just some of the measures that can be considered.

WRAP’s StrategyWe recognise that consumer communication is crucial in bringing about real behavioural change. Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) (www.lovefoodhatewaste.com) - a key consumer-facing campaign - aims to make it easier for us to make the most of the food we buy. It provides simple, practical solutions on planning meals, better portioning, using your freezer and top tips on tasty meals to make with leftovers. LFHW is supported by retailers, local authorities and groups such as the Women’s Institute, who are offering direct practical advice to consumers.

Through the voluntary Courtauld Commitment, WRAP is working with over 32 major brands and retailers, representing over 95% of the grocery sector, to help reduce consumer food and packaging waste. And for the first time, working with colleagues at Envirowise, WRAP now has Government funding that enables us to help the food industry to reduce its own food waste.

WRAP are also working with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and many brands, manufacturers and retailers to raise consumer understanding of date labels and food safety, so that they are

confident to manage their food in such a way as to minimise waste, without taking unnecessary risks.

And finally, to increase resource efficiency from food waste, WRAP is also working with local authorities and the waste industry in developing home composting, food waste collections and effective reprocessing of the food collected. In collaboration with the reprocessing industry, WRAP continues to stimulate investment in new composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, as well as creating standards for the resultant products. Not only is food waste diverted from landfill but compost and energy are generated too.

This new focus on reducing food waste by WRAP, retailers, the food industry and the waste industry, supported by central and local government, is a start. But what is clear is that a sustained effort will be needed to raise public awareness of the size of the problem to ensure that we all realise our role in helping to reduce food waste and help tackle climate change.

WRAP is launching a new tender for projects to develop and support food waste reduction at home and in the supply chain. Visit www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/tenders for more information.

Andtofindouthowwecanallhelp to prevent food waste, see the full Food We Waste report andcasestudiesinthe‘FoodWaste’ section at www.wrap.org.uk/retail or email us at [email protected].

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com

http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/tenders

http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/tenders

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail


N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 41



Around 30 million tonnes of household waste is generated in the UK every year, of which 5.9 million tonnes is packaging and 6.7 million tonnes is food waste. Reducing waste and using fewer natural resources is a powerful way of making a contribution towards reducing climate change and delivering a sustainable future. This article outlines examples of the work undertaken by WRAP and its partners to optimise packaging and prevent waste.

Cutting-Edge Best PracticeTackling waste and making good use of resources not only benefits our environment, it also adds brand value, helps meet customer demand and cuts costs. With rising food and energy prices becoming major boardroom concerns, now is a better time than ever to reduce waste.

The retail supply chain is at the forefront of cutting-edge best practice. Many retailers and manufacturers are putting waste prevention at the heart of their processes, showing how optimising processes and packaging can deliver tangible environmental and cost benefits.

Lightweighting - Packaging Weight Reduction Through Innovation

Coca-ColaEnterprises reduced the weight of its iconic 330ml glass contour bottle by a fifth, using 3,500 tonnes less glass

and preventing emissions of an estimated 2,200 tonnes of CO2 per year. They are also reviewing the feasibility of lightweighting other packaging, including their range of 500ml PET plastic bottles and their aluminium can packs.

Not only do such innovations reduce costs and improve environmental performance, they also create opportunities to build on brand value. This is especially important with the growing consumer demand for products with less packaging and products that reduce food waste. A further example, Greencore FrozenFoods has changed its Yorkshire pudding packaging from multiple plastic trays to film bags. The pack weight of five different products was reduced saving 115 tonnes of plastic.

Packaging Reduction GoalsAsk any consumer about a product that has too much packaging and they often think of Easter eggs. Well, times are changing and in Easter 2009 medium-sized, standard Easter egg packaging will be reduced by at least 25%. This

Packaging Optimisation

Rhiannon Davies, Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP)

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Over 10 million tonnes of waste is generated within the supply chain highlighting the need for concerted action on waste in

the retail sector.



is the result of a working group including companies such as Mars UK, Cadbury-Trebor-Basset, Nestle UK, Kraft UK and Magna Specialist Confectioners. WRAP facilitates these collective working groups - by working together to achieve a shared goal, change can happen faster.

Extending Product Life – Maintaining FreshnessAs well as reducing packaging, there are many initiatives to look at how packaging can ensure maximum product life. Some ideas are incredibly simple such as resealable packaging to help maintain freshness once a product has been opened. Others are more innovative like Modified Atmosphere Packaging or bioplastic film. As campaigns such as WRAP’s Love Food Hate Waste campaign raise awareness of the amount of food we throw away, demand for packaging to help customers get the most from the food they buy will only increase.

