Food Futures: Co-designing Sustainable Eating Practices ... · per cent of all water withdrawals...

04 ★ EuroChoices 12(2) © 2013 The AuthorEuroChoices © 2013 The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists

Food Futures: Co-designing Sustainable Eating Practices for 2050

L ’ avenir de l ’ alimentation : élaborer ensemble des pratiques alimentaires durables pour 2050

Zukunftsszenarien für Lebensmittel: Die Mitgestaltung nachhaltiger Essgewohnheiten für 2050

Anna R. Davies

In 2010 the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced its new vision for agriculture on the basis that agriculture contributes 30 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, provides 40 per cent of employment worldwide (and 70 per cent for the bottom billion) and accounts for 70 per cent of all water withdrawals (WEF, 2010 ). Derived from stakeholder consultation involving 350 leaders of business, government, civil society, international organisations and academia, the WEF initiative approached the major challenges presented by feeding the world from the position that agriculture is a positive contributor to food security, environmental sustainability and economic opportunity. The roadmap produced by this consultation adopts a strong ecologically modern tone (Horlings and Marsden, 2011 ) by outlining the need to ‘produce more with less’ (World Economic Forum, 2010 ). As recognised in Barna Kovác ’ s ( 2011 ) review of the Foresight Stakeholder Conference Transition towards sustainable food consumption and production in a resource constrained world , focusing on supply-side issues of agricultural production in this way is important, but alone will be insuffi cient to ensure that the challenges of eating sustainability are met. This position is supported by a recent United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, which clearly states that food insecurity is often more an issue of access (through inadequate

purchasing power or high prices) than supply (UNFAO, 2011 ). Recognition of particular geopolitical histories, economic development trajectories, the machinations of global agri-industry, as well as attention to embedded practices of food consumption and food waste is required. Alternative governing approaches to support sustainable eating practices need to be developed and tested alongside ongoing attention to supply-side interventions. This will require the construction of innovative governance techniques where producers and consumers, as well as all those who participate across the food chain, from suppliers and retailers to processers, can exchange knowledge and experience (see Davies et al. , 2010; 2012 ).

One such governance approach, participatory backcasting (backcasting hereafter for brevity), has been adopted in the CONSENSUS: Consumption, Environment and Sustainability research project funded

by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (see http://www.consensus.ie ). Backcasting, in the food-related component of the CONSENSUS project, involved the co-creation of future scenarios, including a range of stakeholders and citizens, which envisage what more sustainable eating practices might look like in 2050. These future scenarios were then used to inform debates about the development of targeted initiatives for more sustainable eating through joined-up policy, technological, educational and behavioural interventions over short-, medium- and long-term timescales involving actors from public, private and civil society sectors (see Box 1 for methodological steps of the process). In essence, the approach begins by establishing more desirable systems of sustainable eating in the future and works backwards from these positions in order to think about what actions are needed to set in motion more appropriate transitions.

The case for a complementary food consumption focus

Establishing exact patterns of food consumption globally and within Europe is challenging. While it has been estimated that nearly twice as much food as is required in terms of the nutritional needs of their populations, is consumed across the United States and Europe, these fi gures are based on limited data often collected in different ways

“Le débat sur la durabilité commence à considérer plus précisément les personnes et leurs habitudes alimentaires.

”

euch_12029.indd 04euch_12029.indd 04 7/25/2013 1:26:16 PM7/25/2013 1:26:16 PM

© 2013 The Author EuroChoices 12(2) ★ 05EuroChoices © 2013 The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists

across national territories (see for example, FAOSTAT and USDA ERS). Under its EU MENU initiative the European Food Safety Authority is working with Member States to develop food consumption surveys which will allow the collection and analysis of comparable data across European Union countries and pilot studies of this process are currently underway. Despite these data constraints, the OECD conducted foresight research in 2011 examining the overconsumption of food and predicted that more than two out of three people will be overweight or obese in some OECD countries by 2020. Often couched in terms of the negative health impacts that such obesity levels will engender, and the costs of treating associated diseases and illness caused by obesity, the overconsumption of food also indicates overconsumption of natural resources in terms of the associated water, energy and fertiliser or pesticide use required to produce, store and transport it.

