Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: The Food and Farming Transition
01 Nov 2008
November 2008 by Richard Heinberg
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_199_the_food_and_farming_transition

    The only way to avert a food crisis resulting from oil and natural gas 
price hikes and supply disruptions while also reversing agriculture’s 
contribution to climate change is to proactively and methodically remove 
fossil fuels from the food system.

    The removal of fossil fuels from the food system is inevitable: 
maintenance of the current system is simply not an option over the long term. 
Only the amount of time available for the transition process, and the 
strategies for pursuing it, can be matters for controversy.

    Given the degree to which the modern food system has become dependent on 
fossil fuels, many proposals for de-linking food and fuels are likely to 
appear radical. However, efforts toward this end must be judged not by the 
degree to which they preserve the status quo, but by their likely ability to 
solve the fundamental challenge that will face us: the need to feed a global 
population of 7 billion with a diminishing supply of fuels available to 
fertilize, plow, and irrigate fields and to harvest and transport crops.

    If this transition is undertaken proactively and intelligently, there 
could be many side benefits—more careers in farming, more protection for the 
environment, less soil erosion, a revitalization of rural culture, and more 
healthful food for everyone.

    Some of this transformation will inevitably be driven by market forces, 
led simply by the rising price of fossil fuels. However, without planning the 
transition may be wrenching and destructive, since market forces acting alone 
could bankrupt farmers while leaving consumers with few or no options.

    The Transition

    To remove fossil fuels from the food system too quickly, before 
alternative systems are in place, would be catastrophic. Thus the transition 
process must be a matter for careful consideration and planning.

    In recent years there has been some debate on the problem of how many 
people a non-fossil fueled food system can support. The answer is still 
unclear. But we will certainly find out, because there is likely to be no 
alternative, given that substitute liquid fuels—including coal-to-liquids, 
biofuels, tar sands, and shale oil—are all problematic and cannot be relied 
upon to replace cheap crude oil and natural gas as these deplete.

    There are reasons for hope: a recent report on African agriculture from 
the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) suggests that "organic, 
small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be 
the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social 
damage which that form of agriculture brings with it."

    Nevertheless, given that we do not know whether non-fossil fuel 
agriculture can in fact feed a population now approaching seven billion—and 
given that current fuels-based agriculture cannot be relied upon to do so for 
much longer, given the reality of fuel depletion—the prudent path forward 
would surely be to tie agricultural policy to population policy.

    Indeed, coordination will be essential also between agriculture policies 
and education, economic, transport, energy policies. The food system 
transition will be comprehensive, and will require integration with all 
segments and aspects of society.

    This document is intended to serve as the basis for the beginning of that 
planning process. Our aim is to develop a template that can be used to 
strategically plan the transition of food and farming across the world, 
region by region, and at all scales (from the farm to the community to the 
nation), beginning here in the UK.

    Elements of Transition

    The following are some key strategic elements of the food systems 
transition process that will need to be addressed at all levels of scale, 
from the household to the nation and beyond.

    Re-Localization

    In recent decades the food systems of Britain and most other nations have 
become globalized. Food is traded in enormous quantities—and not just luxury 
foods (such as coffee and chocolate), but staples including wheat, maize, 
meat, potatoes, and rice.

    The globalization of the food system has had advantages: people in 
wealthy countries now have access to a wide variety of foods at all times, 
including fruits and vegetables that are out of season (apples in May or 
asparagus in January), and foods that cannot be grown locally at any time of 
year (e.g., avocadoes in Scotland). Long-distance transport enables food to 
be delivered from places of abundance to areas of scarcity. Whereas in 
previous centuries a regional crop failure might have led to famine, its 
effects now can be neutralized by food imports.

    However, food globalization also creates systemic vulnerability. As fuel 
prices rise, costs of imported food go up. If fuel supplies were 
substantially cut off as the result of some transient event, the entire 
system could fail. A globalized system is also more susceptible to accidental 
contamination, as we have seen recently with the appearance of toxic melamine 
in foods from China. The best way to make our food system more resilient 
against such threats is clear: decentralize and re-localize it.