Vacuum Packs – Enhancing Impact Reduction Vacuum packaging for meat is an innovation that shows how a small change could make a big difference and lead to carbon footprint reductions. This form of packaging removes the need for trays so reducing types of packaging materials involved and pack weight. It could also allow more units per lorry load and improved logistical efficiencies.

Helping the Consumer Recyclea) Labelling WRAP is working with the British Retail Consortium (BRC) to develop a new on-pack labelling system. This will enable consumers to identify which parts of packaging can be recycled in their area using a three point scale. It will rate different packaging formats as ‘widely recycled’, ‘check local recycling’ and ‘not currently recycled’.

b) Mixed Plastics RecyclingOne area of particular interest to consumers is mixed plastics. WRAP will be developing new approaches which meet the demand of the public and stimulate innovative technical solutions to the challenges of collecting, sorting and using these materials in a resource efficient way.

Whether you are a retailer, supplier, manufacturer or brand find out how WRAP can help you at www.wrap.org.uk/retail, email [email protected] or call 0808 100 2040.

WRAPworks in partnership with the retail sector and the supply chain to drive resource efficiencies, packaging optimisation and food waste reduction, to increase the recyclability of materials and to reduce carbon emissions.

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Good packaging is key to cutting down on food waste

by getting products into customers’ homes in mint condition and then helping

to keep them that way for as long as possible.LucyNeville-Rolfe,

Corporate&LegalAffairsDirector,Tesco

Top Tips for Optimising PackagingBenchmark against the best by using Best in Class data and • competitors’ packaging from around the world. Visit WRAP’s International Packaging study searchable database.Combine functions or components to eliminate or save materials and • de-layer wherever possible.Consider a range of sizes or portions to suit the customer.• Explore innovative ways to differentiate between value and premium • products without adding more packaging.Design for recyclability and where possible use recycled content.• Consider all packaging elements together – primary, secondary and • tertiary.M&S now use vacuum packaging for

meat products.



N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 43



The harnessing of bioenergy and particularly of biofuels for transport has become one of the most controversial energy issues of recent times. At the heart of this controversy lies a challenging question: can the opportunities presented by bioenergy be seized in a way that avoids creating more environmental problems than solutions?

Interest in bioenergy is now truly global, driven by two key factors. First is the impending global energy supply crisis and the urgent need to find alternative ways of meeting a soaring global demand for energy without relying on increasingly inaccessible fossil fuels.

The IEA also predicts that whilst oil reserves may theoretically exist to meet the demand in this century, accessing them would depend on overcoming major technical barriers as well as significant political barriers, since the remaining oil supplies are likely to be in politically less stable regions. If current policies and trends continue the IEA predicts that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will rise by 57% by 2030, contrasting starkly with the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions (on 1990 levels) which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change maintains is needed to prevent the catastrophic social, environmental and economic consequences of

human-induced climate change. Reducing these emissions is the second key factor driving interest in biofuels.

Bioenergy PotentialSo what is the potential contribution of bioenergy to meeting the world’s growing energy demand? Currently bioenergy (comprising both biofuels - transport fuels produced primarily from crops, and biomass energy - heat and power derived from biomass crops and organic waste) supplies around 10% of global energy demand. The IEA predicts that even assuming a fairly modest rate of growth, bioenergy in all its forms could supply up to 85% or more of the current world energy demand; one third of this coming from waste derived bioenergy, one

quarter from planting on currently unfarmed marginal land, and the remainder from cultivation of less than 20% of current agricultural land.

Biofuels and HabitatsDespite such apparent potential, bioenergy and in particular biofuels remain highly controversial. One major concern in relation to the development of biofuels is the pressure which large-scale cultivation is having on some of the world’s richest natural environments. In Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, demand for biofuels is exacerbating the already significant problem of deforestation for palm oil plantations, threatening some of the world’s rarest species such as the Orang-utan and the Sumatran Rhino (of the latter only an estimated 800 remain in the wild). Covering 600,000 hectares in 1985, Indonesian palm oil

Bioenergy: The Challenges and OpportunitiesGeoff Nuttall, WWF

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

As it stands now, if we don’t change our energy system in a radical way in the next ten years, the wheels will come

off…If governments stick with

current policies, the world’s primary energy needs will

grow by 55% between 2005 and 2030…

84% met by fossil fuels.FatihBirol,ChiefEconomistof the International Energy

Agency (IEA)

Projected Future Demand



plantations now cover over 6 million hectares and some predict this will exceed 10 million hectares by 2010. In the US, the iconic and threatened Monarch butterfly, which makes the longest migration of any insect in the world (4500 km), has already lost 100 million hectares of habitat to soy beans and corn.

