Fair Food Miles: Recharting the food miles map

8/7/2019 Fair Food Miles: Recharting the food miles map

1/48

Fairmilesrecharting the

ood miles map

Big ideas indevelopment


2/48


3/48

Kelly Rae Chi,James MacGregorand Richard KingSeries editor Barbara Kiser

Fairmilesrecharting the

ood miles map

Big ideas indevelopment


4/48

2

Big ideas in development: Fair miles


5/48

Big ideas indevelopment seriesAs a policy research organisation,the International Institute orEnvironment and Development hasevolved key concepts, theories andways o working in sustainabledevelopment since 1973. The bigidea we explore here is fair miles.A resh take on the ood miles

debate, this approach highlights theethical dimension o the trade in reshproduce between developed anddeveloping countries.

Forthcoming in this series:

Community-based adaptation

Learning groups

New business models

Contents4 Introduction

World on a plate

6 Chapter 1Moveable east:a look at oodmileage

12 Chapter 2 Link by link:the ood chainand emissions

28 Chapter 3The human actor:

armers in A rica

40 ConclusionEat, think, change:towards ethical

ood choices

44 References &further reading



6/48In r

T h e n e x t t i m e y o u s i t d o

w n t

o d

i n n e r

, r e a l l

y l ook

at w

hat

s on your plate. Where

was

that

ch

icke

n ra

ised? Those

len

t ils g

ro

w n?

Wh i c h f a r m p

r o

d u c e d

t h

e g

reen beans, p

otat

oe

s,

b roccol

i?

4



7/48i n

The next time you sit down todinner, really look at whats onyour plate. Where was that chickenraised? Those lentils grown?Which arm produced the greenbeans, potatoes, broccoli?

As supermarket oragers, people inthe industrialised world make ast

choices based on a range o criteria,rom nutrition to simple craving.But more and more are digging abit urther to discover where, andhow, their plateload was produced.

The answers they unearth havebig implications or our environment.The arm-to- ork ood chain isa source o the greenhouse gasemissions that are driving climatechange the overarchingenvironmental issue o our time.

But were not just looking at aplate ul o emissions here. Foodis a social, political and economicissue too. Todays balanced dietinvolves a lot more than protein andcarbohydrates. Its about choosing

rom a diversity o sources localto long-distance. By eating someimported ruit and vegetables,

you could be making a choicethat supports the livelihoods opoor armers hal a world away.

In this booklet we look at an overviewo the globalised ood businessand its social and environmentalimplications; the pathways oodtakes rom plot to plate; and the

links between climate change,ood choices and poverty in thedeveloping world context. Its goalis to introduce you to the complexworld o sustainable developmentand environmental accounting,and highlight how your selectionsin supermarket aisles a ect peopleliving in poverty both as small

armers, and as members oclimate-vulnerable communities.

We ocus on A rican nations andthe UK or reasons we explain below.Lessons learned rom the tradebetween them, and comparisonso environmental and social costsacross other countries, could provide

a model or change all over the world.The ultimate hope is that you, theconsumer, will ask the right questionsand make the right choices.

World on a plate

5



8/48

6



9/48

To get to grips with ood choices,we need to pin down where oodoriginates. This can be a complextask. Food has become a globalbusiness a moveable eastcrisscrossing villages, cities, countries,

oceans. Not surprisingly, the distancesit travels have grown substantially.In the US alone rom 1997 to 2004,the average distance covered by

ood consumed in householdsincreased by about 22 per cent,

rom 6760 to 8240 kilometres.

Yet US greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with ood transportincreased by only 5 per cent overthat period.

The reason? Much o the oodconsumed by the industrialised worldis shipped, and that uses much lessenergy than road or air transport.A 2005 study or the UK Department

or Environment, Food and Rural

A airs (DEFRA),The Validity o Food Miles as an Indicator o SustainableDevelopment , showed that whilesea reight accounted or 65 per cento UK ood transport measured intonne-kilometres (weight x distance),

it was responsible or only 12 percent o the carbon dioxide emissionsassociated with that transport.

In act, transportation accountsor just 10 per cent o emissions

associated with the UKs oodchain, which include those rom

ood production, processing anddistribution (see page 16).

Rising concern over the long-termimpacts o climate change has ledscientists to probe the emissionsrecords o industry, de orestationand other areas. Over the last decade,there has been a real push to quanti yemissions associated with oodproduction and consumption.

Moveable east:a look at ood mileage

7



10/48

Emissions and ood miles

One simple way to measure theenvironmental impact o produce isto calculate the distance it travels

rom arm to table. This approach,called ood miles, has becomeincreasingly popular, especially in theUK, US and Western Europe, since itwas rst proposed by the SAFEAlliance (now Sustain) a coalition osustainable agriculture organisations in the early 1990s.

The local is good mantra has ledto a proli eration o armers marketsand urban vegetable plots in manyregions o the UK and US as wellas a trend or people to scrutiniseevery mouth ul or its local credentials.

