From environmental concerns towards sustainable food provisioning. : Material flow and food consumption scenario studies on sustainability of agri-food systems

Agriculture is an economic activity that heavily relies on the availability of natural resources. Through its role in food production agriculture is a major factor affecting public welfare and health, and its indirect contribution to gross domestic product and employment is significant. Agriculture also contributes to numerous ecosystem services through management of rural areas. However, the environmental impact of agriculture is considerable and reaches far beyond the agroecosystems. The questions related to farming for food production are, thus, manifold and of great public concern. Improving environmental performance of agriculture and sustainability of food production, sustainabilizing food production, calls for application of wide range of expertise knowledge. This study falls within the field of agro-ecology, with interphases to food systems and sustainability research and exploits the methods typical of industrial ecology. The research in these fields extends from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, a holistic approach being the key tenet. The methods of industrial ecology have been applied extensively to explore the interaction between human economic activity and resource use. Specifically, the material flow approach (MFA) has established its position through application of systematic environmental and economic accounting statistics. However, very few studies have applied MFA specifically to agriculture. The MFA approach was used in this thesis in such a context in Finland. The focus of this study is the ecological sustainability of primary production. The aim was to explore the possibilities of assessing ecological sustainability of agriculture by using two different approaches. In the first approach the MFA-methods from industrial ecology were applied to agriculture, whereas the other is based on the food consumption scenarios. The two approaches were used in order to capture some of the impacts of dietary changes and of changes in production mode on the environment. The methods were applied at levels ranging from national to sector and local levels. Through the supply-demand approach, the viewpoint changed between that of food production to that of food consumption. The main data sources were official statistics complemented with published research results and expertise appraisals. MFA approach was used to define the system boundaries, to quantify the material flows and to construct eco-efficiency indicators for agriculture. The results were further elaborated for an input-output model that was used to analyse the food flux in Finland and to determine its relationship to the economy-wide physical and monetary flows. The methods based on food consumption scenarios were applied at regional and local level for assessing feasibility and environmental impacts of relocalising food production. The approach was also used for quantification and source allocation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of primary production. GHG assessment provided, thus, a means of crosschecking the results obtained by using the two different approaches. MFA data as such or expressed as eco-efficiency indicators, are useful in describing the overall development. However, the data are not sufficiently detailed for identifying the hot spots of environmental sustainability. Eco-efficiency indicators should not be bluntly used in environmental assessment: the carrying capacity of the nature, the potential exhaustion of non-renewable natural resources and the possible rebound effect need also to be accounted for when striving towards improved eco-efficiency. The input-output model is suitable for nationwide economy analyses and it shows the distribution of monetary and material flows among the various sectors. Environmental impact can be captured only at a very general level in terms of total material requirement, gaseous emissions, energy consumption and agricultural land use. Improving environmental performance of food production requires more detailed and more local information. The approach based on food consumption scenarios can be applied at regional or local scales. Based on various diet options the method accounts for the feasibility of re-localising food production and environmental impacts of such re-localisation in terms of nutrient balances, gaseous emissions, agricultural energy consumption, agricultural land use and diversity of crop cultivation. The approach is applicable anywhere, but the calculation parameters need to be adjusted so as to comply with the specific circumstances. The food consumption scenario approach, thus, pays attention to the variability of production circumstances, and may provide some environmental information that is locally relevant. The approaches based on the input-output model and on food consumption scenarios represent small steps towards more holistic systemic thinking. However, neither one alone nor the two together provide sufficient information for sustainabilizing food production. Environmental performance of food production should be assessed together with the other criteria of sustainable food provisioning. This requires evaluation and integration of research results from many different disciplines in the context of a specified geographic area. Foodshed area that comprises both the rural hinterlands of food production and the population centres of food consumption is suggested to represent a suitable areal extent for such research. Finding a balance between the various aspects of sustainability is a matter of optimal trade-off. The balance cannot be universally determined, but the assessment methods and the actual measures depend on what the bottlenecks of sustainability are in the area concerned. These have to be agreed upon among the actors of the area