Food waste statistics equally suffer from a defi cit of data, but in May 2011 the FAO estimated that roughly a third of the food produced in the world for human consumption (approximately 1.3 billion tonnes) gets lost during the production, harvest, post-harvest and processing phases, or is wasted. While

food loss is the major concern in developing countries, it is food waste (primarily caused by retailers and consumers throwing away edible foodstuffs) which is of major concern in more industrialised countries. As detailed by the European Environment Agency report Signals 2012 – Building the future that we want , this food waste not only misses an opportunity to feed those who are hungry it also represents a signifi cant loss of resources. As a result, the issue of food waste features prominently in the European Commission ’ s 2011 Roadmap to a resource effi cient Europe , which details that 90 million tonnes of food (180 kg per person) are wasted every year in the European Union despite being suitable for human consumption. Building on these statistics, the European target for reduction of food waste stands at 50 per cent by 2020, with some Member States calling for 2014 to be designated the ‘European year against food waste’. In contrast to the WEF report, the Roadmap calls for farmers, the food industry, retailers and consumers to work together to develop and implement resource-effi cient production techniques and sustainable food practices [emphasis added]. Indeed, according to the FAO ’ s 2011 Global food losses and food waste report, consumers should be made aware that it is more effective to reduce food losses than increase food production in order to feed a growing

global population given the fi nite nature and limited availability of natural resources. Certainly lifestyle surveys, such as that conducted as part of the CONSENSUS project ( Carroll et al. , 2012a; 2012b ), indicate that signifi cant work needs to be done in terms of both raising awareness and changing actions in relation to sustainable food practices. The survey found that price rather than environmental concern remains the main driver behind food purchases, followed by health concerns and taste. In terms of food waste, 48 per cent of people regularly bought food only for it to expire before it was used and 54 per cent do not compost their food waste. So, even where hunger is not a key policy driver, there remain widespread concerns about the sustainability of consumption practices. In these locations, arguments about sustainability are beginning to focus more carefully on the demand-side of the food equation – essentially on people and the practices of eating, which in turn have complex relationships with agricultural production, food processing, transport, storage, retail, cooking and disposal.

From farm to fork and beyond: Food consumption stories past, present and future

The recent work of Spaargaren and colleagues (Spaargaren et al ., 2011),

Box 1: CONSENSUS Participatory Backcasting Process

Problem

Orientation

Visioning

Workshop

Scenario

Development

Scenario

Assessment

Citizen-Consumer

Workshops

Transition

Workshop

Transition

Framework

WorkshopEvaluation

CONSENSUS TEAM

PARTICIPATORYELEMENT

WorkshopEvaluation



Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of refl exive modernity, indicates contemporary interest in the ways food consumption has changed over time. Warren Belasco in his text, Meals to come: a history of the future of food (Belasco, 2012), focuses on how imagining future food possibilities has been a recurring theme in society. Indeed, in the late 1930s, the Popular Mechanics Magazine refl ected on improvements to make the kitchen a more effi cient site of cooking and eating. Following the infl uence of Taylorism, which sought to apply scientifi c approaches to engineering and management, kitchen mileage (the distance travelled to work within the kitchen) was the main focus in this research and it was found that 125 miles per year were covered by the person preparing the food, an average of between 200–235 steps per meal. Design interventions were developed to reduce this distance by 75 per cent or around 95 miles per year (approximately 153 km). Similarly,

during the 1950s, the Swedish Home Research Institute sought to produce an ultra-effi cient ‘standard kitchen’ while Frigidaire ’ s ‘Dream Kitchen’ included an IBM punchcard recipe fi le, automatic dispensing, on-line television ordering and pre-microwave technologies that cooked ham with radio waves.