But is this approach really milesbetter? The actual environmental and societal impacts o ood are

In discussing the environmentalimpact o ood choices, thispocketbook mentions studieso both carbon dioxide andgreenhouse gas emissions.Greenhouse gas emissionsinclude carbon dioxideemissions, as well asemissions o methane, nitrousoxide and industrial gasessuch as hydrofuorocarbons.

Note that a direct comparisono study results is not alwaysappropriate because di erentstudies document di erenttypes o emissions.

8



11/48

more ar-reaching. Many researchersand policymakers are beginning toconclude that the ood milesapproach, even when it accounts

or the way ood is transported,doesnt provide a robust enoughbasis or judging whether thecontents o your ood basket areenvironmentally riendly.

In short, its a lot more complex thanthat. There are many other aspects

o the agricultural process and oodsupply chain that also contributeto the greenhouse gas emissionsgenerated by the oods you eat.

Take tomatoes. A tomato grownin Essex in the UK is not necessarilymore environmentally riendly thanthe same type o tomato grown inSpain and trucked to the UK i thatEssex tomato needed energy-intensegreenhouse cultivation to survive.There are, too, other environmental

impacts, such as ertiliser use andsoil degradation. Food miles arenot always a good yardstick.

Fair miles andood ethics

And there is a dimension here thatso ten hidden. The resh ruits andvegetables you buy sustain you butthey also help to sustain the peoplewho grew them. And i the armer inquestion lives in the developingworld, that transaction at thesupermarket till can be a crucial one.

For a small armer in A rica, pro tsrom exports can pay or housing

and ood, as well as medical careand education, or the entire amily.


9


12/48

Produce transported rom A ricato the UK supports a multitude oA ricas small-scale armers, arm

workers and packers. An estimated1 to 1.5 million livelihoods in sub-Saharan A rica depend directly andindirectly on UK-based supply chains.

Once we know this, it opens awindow on another way o lookingat ood choices. By thinking in termso air miles instead o ood miles,we shine a light on the complexitieso 21st-century ood choices.

A number o organisations have nowabsorbed this concept, including theUKs Fresh Produce Consortium the sectors trade association andthe UK Department or InternationalDevelopment (DFID) and DEFRA.And they are working, within broaderagendas, to capture the true impacto ood production and consumption.Most o the UKs large supermarketchains also now acknowledge theimportance o a nuanced approachto ood provenance.

The kind o analysis roughly outlinedin the comparison o Essex-grown

tomatoes with Spanish ones, above,is key in this context. We will explorethis later, and show how it couldbe extended to cover ruit andvegetables imported romdeveloping countries.

10



13/48

Why the UK and A rica?This booklet ocuses on the UK and

A rica or several reasons. Fruit andvegetable export is a key internationaltrade or a number o A rican countries,including some o the worlds poorestand most ood-insecure nations.

Farming and exports orm a power ullink between A rica and the UK. TheUK is the worlds largest destination

or ood transported by air. WithinEurope, its the biggest importer o

resh produce by air rom sub-SaharanA rica by both weight and value. It isalso one o the ew countries or whichthe environmental and social costs o

ood production have been researched.

11



14/48

12



15/48

Link by link: the oodchain and emissionsWe have to eat to live, so itsinevitable that ood is a major ocuso daily li e rom rushed weekdaybreak asts to ca sandwiches,

amily gatherings and nights outwith riends.

This is, o course, only one oodscenario being played out on ourplanet. The Food and AgricultureOrganization o the UN (FAO)recently noted that there are morethan a billion people going hungry.

One way or another, ood is o tenon our minds. Yet in the industrialisedworld, many are still unaware ohow ood choices a ect societyand the environment.

The previous chapter looked at thelimitations o ood transport aloneas an ethical and environmentalyardstick. To begin to ully understandthe social and environmental e ectso our ood choices, we need to take

a look at the entire ood supply chain rom arm to manu acturer, towholesaler or distributor, to retailer,to individual and the energy use,emissions, and livelihoodopportunities associated with eachstep o that convoluted journey.Researchers have to consider manyvariables. Even a single variable

ood miles can be calculated inseveral di erent ways.

And there are other complications.

13



16/48

Calculating complexityThe vast majority o UK arms deriveinputs rom outside the UK, andconsequently are responsible or thedepletion o distant carbon stocks,and greenhouse gas emissions thatoccur outside their locality as well asoutside the UK. For many oods, this

poses serious questions about theirlocal credibility.

Predictably, all this makes emissionscalculations anything but easy todetermine, although li ecycle analysiso ers progress towards a moreholistic approach (see Crunching thenumbers, page 16). The ood industryis, a ter all, based on perishableproducts that can be subjected toa vast range o processes.

Food can be grown, processed,packaged and stored in manydi erent ways. It can be bought roma vast array o outlets: supermarkets,greengrocers, outdoor markets,restaurants and ca s. It can bedelivered to your door. It can beclassi ed in all sorts o ways (think

ree range eggs, organic apples,

graded four). It can be intendedor processing or as an ingredientor convenience ood.

