The negative development impacts of a "food miles" approach to agriculture

UPDATE: I am putting the feedback from my two examiners near the bottom of this page. In the end, one professor gave me an A for the paper while another gave me a C! They couldn't agree on what mark it should get and so it then went to an external examiner who gave me a B+. I definitely agree with one of the professors who said that the paper could have been more academically concise and rigorous. To be honest, I didn't have time to polish it. However, many of the key ideas and concepts are in the paper. I might rewrite it at some point in the future if I have the time.

I have also added some text immediately below to expand on some of the points I make introducing the paper.

UPDATE 2: If you enjoy this paper, you might be interested in reading another one of mine entitled 'A middle way: the possibility of a Life Cycle Assessment tax within the current WTO framework?'

Please find my recent term paper below. In the end, I had to cut few thousand words of arguments surrounding the potential positive impacts of relocalisation from the paper. These can be found here, although I must warn you that they are only in note form.

Interestingly, a few days after I handed the paper in, a couple of articles appeared in the Guardian saying that Tescos had decided that "it would put new labels on every one of the 70,000 products it sells so that shoppers can compare carbon costs in the same way they can compare salt content and calorie counts." and that "all food products airfreighted into the UK will carry an aeroplane symbol." The article mentions that the new carbon labelling programme will not be immediate, but that Tesco would first have to develop a "universally accepted and commonly understood" measuring system. I can't help but wonder how this system will work and if it will incorporate some of the arguments I make below.

From a development perspective, it is potentially quite worrying that: "Sir Terry said he would not halt all air imports, as a ban would hit some of their poorest suppliers. However, the supermarket giant has pledged to fly in less than 1% of its products compared with the current 2%-3%." What impact will this have on the livelihoods of people working within Southern countries?

As noted by Millstone et al., "Much of the world is already farmed organically...80 percent of farmers in developing countries do not need to change their methods to be certified organic" (Millstone and Lang 2003: 56) I have no idea how this statistic was calculated (or how close to the truth it is), however I do know that many small farmers in developing countries can't afford to pay for the certification process to be labelled as officially "organic." Indeed, the move towards international standards and labelling (such as EUREPGAP or even "organic") biases the playing field in favour of large farmers as they can afford to implement them and pay for certification.

As recently noted by David Miliband, 96 percent of agriculture in the UK is industrialised and only 4 percent is organic. Rather than focussing on reducing imports (which are often produced organically, even though they are not certified organic), we should be trying to clean up our own act. I can't help but think that - as you will see below - a lot of the food miles argument involves nationalism and protectionism in disguise, a (purposeful?) simplification of the issues which benefits certain interests and maybe even a fear of "The Other".

Also, many people within environmental groups in northern countries seem to focus on relocalising agriculture but not on relocalising manufacturing. For many African countries, their main comparative advantage - if they have one at all - is their agriculture. The consequence of what many localists are saying is that we should localise what the poorest countries export, but not localise what the middle to rich income countries export, because western consumers don't want to lose out on the benefits that computers etc bring us with globalisation.

This is a deeply disturbing argument because relocalising agriculture would seriously impact on the poorest people within the poorest countries. This is shown clearly by this recent article in The Guardian on the threat by localists to Kenyan agriculture.

When I emailed one of my professors about the relocalisation debate, she responded with the following:

"I have serious concerns about the 'localising' agenda from a development perspective. After centuries of being forced into a global economy through colonialism, structural adjustment and free trade agreements, developing countries are now being told the products they produced are not wanted by poorly informed liberals. From a climate change perspective, far more damage is being done by leaving televisions etc. on standby and car use in developed countries. Some initial work weighing up the costs/benefits of 'localisation' from development perspective has begun to be done by Bill Vorley at IIED (see recent edition of Food Ethics), but much more needs to be done to get a more serious balanced perspective."

Others, such as George Monbiot, are also sceptical about the relocalisation debate and point out that many within the green movement underplay the importance of international trade for the poorest people in the world.

Also, as I ask in my paper below, 'Will more and more dependence on international markets be needed as local and regional climatic shocks increase with climate change?' For example, if the gulf stream slows or shuts down (Dr Paul Williams thinks that Europe is 10 degrees centigrade warmer than if it did not exist) many of our agricultural crops will fail and we will need to import more crops from other countries. If growing agricultural produce becomes impossible in certain parts of the world because of increased temperatures and/or desertification due to climate change, then they will also have to import more crops. Potentially we will need to trade more than ever to counter this.

Finally, green localists often do not mention the importance of reducing meat and dairy use. According to a report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation."

This is backed up elsewhere by a report which looked at the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25:

"Food and drink cause 20 to 30% of the various environmental impacts of private consumption, and this increases to more than 50% for eutrophication. This includes the full food production and distribution chain ‘from farm to fork’. Within this consumption area, meat and meat products are the most important, followed by dairy products." (p.17)

It also states that:

Within this area of consumption [food and drink], meat and meat products (including meat, poultry, sausages or similar) have the greatest environmental impact. The estimated contribution of this product grouping to global warming is in the range of 4 to 12% of all products (CP01-12). The results reflect the impact of the full production chain, including the different phases of agricultural production. The second important product grouping are dairy products." (p.15)

If people focused on reducing the amount of meat they consumed the environmental impact would be several times greater than if they just focused on reducing the food miles associated with their food. Not only is much of industrialised animal rearing brutal, but meat and dairy products are very energy intensive.

This is one of the many reasons why I am vegetarian and seriously thinking about becoming vegan.

Other ways for people to reduce the amount of energy associated with the agricultural products that they consume include:

1) Only buying the food that we need. Apparently, in the UK more than 30% of our food is thrown away.
2) Cooking less. Cooking uses large amounts of energy.
3) Cycling or walking to the shops instead of driving. Again, cars use a massive amount of energy.
4) Only using reusable bags (or don't use plastic bags). There are all sorts of environmental impacts associated with plastic bags.
5) Try and buy food with the least amount of packaging.