Such technology-focused visions of future eating are still being undertaken today with companies including Hyundai and Electrolux constructing provocative devices that might shape how we eat in years to come. In the same vein, Philips launched their Food Design Probes in 2008 which included a biosphere home farm, diagnostic nutrition

monitoring and food printing appliances. The home farm is presented as an attractive and space-saving mini-ecosystem featuring interdependent organisms from plants to crustaceans providing partial self-suffi ciency and enhanced food security. Precision nutrition analysis is provided in the swallowable sensor and scanning wand to facilitate more accurate identifi cation of dietary needs. The food printer meanwhile combines molecular gastronomy with present-day technology (via stereolithographic printers) to come up with a digital fabricator combining edible materials into 3D food cubes with precise nutritional components.

Such provocative design-led visions are often highly technological in their articulation and underplay the potential for people, power and politics to disrupt trajectories of such expert-derived ‘Dream Kitchens’. Aside from small-scale attempts to introduce home-grown food products into the technological mix (the biosphere

“Die Argumente zur Nachhaltigkeit beziehen sich zunehmend auf die Menschen und deren Essgewohnheiten.

”

Visioning workshop



home farm for example), little is said about how highly technical future kitchens relate to cultures of food production and consumption or concerns for environmental protection and enhancement. In contrast, CONSENSUS backcasting explicitly sought to integrate technical, policy and behaviour change innovations in a process that went beyond the realm of narrow policy communities to engage wider stakeholders and citizen-consumers.

Future visions of sustainable household eating: the CONSENSUS scenarios

Following the process outlined in Box 1, three scenarios were developed from stakeholder brainstorming that illustrated different, but nonetheless more sustainable eating. These scenarios were Smart Eating (exhibiting high levels of technological change), Community Eating (high levels of lifestyle change) and Educated Eating (high levels of organisational change). As indicated in their visual

depictions (see Figures 1–3 ), the elements of these scenarios are multifaceted and envisage a coincidence of changes to organisational and regulatory structures, societal behaviour and technology. Even in the highly technological scenario, for example, there is a re-evaluation of food and greater attempts to reconnect people with food production underpinned by new systems of provision from living walls in kitchens to edible parks. Allied with new systems of provision are new systems of governance that include extended regulation through carbon food budgets and food mile taxes as well as enhanced experiential educational activities and co-operative food networks.

It was the Educated Eating scenario, with its heightened regulation of carbon food budgets, choice editing and green accounting, alongside technological developments in food production (e.g. vertical farming) and enhanced food awareness (e.g. through supports for self-suffi ciency and farming holidays), which was the most popular vision of the future

amongst stakeholders and citizen-consumers (public workshops). More than half of the participants across all the workshops identifi ed this scenario as their preferred option. Participants with more pronounced environmental backgrounds were particularly keen on this scenario because the strength of regulatory control was seen to be the only way to ensure behavioural change throughout society. While discussions revealed that these environmentally-aware individuals intuitively favoured the suite of changes identifi ed within the Community Eating scenario, with its more pronounced ethical and moral dimensions (such as mindfulness and collaborative grassroots activity), they felt that wider society would not be suffi ciently committed to the protection of the environment for this more voluntaristic scenario to become mainstreamed.