As complex as all this may seem, onething about the ood system is clear:the transport o ood is a relativelysmall part o the emissions equation.

Lets take a look at li ecycleanalysis now, to see the storybehind that nding.

14



17/48


15


18/48

Cracking the ood and emissionspuzzle demands a holistic approach.Li ecycle analysis begins to o er that.This relatively new research method

provides a more comprehensive lookat emissions, as well as energy use.The technique accounts or energyinput and output involved in theproduction, processing, packagingand transport o ood. It also actorsin resource depletion, air and waterpollution and waste generation.

Tara Garnett o the Food ClimateResearch Network (FCRN) a UKinitiative studying greenhouse gasemissions rom the ood system leda recent li ecycle analysis o theseemissions in the UK. It suggests thattransport accounts or about 10 percent o the ood systems emissions.

In the US, a 2008 study byresearchers Christopher L. Weberand H. Scott Matthews at CarnegieMellon University in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, ound that the naltransport o ood rom producer tomarket (the ood miles) accounts oronly 4 per cent o the total emissions

rom ood. But overall, this estimateincreased to 11 per cent o total

ood-related emissions when theresearchers accounted or transporto agrochemicals and animal eed.

Crunchingthe numbers:li ecycle analysis

16



19/48

Packaging Packaginginputs

Transportation stages

Foodprocessing/manu acture

Waste disposal

Li ecycle stages in the ood supply chain

Consumption

Distributioncentre

Source: Garnett, T. 2008. Cooking Up a Storm: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate.Food Climate Research Network, Centre or Environmental Strategy, University o Surrey, UK.See www. crn.org.uk/ rcnPubs/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pd .

Home ood storage,cooking, dishwashingetc.

Catering Retail

Agriculture

Agricultural inputs including imported eed,ertiliser, pesticides, seeds

17



20/48

Down on the arm?I the transportation o ood isntresponsible or the majority ogreenhouse gas production romthe ood system, what is? Agricultureis a top contributor. Aside romaccounting or roughly 8 per cento the UKs total greenhouse gas

emissions, it is responsible,according to DEFRA, or 36 percent o greenhouse gas emissionsassociated with ood consumptionin the UK. DEFRAs gure or oodtransports contribution to suchemissions is 9 per cent. Altogetherthat amounts to roughly hal theUKs total ood system emissions.

Farming emits greenhouse gasesrom tillage o land, livestock, and use

o electricity, ossil uel and ertilisers.

The gures above do not includethose caused by de orestation oroverseas land use to produce ood

or humans or livestock; but i theydid, the total or agriculture wouldbe much higher, according to theFCRNs Tara Garnett.

A study published last year suggests

that because so much energy isneeded to heat greenhouses inwinter, buying local is not alwaysbetter. A DEFRA report published in2008, Comparative Li e CycleAssessment o Food CommoditiesProcured or UK ConsumptionThrough a Diversity o Supply Chains , compared actors includingenergy use, pesticide use and landrequirement o seven oods including potatoes, bee , lamb

18



21/48

and strawberries, both local UK andimported. British-grown strawberriesand tomatoes were ound to have aheavier environmental impact thantheir Spanish equivalents because othe greenhouse energy requirement.

Farm animals account or roughly20 per cent o global greenhouse

gas emissions. That gure includesthe clearing o land to eed and grazethe animals. Clearing land o trees,and cultivation, are the main driverso arming emissions. De orestationeliminates carbon sinks, acceleratingthe process o climate change.Cultivation, including the use osynthetic ertilisers, releasesgreenhouse gases such as nitrousoxide. Nitrogen ertiliser is especiallydemanding o ossil uels, as

producing a tonne o it takes1.5 tonnes o oil.

Meanwhile, its increasinglyrecognised that meat and dairy arethe largest sources o ood-relatedemissions. The UKs consumptiono meat and dairy products (includingimports) accounts or about 8 percent o national greenhouse gasemissions related to consumption.A 2005 study by researchers at theUniversity o Chicago concluded that,

or a person who gets 35 per cent ohis or her daily calories rom animalsources, the emissions burdencompared to that o a strict veganequates to the di erence between

driving a sports utility vehicle anda our-door car.

From eld to ood outlet


19


22/48


20


23/48


21


24/48

Hauling produce is another link thatreappears throughout the ood chain.Food transport by road produced

10 million tonnes o the UKs carbondioxide emissions. Thats roughly2 per cent o total annual UK CO2 emissions, and 9 per cent o totalgreenhouse gas emissions rom theUK road sector. From 1992 to 2002,CO 2 emissions rom all ood transporthave increased by 12 per cent,according to DEFRA.