Biofuels and WasteAnother key concern surrounding biofuels cultivation is its impact on water resources. If cultivated unsustainably, biofuels threaten to place further stress on the world’s already overstretched water supplies. For example, the production of one gallon of ethanol from corn in the US requires between 3.5 and 6 gallons of water, and the period 1998-2008 has seen a 254% increase in the volume of water used in US ethanol production. In the past 100 years the world population has tripled while water use by humans has multiplied sixfold and one third of the world’s population now live in areas with water shortages. According to the UN, however, just to provide food for the projected global population in 2050 will require double the current freshwater supply. The choice of crop and cultivation methods of biofuels on a major global scale could have serious implications on an already serious global issue.

The distorting impact of the cultivation of biofuels on farming and food prices is a further cause for concern. In 2007, tens of thousands of Mexican demonstrators took to the streets to protest at a 400% rise in the price of tortillas, a staple food relied upon by millions of Mexicans including 18 million with malnutrition. The demonstrators attributed the price rises to the impact of US biofuel cultivation on corn price. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both raised concerns about the impact of biofuels on world food prices, the latter attributing 15-30% of recent rises to this factor.

Biofuels and GHGsA further key source of concern about biofuels is the extent to which they make a net positive contribution to the reduction of GHGs; the key environmental argument in their favour. Whilst the emissions produced by the use of biofuels can potentially be offset by their absorption during the growing phase, in practice the net impact of biofuel production on GHG emissions varies greatly according to the crops or sources used and cultivation technique. Crops such as corn (maize) are energy intensive to produce, requiring relatively high levels of fertilisers and pesticides, making the GHG emissions associated with their cultivation relatively high. A study by the University of Washington found that per megajoule of energy produced, corn produced 81-85kg of CO2 compared with 4-12kg for sugar cane and about 24kg for switch grass. Further environmental impacts, for example on soil and water consumption, also vary greatly between crops.

Despite the above risks, governments around the world are seizing upon the potential of bioenergy, and particularly biofuels, setting targets and passing relevant legislation. The US, under its ‘Renewable Fuel Standard’, aims to produce 7.5 billion gallons of

ethanol in fuel by 2012, while Australia has set a target of 350 million litres of biofuel production by 2010. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India, and some provinces of China have all introduced or are introducing biofuels targets and/or legislation.

The EU, which set a target under the 2003 Biofuels Directive of 5.75% of transport fuel coming from biofuels by 2010, agreed in March 2007 to raise this target to 10% by 2020. In April 2008, the UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) set a target to deliver 5% of transport fuels by volume from biofuels by 2010. The 2007 UK Biomass Strategy suggested that a major contribution to increasing the UK supply of bioenergy could be made through the cultivation of 350,000 ha of land for biofuels by 2020 (17% of total UK arable land).

Sustainable Biofuels?Against the background of the above challenges and the growing push from many governments, can the major pitfalls and potential environmental and social threats from bioenergy be avoided? The UN has produced a ‘Framework for Sustainable Bioenergy’ setting out nine key environmental, economic and social criteria that should be applied in the development of bioenergy. The EU meanwhile, in its review of the Biofuels Directive, has been consulting on the key sustainability criteria which should be applied to biofuels. Biofuels would inevitably need to be imported from outside the EU to meet its 10% by 2020 target. The EU consultation has focused on three key areas: ensuring a minimum level of GHG savings, avoiding the reduction of natural carbon absorbing areas through land-use change (for example removal of wetlands), and avoiding major biodiversity loss. Globally recognised standards for the sustainability of forest products have successfully been developed through Forest Stewardship Council

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 45



accreditation, and, for sustainable fish products, through Marine Stewardship Council accreditation. A similar set of rigorous sustainability standards and an effective accreditation system urgently need to be developed in relation to biofuels. WWF, in its response to the EU biofuels consultation, has advocated a ‘metastandard’ and appropriate accreditation for biofuels addressing the key sustainability issues.

BiomassThe challenges and controversies surrounding transport biofuels should not detract from or overshadow the major energy generation opportunity presented by biomass energy, both from biomass crops and, in particular, from agricultural and forestry waste and residues. The IEA and UK Biomass Strategy 2007 have highlighted the major potential to derive energy from organic waste and residues.