    Re-localization will inevitably occur sooner or later as a result of 
declining oil production, since there are no alternative energy sources on 
the horizon that can be scaled up quickly to take the place of petroleum. But 
if the transition process is to unfold in a beneficial rather than a 
catastrophic way, it must be planned and coordinated. This will require 
deliberate effort aimed at building the infrastructure for regional food 
economies—ones that can support diversified farming and reduce the amount of 
fossil fuel in the British diet.

    Re-localization means producing more basic food necessities locally. No 
one advocates doing away with food trade altogether: this would hurt both 
farmers and consumers. Rather, what is needed is a prioritization of 
production so that lower-value food items (which are typically staple calorie 
crops) are mostly sourced from close by, with most long-distance trade left 
to higher-value foods, and especially those that store well.

    This decentralization of the food system will result in greater societal 
resilience in the face of fuel price volatility. Problems of food 
contamination, when they appear, will be minimized. Meanwhile, revitalization 
of local food production will help renew local economies. Consumers will 
enjoy better quality food that is fresher and more seasonal. And 
transport-related climate impacts will be reduced.

    Each nation or region will need to devise its own strategy for 
re-localizing its food system, based on a thorough initial assessment of 
vulnerabilities and opportunities. The following are some general suggestions 
that are likely to be applicable in most instances:

        * The process will benefit enormously from policy support at both 
national and regional levels. This could include, for example, the provision 
of grants to towns and cities to build year-round indoor farmers’ markets.
        * Food-safety regulations should be made appropriate to the scale of 
production and distribution, so that a small grower selling direct off the 
farm or at a farmers’ market is not regulated as onerously as a multinational 
food manufacturer. While local food may have safety problems, these will 
inevitably occur on a smaller scale and will be easier to manage because 
local food is inherently more traceable and accountable.Governments can 
require that some minimum percentage of food purchases for schools, 
hospitals, military bases, and prisons are sourced within 100 miles of the 
institutions buying the food. Channelling even a small portion of 
institutional food purchasing to local growers would greatly expand 
opportunities for regional producers while improving the diet of people whom 
these institutions feed.
        * Cities and towns can rework their waste management systems so as to 
collect food scraps that can then be converted to compost, biogas, and 
livestock feed—which can in turn be made available to local growers.

    But government can do only so much. Consumers must develop the habit of 
preferentially buying locally sourced foods whenever possible, and they can 
be encouraged in this by "Buy Local" educational literature distributed by 
retailers—who can also assist by clearly labeling and prominently displaying 
local products.

    Growers themselves must rethink their business strategies. Instead of 
growing specialty crops for export, they must plan a transition to production 
of staple foods for local consumption. They must also actively seek local 
markets for their food. The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) movement 
provides a business model that has proven successful in many communities. 
Small producers can also create informal co-ops to acquire machinery (such as 
small threshing machines for cereal and oilseed processing or micro hydro 
turbines for electricity).

    The strategy of re-localizing food systems will be more challenging for 
some nations and regions than others. Given that the food footprint of London 
encompasses essentially all of England, the challenge for Britain is greater 
than is the case for many other nations. More urban gardens and even small 
animal operations (with chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits) within London 
and other cities should be encouraged, but even then it will be necessary to 
source most food from the countryside, delivering it to the city by rail. 
Thus re-localization should be seen as a process and a general direction of 
effort, not as an absolute goal.

    Energy

    As society turns away from fossil fuels, the energy balance of farming 
must once again become net positive. However, the transition process will be 
complex and problematic. Farms will still need sources of energy for their 
operations, and will need to provide much or all of that energy for 
themselves. Meanwhile, farmers could also take advantage of opportunities to 
export surplus energy to nearby communities as a way of increasing farm 
income.

    Farms must be powered with renewable energy. However, many energy needs 
on farms—such as fuel for tractors and other machinery—are currently 
difficult to fill with anything other than liquid fuels, which currently come 
in the form of diesel or petrol made from crude oil. Farmers should first 
look for ways to reduce fuel needs through efficiency or replacement of 
machines with animal power or human labor. This is most likely to be 
economically feasible in dairy, meat, vegetable, fruit, and nut operations. 
Where fuel-fed machinery is still required, which is likely to continue being 
the case for grain production, ethanol or biodiesel made on-site could 
supplement or replace petroleum. Farmers could aim to apportion one-fifth of 
their cropland to production of biofuels for their own use.