Emissions rom transport alsofuctuate seasonally. In the UK,there is great demand or a broadrange o resh ruits and vegetablesyear-round. As most produce is onlyseasonably available, out-o -seasonproduce has got to be grownsomewhere and that will be

greenhouses, or warmercountries overseas.

Quality, price and standards areother actors that a ect where oodis sourced locally, nationally or

internationally. One arm or set oarms can supply a whole variety ooods, or demand or a certain ood

may be so high that a range o armsand countries may need to supply it.The majority o UK ood comes rom

arms in the UK or Europe, but thelast decade has seen a rise in imports

rom countries outside Europe.

From 1996 to 2004, the quantityo resh produce fown to the UKincreased by 6 per cent a year(see Food in fight, opposite).

Then theres transportationassociated with processing. Many

ruits, vegetables, grains and otherraw materials are transported to

acilities where they are trans ormedinto ood products such as cannedruits, cakes and breads.

22



25/48

Food in fight: costs andbene ts o air reighting

Air reights contribution to overallUK greenhouse gas emissions issmall change compared with roadtransportation, but air reightedproduce has a much greaterenvironmental impact per tonne.The FCRNs Tara Garnett, or instance,says in her study Cooking Up a Storm that air reight is, per unit o ood, arand away the most [greenhousegas]-intensive mode o transport.At the same time, as we have seen,air reighted imports support a largenumber o armers and workers inregions outside the UK. Roughly105 million worth o vegetables and89 million in ruit were exported tothe UK rom sub-Saharan A rica in2005, supporting 1 to 1.5 million

livelihoods. And there is anotherdimension to this issue, as well seein Chapter 3: ecological space(see Room to move, page 33).

Through the mill

Food processing is the single largestindustry in UK manu acturing. Assuch, it accounts or about 17 percent o the sectors total energy use.

As researchers started looking moreclosely at the ood supply chain, theyrealised that environmental costsassociated with ood are spreadover a number o energy-demandingprocesses. According to estimates

rom the US Environmental ProtectionAgency, much o the monetary valueo processed ood is added throughprocessing itsel , which demands alot o uel, which in turn produces alot o emissions.

Steam systems, urnaces, ovens andreezers are crucial or maintaining

sa ety in ood thats being kept orany length o time but they usethe most energy in the course oprocessing. They account or40 per cent o the cost associatedwith ood manu acturing, and driveup the energy costs and emissionsassociated with processing. Othermotor-driven systems, such as

ans, pumps, mixers and grinders,collectively represent 12 per cent.


23


26/48

24



27/48

To market

A ter manu acturing and storage,most ood in the UK about75 per cent makes its way tosupermarkets, some via wholesalers.The rest goes to caterers or non-supermarket retailers such asindependent shops, or is exported.

Many o the major UK retailers havecommitted to reducing theirgreenhouse gas emissions. Forexample, Tesco has promised toreduce its global transport emissionsby 50 per cent per case o goodsdelivered by 2012. To do this, thecompany is building new distributionhubs to reduce the length o oodtransport, and will ship some goodsusing methods that produce eweremissions, such as rail or canal.

Tesco has also promised to reducethe volume o ood it ships in viaair to 1 per cent o total volume,

with bias toward imports romdeveloping countries.

Other UK supermarkets such asMarks & Spencer, and ast oodchains such as McDonalds, have

ollowed suit in promising to reducetransport emissions.

All told, ood production and

consumption contributes 18 per cento total UK greenhouse gas emissions.That includes emissions rom oodproduction, processing, transportationand consumption. (See Turning onthe gas, overlea .)


25


28/48

Total GHG emissionsrom the ood chain were

estimated to be around160 million tonnes o

CO 2 equivalent in 2006.Emissions rom UKconsumption activitywere 724 million tonnes.

In 2006 UK armingand shing accounted ora third o emissions romthe ood chain. Most othese emissions are dueto enteric ermentation inruminating animals and

rom the oxidisation onitrogen in ertilisers.

Around 25% o GHGemissions in the UK oodchain are attributed tonet trade. 2

The external cost ogreenhouse gas emissions

rom the UK ood chain isestimated at 7 billion.3

Source: DEFRA. 2009.Food Statistics Pocketbook 2009 . DEFRA, London.Reproduced under the terms o the Click-Use Licence.

Turning on the gasGreenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsrom the UK ood chain, 2006 1

26



29/48

1 GHG emissions rom ood packaging, ood wasteand land use change are not included. Manu acturingincludes emissions rom electricity use and excludesemissions rom road reight transport. Householddoes not include emissions rom heating water orwashing up or dishwashers.

2 Net trade covers emissions related to the production

but not transportation o ood imports, net oemissions related to the production o ood exports.