I could go on but they are some of the mains ones.

At the bottom of this page, in the spirit of openness, I have also included some feedback made by two of my friends - Tom Chance and Sam Ansell - as well as from one of my lecturers, Will Wolmer, at the end of the paper (I've put some of my comments in bold between them). As Holling argues, "knowledge of the system we deal with is always incomplete. Surprise is inevitable. Not only is the science incomplete, the system itself is a moving target." (Holling CS 1993 Investing in research for sustainability. Ecol. Appl 34:552-55) This subject is incredibly complex and my understanding will never be complete. If people who read this want to send me comments, please do as I would really would appreciate them. If you don't mind me putting them up on the blog, please just tell me so that others can also learn from them.

The negative development impacts of a "food miles" approach to agriculture

Key Quotes

"If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." Frederick Bastiat 19th Century

"I have no doubt that a callous attitude to the land and to the animals thereon is connected with, and symptomatic of, a great many other attitudes, such as those producing a fanaticism of rapid change and fascination with novelties - technical, organizational, chemical, biological, and so forth - which insists on their application long before their long-term consequences are even remotely understood. In the simple question of how we treat the land, next to our people the most precious resource, our entire way of life is involved." – E.F. Schumacher 1973

"Ninety per cent of all our transportation, whether by land, air or sea, is fuelled by oil. Ninety-five per cent of all goods in shops involve the use of oil. Ninety-five per cent of all our food products require oil use. Just to farm a single cow and deliver it to market requires six barrels of oil, enough to drive a car from New York to Los Angeles." - Jeremy Leggett 2006

Introduction

This paper will attempt to bring together the climate change, food miles, life cycle assessment, relocalisation and other literatures to investigate the potential negative impacts on development of relocalising agriculture. The paper draws together debates from different fields, which have remained largely isolated from one another. This is a highly contested subject and in some areas I have only been able to give initial indicators for potential future research.

The food miles debate – which revolves around a measure of the distance food travels from producer to consumer in an attempt to internalise the energy costs and negative environmental externalities related to the transport of agricultural goods - represents a growing degree of awareness and consumer consciousness about the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. Unfortunately, the attempt to use this as a simple environmental criteria can lead to an over-simplification of the environmental impacts and obscure other important considerations. I will also explore how the debate surrounding food miles is subject to the interests and agendas of various parties involved with food production and distribution which are not always based on environmental and development concerns, although they often claim to be.

The paper will begin by exploring the emission cuts needed to avert irreversible climate change and how much of a part agriculture has to play in this, then I will move onto some of the arguments used by those who argue that a relocalisation of agriculture is needed to help avert climate change, then I will contest this food miles argument and advocate life cycle assessments and will then finish with an initial exploration of the negative impacts of a relocalisation of agriculture and future questions to be explored. For the first section, I will focus on the UK governments’ climate change emissions targets because they reflect the cuts needed for most Northern countries if a contraction and convergence model is used. This is vital, because depending on how large the cuts are needed, different agricultural polices will be prescribed. Unfortunately, a detailed break down of the different projections is beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, I summarise some of the arguments to give initial thoughts to these broad and complicated issues.

Climate Change

The UK government has stated that a 60% cut in emissions is needed to avoid a 2 degree Centigrade increase in temperatures by 2050 (DTI 2003). The current climate change bill plans to gives legislative force to this target. (Sturcke 2006)

However, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research recently launched a report (Tyndall Centre 2006a and 2006b) that found that the UK needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 to make sure that world temperatures do not rise 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. They report that a 90% cut in emissions (using a contraction and convergence model) is needed because international aviation and marine transport emissions were not factored into the governments estimate. Indeed, when these are factored in, "Carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen in the UK since 1990, despite Government claims to the contrary. The Government’s figures have ignored emissions from international aviation and shipping." (Tyndall Centre 2006a: 2) Although the UK is legally bound by its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels in 2008-2012 (DEFRA 2002), the Kyoto protocol does not include international aviation and marine transport emissions in its calculations.

The full Tyndall Centre report goes onto say:

"The UK has reached a ‘tipping point’! If the Government’s carbon dioxide targets are to actually have meaning, the Government must act now to curb dramatically the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. The message from this research is that stark. In waiting for technology or the EU ETS to offer a smooth transition to a low-carbon future, we are deluding ourselves. It is an act either of negligence or irresponsibility for policymakers continually to refer to a 2050 target as the key driver in addressing climate change. The real challenge we face is in making the radical shift onto a low carbon pathway by 2010-12, and thereafter driving down carbon intensity at an unprecedented 9% per annum, for up to two decades." (Tyndall Centre 2006b: 162)

Some commentators, such as George Monbiot and the Met Office, believe that Northern countries should reduce their emissions by 90% below 1990 levels by 2030 under a contraction and convergence model (see Monbiot 2006a, 2006b and 2006c) because the calculations are flawed in the Tyndall Centre report. In an article in The Guardian, he claimed that the authors of the Tyndall Report "muddled the figures" because "Friends of the Earth [who partly commissioned the report] had already set the target before it asked its researchers to find out what the target should be. I suspect that it chose the wrong number because it believed a 90% cut by 2030 would not be politically acceptable." He accused the Tyndall Centre of "using CO2 and CO2 equivalent interchangeably" and states that the report calls "for a limit of 450 parts of CO2, which means at least 500 parts of CO2 equivalent. At this level there is a low to very low probability of keeping the temperature rise below two degrees" (Monbiot 2006b). He reconfirmed this stance at a recent talk at the Old Market in Hove. Kevin Anderson, one of the Tyndall Centre Report authors, has responded to these accusations and the debate continues. (Anderson 2006)

After asking my local Labour Party MP, who is a member of the House of Commons Science and technology Committee, about what his position on this debate was, he responded with a letter where he stated: "I agree with the Tyndall Report" (Turner 2006). When asked about this in the House of Commons by Colin Challen, David Miliband, Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave the following ominous response:

Colin Challen: "Is my right hon. Friend going to review our 2050 target of a 60 per cent. cut in emissions in the light of the Exeter conference and of the most recent report by the Tyndall centre, which shows that, if our current transport appetite continues, we will have to reduce emissions by 70 per cent. by 2030 and by 90 per cent. by 2050?"