    Many other farm operations require electricity, and this can be generated 
on-site with wind turbines, solar panels, and micro-hydro turbines. Effort 
first must be devoted to making operations more energy-efficient. Because 
these technologies require initial investment and pay for themselves slowly 
over time, assistance from government and from financial institutions in the 
form of grants and low-interest loans could be instrumental in helping 
farmers overcome initial economic hurdles toward energy self-sufficiency.

    Eventually farmers are capable of being not just self-sufficient in 
energy, but of producing surplus energy for surrounding communities. Much of 
this exported energy is likely to come in the form of biomass—agricultural 
and forestry waste that can be burned to produce electricity. While farmers 
can also grow crops for the production of biofuels, the ecological and 
thermodynamic limits of this energy technology require that the scale of 
production be deliberately restricted. Otherwise, society’s demand for fuel 
could overwhelm farmers’ ability to produce food—and food must remain their 
first priority. In exporting biomass from the farm, growers must always keep 
in mind the productive capacity of sustainable agricultural systems, and they 
must strictly monitor soil health and fertility.

    The transition of farms to renewable energy will require planning. 
Farmers, ideally with the assistance of regional and national agencies, 
should plan to increase energy efficiency, to reduce fossil fuel inputs, and 
to grow renewable energy production according to a staged, integrated program 
designed for the unique needs and capabilities of each farm. As a general 
guideline, the plan should aim to reduce oil and natural gas inputs by at 
least half during the first decade.

    Soil Fertility

    In industrial agriculture, soil fertility is maintained with inputs 
provided from off-site. Of these inputs, the most important are nitrogen and 
phosphorus. Nitrogen comes from ammonia-based fertilizers made from fossil 
fuels—principally, natural gas. Phosphorus comes from phosphate mines in 
several countries. While sufficient low-quality phosphate deposits exist to 
supply world needs for many decades, high-quality deposits that are currently 
being mined are quickly depleting, which means that phosphate prices will 
likely rise within the next few years. [Phosphate Primer]

    Both nitrogen and phosphorus are essential to agriculture. And our 
current ways of supplying both are clearly unsustainable. Unless alternative 
ways of maintaining soil fertility are quickly found, a crisis looms.

    The long-term solution will surely depend on a two-fold strategy: 
designing farm systems that build fertility through crop rotations, and 
recycling nutrients.

    Crop rotation can help with maintaining nitrogen levels. Simply planting 
a cover crop after the fall harvest significantly reduces nitrogen leaching 
while cutting down on soil erosion. Meanwhile, introducing leguminous crops 
into the rotation cycle replaces nitrogen.

    Cleverly designed polycultures can sustainably produce large amounts of 
food, as has been shown not only by small-scale "alternative" farmers in 
Britain and America, but also by large rice-and-fish farmers in China and 
giant-scale operations (up to 15,000 acres) in Argentina. There, farmers 
employ an eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after 
five years grazing cattle on pasture, farmers then grow three years of grain 
without applying fertilizer. The need for herbicides is also dramatically 
reduced: weeds that afflict pasture cannot survive the years of tillage, and 
weeds of row crops don’t survive years of grazing.

    Most industrial farmers have left behind the practice of cover cropping 
because commercial fertilizers have become the cheaper option. That cost 
equation is about to shift. It is therefore important that farmers begin 
planning for higher fertilizer prices now by gearing up their rotation cycles 
and building natural soil fertility ahead of the immediate need.

    In industrial agriculture, the soil is treated as an inert substance that 
holds plants in place while chemical nutrients are applied externally. 
Without efforts to maintain natural fertility, over time organic matter 
disappears from the soil, along with beneficial soil micro-organisms. In the 
future, as chemical fertilizers become more expensive, farmers will need to 
devote much more attention to the practice of building healthy soil. But 
rebuilding nutrient-depleted soil takes, at minimum, several years of effort.