3 A Brie Guide to the New Carbon Values and Their Use in Economic Appraisal. 2009. DECC.

% GHG emissions[million tonnes CO 2 equivalent]

25% [39] Net trade

3% [4] Pre arm( ertiliser, pesticidesand machineryproduction)

33% [53] Farmingand shing

13% [21] Households(shopping, storageand preparation)

3% [5] Catering(hotels and restaurants)

6% [10] Retail

9% [15] Commercialtransportation(UK and overseas)

8% [13] Manu acturing


27


30/48

28



31/48

The human actor:armers in A rica

In the last chapter we lookedclosely at the UK ood chain in itsentirety. Were getting an idea o theenvironmental cost o ood notablythrough li ecycle analysis, whichmeshes together 51 di erent

environmental criteria includingemissions and waste.

However sophisticated, even thatanalysis ails to actor in the impacto ood choices on societies. InA rica, some small-scale armershave built their livelihoods onair reighted exports o vegetablesto the UK. This is an establishedtrade, and understandably, theywant to see the concept o oodmiles incorporate ideas o airness.

Balance o emissions

But there is another issue to dowith relative levels o greenhousegas emissions. This is how broada context we use when we weighup emissions levels.

I we look at production o vegetablesand ruit alone, the emissionsdi erence isnt dramatic. In thatcontext, armers in A rica areresponsible or roughly the same levelo emissions as UK armers. A 2006li ecycle assessment showed, orinstance, that the energy associatedwith green bean production(excluding transportation) in Kenyaand in the UK is very similar.

That might seem surprising,but a arming scenario o manysmallholders with less than a hectareeach doesnt necessarily add up to

29



32/48

low emissions rom production, partlybecause o ine ciencies. Overall,however, A rican armers have a

lighter ecological ootprint than theirNorthern counterparts. Many o thecontinents smallholders use animaland manual labour to plough and hoetheir elds, not machinery. They alsotend to use ewer chemical ertilisersand pesticides per hectare than most

armers in the UK and Europe.

So much or production. But whatabout that bigger emissions picture?Here we come up against a actorthat balances it all out very di erently,and explains why Kenyan armers seea great injustice when told that theycannot export the produce theyspend their lives growing.

On average, A ricans are responsibleor very low levels o greenhouse

gases when compared to people inindustrialised countries (see map,right, and Room to move, page 33).Yet they are ar more likely to su erdevastating climate impacts, ranging

rom increasingly erratic rain all tofoods, droughts, storms and subtlerbut equally damaging e ects.Part o the problem is geographicvulnerability living in areas proneto foods, storms or droughts.Part is a relative lack o resourcesand in rastructure, which leavespeople in A rica o ten ar less ableto adapt to severe climate impacts.

World o emissions,world o inequalitiesCountry size refects its historicCO 2 emissions, 1900 2004

CanadaEmissions: 2.2%Population: 0.5%

MexicoEmissions: 1.1%Population: 1.6%

USAEmissions: 29.6%Population: 4.6%

BrazilEmissions: 0.9%Population: 2.9%

30



33/48

Sources: CAIT (WRI), CDIAC (data), SHOW/Mapping Worlds and Ox am GB

AustraliaEmissions: 1.1%Population: 0.3%

South AfricaEmissions: 1.2%Population: 0.7%

IndiaEmissions: 2.4%

Population: 17.0%

JapanEmissions: 4.0%Population: 2.0%

sub-Saharan Africa(without South Africa)Emissions: 0.5%Population: 11.2%

ChinaEmissions: 8.4%Population: 20.1%

Russian FederationEmissions: 8.4%Population: 2.2%

European UnionEmissions: 24.8%Population: 7.1%

Key

Map shows % of cumulative CO 2 emissions% o global CO2 emissions 1900 2004% o global population 2006

Countries with high de orestation appear smaller as emissions romland use change and de orestation are not refected due to lack o dataavailability. European Union re ers to the 25 member states in 2004.


31


34/48

32



35/48

Room to move:ecological space andA rican armingWith the global agricultural systemcontributing to the global burden ohuman-driven emissions, there is anunresolved question: whose emissionsare they? The country o export, import,processing or nal consumption?The concept o ecological spaceis use ul here.

Ecological space hinges on di erencesin national and regional emissions

levels. The average Kenyan is currentlyresponsible or 0.3 tonnes o CO2 equivalent per year. That gure or theaverage Briton is 10.6 tonnes some35 times higher.

Kenya is, in act, one o the lowestemitters in the world, ar below the globalaverage and below global targets or

uture reduction. Further, its rights to

emit in order to develop economicallyare recognised under the Kyoto Protocol the international agreement set up bythe global climate treaty, the UNFramework Convention on Climate

Change, that set legally bindinggreenhouse gas emissions reductionsor industrialised countries.

So how does it all add up? Kenyanscontribute very little to the globalemissions burden. And what is more,the entire air reight trade in ruits andvegetables between the UK and Kenyaadds a mere 0.1 per cent to the UKs

total emissions. So in e ect, Kenyans as well as other A ricans have a lot oroom to move, ecologically speaking.

Given the industrialised worlds historicalresponsibility or emissions, and itscurrent high per capita emissions,is reducing its carbon ootprint rom10.60 to 10.59 tonnes really worthimperilling 1 to 1.5 million livelihoods?