David Miliband: "I will deal with these issues, but I always say that we must try to achieve at least a 60 per cent. reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. There is always a danger in changing an ambitious target that has a widespread degree of buy-in and consensus. The CBI, voluntary organisations and, I think, the Opposition parties recognise the power of that 60 per cent. target, so I am slightly loth to start changing it too soon. But I recognise the value of the point that my hon. Friend makes." (House of Commons debate: 2006a)

Other UK politicians have similarly supported the position of the Tyndall Report (House of Commons debate: 2006b). There is increasing pressure to reduce carbon emissions beyond the 60 % advocated by the government and the current climate change bill. If a 90% reduction is demanded – whether by 2030 or 2050 – further drastic cuts will have to be made in all areas, including agriculture.

In May 2006, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and the European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO) - together with the European Commission - released a report looking at the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. It concluded that:

A full breakdown of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the various sectors in the EU-25 can be found below:

(Source: IPTS/ESTO 2006, p.106)

The summary of the report finishes by stating:

"At a subsequent stage, there will have to be consideration of whether and how the life-cycle impacts of those products that most affect the environment can be reduced. After that, the Commission will seek to stimulate action for those products that have the greatest potential for environmental improvement at the lowest socio-economic cost." (IPTS/ESTO 2006: 18)

The Commission, as well as many other actors, are looking to reduce the energy intensity of agricultural goods. Modern agriculture is not only vulnerable to climate change but it as also a major cause of climate change dues to its emissions of greenhouse gases and other damaging environmental impacts.

"Food Miles"

Supermarkets, NGOs, politicians and citizens have been heavily influenced by the climate change agenda and have started advocating a relocalisation of agriculture as a way of tackling the problem, however a large proportion of them have simplified the debate and focussed purely on the "food miles" input to total energy use of products. "Food miles" is a measure of the distance food travels from producer to consumer and is an attempt to internalise the energy costs and negative environmental externalities related to the transport of agricultural goods.

Organisations such as Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming, the Soil Association, the RSPB and a multitude of other environmental groups have been lobbying citizens, organisations and politicians alike on the issue of food miles.

One example of a statement from such an organisation, would be the following position from Headcorn Sustainability Group, a "membership based, not for profit organisation that campaigns for sustainable lifestyles":

"Over 100 years ago, nearly all the food we ate came from less than a 20 mile radius of our homes. What a different story today. Wine from Chile, strawberries from California, beans from Kenya, apples from New Zealand, beef from Argentina, the list is endless. The average contents of a supermarket trolley with only 20 items of produce could have travelled over 50,000 miles to get to your dinner plate, which is equivalent to twice round the world and in the process releasing 37 kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Assisted by free trade, no tax on aviation fuel, supermarkets transport food from every corner of the globe… this is not only damaging British Farmers but is bad news for the environment, for our roads and for our bodies. The air pollution from heavy lorries driving hundreds of thousands of miles or the aircraft spewing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere to bring us out of season strawberries affects both our natural environment and our health.

"Today more and more people are beginning to question the vast distances food travels to reach our tables and ask why supermarkets are stocking asparagus from Peru, or apples from Africa, when Kent is known for the quality of its home produce. People are also demanding seasonal food and Craig Smith, owner of The Three Chimneys at Biddenden tells me that he has made a concentrated effort to ‘go local’." (Kemp 2006)

This agenda has gained so much attention that in September 2006, Tescos announced a plan to reduce their environmental footprint by increasing local sourcing and cutting food miles. Part of their 10-part community plan is to "stock more local lines than any other retailer" and "promote regional products more" (Allen 2006a) They even launched a regional sourcing website (http://www.tesco.com/regionalsourcing/), where shoppers can recommend their favourite local products.

A multitude of politicians have spoken out against food miles. For example, Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary, has said "Our own research has revealed that supermarket lorries travel the equivalent of almost four return trips to the moon everyday. This highlights the need for government action to encourage more local supply.

"Today's consumers want to know that supermarkets are taking a responsible attitude towards the environment. This must include trying to reduce the distances that our food travels before it reaches our dinner plates." (Huhne 2006)

Many other UK politicians have made similar statements. Even DfID and DEFRA have also been battling with each over the issue of "food miles". While DEFRA wants more food produced locally in its remit to help tackle climate change, DfID has fought against this because the development impacts of such a move are unknown (Conversation with Stephanie Barrientos). Indeed, the UK government already has an Action Plan to develop Organic farming in England, with the aim of increasing the supply to the indigenous market of organic food from 30% "to at least 70%." (DEFRA 2002b: 2)

If you search any news website for the term "food miles," you can find a plethora of articles of the environmental damage caused by importing food from across the globe. Particularly popular targets seem to be Kenyan flowers and mange tout, New Zealand apples and other goods which could potentially be grown in the UK or Europe. Many journalists also suggest that UK citizens should return to consuming seasonally produced food.

Food that has travelled long distances is increasingly perceived by many different actors as being harmful to the environment and has resulted in many consumers buying locally. There is no doubt that CO2 emissions caused by food transport have been rising:

"According to the most recent Defra figures, CO2 emissions caused by food transport for the UK have been rising. Road and air food miles generated nearly 18m metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2004 - up 6% on the previous year. The increase followed a 15% rise in emissions over the decade to 2002." (Allen 2006b)

However, this is a key example of the simplification of the debate. As Pirog et al. show, food miles can be a small percentage of the total energy inputs in a product. Indeed, they show that transportation accounted for "11 percent of the energy use within the food system [in the United States], considerably less than agricultural production (17.5 percent) and processing (28.1 percent)."