    Traditional farmers increase organic matter in topsoil through the 
application of compost—which not only builds soil fertility, but also 
improves the soil’s ability to hold water and thus withstand drought. There 
is also mounting evidence that food grown in properly composted soil is of 
higher nutritional quality. Currently, in typical modern cities, consumers, 
retailers, wholesalers and institutions discard enormous quantities of food. 
Some communities have already instituted municipal programs for composting of 
food and yard waste; such programs could be expanded and made mandatory, with 
compost being given free to local farmers. This would reduce the amount of 
garbage going to land fills, as well as farmers’ needs for fertilizers and 
irrigation, while improving the nutritional quality of the British diet.

    In addition, recent research with "terra preta" (also known as "bio 
char"), a charcoal-like material that can be produced from agricultural 
waste, suggests that its introduction to soils could reduce plants’ need for 
nitrogen by 20 to 30 percent while sequestering carbon that would otherwise 
end up in the atmosphere.

    The potential of composting and the use of terra preta to mitigate the 
climate crisis is hardly trivial: a one-percent increase of soil organic 
matter in the top 33.5cm of the soil is equivalent to the capture and storage 
of 100 tonnes of atmospheric CO2. per square kilometre of farmland.

    Ultimately, there is no solution to the phosphorus supply problem other 
than full-system nutrient recycling. This will entail a complete redesign of 
sewage systems to recapture nutrients so they can be returned to the soil—as 
Chinese farmers learned to do centuries ago. But if sewage systems (or 
simpler variants) are to become primary sources of phosphorus and other soil 
nutrients, they cannot continue to be channels for the disposal of toxic 
wastes. It is essential that separate waste streams be developed for the 
disposal of all pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, and industrial wastes. 
Thus the problem of soil fertility is one that farmers cannot solve on their 
own: it is a crisis of the food system as a whole, and must be addressed 
contextually and holistically.

    Diet

    The consumer is as important to the food system as the producer. During 
recent decades, consumer preferences have been shaped to fit the industrial 
food system through advertising and the development of mass-marketed, 
uniform, packaged food products that, while often nutritionally inferior, are 
cheap, attractive, in some cases even physically addictive. The advent and 
rapid proliferation of "fast food" restaurants has likewise fostered a diet 
that is profitable to giant industrial agribusiness, but disastrous to the 
health of consumers. However lamentable these trends may be from a public 
health standpoint, they are clearly unsustainable in view of the energy and 
climate crises facing modern agriculture.

    Because processed and packaged foods and fresh foods imported out of 
season add to the energy intensity of the food system, rich and poor alike 
must be encouraged to eat food that is locally grown, that is in season, and 
that is less processed. Public education campaigns could help shift consumer 
preferences in this regard.

    A shift toward a less meat-centered diet should also be encouraged, 
because a meat-based diet is substantially more energy intensive than one 
that is plant-based.

    Government can help with a shift in diet preferences through its own food 
purchasing polices (see "Re-Localization," above). The process can be helped 
even further by a more careful official government definition of "food." It 
makes no sense for government efforts intended to improve the nutritional 
health of the people to support the consumption of products known to be 
unhealthful—such as soda and other junk food.

    Farming Systems

    During the past few decades farming has become more specialized. Today, a 
typical farm may produce only meat of a single kind (turkey, chicken, pork, 
or beef), or only dairy, or a single type of grain, vegetable, fruit, or nut.

    This narrow specialization seemed to make economic sense in the era of 
cheap transport and cheap farm inputs. But because nature is diverse and 
integrated, the deliberate elimination of diversity on the farm has led to 
problems at every step. For example, animal feedlot operations (also known as 
concentrated animal feed operations, or CAFOs) produce enormous amounts of 
waste that end up in massive manure lagoons that pollute ground water and 
foul the air. Meanwhile, grain diets fed to the animals result in digestive 
problems requiring the large-scale administration of antibiotics that find 
their way into both the human food system and ground water, and that lead to 
antibiotic resistance among disease organisms that afflict humans.