33



36/48

The high cost o climatechange in A rica

In the last 50 years, climate-relateddisasters across the world havekilled 800,000 people and costUS$1 trillion in economic losses,according to the Economics oClimate Adaptation (ECA) WorkingGroup, an alliance o NGOs andcorporations that in September 2009published a report on the social

impacts o climate change. The reportwarns that i something isnt donesoon to curb greenhouse gasemissions, many countries will su ereven greater human and nanciallosses in the coming years.

The e ects in poor countries acrossA rica unpredictable fooding,droughts, high winds, along with theexacerbation o hunger and disease are already evident. According tothe ECA report, climate-relatedcatastrophes have risen in parallelwith average global temperaturesover the last several years. Forinstance, a severe and persistent

ve-year drought, almost certainlyexacerbated by climate change, isa ecting countries such as Ethiopia,Kenya, Somalia and Uganda.

In Malawi, one o the poorest countriesin A rica, strong winds and rainsdestroy houses, eld crops and boats.We expect rains and they dontcome, or we get heavy rains, whichonly destroy and dont help our cropproduction, Peter Chapasi, a residento Thyolo, in the south o the country,told the UK-based NGO Ox am.

Similar stories are increasinglycommon across the continent.In Rwanda, armer Chriselliea

Nzabonimpa has had to wait on therain to nourish her elds o beans,maize and cassava. Nzabonimpa,a mother o ve, told Ox am that sheis worried about what the irregularrain all will mean to her amily andothers. For such subsistencesmallholders, climatic uncertaintiescan make arming a ght against

massive odds. Its a similar storyor A ricas export armers and the stakes are high.

A truly balanced diet?

Consumers around the globe arealready connected with A ricangrowers. UK shoppers, or instance,

spend over 1 million every day onresh ruits and vegetables romsub-Saharan A rica, andconsumption is growing.

Admittedly, it is not easy to put atrue value on the social bene t opurchasing ood imported romA rica. But weve seen the gures,both or A rican armers dependenton this trade and or its negligiblerole in total UK emissions. Overleawe look at the daily li e o a Kenyansmallholder growing export crops,to get an idea o what that trademeans to him and his amily.

34



37/48


35


38/48

36



39/48

Its Saturday morning, and youre in thesupermarket aced with mounds o produce.Youve scribbled green beans, sweet potatoes,cabbage on your list, and youre intent on pickingout the greenest beans and least blemishedcabbage. But as your hand hovers over the bins,take a moment to think o the elds where theygrew and the armer who grew them.

James Gikunju Muuru tends 1.5 hectares o landin Mwea, Kenya between Nairobi and MountKenya. Muuru grows everything on that hypotheticalSaturday shopping list or export to Europe. On thesmall plot, which he inherited rom his ather, Muuru

makes his living selling not domestic staple cropsbut exported ones, as the A rica Research Institute(ARI) chronicles in its reportKenyas Flying Vegetables .

The money he earns rom exporting allows himto pay or a house, his childrens education, andbasic arming equipment. In his village o Karii Koini,he and his association o other small armershave built a maternity clinic using pro ts rom

horticulture exports.Muuru and other small armers are constantlyworking to cultivate crops in accordance withinternational standards. Thats worth it: exporthorticulture is proving to be an important wayto grow business in many developing countries,especially those in sub-Saharan A rica. Kenyawas the rst A rican country to develop systemsthat allow armers to supply air reighted reshvegetables to consumers in Europe. Now othercountries such as Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopiaare starting to do the same.

A Kenyanexport armer:James Gikunju Muuru

37



40/48

Mixed beans: exportsand the environment

O course, there is an environmentalcost attached to the trade withKenya. A single kilogram o greenbeans imported by air romsub-Saharan A rica to the UK isequivalent, in emissions terms,to 177 kilograms o shipped beans.And the true environmental cost oair reighting green beans has been

calculated using li ecycle analysis(see page 16).

With airplane emissions actoredinto the calculation, researchers

ound energy use is 12 times asmuch or Kenyan as or UK beans.A counterweight to this is that themajority (60 per cent and somesources suggest the gure is as highas 80 per cent) o resh ruit andvegetable imports to the UK arecarried in the bellyhold o passengerplanes rather than dedicated planes.(Not all o these planes fy directly

rom A rica to the UK, which makesthis particular analysis somewhatchallenging.) As the passengerplanes will fy anyway, the cargothey happen to transport is relativelyinsigni cant as a driver o emissions.

In the pursuit o a low-carbon uture,the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change and its Kyoto

Protocol recognises the need oreconomic development and equityor developing countries. Some

researchers maintain that, given thesocial bene ts and the ecologicalspace (see page 33) in A rica,exporting resh ruits and vegetables

rom the continent is an e cient wayto spend carbon emissions.