We would do well to bear the hierarchy in mind when considering the possibilities for bioenergy in Northern Ireland. Currently only 3% of Northern Ireland agriculture is devoted to cereal and oilseed crops and total cereal production in 2006 was 190,000 tonnes a year, a figure far below the one million tonnes of wheat per year required to supply the bioethanol plants currently being proposed in Great Britain. These figures suggest there is no real potential for major biofuel production in Northern Ireland, although the rising price of cereals may continue to encourage expansion of the arable sector nevertheless. On the other hand, significant potential does exist to generate biomass energy both from crops such as willow, and from agricultural and forestry waste and residues.

Bioenergy in Northern IrelandThere is not yet a clear strategy or set of targets for bioenergy generation in Northern Ireland. The 2004 Northern Ireland Strategic Energy Framework emphasised the importance of renewables but only specified a general target of achieving 15% of a 12% contribution to our electricity needs from renewable sources by 2012 from ‘non-wind sources’. The DARD Renewable Energy Action Plan 2007

highlighted key areas of potential for bioenergy generation but did not identify firm targets. More recently the ARD committee has undertaken an enquiry into renewable energy and alternative land-uses and an All Party Assembly Group on Energy has been established ‘to provide a platform for MLAs to debate and receive information in relation to energy issues affecting Northern Ireland’. Meanwhile, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) is seeking to produce a revised Strategic Energy Framework later in 2009.

The current range of financial incentives for the development of bioenergy and renewables appears quite fragmented and does not yet amount to a coherent support framework. For example, the Environment and Renewable Energy Fund (EREF) launched in 2006 to realise the aims of the Strategic Energy Framework, was discontinued in March 2008 with no clear successor scheme. The 2007-2013 Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme meanwhile contains support measures relevant to bioenergy in all three of its separate strands or ‘axes,’ yet only one axis (Axis 3) has identified clear renewable energy generation targets.

If we are to meet the bioenergy challenge in Northern Ireland, perhaps some more of our own energy needs to go into developing a truly joined-up approach to this issue.

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Criteria for WWFs Proposed Biofuels Metastandard

positive GHG balance• protection for areas of high • conservation valuegood management to avoid • soil degradation, water/air pollution and depletion of resourcesfood security• equitable playing field for • small producers

The Strategy presents a useful hierarchy of the cost-effectiveness in terms of carbon-savings of different forms of bioenergy:

Heat or Combined Heat and 1. Power (CHP) from waste biomass.Electricity from waste biomass.2. Replacement of oil for 3. commercial/industrial heat and CHP.Co-firing in new coal-fired 4. power stations with carbon capture.Replacement of gas for 5. commercial/industrial heat.District heating replacing oil.6. Co-firing at existing and new 7. coal-fired generation plant.Replacement of individual 8.

domestic oil boilers with biomass.

Electricity generation from 9. power plant fired exclusively on biomass.Replacement of individual 10. domestic gas boilers with biomass.First generation transport 11. biofuels.



Quantities of Manure Produced by Housed LivestockHoused farm livestock in Northern Ireland produce approximately 10 million cubic metres (2,200 million gallons) of undiluted manure each year. Almost 88% of this is cattle manure and much of it is collected in slatted tanks under the animals’ housing. Pig and poultry manures account respectively for approximately 7% and 5% of the total volume from housed livestock.

Manure as a FertiliserManures contain plant nutrients that are valuable as fertiliser. The estimated value of plant nutrients produced each year in manures from housed livestock in Northern Ireland is approximately £136 million (Table 1). Not all of these nutrients are readily available for plant uptake. It is estimated that the available plant nutrients in manure from housed livestock are worth approximately £63.6-£85.6

million per year in Northern Ireland (Table 1). The fertiliser value of available nitrogen varies from £2.4 to £24.4 million depending on the time and method of slurry application. To put the value of slurry into perspective, the manure produced by a dairy cow over winter is worth approximately £66-£81 as fertiliser (£4.20-£5.15/m3). The range in values is largely due to the unpredictable uptake of nitrogen by plants, which in turn depends on the amount of ammonia volatilisation.

Applying slurry at the wrong time wastes nutrients and money. For example, when spread under unfavourable conditions between November and January, half of the available potash content may be lost by surface runoff in land drainage water, and almost half of the available nitrogen content of the slurry may be lost by gaseous emissions and leaching. Losses of phosphate also occur which, although agronomically are very

small, can cause highly significant environmental impacts.