    Farm specialization also impacts the grain or vegetable grower: soils 
that annually produce these crops need a regular replenishment of nitrogen; 
but if the farmer keeps few animals, there may be no option other than to 
import fertilizers from off-site.

    By switching to multi-enterprise diverse systems, farmers can often solve 
a range of problems at once. Feeding much less grain to livestock while 
giving them access to pasture that is in rotation with other crops maintains 
soil fertility while leading to better animal health and higher food quality. 
The farmer, the environment, and the consumer all benefit.

    The post-hydrocarbon food transition may also compel a rethinking of the 
size of farm operations. The mechanization of farm operations and the 
centralization of food systems favored larger farms. However, as fuel for 
farm machinery becomes more costly, and as farming once again involves more 
labor, smaller-scale operations will once again be profitable. In addition, a 
smaller scale of operations will be needed as farms become more diverse, 
since farmers will have more system elements to monitor. Agriculture will 
thus become more knowledge-intensive, requiring a curious, holistic attitude 
on the part of farmers.

    In urban areas, micro-farms and gardens—including vertical gardens and 
rooftop gardens that in some cases include small animals such as chickens and 
rabbits—could provide a substantial amount of food for growers and their 
families, along with occasional income from selling seasonal surpluses at 
garden markets.

    Farm Work

    With less fuel available to power agricultural machinery, the world will 
need many more farmers. But for farmers to succeed, some current agricultural 
policies that favor larger-scale production and production for export will 
need to change, while policies that support small-scale subsistence farms, 
gardens, and agricultural co-ops must be formulated and put in place—both by 
international institutions such as the World Bank, and also by national and 
regional governments.

    Currently the UK has 541,0001 farmers, depending on how the term is 
defined. In the UK in 1900, nearly 40 percent of the population farmed; the 
current proportion is less than one percent. Today, the average farmer is 
nearing retirement age.

    In nations and regions where food is grown without machinery, a larger 
percentage of the population must be involved in food production. For 
example, farmers make up more than half the populations of China, and India, 
Nepal, Ethiopia, and Indonesia.

    While the proportion of farmers that would be needed in Britain if the 
country were to become self-sufficient in food grown without fossil fuels is 
unknown (that would depend upon technologies used and diets adopted), it 
would undoubtedly be much larger than the current percentage. It is 
reasonable to expect that several million new farmers would be required—a 
number that is both unimaginable and unmanageable over the short term. These 
new farmers would have to include a broad mix of people, reflecting the UK’s 
increasing diversity. Already growing numbers of young adults are becoming 
organic or biodynamic farmers, and farmers’ markets and CSAs are also 
springing up across the country. These tentative trends must be supported and 
encouraged. In addition to Government policies that support sustainable 
farming systems based on smaller farming units, this will require:

        * Education: Universities and community colleges must quickly develop 
programs in small-scale ecological farming methods—programs that also include 
training in other skills that farmers will need, such as in marketing and 
formulating business plans. Apprenticeships and other forms of direct 
knowledge transfer will also assist the transition.
        * Financial Support: Since few if any farms are financially 
successful the first year or even the second or third, loans and grants will 
be needed to help farmers get started.
        * A revitalization of farming communities and farming culture: Over 
the past decades UK rural towns have seen their best and brightest young 
people flee first to distant colleges and then to cities. Farming communities 
must be interesting, attractive places if we expect people to inhabit them 
and for children to want to stay there.

    Seeds

    Today’s seed industry is centralized and reliant upon the very fuel-based 
transport system whose future viability is in question. Most commercial seeds 
are of hybrid varieties, so that farmers cannot save seed but must purchase 
new supplies each year.

    Worldwide, a growing proportion of the commercial seeds that are 
available are genetically modified. GM seeds have primarily been developed by 
chemical companies to support the sale of their proprietary herbicides. The 
promise of more nutritious foods, or crops that can produce biofuels more 
efficiently, is years from realization. Given that the need for transition is 
immediate, efforts to build a post-fossil fuel food system cannot wait for 
new technologies that may or may not appear or succeed. In any case, the GM 
seed industry is based upon current systems of transport, and fuel-based 
inputs such as chemical fertilizers and herbicides, that are all inextricably 
tied to the wider fossil-fuel based provisioning systems of society. Thus GM 
crops would be unlikely to be of much help in the transition in any case.