Regulating Food Consumption : Studies of change and variation in Europe

The role of people as buyers and eaters of food has changed significantly. From being protected by a paternalistic welfare state, people appear to be accorded more freedom and responsibility as individuals, where attention is redirected from the state towards market relations. Many have asserted that these changes are accompanied by fragmentation, individualisation, and privatisation, leading to individual uncertainty and lack of confidence. But empirical observations do not always confirm this, distrust is not necessarily growing and while responsibilities may change, the state still plays an active role. This dissertation explores changing relationships between states and markets, on the one hand, and ordinary people in their capacities as consumers and citizens, on the other. Do we see the emergence of new forms of regulation of food consumption? If so, what is the scope and what are the characteristics? Theories of regulation addressing questions about individualisation and self-governance are combined with a conceptualisation of consumption as processes of institutionalisation, involving daily routines, the division of labour between production and consumption, and the institutional field in which consumption is embedded. The analyses focus on the involvement of the state, food producers and scientific, first of all nutritional, expertise in regulating consumption, and on popular responses. Two periods come out as important, first when the ideas of “designing the good life” emerged, giving the state a very particular role in regulating food consumption, and, second, when this “designing” is replaced by ideas of choice and individual responsibility. One might say that “consumer choice” has become a mode of regulation. I use mainly historical studies from Norway to analyse the shifting role of the state in regulating food consumption, complemented with population surveys from six European countries to study how modernisation processes are associated with trust. The studies find that changing regulation is not only a question of societal or state vs individual responsibilities. Degrees of organisation and formalisation are important as well. While increasing organisation may represent discipline and abuses of power (including exploitation of consumer loyalty), organisation can also, to the consumer, provide higher predictability, systems to deal with malfeasance, and efficiency which may provide conditions for acting. The welfare state and the neo-liberal state have very different types of solutions. The welfare state solution is based on (national) egalitarianism, paternalism and discipline (of the market as well as households). Such solutions are still prominent in Norway. Individualisation and self-regulation may represent a regulatory response not only to a declining legitimacy of this kind of interventionism, but also increasing organisational complexity. This is reflected in large-scale re-regulation of markets as well as in relationships with households and consumers. Individualisation of responsibility is to the consumer not a matter of the number of choices that are presented on the shelves, but how choice as a form of consumer based involvement is institutionalised. It is recognition of people as “end-consumers”, as social actors, with systems of empowerment politically as well as via the provisioning system. ‘Consumer choice’ as a regulatory strategy includes not only communicative efforts to make people into “choosing consumers”, but also the provision of institutions which recognise consumer interests and agency. When this is lacking we find distrust as representing powerlessness. Individual responsibility-taking represents agency and is not always a matter of loyal support to shared goals, but involves protest and creativity. More informal (‘communitarian’) innovations may be an indication of that, where self-realisation is intimately combined with responsibility for social problems. But as solutions to counteract existing imbalances of power in the food market the impacts of such initiatives are probably more as part of consumer mobilisation and politicisation than as alternative provisioning.

Credit Default Swaps and Insurance: Against the Potts Opinion

Little attention has been given to the possibility that CDS transactions might be construed as insurance contracts in English law. This article challenges the widespread “Potts opinion”, which states that CDSs are not insurance, because they do not require the protection buyer to sustain a loss or to have an insurable interest in the subject matter. CDSs often do provide protection against loss that the buyer is exposed to; loss indemnity is not a necessary characterisation of an insurance contract; insurable interest does not form part of the definition of insurance, but is an additional requirement of valid insurance; and what matters is the substance not the form of the contract. The situation in the US and Australia is also briefly considered.