(Source Pirog et al. 2001: 26)

They also go onto point out that energy use by sectors also varies tremendously by the type of food considered:

"For example, for a one-kilogram loaf of bread more than 70 percent of the energy is used in the production and processing sectors. For a one pound can of corn, those same two sectors use only 27 percent of the energy, with packaging accounting for over one-fourth of the total energy used. The energy used to transport a one pound can of corn home and to prepare it exceeds the energy needed to produce the corn." (Source Pirog et al. 2001: 7-8)

The percentage of energy of total energy inputs used for transporting agricultural goods does not solely depend on how far it has travelled, but also on which form of transport is used:

(Source: Woodin et al. 2004: 150)

Tara Garnett reconfirms this when she shows - using the example of New Zealand apples - that food miles are not adequate as a measure of transport emissions of greenhouse gases:

"When it comes to imported apples, the mode of transport makes a big difference. The environmental impact of transport from New Zealand by sea is not dissimilar to that of transport from southern Europe by road, even though the distance is far greater." (Garnett 2003: 69)

A DEFRA report on food miles was recently released were it also admitted the ambiguity of using "food miles" as an effective indicator of sustainability:

"The impact of food transport can be offset to some extent if food imported to an area has been produced more sustainably than the food available locally. For example, a case study showed that it can be more sustainable (at least in energy efficiency terms) to import tomatoes from Spain than to produce them in heated greenhouses in the UK outside the summer months. Another case study showed that it can be more sustainable to import organic food into the UK than to grow non-organic food in the UK." (DEFRA 2005: v)

They also go onto say:

"moving to a lower food miles system has possible implications for transport efficiency and energy efficiency. If there is a growth in business for smaller producers and retailers, there could be an increase in energy consumption or congestion as smaller vehicles are used and economies of scale in production are lost." (DEFRA 2005: 78)

Food miles is a simplistic measure which only uses the distance travelled in determining how energy intensive and greenhouse gas polluting a certain product is. As the following section will show, a much more complex model must be used to measure energy inputs used in a product.

Life Cycle Assessment

The New Zealand government has responded to the "food miles" movement in its export markets – such as the UK and Germany - by commissioning a report looking at the life cycle assessment of a few of its products, such as dairy products, apples, onions and lamb.

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an assessment of the environmental effects a product or service has during its lifetime, from cradle to grave. In an LCA all the important processes during the products lifecycle are included, from the raw materials which are brought in and used on the farm (the cradle) until the product is disposed of and the waste is dealt with (the grave). An LCA can, for example, be used for assessing how much greenhouse gas is emitted to the environment during the production of one litre milk.

The New Zealand report, written by Caroline Sanders et al., found that:

"it is not the distance that should be assessed but the total energy used, production to plate including transport. The results of this analysis show that NZ products compare favourably with lower energy and emissions per tonne of product delivered to the UK compared to other UK sources. In the case of dairy NZ is at least twice as efficient; and for sheep meat four times as efficient." (Saunders et al. 2006: v)

The report applied a comparative approach to direct, indirect and capital inputs and outputs of UK and New Zealand farms. The diagram below shows which inputs and outputs were included in the calculations:

(Source: Saunders et al. 2006: 22)

The authors compiled a list of energy and carbon dioxide indicators to test for (the methodology is very complex and is explained fully in the report). The authors produce comprehensive tables comparing production in New Zealand and the UK, such as the one below on dairy production:

(Source: Saunders et al. 2006: 61 - for better quality image of above picture, see here)

Even though the report underestimates the energy associated with certain areas of production in the UK due to the lack of information (see table above for areas which lack data), it still finds that in the case of dairy New Zealand is at least twice as efficient as the UK in dairy production. It must be noted that the author of this report may have reason to be biased because she is from New Zealand, however it is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper to try to test and reproduce the results that were found

Some of the main differences that the report lists between UK and New Zealand agriculture include the amount of fertilisers used, the amount of animal feed and fodder used and the percentage of the total electricity generation coming from renewables.

As the report summarises:

"New Zealand has greater production efficiency in many food commodities compared to the UK. For example New Zealand agriculture tends to apply less fertilisers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside eating grass instead large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates. As Wells (2001) mentions, European dairy farms involve housing animals for extended periods of time. The fact that New Zealand farmers do not require subsidies to be internationally competitive, unlike their British counterparts, indicates these efficiencies of production in this country." (Saunders et al. 2006: 1)

Another key difference is that New Zealand uses much more renewable energy - such as electricity generated from hydroelectric sources or wind - than the UK, who use more fossil fuels. The report points out that:

"The carbon dioxide released during electricity generation comes from the mix of fuels used. In the UK 72 per cent of the energy required for generating electricity comes from coal and gas reserves. By contrast in NZ coal and gas contribute just 36 per cent, while renewable hydro energy is 32 per cent. Also note that due to large losses when converting fossil fuel to electricity, of the electricity generated in NZ 64 per cent comes from hydro." (Saunders et al. 2006: 33)

Life Cycle Assessments for all?

Food that has travelled long distances is increasingly perceived as being harmful to the environment and has gained media attention in Europe and America. However, as the Saunders report argues, it is not the distance that should be assessed but the total energy used, production to plate including transport.

The "buy local" environmental movement is growing in Northern countries. Developing countries should take the example of New Zealand, and commission similar Life Cycle Assessments of their export products so that they can counter the arguments made by the increasingly influential "buy local" movements in their export markets.