All this may look like a tough call orthe consumer caught betweenmyriad choices and a hand ul o keybut incomplete acts. Its up to you todecide. But read on. Our concludingchapter outlines a ew simple stepsshowing how you, as a consumer,can make a di erence.

38



41/48


39


42/48

Globally, progress that lasts, reducespoverty and maintains environmentalviability sustainable development,in short demands that we all, romconsumers to policymakers, makein ormed choices. But in themeantime, you may well be visitingsome kind o ood outlet, whether alocal salad bar, ca or supermarket,nearly every day. That can add up to alot o head-scratching over whatethical ood choices really are.

In the last ew years, as weve seen,research has made it clear that thedistance ood travels is only a smallpart o the greater context osustainability. But analyses have alsorevealed that each ood productcomes with a complicated set oenvironmental and social bene ts andcosts. By combining these actors,one can compare products and makein ormed choices. Un ortunately, thistype o holistic analysis simply isntavailable or most products.

ConclEat, think, change:towards ethical

ood choices

40



43/48

usionOn the environmental side, to helpremedy the lack o comprehensiveenvironmental labelling, the UKsCarbon Trust, DEFRA and BSI BritishStandards have been developinga Carbon Reduction Label, whichdisplays carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gas emissions thatcome rom a products manu acture,distribution, use and disposal.The organisations have been workingon standard methods to measureemissions or a variety o products.

And there are also simple stepsthat you as a consumer can taketo signi cantly cut emissions,and in a way that minimises thecost to armers and workers indeveloping countries.


41


44/48

Buy from developing countries. Weve seen that local is not alwaysbetter. When you buy A rican

produce, that can mean thedi erence between surviving andthriving or a armer and his amily.You may consider it worth theenvironmental cost o air reighting and nd, too, that buying UK hothousecrops such as tomatoes is not alwaysthe greenest option. Also buy, orcontinue to buy, Fairtrade products.Based on an international labelingstandard, Fairtrade aims to alleviatepoverty among producers, andpromote sustainable development byhelping producers make environmentalprotection a part o arm managementand minimise energy use.

Drive less. Cars contribute about40 per cent o the total external costso ood transport. You may consider

planning out your ood shopping tripsin advance, and consolidating themto increase sustainability and savetime. Or join a shopping rota with

riends and neighbours. You may notalways nd it easible to walk, bike ortake public transport instead o drive,but even a small e ort over time canreduce tra c-related emissions.

42



45/48

Waste less. Some 3.6 milliontonnes o discarded ood arecollected by local authorities in

the UK each year. Much o it goesstraight into land ll sites, which arelarge emitters o methane. Accordingto the UK governments WRAP(Waste & Resources ActionProgramme), ruit and vegetablesmake up 42 per cent o household

ood waste by weight, making themthe largest single contributor.

Eat less meat and dairy.Globally, livestock contribute to nearly80 per cent o all greenhouse gases

rom agriculture. So trimming yourmeat and dairy portions is perhapsthe most signi cant action you cantake to reduce the impact o oodproduction on people and planet.Global meat and milk productionis expected to double by 2050.This is likely to reduce the land andresources available or producingother oodstu s and push uture oodprices urther beyond the limits oa ordability or the worlds poorestpeople. So consider planning severalmeatless and dairyless meals everyweek, and reducing the portions omeat you eat in one sitting.

Last bite: an ethicallybalanced dietLimiting ood choices to a local radius, however thats interpreted, doesntreally get us very ar i we are thinking globally. As we saw at the beginningo this booklet, the 21st-century diet is all about diversity beyond the need

or a variety o nutrients and ood types. Add ethics to the mix, and a diversityo sources becomes just as important or truly balanced eating. Carrots

rom Kent and green beans rom Kenya can be a recipe or equity.43



46/48

Blanke, M. and Burdick,B. 2005. Food (miles) orthought: energy balance

or locally-grown versusimported apple ruit.Environmental Scienceand Pollution Research 12(3):125-127.

Borot, A., MacGregor,J. and Gra ham, A.(eds) 2008. Standard Bearers: Horticultural exports and privatestandards in A rica .IIED, London.

DEFRA. 2009.Food Statistics Pocketbook 2009 . DEFRA, London.See https://statistics.de ra.gov.uk/esg/

publications/pocketstats/oodpocketstats/

FoodPocketbook2009.pd .

ECA. 2009. ShapingClimate-Resilient Development:A ramework or decision-making .See www.ge web.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/ECA_Shaping_

Climate%20Resilent_Development.pd .

Garnett, T. 2008.Cooking Up a Storm:Food, greenhouse gasemissions and our changing climate . FoodClimate ResearchNetwork Centre orEnvironmental Strategy,University o Surrey, UK.

Jones, A. 2006. A Li eCycle Analysis o UK Supermarket Imported Green Beans romKenya . Fresh InsightsNo. 4. IIED/DFID/NRI,London/Medway, Kent.

Magrath, J. and Sukali,E. 2009. The Winds o Change: Climatechange, poverty and the environment inMalawi . Ox amInternational, Ox ord.