In Northern Ireland most slurry is land spread by the splash plate method. This method of application can result in a substantial proportion of the available nitrogen in the slurry being lost to the atmosphere in the form of ammonia. Not only does this result in the loss of a valuable nutrient, it also causes atmospheric pollution. Ammonia losses can be lowered by reducing the surface area of the spread slurry that is exposed to the air. For grassland in Northern Ireland, slurry to air contact can be minimised and slurry to soil contact maximised by injection of slurry into shallow channels, band spreading and trailing-shoe application systems. The trailing-shoe application, in which a metal shoe parts the grass and slurry is deposited in bands on the soil surface with the minimum of herbage contamination, has been shown to be particularly effective at AFBI Hillsborough.

Farm Manures:A Valuable ResourcePeter Frost, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI)

Anaerobic digester at AFBI Hillsborough with biogas storage bag in foreground.

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 47



WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Manure as a Source of Renewable EnergyAnaerobic digestion (AD) is a tried and tested technology that converts organic matter to biogas in the absence of oxygen (see NIEL Environmental Fact Sheet, March 2008). Biogas is an excellent form of renewable energy. It can be burned through a gas boiler to produce heat or can be burned through a combined heat and power unit to produce electricity and heat. It is also possible to clean biogas and use it as a vehicle fuel. Many European countries are using biogas to generate electricity. The AD of all the manure from housed livestock in Northern Ireland could produce enough biogas to give 73 MW of electricity plus 60 MW of heat through combined heat and power units. This represents approximately 8% of the annual electricity consumed and 3% of the annual heat required in Northern Ireland. AD can either be carried out centrally or at farm level.

In Denmark there are more than 20 centralised anaerobic digestion (CAD) plants. Typical agriculture-based CAD plants use farm products (livestock manures and crops) as the main feedstocks, as well as other organic material from, for example, food processing. Co-digestion can provide an additional source of income through gate fees and can improve the yield of biogas per unit of feedstock input. Compared to typical on-farm plants, CAD plants are larger (0.1-1.0 MW electricity), give economies of scale and offer better market opportunities for heat (for local industry and/or district heating) and fibre production. CAD schemes can

involve a number of farms within a radius of about 10km from the plant.

All agriculture-based CAD schemes distribute digestate (by-product of AD, rich in plant nutrients) back to agricultural land, normally that of the supplying farms. Digestate must be applied to agricultural land in accordance with crop requirements for plant nutrients. Nutrient management is a major issue for consideration when determining the feasibility of any AD scheme. CAD schemes have major potential to assist in managing and redistributing plant nutrients in slurry. When redistributing digestate to farms it is very important to ensure biosecurity. All CAD schemes should include sterilisation of material prior to redistribution. Whilst CAD has potentially a major role in Northern Ireland there is also significant potential for on-farm AD.

Across Europe there are a large number of on-farm digesters in operation, though there are only about 30 within the UK. In Germany, for example, over 2,500 on-farm digesters are currently in operation. Within Germany, the current economics of on-farm AD

are favourable. This is as a result of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) 2000 and 2004 that guarantees (for 20 years) a premium price for electricity generated from solar energy, hydropower, wind power, geothermal power and biomass.

In Northern Ireland, on-farm AD has the potential to provide an additional income to farmers from the sale of renewable energy (mainly electricity) whilst at the same time preserve (or slightly enhance) the fertiliser value of the slurry. At present, information on the performance and economics of on-farm AD in Northern Ireland are unknown. In order to provide this information, AFBI has installed an on-farm anaerobic digester at Hillsborough. Data generated from research on this project will provide much needed information for the industry and will assist in informing and developing government policy.

ConclusionsManures produced by housed farm livestock in Northern Ireland are a valuable resource, not only as a source of plant nutrients, but also as an important renewable energy source.

Table 1: Annual quantities and values of plant nutrients in slurry from housed livestock in Northern Ireland (nitrogen) at £1,058/t; P2O5 (phosphate pentoxide) £1,489/t and K2O (potash) at £1,000/t (derived from FWi, Sep

2008, GB prices); availabilities of N, P205, K20 respectively of 5-50%, 50% and 90%).