    What is needed instead is a coordinated effort to identify 
open-pollinated varieties of food crops that are adapted to local soils and 
microclimates, and a program to make such seeds available to farmers and 
gardeners in sufficient quantities. In addition, local colleges must begin 
offering courses on the techniques of seed saving.

    Processing and Distribution Systems

    The transition process will undoubtedly be fraught with challenges to 
food processing and distribution systems, which currently rely on large 
energy inputs and long-distance transport.

    For example, the meat industry now depends upon centralized facilities 
for slaughtering livestock—which must be transported long distances to these 
facilities. Re-localizing food systems will entail creating incentives for 
the emergence of smaller, more localized slaughterhouses and butcher shops. 
One interim solution would be for a fleet of mobile abattoirs to go from farm 
to farm, processing animals humanely and inexpensively.

    Many health regulations were originally designed to check abuses by the 
largest food producers, but such regulations may now inhibit the development 
of smaller-scale and more localized processing and distribution systems. For 
example, farmers should be able to smoke a ham and sell it to their 
neighbours without making a huge investment in nationally approved 
facilities. A small producer selling direct from the farm or at a farmers’ 
market should not be subject to the same food safety regulations as a 
multinational food manufacturer: while local food may occasionally have 
safety problems, those problems will be less catastrophic and easier to 
manage than similar problems at industrial-scale facilities.

    Food processors must look for ways to make their present operations more 
energy efficient, while government, consumers, and retailers find ways to 
reduce the need for food processing and also for food packaging. This gradual 
shift will require institutional support for families in storing, processing, 
cooking, and preserving food within the home.

    Meanwhile, in view of inevitable problems with existing transport 
systems, national and regional food storage systems must be reconsidered. 
Reserves of grain, sufficient to provide for essential needs during an 
extended food crisis, should be kept and managed to avoid spoilage.

    Packaging of food should be regulated to minimize the use of plastics, 
which will become more scarce and expensive as oil and gas deplete—and which 
are implicated as sources of toxins in any case.

    Government should institute policies that prioritize the distribution of 
food within the nation by rail and water, rather than by road, as trucks are 
comparatively energy inefficient.

    Supermarkets are currently the ultimate distribution sites for food in 
most instances. However, this model presupposes near-universal access to 
automobiles and petrol. A resilient food system will require smaller and more 
widely distributed access points in the forms of small shops and garden or 
farm markets. Government regulations and tax incentives can help accomplish 
that shift.

    Wholesalers and distributors will have a changed role in a transitioning 
food system. They will still be needed to manage the supplies of various 
seasonally produced foods moving from producers to consumers. However, rather 
than favoring large producers and giant supermarket chains, they must alter 
their operations to serve smaller, more distributed farms and gardens, as 
well as smaller and more distributed retail shops.

    Resilience Action Planning

    The transition process will succeed by creating more resilience in food 
systems. Resilient systems are able to withstand higher magnitudes of 
disturbance before undergoing a dramatic shift to a new condition in which 
they are controlled by a different set of processes. One quality of 
resilience is redundancy—which is often at odds with economic efficiency. 
Efficiency implies both long supply chains and the reduction of inventories 
to a minimum. This "just-in-time" delivery of products reduces costs—but it 
increases the vulnerability of systems to disturbances such as fuel 
shortages. As more attention is paid to resilience and less to economic 
efficiency, redundancy and larger inventories are seen as benefits rather 
than liabilities. Other resilience values include diversity (as opposed to 
uniformity), and dispersion (rather than centralization) of control over 
systems.

    Building resilience into our food systems as we move toward a post-fossil 
fuel economy will entail all of the Elements of Transition detailed above. It 
will also require planning at four levels: Government, Community, Business, 
and Individual or Family. At each level the planning process will necessarily 
be somewhat different. The purpose of this section is to delineate the main 
planning steps that will make sense at each of these levels. In some 
instances, steps within an action plan can or should be undertaken 
concurrently. In any case, what is offered here is merely a skeletal outline 
for a process that must be developed to fit unique needs of those it will 
serve.