Sanders et al. point out that relatively few LCA-type studies have been performed up until now. She hypothesises that:

"Perhaps one of the reasons why this is the case could be that relevant data can be very hard to find and that often they can only be obtained by conducting an ad hoc survey. Moreover, energy use/environmental impact figures are not usually included in sets of official statistics, although this may change in the future as environmental concerns become more pressing, and with the requirement for certain indicators to be monitored in line with international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions)." (Source: Saunders et al. 2006: 16)

Although gathering all of the relevant information and compiling such reports may be expensive (as has been shown in the debate surrounding international standards such as EUREPGAP), it would be more cost effective than northern markets putting trade barriers up because of environmental concerns as the following section attempts to show.

Negative Impacts on Development of a "food miles" approach?

Agriculture has already been liberalised in many countries. Vandana Shiva gives five major sources of external liberalisation of globalisation of agriculture in India (Shiva et al. 2002: 13):

- The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the World Bank.
- The Agreement on Agriculture of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
- Bilateral trade pressure from countries such as the US.
- Internal policy pressure by Transnational Corporations (TNCs) in agribusiness.
- Commitment of experts and policy makers to the external liberalisation programme.

Under these pressures many countries have opened their borders to cheap, intensively produced and subsidised agriculture imports from the US and Europe. Many countries have radically changed their agricultural markets and practices to increase the amount of goods that they export and import as well as expanding the amount of cash crops that are produced. For Northern countries to turn around and demand to only consume locally produced produce could be seen as a new form of "environmental colonialism". Robert Neslon writes about "environmental colonialism" in relation to African conservation and game parks, however parallels could be drawn to the movement to "save" Africa from climate change by demanding a relocalised and deindustrialised agriculture:

"The greatest current efforts to "save" Africa are associated with contemporary environmentalism. The results have not been as devastating as the experience of slavery, yet they have often served Western interests and goals much more than the interests of ordinary Africans. In some cases, local populations have been displaced and impoverished in order to create national parks and to serve other conservation objectives. Under the banner of saving the African environment, Africans in the last half century have been subjected to a new form of "environmental colonialism."" (Nelson 2003: 65)

Instead of displacing Africans from their land to create national parks, a policy to relocalise agriculture could displace many people in developing countries from their jobs and livelihoods. While many who have advocated the problem of food miles have pointed out the distance travelled for products to reach Western markets, there have been few calls to cut UK exports. Surely if environmental and political groups were serious about food miles, equally vocal demands would be made to cut back on the food miles created by UK exports? However, imported products are often only targeted by the "buy local" movement (which could be seen as a re-emergence of mercantilism) (Hoekman et al. 2001, Trebilcock et al. 2005). Some critics of the "buy local" movement have argued that food miles is being used as an excuse for further import barriers and local market protection in European and US markets, instead of being driven by a desire to increase environmental sustainability (Barber cited in Saunders et al. 2006: 7). Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and other farming organisations in the UK have co-opted the food miles argument for their own and often use it to help promote domestic agriculture (NFU 2006, Farmers Weekly 2006). Also, in response to France’s proposal to introduce a European carbon tax on imports from countries that were not signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, many developing countries saw the tax as another potential barrier to trade. In an article in the Financial Times, Helen Clark, New Zealand’s prime minister was also quoted as saying: "The next round of protectionism from Europe is likely to be based on some spurious argument like food miles." (Strauss 2006)

Developing country farmers are heavily dependent on developed country markets. A short opinion piece from the International Institute for Environment and Development finds how much developing countries are dependent on the UK for their exports:

- A wide range of fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) are imported to the UK from sub-Saharan African countries (SSA – excluding South Africa). UK consumers spend over £1 million at retail every day on FFV from this region. Furthermore, the UK is consuming more produce today from Africa than ever before, and it is growing.
- In total, 40% of air freighted FFV imports to the UK are from SSA. Indeed, poor African countries rely on the UK market to support their domestic industry.
- A full 70% of green beans (of exportable quality) produced in Kenya come to the UK. This business is perceived as a success, and a number of other countries have followed - 87% of UK green beans imports are from five African countries.
- Air freight of fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) from SSA accounts for less than 0.1% of total carbon UK emissions.

They go onto state:

"Air-freighted produce from SSA to the UK bestows considerable direct benefits on poor rural economies. Over one million people in rural Africa are supported by the FFV exports to the UK. An estimated 50-60,000 small-scale producers and 50-60,000 employees on larger farms grow produce that is consumed in the UK. When dependents and service providers are factored in, an estimated 1-1.5 million people’s livelihoods depend in part on the supply chain linking production on African soil and consumption in the UK. An estimated £200 million is injected into rural economies in Africa through FFV trade with the UK alone. From a development perspective, airfreight of FFV from SSA is a relatively efficient "investment" by the UK in allocating its carbon emissions when compared to the efficiency of the remaining 99.9% that is supporting 60 million UK residents." (MacGregor et al. 2006)

In the big picture, the environmental cost of international food transport is trivial compared with UK domestic food miles. Banning air-freighted food from Africa would reduce UK total emissions by less than 0.1%, but at the same time would deny around an estimated one million people in Africa their livelihood. Indeed, to penalise developing countries - who are feeling the force of climate change mainly as a result of developed countries emissions – by restricting imports, would negatively impact developing countries in two ways. As the Stern report points out, the impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed - the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most (Stern 2006). Not only do developing countries have fewer disposable resources to adapt to climate change, but by restricting imports from those countries, the livelihoods of millions of people would potentially be negatively affected.