One third of participants in the public workshops favoured the more collective vision captured in the Community Eating scenario, while

Figure 1 : Smart eating: high levels of technological change



Figure 3 : Educated eating: high levels of organisational change

Figure 2 : Community eating: high levels of lifestyle change



only one participant across both the stakeholder and public workshops felt that they would like to inhabit the high-tech kitchen of the future depicted in Smart Eating. In contrast to the technological advancements promoted by work on industrial design-led kitchen futures, this reaction indicated a certain level of ambivalence towards technology. For example, it was argued that the Smart Eating scenario ‘… doesn ’ t ask fundamental questions about lifestyles. Really [it ’ s] just continuing on the way we are, not asking anything more profound than that. Maybe it ’ s more realistic though’. Another participant felt that an overtly technical approach to food ignored other important aspects of eating, ‘… food is about the senses – we don ’ t need too much technology’. Others were not supportive of the apparent de-skilling inherent in the Smart Eating construction. Another participant

said, ‘… I didn ’ t like the techno orientation … if there ’ s a fl aw in the technology we wouldn ’ t know what to do … [the] emphasis on the tech aspect makes us lazy or headless’.

In order to provoke further discussion of the scenarios and the practices that they embodied, participants were also asked to identify which individual elements across the scenarios were their most and least favoured. Although there were a number of popular elements across both the Community Eating and Educated Eating scenarios, enhanced education for sustainability generated the most support and a lot of debate about the importance of learning for empowering behaviour change without the need for overbearing regulation. The concept of a slower lifestyle, with associated working time directives reducing the maximum working week to just 30 hours, came a close second with

only one less vote. The least favoured component was the widespread adoption of genetic modifi cation (GM) technologies in order to grow most foodstuffs locally without heavy resource inputs, which is central to the Smart Eating scenario.

The aversion to GM was commonly expressed across all public groups and as such did not provoke much debate. Where positions were articulated the dominant perception was that current fears of risk to health and the environment, and the inability of regulators to effectively contain those risks, would not be resolved in 2050. Second, in terms of unpopularity, and three votes behind heightened use of GM technologies, came the concept that only foods which could be grown locally would be available for consumption. Many participants did not wish to see a future without imported foods such as coffee or

Citizen-consumer backcasting workshop



chocolate, but some also felt that international food producers relied on the global fl ow of foodstuffs for their livelihoods and that this process should be continued. The tension between a desire for a varied diet and a mistrust of GM and its governance, which might deliver such diversity in a potentially more sustainable fashion, highlights an important issue when designing and implementing more sustainable food futures. Fundamentally, it indicates the limitations of assuming that a purely technical fi x will resolve the complicated practices of unsustainable eating and elevates the importance of public perceptions and governing frailties.

From ‘Predict and Provide’ to ‘Predict, Prevent and Provide’

While the process of participatory backcasting in itself is no silver bullet for sustainable eating, it nonetheless provides a space which can bring together a wide range of stakeholders, including publics, to share experiences and ideas. It puts into sharp focus the fi nding that potential solutions to unsustainable practices may elicit quite different responses from populations and competition for limited resources. As such it is an invigorating companion approach to existing policy interventions, such as the EU SCAR Third Foresight exercise. It expands the possibilities for engaging diverse communities in defi ning how large scale transitions might be approached in an arena which is complex, where current trends are problematic and where the market alone is apparently incapable of addressing the challenges faced. Of course, ensuring that co-designed

visions of sustainable futures become more than provocative exercises of the imagination requires political will, corporate buy-in and public commitment. In conclusion, while establishing accurate global food requirements is essential, and producing more with less is a necessary requirement, current systems of unsustainable consumption must also be confronted and the failures of governing systems rectifi ed if sustainable eating is to be truly and globally practiced.

Acknowledgements

CONSENSUS is funded by the EPA under the STRIVE programme 2008–2013. Dr. Jessica Pape and Ruth Doyle provided research assistance throughout the backcasting process and Ben Mullen designed the visual representations of the scenarios presented in this paper.

Anna R. Davies , Professor, Director , Environmental Governance Research Group , School of Natural Sciences , Trinity College Dublin , Ireland . Email: [email protected]

Further Reading Belasco , W. ( 2006 ). Meals to Come: a History of the Future of Food . University of California Press , Berkeley , CA .