Muuru, J. 2009. Kenyas

Flying Vegetables:Small armers and the ood miles debate .Policy Voice Series.A rica ResearchInstitute, London.

Plassman, K. andEdwards-Jones, G.2009. Where Does theCarbon Footprint Fall? Developing a carbonmap o ood production .

IIED, London. See www.iied.org/pubs/pd s/16023IIED.pd .

Smith, A.et al . 2005.The Validity o Food Miles as an Indicator o SustainableDevelopment: Final report . DEFRA, London.See https://statistics.de ra.gov.uk/esg/reports/ oodmiles/

de ault.asp.

The Strategy Unit.2008. Food: An analysiso the issues . CabinetO ce, London.

Wangler, Z. 2006.Sub-Saharan A ricanHorticultural Exportsto the UK and Climate

Change: A literaturereview . Fresh InsightsNo 2. IIED, London.

Weber, C. andMatthews, H. 2008.Food-miles and therelative climate impactso ood choices in theUnited States.Environmental Scienceand Technology 42(10):3508-3513.

Food Climate Research Network www. crn.org.uk

IIED www.iied.org

Oxfam GBwww.ox am.org.uk

Oxfam Internationalwww.ox am.org

Re erences &urther reading

AcknowledgementsThe series editor would like to thank Bill Vorley

or comments on the text.

The authors would like to thank the ollowingor their constructive comments and support:

Tom Birch, Emma Blackmore, Nick Cox, MuyeyeChambwera, David Dodman, Steve Homer,Saleemul Huq, Kate Lee, Mark Lundy, StephenMbithi, Hannah Reid and Frances Reynolds.

44



47/48

About the authorsKelly Rae Chi is aUS-based reelancewriter who has written

orNature , ScientifcAmerican , The Scientist and other print andweb-based publicationson topics ranging romthe simple livingmovement o the 1980sto the birth o the biotechindustry. She holds amasters in neuroscience

rom the Universityo Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, whereshe studied how

the brain regulateseating behaviour.

James MacGregor is an economist andsenior researcher atIIED. He is a specialiston international trade innatural resources, theeconomics o wildli e,industrial organisationand natural resources,economics o standards,responsible trade andsmallholders, andsustainable tourism.

Richard King is apolicy researcher withOx am GB, ocusing oneconomic justice issues.He specialises in oodand agriculture, climatechange mitigation,market access andrural livelihoods.

Published by IIED in association withOxfam GBOx am GB supportsthe publication o thispocketbook as acontribution to publicdebate about issues opoverty and su ering.Opinions expressed arethose o the publisher(IIED) and do notnecessarily refect thepublic policy positionso Ox am GB.

Image creditsP2 Sven Tor nn/PanosP6 ShutterstockP1011 Alvaro Leiva/Panos

P12 Bill VorleyP15 ShutterstockP16 ShutterstockP2021 ShutterstockP2223 ShutterstockP24 ShutterstockP28 Green Future byInnocent WillingaP3233 ShutterstockP35 Alun McDonald/Ox amP36 Tony Karumba/AFP/

Getty ImagesP39 Shutterstock


48/48

In search o the newbalanced dietTodays ood is well travelled. A pack ogreen beans in a Northern supermarketmay have journeyed 6000 miles, or 60.

But while ood miles loom large in ourcarbon-aware times, transporting it countsor less than you might think. And there is

a ar bigger picture.

Food is more than a plate ul o emissions.Its a social, political and economic issuethat involves millions o small armers inpoor countries who export produce to theNorth. They have built lives and livelihoodsaround this trade. By buying what theygrow, youve clocked up air miles.This pocketbook delves into the realities othe produce trade between A rica and theUK, examining both sides o the equationin search o a diet that is ethically, as wellas nutritionally, balanced.

The International Institute orEnvironment and Developmentis one o the worlds top policy

research organisations workingin the eld o sustainabledevelopment. With its broadbasednetwork o partners, IIED ishelping to tackle the biggestissues o our times rom climatechange and cities to the pressureson natural resources and the

orces shaping global markets.

You can download over 4000IIED books, reports, brie ngs,discussion papers and journals

ree at www.iied.org/pubs.IIED3 Endsleigh Street,London WC1H 0DDUnited Kingdomwww.iied.org

Ox am GB is a development,relie , and campaigningorganisation that works withothers to nd lasting solutionsto poverty and su ering aroundthe world. Ox am GB is a membero Ox am International.

As part o its programme work,Ox am GB undertakes research,and documents its programmeexperience. This is thendisseminated through books,journals, policy papers, researchreports, campaign reports, andother online products which areavailable or ree download at:www.ox am.org.uk/publications

Oxfam GBOx am House, John Smith Drive,Cowley, Ox ord OX4 2JYUnited Kingdom

Fair Food Miles: Recharting the food miles map

Documents

Transcript of Fair Food Miles: Recharting the food miles map