However, what the authors of this opinion piece fail to mention is the fact that:

"Increasing the amount of food produced for export not only makes a country dependent on world prices for its income, but can adversely affect its domestic food supply...Similarly, although vegetable production in Kenya more than doubled between 1969 and 1999, there was a six-fold increase in exports, resulting in a decrease in vegetable consumption among the Kenyans. The largest importer of Kenyan horticultural exports is the UK. Between 70 percent and 90 percent of fresh produce imported to the UK from Africa is controlled by the supermarkets, who pocket around 45 percent of the retail price, while the farmers receive about 17 percent" (Millstone and Lang 2003: 73)

Often, international trade is not the answer to food poverty. Where hunger exists, what is often lacking is not food, but access to either money to buy it or land on which to grow it (Sen 1982) While famines have decreased in number and severity in the twentieth century with international trade and the expansion of markets and food aid (Devereux 2000), mass hunger and malnutrition still exists.

We must ask who benefits from these export markets and if they only benefit the affluent and the traders, but exclude the marginal and poor. Many poor economies experience rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce great amounts of food for export. Many argue that those agricultural lands should be used for domestic food production in order to reduce the rates of malnutrition.

There are also many other factors which need to be included in the relocalisation debate such as other environmental effects (toxic pollution, destruction of biodiversity, pollution and depletion of water resources and the erosion of soil and soil fertility) (Shiva 2004: 65); the concentration of power and ownership in food production, transportation and distribution in the hands of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) (Lang 2004: 7) and the resultant disempowerment, dispossession and suicides of small farmers and landless labour in countries such as India (Shiva 2002: 12); how smaller farms have been shown to have higher output efficiency than larger farms (Shiva 2002: 53) especially when you factor in the subsidies paid to larger farmers and the money allocated to clean up the environmental and health side effects of industrialised agriculture (such as water pollution) (Pretty 2002); the necessity to protect local farmers in developing countries, especially small and poorer ones, against volatile currency and commodity markets (Woodin et al. 2005: 56), especially when they are not afforded the "decoupled income support" that European and US farmers receive (Shiva 2002: 17-18); to potentially protect domestic food security as, according to Vandana Shiva, trade liberalisation leads to food insecurity at four levels (a transfer of resources from peasants to industry, a shift of land use from the production of staple goods to luxury and non-food crops (cash crops) such as shrimp and flowers for exports, a diversion of cereals from domestic markets to exports which creates domestic scarcity and rising prices and finally a removal of food subsidies, thus reducing domestic consumption and increasing food exports.) (Shiva 2002: 24); the notion of food sovereignty, where individuals, communities and nations should have the right to determine their own local food and farm policy so that they can protect and promote small-scale sustainable agriculture against food dumping by other nations (Via Campesina 2005); the importance of people working in agriculture to prevent a persistent dualism in the population – that nature is separate from people, that nature can be conserved in reserves and wildernesses, and that economies can succeed without regard to the fundamental significance of agricultural and food systems. As Jules Pretty points out, Roman agricultural writers spoke of agriculture as two things: "agri and cultura (the fields and the culture). It is only very recently that we have filtered out the culture and replaced it with commodity." (Pretty 2002: 7)

Ultimately, it depends on what policy-makers want to prioritise. This is a complicated issue and needs to be looked at case by case. It is difficult to make generalisations. This is especially the case, as I have only able to touch on many issues briefly and have left many other questions unanswered, such as: Could organic agriculture feed the world, especially as global population levels are set to level out at around 9 billion by 2050 (UNDESA 2004)? Are large or small farms better placed to produce food for this many people? Do people want to stay connected (or be reconnected) to the land? What will the impacts of climate change be on agriculture productivity and the ability to produce foodstuffs locally? How will potentially lower yields (with climate change) affect poverty, the ability of households to invest in a better future and even national public finances? Will more and more dependence on international markets be needed as local and regional climatic shocks increase with climate change? What effect will global peak oil have on agricultural and transportation systems, especially in light of the different impacts felt in Cuba and North Korea after oil shortages?

Conclusion

Modern agriculture is not only highly vulnerable to climate change but it as also a major cause of climate change dues to its emissions of greenhouse gases and other damaging environmental effects. However, a focus purely on "food miles" is not an adequate measure of the total energy inputs of a product, let alone as a measure of transport emissions of greenhouse gasses.

There is no doubt that greenhouse gases must be cut, however emphasis must be placed on full life cycle assessments before a potentially anti-development "food miles" approach becomes widespread in consumer practices in richer countries. Indeed, to penalise developing countries - who are feeling the force of climate change mainly as a result of developed countries emissions – by restricting imports, would negatively impact developing countries in two ways. Not only do developing countries have fewer disposable resources to adapt to climate change, but by restricting imports from those countries, the livelihoods of millions of people would potentially be negatively affected.

If a life cycle assessment approach is pursued, hopefully pressure will shift from reducing "food miles" - which can be a small percentage of the total energy input – to reducing emissions in all stages in the cycle of world - but especially Northern - agriculture. As Vandana Shiva points out, "Emissions of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels for agricultural purposes in England and Germany were as much as 0.046 and 0.053 tonnes per ha, while they are only 0.007 i.e. roughly seven times lower in non-industrial agriculture." (Shiva 2004: 69) As mentioned above, much like New Zealand has commissioned studies to assess the full cycle assessment of its exports to counter the rise of the "food miles" movement in its export markets, so should developing countries do the same for its own products.

If a carbon tax were to be introduced as an attempt to reduce total emissions, emphasis should not just be placed on taxing transport but on taxing the net energy inputs of agricultural practices.

However, other factors such as power, food security and concentration of the ownership of the land, should also be considered within a relocalisation framework. Decisions on agriculture and food consumption policy should not just be taken by looking at economic or environmental efficiency, but by also looking at the broader picture.