Trailing Shoe Slurry Application

Total N TotalP2O5 Total K2O

Total quantity 46,142 tonnes 28,618 tonnes 44,287 tonnes

Total value £48.8 million £42.6 million £44.3 million

Available quantity 2,307-23,071 tonnes 14,309 tonnes 39,858 tonnes

Available value £2.4-£24.4 million £21.3 million £39.9 million

Splash Plate Slurry Application



Northern Ireland’s farmers and foresters manage a resource of about 1 million hectares of land which, each year, converts sunlight into about 10 million tonnes of plant biomass in the form of grass, cereals, potatoes, trees, fruit and vegetables. However, this is not enough to provide all that we need for food and we have to import 80% of the cereals we need for animal feed. Even the potato industry, once so strong in Northern Ireland, does not meet local demand and a significant proportion of our potatoes are now imported, along with many other food products. The grass on Northern Ireland’s farms supports the dairy, beef and sheep industries, which are the predominant sectors of our agriculture. They generate income for Northern Ireland from their exports and provide employment through the substantial milk and meat processing industries.

Taking this into consideration, is there any justification for looking to our agriculture industry to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by producing biomass for energy? While some may baulk

at the thought of diverting land away from food production, there are strong reasons for encouraging agriculture and forestry to see the opportunities in renewable energy from biomass.

Biomass EnergyA) Animal Manures Renewable energy from anaerobic digestion of animal manures represents energy production from a ‘waste’ that has already been used for food and so does not lead to any loss in food production. Furthermore, the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with biogas production is much greater than the reduction associated with energy crops, such as short rotation coppice (SRC) willows and Miscanthus giganteus (Elephant grass). This reflects the fact that much of the methane captured in the biogas would have been released into the atmosphere from land spreading of manure, so there is a double reduction of GHG emissions, from the reduction in fossil fuels and from the reduced methane (Table 1).

B) Additional Farm Income Farming is fundamentally an economic activity and farmers need to make a viable living from their business. Even with the recent rise of cereal and milk prices, many farms are barely profitable and renewable energy enterprises may

provide a new source of income for farmers. Biomass crop production in ‘Less Favoured Areas’ (for example on poor quality land in wet areas) could potentially provide a profitable return. However, lower yields would have to be accepted from crops on this land.

C) Biomass Crops Biomass crops such as SRC willow and M. giganteus require much lower levels of fertiliser and agrochemical inputs than managed grassland or arable crops. There is some evidence, at least in their early years, that they may enhance the countryside by favouring a wider range of wildlife. However, where substantial areas of biomass crops are grown in one locality over a longer term there may be little benefit to biodiversity. Overall, biomass crops can make a significant contribution to redressing some of the environmental criticisms levelled against modern farming systems as well as delivering substantial savings in carbon emissions.

D) Forest Brash and WasteAlthough forestry occupies a relatively small proportion of Northern Ireland’s land, it still generates a significant amount of biomass which could be used for energy. While most round-wood may be more profitably utilised for timber, lower quality round-wood

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Table 1: Greenhouse gas emission reductions from a range of biofuels and technologies, and costs per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided

(Source: Aarhus University, 2008).

CO2 Avoided (%) Cost/t CO2 avoided (Euros)Hybrid Vehicle 15 1050

Bio-ethanol from wheat 30 220Bio-ethanol from sugar beet 32 200

Bio-diesel from oilseed 60 100Biomass for heat 90 30

Biomass gasification 95 200Biogas from manure 165 100

Elephant GrassSRC Willow

Agriculture and Bioenergy

Lindsay Easson, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI)

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 49



and sawmill residues can be used in the biomass market. A largely untapped resource is forestry thinnings and the branches and tops from round-wood felling which are currently left to rot back into the ground.

E) second Generation BiofuelsNew generations of liquid biofuels based on the processing of cellulose and ligno-cellulosic materials such as straw, wood and grass are being actively developed which could open new possibilities for deriving renewable energy resources from agriculture. In Northern Ireland, the processing of fresh grass and silage into second or third generation liquid biofuels could be a particularly attractive option.

There are many ways in which renewable energy from biomass crops, forestry, animal manures, and even grass, could be developed in Northern Ireland without reducing the profitable food outputs from agriculture. At the same time new enterprises, employment and opportunities could be brought into the ‘Less Favoured Areas’ of the country.

AFBI Renewable Energy CentreHowever, renewable energy is largely undeveloped within our agriculture industry and infrastructure needs to be developed to deliver biomass, or the heat and

electricity it generates, to end users. Now, through the development of the AFBI Environment and Renewable Energy Centre at Hillsborough, local research is being undertaken to provide policymakers and the industry with the evidence of how renewable energy projects can be made to work. The Centre at Hillsborough is built around a district heating loop powered by a 300kW biomass boiler utilising locally sourced SRC willow, woodchip and forest brash. A new biomass store and dryer will enable research into cost effective methods for drying harvested woody biomass. This is one of the principal issues facing the use of these materials for energy production in Northern Ireland. A research programme has begun on other biomass crops and materials which could have a place in Northern Ireland, such as M. giganteus and forest brash.