Carroll , B. , Lavelle , M.J. and Fahy , F. ( 2012a ). Consensus Lifestyle Survey – Report on public attitudes and behaviours towards sustainable consumption and sustainable lifestyles in Ireland: Food consumption . The National University of Ireland , Galway .

Carroll , B. , Lavelle , M.J. and Fahy , F. ( 2012b ). Consensus Lifestyle Survey – Report on public attitudes and behaviours towards sustainable consumption and sustainable lifestyles in Ireland: Food waste . The National University of Ireland , Galway .

Davies , A. , Doyle , R. and Pape , J. ( 2012 ). Future visioning for sustainable household practices: Spaces for sustainability learning? Area , 44 ( 1 ): 54 – 60 .

Davies , A. , Fahy , F. , Rau , H. and Pape , J. ( 2010 ). Sustainable consumption: Practices and governance . Irish Geography , 43 ( 1 ): 59 – 79 .

Freibauer , A. , Mathijs , E. , Brunori , G. , Damianova , Z. , Faroult , E. , Girona i Gomis , J. , O ’ Brien , L. and Treyer , S. ( 2011 ). Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world: Summary findings of the EU SCAR Third Foresight Exercise . EuroChoices , 10 ( 2 ): 38 – 43 .

Horlings , L. and Marsden , T. ( 2011 ). Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’, Global Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions , 21 ( 2 ): 441 – 452 .

Kovács , B. ( 2011 ). Transition towards sustainable food consumption and production in a resource constrained world. Reflections on the Foresight Stakeholder Conference, 4–5 May, Budapest, Hungary . EuroChoices , 10 ( 2 ): 44 – 47 .

Philips Design Probes: see the website: http://www.design.philips.com/sites/philipsdesign/about/design/designportfolio/design_ futures/design_probes/projects/food.page . Last accessed: February 7, 2012.

Popular Mechanics Magazine ( 1939 ). The electric house of the future . Popular Mechanics Magazine , 72 ( 2 ): 161 – 166 .

Spaargaren , G. , Oosterveer , P . and Loeber , A . ( 2011 ). Food Practices in Transition: Changing Food Consumption, Retail, Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. Routledge , London .

UNFAO ( 2011 ). Global Food Losses and Food Waste . UNFAO , Rome .

World Economic Forum ( 2010 ). Realising a New Vision for Agriculture: A Roadmap for Stakeholders . World Economic Forum , Geneva .

“Arguments about sustainability are beginning to focus more carefully on people and the practices of eating.

”



summary

Summary Food Futures: Co-designing Sustainable Eating Practices for 2050

The unsustainability of food and agriculture has long generated

debate, policy initiatives and technological innovation, with proposed solutions predominantly focused on producing more food using fewer resources. Such supply-side actions are important, but creating more sustainable eating practices also requires attention to demand-side dimensions of the food equation. Even given the challenges faced by establishing precise levels of overconsumption (i.e. through levels of obesity) and food loss and wastage, it is clear that a ‘predict and provide’ approach to eating will not address current patterns of unsustainable consumption. This article documents an experiment in practice-oriented participatory backcasting which explores the possibilities of engaging stakeholders and citizens in the design of more sustainable eating practices. This involved a phased process of multi-stakeholder (including citizen-consumer) collaboration to generate alternative scenarios for eating more sustainably and assess their desirability. This was followed by identifi cation of promising practices and, fi nally, the development of a Transition Framework detailing pathways for more sustainable eating to 2050.The results suggest that mutually supportive technological, organisational and societal innovations are needed, to predict accurately which foods are required globally, prevent overconsumption, food loss and wastage, and ultimately to provide sustainable eating solutions.