Bibliography

Allen, Katie (2006a) "Incredible Fruitcake tempts the regional buyers from Tesco", article in the Guardian, Saturday September 16, 2006
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1873862,00.html

Allen, Katie (2006b) "Tesco opens doors to local growers", article in the Guardian, Saturday September 15, 2006
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1873437,00.html

Anderson, Kevin (2006) Letter in The Guardian published on Saturday September 23, 2006.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangepolitics/message/2621

DEFRA (2002a) News Release: Beckett Delivers Kyoto protocol to UK
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020307a.htm

DEFRA (2002b) Action plan to develop organic food and farming in England, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA Publications
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/policy/actionplan/pdf/actionplan.pdf

DEFRA (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development, AEA Technology Environment, Harwell
http://www.risc.org.uk/pdf/Food%20miles%20full.pdf

Devereux, Stephen (2000) Famine in the Twentieth Century, IDS Working Paper 105

DTI (2003) One energy future – creating a low carbon economy, Energy White Paper, The Stationary Office, Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by Command of Her Majesty February 2003
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/policy-strategy/energy-white-paper/page21223.html

Farmers Weekly (2006) Food Miles Endorsements
http://www.fwi.co.uk/gr/foodmiles/endorsements.html

Garnett, Tara (2003) Wise Moves: Exploring the relationship between food, transport and CO2, Transport 2000, London

Hoekman, Bernard and Michel Kostecki (2001) The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond, Oxford University Press, Oxford

House of Commons Debate (2006a), Order of the Day: Climate Change, 12th October 2006

House of Commons Debate (2006b), Point of Order: Green Taxes, 16 October 2006
http://theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-10-16c.659.0

Huhne, Chris (2006) "Government action needed over increasing food miles – Huhne" Press Release, 21st Jul 2006
http://chrishuhne.org.uk/news/71.html?PHPSESSID=7042b0e0a564258d7be706c1be51ea66

IPTS/ESTO (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf

Kemp, Penny (2006) "Over 100 years ago, nearly all the food we ate came from less than a 20 mile radius of our homes. What a different story today." Headcorn Sustainability Group
http://www.headcornsustainability.co.uk/hsg.php?q=2&a=123

Lang, Tim (2004) Food Industrialisation and Food Power: Implications for Food Governance, Gatekeeper Series No.114, International Institute for Environment and Development.

MacGregor, James and Bill Vorley (2006) Fair miles? The concept of "food miles" through a sustainable development lens, International Institute for Environment and Development, Published:Oct 2006
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11064IIED.pdf

Millstone, Erik and Tim Lang (2003) The Atlas of Food: Who Eats What, Where and Why, Earthscan, London

Monbiot, George (2006a) Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, Allen Lane, London
Monbiot, George (2006b) "The threat is from those who accept climate change, not those who deny it", Published in The Guardian, Thursday September 21, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1877283,00.html

Monbiot, George (2006c) "An 87% Cut by 2030 - That’s what we need in the United Kingdom to avoid catastrophic climate change", Published on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, 21st September 2006
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/an-87-cut-by-2030

Nelson, Robert H., (2003) Environmental Colonialism: "Saving" Africa from Africans, The Independent Review, v. VIII, n.1, Summer 2003, pp. 65– 86.

NFU (2006) NFU Public Procurement Strategy 2006
http://www.nfuonline.com/x4991.xml

Pirog, Rich, Van Pelt, Timothy, Enshayan, Kamyar and Ellen Cook (2001) Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions, Leopold Center for Sustainable, Iowa State University, Ames
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/ppp/food_mil.pdf

Pretty, Jules (2002) Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature, Earthscan Publications, London.

Saunders, Caroline, Berber, Andrew and Greg Taylor (2006) Food Miles – Comparative Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture Industry, Research Report No. 285, Agribusiness & Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/2328_RR285_s6508.pdf

Sen, Amartya (1982) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Shiva, Vandana and Gitanjali Bedi (eds.) (2002) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security: The Impact of Globalisation, Sage Publications, London

Shiva, Vandana (2004) "The ecological costs of industrial agriculture and the economic imperative to shift to organic farming" Published in National Bank news review / National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, 20,nos.2-3 (2004)

Stern, Nicholas (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury,
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

Strauss, Delphine (2006) "French PM calls for European carbon levy" Published in the Financial Times on November 13 2006 20:18
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c9ee2f5e-7350-11db-9bac-0000779e2340.html

Sturcke, James (2006) "Climate change bill to balance environmental and energy concerns," Published Wednesday November 15, 2006 in The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/queensspeech2006/story/0,,1948345,00.html

Trebilcock, Michael J., and Robert Howse (2005) The Regulation of International Trade, Routledge, New York

Turner, Desmond (2006) Personal Correspondence, 30th October 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change (2006a) The Future Starts Here: The route to a low carbon economy, Commissioned by Friends of the Earth and The Cooperative Bank
http://www.foe.org.uk/resource/reports/low_carbon_economy.pdf

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change (2006b) Living with a Carbon Budget
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/living_carbon_budget.pdf

UNDESA (2004) World Population to 2300, United Nations, New York
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Via Campesina (2005) Statement on Food Soverignty
http://www.aseed.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=153&Itemid=35

Woodin, Michael and Caroline Lucas (2004) Green Alternatives to Globalisation: A Manifesto, Pluto Press, London

Comments from other people

Professor 1 comments

This is an outstanding paper that is very successful in exploring the reasons why "food miles" are a limited and inappropriate approach to assessing the climate-related effects of the food chain. The arguments are engagingly presented in a very articulate manner on what is a-very complex topic. The author is careful not to exaggerate the case and qualifies the arguments appropriately.

From Shiva to Stern the evidence is well-used and the arguments are marshalled logically and purposively. Necessarily, givenwprd limits, the arguments are sometimes concise but the author is careful to take a balanced perspective, identifying potential weaknesses in the evidence or avenues that it was not possible to fully explore.

The author recognises the difficulty of coming to clear cut policy conclusions and the need for more research. The suggestion in the conclusions is that life cycle assessments should be the approach to making the food chain -climate change linkage...though the meaning of the concept is not explained. However, the underlying point of a more comprehensive approach and better research is clear.