A further component of the AFBI Environment and Renewable Energy Centre is a 600 cubic metre anaerobic digester producing biogas

from the manure of the 300 dairy cows on the farm. The research programme will look not only at maximising the biogas output from the manure but also at effective utilisation of the fertiliser value of the digestate remaining after digestion.

The dairy enterprise at AFBI Hillsborough will also be linked to the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) by using dairy water from parlour washings to irrigate SRC willow plots. Heat from both solar panels and from the biomass boiler will provide most, if not all, of the hot water needed for cleaning the milk lines in the parlour.

Thus, at AFBI Hillsborough, a wide range of renewable energy technologies, and the associated research programmes, are being combined at one site. Important evidence on the carbon savings being achieved will be gathered, which will then be used to support the decisions of policymakers putting in place government strategies to encourage the use of renewable energy from biomass. Of equal importance will be the role that AFBI Hillsborough can have in demonstrating to farmers and others that profitable renewable energy schemes can be developed on our land, and providing answers to the questions of those seeking to turn renewable energy possibilities into renewable energy realities.

WA

ST

E A

ND

RE

SO

UR

CE

S



This Fact Sheet is based on a conference held by NIEL in June 2008. It has been clear for some time that enormous pressures for change are already and will be increasingly significant on how the landscape is managed in Northern Ireland. Many of these factors have been investigated here – changing consumer demands, CAP reforms, impacts of climate change, increasing cost of carbon and other natural resources; and more recently the global financial situation (as of writing still termed the ‘credit crunch’, but perhaps by the time of reading more aptly called a recession or even depression). These pressures are worrying for all, consumer or producer, but there are, fortunately, a few glimmers of opportunities amidst these major threats. As the articles in this Fact Sheet show, many of these factors are pushing in one general direction. By looking at some of these it is possible to derive a few suggestions that can make life easier for farmers and consumers. No doubt they will not be nearly as easy as they sound due to short term costs and the difficulties of

changing attitudes and behaviour. But acting now to put in place supporting structures, we can place Northern Ireland in a good position to weather the coming storms. As always, delay is so much easier, but also so much more costly and difficult in the longer term. Northern Ireland has frequently adopted the ‘King Canute Option’ – if we resist it just may not happen! This is not a viable option in the current situation.

Some Basic Facts:Globally we produce 2.13 billion • tonnes of food crops; only 1.01 billion tonnes of this are eaten by people.

Agriculture uses around 70% of • available fresh water worldwide. This is biased towards countries already limited in this resource.

The price of energy, especially • oil, will continue to increase (addressing past lack of including externalities), with impacts on the cost of food and transport, and consumer behaviour.

Health, animal welfare, •

waste and carbon issues all can determine consumer preferences, but are often still subordinate to cost.

In the UK, we waste 18-22 • million tonnes of food, the majority coming from our homes (6.7 million tonnes, of which 4.1 million tonnes is edible!). This equates to roughly £250-400 per person per year.

Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland is highly • dependent upon a few materials – meat, dairy – and is far from self-sufficiency (~60%), leading to large transport costs and problems with security of supply for food and energy.

In Northern Ireland, agriculture • covers 1,015,000 hectares (75% of total land area) and contributes about 22% of total GHG emissions – mainly from livestock production and fertilisers.

Housed farm livestock in • Northern Ireland produce approximately 10 million cubic metres of undiluted manure each year, valued at approximately £136 million.

Our ecological footprint in • Northern Ireland is over 5.6 hectares per person, compared to a global average of just 1.8.

29.6% of the N.I. population are • living in food poverty!

It is widely accepted that • temperatures in Ireland will increase by 1 to 5 oC with autumns and springs wetter, summers hotter and drier and winters milder and wetter.

Much policy and financial drivers • are controlled outside Northern Ireland, at the UK, the EU or global level.

A Future Way for Northern Ireland’s Countryside?Sue Christie, Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL)

CO

NC

LU

SIO

NS

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 51



Some Solutions:Analyse all materials and look • for opportunities to utilise all materials currently regarded as wastes – for fuels or fertilisers, by a variety of processes.

Biofuels are not a panacea, but • may form part of the solution, especially ‘second generation’ fuels produced from waste materials (Anaerobic digestion).

Develop and implement more • efficient slurry spreading techniques, such as trailing-shoe application systems.