Turvetuotannon luvallistaminen muuttuvassa ympäristössä

Työssä tutkitaan turvetuotannon luvallistamiskysymyksiä luonnonsuojelullisten ja luonnonvarojen käyttöä korostavien tavoitteiden kohtauspinnassa. Tutkielman metodiksi on valikoitunut avoin, keskustelukeskeinen lähestymistapa, joka osoittautui sopivan hyvin tieteellisen tutkimuksen välineeksi. Erityisiä oikeuslähdeopillisia kysymyksiä tarkastellaan tutkimuksessa vain niiltä osin kuin työn muut osat sitä vaativat. Siksi yksittäisiä oikeuslähdeopillisia kysymyksiä ei oteta esille tutkimuksessa kattavasti. Ensimmäisessä varsinaisessa tutkimusjaksossa keskistytään lainsäädäntöhistoriaan. Lainsäädäntöhistoriasta oli löydettävissä sekä luonnonsuojelua että luonnonvarojen käyttämistä tukevia argumentteja, joiden sisältö voidaan melkein suoraan siirtää nykyiseen keskusteluun. Ennen kuin työssä siirrytään varsinaiseen tuotannon luvallistamisen käsittelyyn, siinä luodaan lyhyt katsaus ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn asemaan. Menettelyllä ei ole laajaa käyttöä turveteollisuudessa. Turveteollisuuden luvallistamiskysymyksiä käsitellään tutkimuksessa kolmessa eri kokonaisuudessa. Ensimmäisessä näistä hahmotetaan luvallistamista alueellisena ja ajallisena kokonaisuutena. Hahmotustapa osoittautui käyttökelpoiseksi ja hyvin turveteollisuuden todellisia oikeudellisia ongelmakohtia vastaavaksi. Keskimmäisessä luvallistamiskysymyksiä tarkastelevista jaksoista keskitytään ajankohtaiseen ongelmaan ilmaston lämpenemisestä. Jaksossa tarkastellaan teoreettista mahdollisuutta huomioida lupamenettelyssä toiminnan vaikutukset ilmastonmuutokselle. Erityisesti tässä jaksossa painottuu tutkimuksen metodin soveltaminen, jonka avulla voidaan ratkaista suhtautuminen tuotannosta esitettyihin, jopa vastakohtaisiin luonnontieteellisiin väitteisiin. Tarkastelussa päädytään siihen, että yksi mahdollinen tulkinta voimassaolevan oikeuden sisällöstä on toiminnan ilmastovaikutusten huomioiminen ympäristölupaharkinnassa. Viimeisimmässä tuotannon luvallistamista käsittelevässä jaksossa tutkimuskohteena on joitain toiminnan osia, joille edellytetään vesilain mukaista lupaa. Tässä jaksossa tutkimuskohteen rajaaminen osoittautui erityisen tärkeäksi, koska vaihtoehtoja tutkimuskohteiksi oli tarjolla runsaasti. Tutkimusalueeseen kuuluvat luvallistamiskysymykset, jotka tulivat vahvimmin esille työn aluksi tehdyissä haastatteluissa. Rajaamalla tutkimuskohde tällä perusteella pysytellään mahdollisimman tiiviisti alkuperäisessä tutkimusasetelmassa. Työn lopuksi käsitellään luvallistamisen suhdetta kaavoitukseen, nimenomaan maakuntakaavoihin ja valtakunnallisiin alueidenkäyttötavoitteisiin, joilla pyritään sääntelemään tuotantoa. Lyhyen katsauksen perusteella päätelmänä on instrumenttien vähäinen tosiasiallinen merkitys.

Climate change and agriculture: theory and application of mitigation policies

Agriculture’s contribution to climate change is controversial as it is a significant source of greenhouse gases but also a sink of carbon. Hence its economic and technological potential to mitigate climate change have been argued to be noteworthy. However, social profitability of emission mitigation is a result from factors among emission reductions such as surface water quality impact or profit from production. Consequently, to value comprehensive results of agricultural climate emission mitigation practices, these co-effects to environment and economics should be taken into account. The objective of this thesis was to develop an integrated economic and ecological model to analyse the social welfare of crop cultivation in Finland on distinctive cultivation technologies, conventional tillage and conservation tillage (no-till). Further, we ask whether it would be privately or socially profitable to allocate some of barley cultivation for alternative land use, such as green set-aside or afforestation, when production costs, GHG’s and water quality impacts are taken into account. In the theoretical framework we depict the optimal input use and land allocation choices in terms of environmental impacts and profit from production and derive the optimal tax and payment policies for climate and water quality friendly land allocation. The empirical application of the model uses Finnish data about production cost and profit structure and environmental impacts. According to our results, given emission mitigation practices are not self-evidently beneficial for farmers or society. On the contrary, in some cases alternative land allocation could even reduce social welfare, profiting conventional crop cultivation. This is the case regarding mineral soils such as clay and silt soils. On organic agricultural soils, climate mitigation practices, in this case afforestation and green fallow give more promising results, decreasing climate emissions and nutrient runoff to water systems. No-till technology does not seem to profit climate mitigation although it does decrease other environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the data behind climate emission mitigation practices impact to production and climate is limited and partly contradictory. More specific experiment studies on interaction of emission mitigation practices and environment would be needed. Further study would be important. Particularly area specific production and environmental factors and also food security and safety and socio-economic impacts should be taken into account.