    Government

    The following steps are applicable at any level of government—national, 
regional, or local. At the highest level of scale (the nation), each step 
will itself be the subject of planning and delegation. At the lowest level of 
scale (small villages), government may lack the capacity to undertake any of 
these steps and can do more than offer symbolic official support to volunteer 
citizen initiatives.

       1. Assess the existing food system. Begin with a study of current 
systemic vulnerabilities and opportunities. How are farm inputs currently 
sourced? How much food is currently imported? What proportion of those food 
imports are staples, and what proportion are luxury foods? What are the 
environmental costs of current agricultural practices? How would the current 
food system be impacted by fuel shortages and high prices?
       2. Review policies. How are current policies supporting these 
vulnerabilities and environmental impacts? How can they be changed or 
eliminated? Are there policies already in place that are likely to help with 
the transition? How can these latter policies be strengthened?
       3. Bring together key stakeholders. Organizations of farmers, food 
processing and distributing companies, and retailers must all be included in 
the transition process. Many will wish simply to maintain the existing 
system; however, it must be made clear that this is not an option. Many 
companies involved in the food system will need to change their business 
model substantially.
       4. Make a plan. The transition plan that is formulated must be 
comprehensive and detailed, and must contain robust but attainable targets 
with timelines and mechanisms for periodic review and revision. A scoping 
exercise must be undertaken to assess the impact of the plan on agricultural 
output and to quantify the changes in kinds of commodities produced and in 
their volumes and prices. Simon Fairlie’s paper, "Can Britain Feed Itself?", 
is an initial attempt at such an exercise, and can be used as a model to be 
built upon and supplemented.
       5. Educate and involve the public. The public must not only be 
informed about the government-led aspects of the transition process, but must 
be included in it to the extent that is practical. Citizens must be educated 
about food choices, gardening opportunities, and ways to access food from 
local producers. Their successes and challenges in adaptation will inform new 
iterations of the plan.
       6. Shift policies and incentives. This is the key responsibility of 
government, as it either limits or enhances the ability of community groups, 
businesses, and families to engage in the transition process. Policy changes 
must reflect stakeholder input, but must nevertheless be designed primarily 
to further the Elements of Transition, rather than the short-term interests 
of any particular stakeholder group.
       7. Monitor and adjust. An undertaking of this magnitude will 
inevitably have unforeseen and unintended impacts. Thus it is essential that 
progress be continually be reviewed with an eye to making adjustments to pace 
and strategy, while maintaining absolute adherence to the central task of 
methodically removing fossil fuels from the food system.

    Community

    The following are action steps for adoption by voluntary community 
groups, as opposed to governments (see above). The Transition Network 
provides an excellent model for this kind of community action. Such efforts 
seem to work best when the scale of community is such that meetings are 
manageable in size and meeting participants need not travel long distances. 
Thus in large cities, neighborhoods could apply Resilience Action Planning 
while sending delegates to occasional city-wide coordinating meetings. The 
overlap and mutual support between community organizations and local 
government efforts must be a matter for discussion and negotiation.