Calculate carbon and • sustainability costings for all processes and materials.

Look at diversifying our product • base – reducing transport costs, taking advantage of changes in climate and weather and increasing consumer demand for local produce.

Use land more strategically – • good land for arable production, marginal land for energy crops, flood control or biodiversity benefits.

Take into account the impacts of • climate change on biodiversity; address invasive aliens, develop biodiversity corridors and buffer zones, ensure conditions for pollinators and natural pest control.

Anticipate the increasing costs • of energy by adopting processes less demanding of energy; avoid energy waste.

Facilitate people to reduce the • amount of food they waste through packaging, information, and disposal options.

Develop support systems which • are flexible and designed to deliver longer term benefits and address multiple issues, including ‘on farm’ solutions.

Address the agricultural • component of GHG emissions through management and potential for using this to meet targets.

Northern Ireland policy and • practice can have a major local impact on consumers and producers by anticipating

global trends and promoting healthy, low carbon, low waste alternatives.

We need to move consumers • from price-only to health and ultimately ecologically-based decisions.

Ensure the agricultural • workforce has the skills, knowledge and support required to deliver wholesome food in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.

Encourage communities and • individuals to get involved in growing fruit and vegetables, thereby improving community relations and self-sufficiency.

Encourage retailers to make a • bigger effort as they have huge potential; working with both producers and consumers.

Integrate economic, • environmental, social and public health considerations into policy and legislation to ensure a coherent approach to issues of sustainable development.

CO

NC

LU

SIO

NS



Support farming practices which deliver lower carbon outputs.•

Work with international partners to develop a food label that captures environmental •sustainability.

Develop policies and practice to encourage Northern Ireland to become more self-•sufficient in food.

Encourage waste reduction to counteract increasing prices for food and energy.•

Support ‘grow your own’ schemes (allotments, community gardens, home growing) •through the provision of land and information.

Decrease carbon intensity of all farming through research, education and targeting of •support.

Ensure that all food purchased by public bodies meets health and environmental •targets and supports local farmers.

Conservation of biodiversity and ecological support services should be a central aim of •agricultural policy, practice and support.

Maximise the production of renewable energy and the use of nutrients from manures •and other wastes through financial incentives (for example, feed-in-tariffs) and demonstration schemes.

Utilise different land qualities; high quality land for arable crops, lower quality land for •grazing or energy crops.

Reduce input costs in animal production by returning to grass-based production •systems.

Maximise profits by reducing waste of all types (food, energy) and by making •appropriate use of all parts of food animals and plants.

Generate energy and utilise the nutrients from waste products.•

Decrease the amount and improve the reusability/recyclability of packaging.•

Modify your diet to become healthier and less carbon intensive by decreasing the •amount of meat you eat.

Patronise farmers’ markets and similar mechanisms to ensure a higher proportion of •the cost of food goes to the producer.

Think ‘local, seasonal, low carbon, healthy’ when you shop for food.•

Recommendations to Improve the Sustainability of our Food and

Farming Systems

A) Recommendations for Government

B) Recommendations for Farmers and the Food Industry

C) Recommendations for Consumers

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8



Greencastle AreaResidents Group

Internation Tree Foundation

Northern Ireland

MonkstownCommunity Forum

Northern Ireland Cycling Initiative

UlsterArcheological

Society

Ulster Society for the Protection of the

Countryside

Full Members

Northern Ireland Environment LinkNorthern Ireland Environment Link is the forum and networking body for organisations interested in the environment of Northern Ireland. It assists members to develop views on issues affecting the environment and to influence policy

and practice impacting on the natural and built environment of Northern Ireland.

Food, Farming & the Environment

Producedby

Northern Ireland Environment Link is the forum and

networking body for organisations interested in the environment

of Northern Ireland. It assists members to develop views on

issues affecting the environment and to influence policy and

practice impacting on the natural and built environment of

Northern Ireland.

This report is a compilation of articles representing the views

of the authors and the opinions expressed do not necessarily

reflect the views of NIEL or any of its members organisations.

If you have any comments on this issue or would like to

contribute to future issues, please contact us.

Northern Ireland Environment Link

89LooplandDrive

Belfast

BT69DW

Tel: 028 9045 5770

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.nienvironmentlink.org

Printed on

80% Recycled Paper

Documents

FOOD, FARMING AND Food, Farming & THE ENVIRONMENT … · Environmental Fact Sheet VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1 FOOD, FARMING AND November 2008 THE ENVIRONMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND Food, Farming