L ’ avenir de l ’ alimentation : élaborer ensemble des pratiques alimentaires durables pour 2050

Le manque de durabilité de l ’ agriculture et de l ’ alimentation est

depuis longtemps débattu. Il a suscité des initiatives publiques et des innovations techniques génératrices de solutions visant principalement à une augmentation de la production plus économe en ressources. Ces actions au niveau de l ’ offre sont importantes, mais pour obtenir des pratiques alimentaires plus durables, il faut aussi se préoccuper du côté demande de l’équation. Même en tenant compte de la diffi culté d’établir des chiffres précis sur la surconsommation (par exemple des taux d ’ obésité) et les pertes et gaspillages alimentaires, il est clair que ‘prévoir et apporter’ les besoins alimentaires ne permettra pas de changer les tendances actuelles non durables de la consommation. Cet article rapporte une expérience de ‘backcasting’ participatoire ciblée sur les pratiques, qui explore la possibilité de faire participer les acteurs et les citoyens à l’élaboration de pratiques alimentaires plus durables. Cette expérience comprenait un processus progressif de collaboration multi-acteurs (y compris les consommateurs-citoyens) afi n de créer des scenarii alternatifs d ’ alimentation plus durable et d’évaluer leur intérêt. Des pratiques prometteuses ont ensuite été identifi ées et enfi n, un cadre transitoire détaillant les étapes d ’ une transition vers une alimentation plus durable d ’ ici 2050 a été développé. Les résultats suggèrent qu ’ il faudrait faire appel à des innovations technologiques, organisationnelles et sociétales se renforçant l ’ une l ’ autre pour prédire correctement quels aliments sont nécessaires au niveau mondial, pour prévenir la surconsommation, limiter les pertes et gaspillages alimentaires et, au bout du compte, apporter des solutions alimentaires durables.

Zukunftsszenarien für Lebensmittel: Die Mitgestaltung nachhalti-ger Essgewohnheiten für 2050

Die Nichtnachhaltigkeit von Lebensmitteln und Landwirtschaft

hat längst Debatten, politische Initiativen und technische Innovationen hervorgerufen. Lösungsvorschläge konzentrieren sich überwiegend darauf, eine größere Menge an Lebensmitteln zu produzieren, aber dennoch weniger Ressourcen zu benötigen. Solche angebotsseitigen Impulse sind wichtig, jedoch darf bei der Einführung nachhaltigerer Essgewohnheiten keinesfalls die Nachfrageseite der Gleichung außer Acht gelassen werden. Selbst wenn das genaue Ausmaß des Überkonsums (d.h. durch den Grad der Adipositas) sowie das der Lebensmittelvernichtung und -verschwendung nicht festgestellt werden kann, wird deutlich, dass ein “Vorhersagen und zur Verfügung stellen”-Ansatz zur Ernährung nicht die aktuellen Muster nichtnachhaltigen Verbrauchs abbildet. Dieser Beitrag dokumentiert ein Experiment im Rahmen eines praxisorientierten partizipativen Rückkoppelungsprozesses, das die Möglichkeiten einer Beteiligung von Akteuren und Bürgern bei der Gestaltung nachhaltigerer Essgewohnheiten auslotet. Dieses Verfahren umfasste einen mehrstufi gen Prozess, in dem mehrere Akteure (Bürger, Verbraucher) zusammenarbeiteten, um alternative Szenarien für nachhaltigere Ernährung zu entwickeln und deren Attraktivität zu bewerten. Im Anschluss wurden vielversprechende Praktiken identifi ziert und schließlich ein Ansatz zur Umstellung entwickelt, der Pfade hin zu einer nachhaltigeren Ernährung bis 2050 aufzeigt. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass für beide Seiten förderliche technische, organisatorische und gesellschaftliche Innovationen erforderlich sind, um präzise vorauszusagen, welche Lebensmittel weltweit benötigt werden, um Überkonsum, Lebensmittelvernichtung und -verschwendung zu verhindern und um letztlich nachhaltige Ernährungskonzepte anzubieten.


Food Futures: Co-designing Sustainable Eating Practices ... · per cent of all water withdrawals...

Documents

Transcript of Food Futures: Co-designing Sustainable Eating Practices ... · per cent of all water withdrawals...