       1. Assess the local food system. This assessment process should be 
undertaken in cooperation with government, so as not to duplicate tasks. 
Volunteer citizen groups are in position to provide perspectives that 
otherwise might elude government assessment efforts—such as opportunities for 
community gardens, or problems with access to food from local producers.
       2. Identify and involve stakeholders. Local growers, shop owners, 
public kitchens, restaurants, schools, and other institutions that produce or 
serve food should all be contacted and invited to join a voluntary 
re-localization initiative and to offer input into the process.
       3. Educate and involve the public. Community groups can stage public 
events to raise awareness about food transition issues. "Buy local" brochures 
and pamphlets, paid for and distributed by a consortium of local businesses 
(but organized by volunteer groups), can list local producers, farm markets, 
restaurants, and shops.
       4. Develop a unique local strategic program. This can include farmers’ 
markets, CSAs, school lunch programs, and public kitchens, networked with 
local producers, including community gardens. The program, based on input 
from stakeholders, should feature targets and timelines developed through a 
"backcasting" process, beginning with a collaborative exercise aimed at 
envisioning the local food system as it might look in 2025 after fossil fuels 
have ceased to play a role.
       5. Coordinate with national programs. Local volunteer efforts can play 
a significant role in informing national government policies, and in 
implementing the national transition strategy. However, this will require the 
maintenance of open channels of communication, which in turn will be the 
responsibility of both government and the local groups.
       6. Support individuals and families. Individuals are likely to change 
food habits and priorities only if they see others doing so as well, and if 
they feel that their efforts are supported and valued. Community groups can 
help by establishing new behavioral norms through public events and articles 
in local newspapers. Practical help can be offered via canning parties, 
garden planting and harvest parties, and gleaning programs. Local food and 
gardening experts can be made available to answer questions and concerns. 
Neighborhood food storage facilities can also be created to supplement 
household cupboards.
       7. Monitor and adjust. All of these efforts must be continually 
adjusted to assure that all segments of the community are included in the 
transition process, and that the process is working as smoothly as possible 
for all.

    Business

    Relevant businesses include farms, shops, processors, wholesalers, and 
restaurants. However, the following steps could also be useful to 
organizations such as schools, colleges, and hospitals that dispense food as 
an ancillary part of their operations.

       1. Assess vulnerabilities. Every business or organization that is part 
of the food system must take an honest look at the inevitable impacts of 
higher fuel prices, and fuel scarcity, on its operations. Examine scenarios 
based on a doubling or tripling of fuel costs to highlight specific 
vulnerabilities.
       2. Make a plan. Develop a business model that works without—or with 
continually shrinking—fossil fuel inputs. Then "backcast" from that imagined 
future condition, specifying time-related targets.
       3. Work with government and community groups. Given the fact that 
government will be developing regulations to reduce fuel use in the food 
system, and that community organizations will be offering support to local 
farmers and food shops that spearhead the transition, it makes good business 
sense to lead the parade rather than lagging at the rear.
       4. Educate and involve suppliers and customers. No business is an 
island. The transition will flourish through strengthened relationships on 
all sides.
       5. Monitor and adjust. For businesses, one obvious and essential 
criterion of success is profitability. The bottom line will help indicate 
which adaptive strategies are working, and which ones need work. However, 
negative financial feedback is no reason to abandon the essential goal of 
transition.

    Individual and Family

       1. Assess food vulnerabilities and opportunities. Whether at a family 
meeting or by oneself over a cup of tea, take a long honest look at your 
typical monthly food purchases and give careful thought to the implications. 
How much of your food comes from within 100 miles? How much is packaged and 
processed? How many meals are meat-centered? Where do you shop? How would you 
be impacted if food and fuel prices doubled or tripled?
       2. Make a plan. Create an ideal food scenario for yourself, including 
diet, shopping habits, and gardening goals. Then "backcast" a series of 
time-related goals. Write these prominently on a calendar and attach it to 
the front of your refrigerator.
       3. Garden. Even if you don’t have access to a plot of land, you can 
still grow sprouts in a jar or a few food plants in a window box. Look for 
opportunities to contribute work to a community garden. Develop your skills 
by seeking out gardening mentors.
       4. Develop relations with local producers. Even if you have a large 
garden you probably can’t grow all the food you eat. Rather than shopping at 
a supermarket, begin to frequent your local farmers’ market, or join a CSA.
       5. Become involved in community efforts. Get to know your neighbors 
and compare gardening experiences with them. Together, form a "tool library" 
from which members can check out garden tools and gardening books. Organize 
or participate in planting, harvesting, food-swapping, gleaning, and canning 
parties.
       6. Monitor and adjust. At the end of each month, revisit your plan and 
revise it if necessary.

    (This essay is excerpted from a larger document-in-process, a 
co-publication of the Soil Association and Post Carbon Institute, that will 
be released in somewhat different versions in the UK and in the US, both in 
mid-November.)