My only real quibble was to do with the treatment of the effects of the new export agriculture on distribution within developing countries. The author does not suggest that the effects are wholly beneficial and indeed points to falling vegetable consumption, e.g. in Kenya, alongside the explosive growth in some vegetable exports from Kenya. Nevertheless, the main thrust is sensibly towards the potential costs of a "relocalisation" of food production for developing country agriculture. The quibble is that the income distribution effects and implications for poverty of this export agriculture are not really given any attention. There is some evidence that the consequence of competing in international markets is to skew production relations towards more intensive, (land and capital) production methods that favour richer producers and, as a consequence, the income benefits are poorly distributed. Moreover, there may be further knock on effects that impact negatively on poor producers who are not part of the vegetable export business. Overall however, this is a really excellent term paper.

Professor 2 comments

This paper sets itself a very ambitious task from the outset: "to bring together the climate change, food miles, life cycle assessment, relocalisation and other literatures to investigate the potential negative impacts on development of relocalising agriculture". The style of the paper is rather unusual: the references draw as much from popular culture and political
sources - the media (The Guardian, Financial Times, Farmers Weekly), government statements (DFID, DEFRA, DTI, House of Commons debates), NGOs, CBOs and activist websites - as from academic publications.

The paper is also written in a style that sometimes reads more like an activist manifesto than an academic text: entire sections of the paper are constructed around quotations from secondary sources, and many of these quotations are political statements. There is an over-reliance on extended quotations (and tables and diagrams cut-and-pasted from pdf documents), which often substitutes for original argument and analysis by the author.

This paper is very long, at almost 7,000 words - 2,000 words above the word limit. (Some of the sentences are also very long - one sentence in the Introduction is 89 words!) One solution would be to cut or annex the numerous lengthy quotes included in this paper. To mention just one example of many, the following quotation adds little value and should have been paraphrased, summarised,, or critiqued instead of reporduced in full:

This paper develops an important argument, but the thrust of the argument is buried under an avalanche of quotations and statistics that aree presented uncritically, as though quoting somebody else necessarily lends credibility to the author's preferred position on these issues. For example, instead of critiquing the Stern report personally, the author writes: "what the authors of this opinion piece fail to mention is the fact that:..." followed by a 103-word direct quotation from Millstone and Land 2003)! If more of the paper was written in the style of page 14, it would have been more succinct, clearly argued - and original. Unfortunately, the style undermines the substance.

From Will Wolmer

I've had a rapid look at this before it gets buried in the email pile. I enjoyed this paper and found it a novel, sideways look at something that has quickly come to be taken to uncritically for granted - ie food miles = bad.

It makes some fair points. The caveat, however, is that you should be wary of hooking too much of your argument onto the Sanders (NZ) paper. This appears to come from a New Zealand agribusiness-focused research outfit who clearly have a significant agenda (talking of partial science!). Indeed some of the assumptions on UK dairying look a bit dubious too me (many dairies keep cows on grass much longer and use much less concentrates than assumed). Having had a quick peak at the report it appears that they also assume that UK apples are stored for 6 months whilst NZ apples not at all - so it is hardly comparing like with like!

That said is clearly the case that food miles are being used as a potential barrier - as with other standards: animal welfare and various SPS measures for example.

Also, as you point out, an export based agricultural policy comes with significant downsides for developing country producers (who captures value) and in many cases regional and local markets might be getter geared to local production systems and more equitable than production geared towards meeting EU/supermarket standards with all the costs those entail.

Good luck with this

(and if I do end up marking it you might see these comments again!)

Will

Ed's comment: Your comments were really useful. As I mentioned in the paper, it was unfortunate that I could not test out the NZ results. It would be interesting to try and reproduce them again, as well as to look at the life cycle assessment of locally produced organic food and how that compares to NZ produce.

Also, with respect to apples, I presume (although I don't know for certain) that because they would be produced domestically in the UK, they would need to be stored over the winter so that they could then be consumed when they are out of season (instead of them being shipped from NZ). I need to check this up!

From Sam Ansell

"Although you have outlined some of the negative impacts of re-localisation, I feel it would be fair to mention that potential positive development impacts also exist? (you have done this by mentioning some of the issues – maybe this could be done more more explicitly?) And that ‘food miles’ is not necessarily the ultimate expression of re-localisation? i.e. re-localisation is also about deeper understanding of food production and relationships with the environment, support of local culture, community, livelihoods, economy etc... just that ‘food miles’ in isolation is not the best way of looking at it?

"Factors in favour of re-localisation: being able to see how local food is produced and know the processes and people involved is a lot easier than the complexity, cost, and difficulty of direct comparison of LCAs? I agree that its not just distance but whole process, which must be easier for average consumers to understand locally rather than through the complexty of international trade?"

Ed's comment: Unfortunately, I had to cut out lots of the arguments I made for relocalisation because I did not have enough space in my paper. Please see them here

From Tom Chance:

"Four main comments, the second and third are related.

"First, really good paper, I think you covered things quite nicely given the short length. So the following comments may just be mean because you've stuck to a word limit :)

"Second, there's missing context to the Miliband quote about sticking to the 60% figure. There's lots of interesting stuff in the Stern Review about the economic impacts of fiddling with macro economic targets, especially in terms of the long-term investment decisions of companies. The more changeable the situation, the more likely they are to hold off any important decisions if possible rather than buying, for example, new machinery, factory space, shares, etc. until things settle down. So whilst it is really quite awful to be reluctant about listening to near-as-damnit facts, there is reason to his madness.

"Third, and related to the above, I'd really like to know how you'd translate LCAs done by every industry, product type and even individual product into policy. One of the biggest challenges, I think, is putting together a simple, coherent framework that is appropriate and workable. If not by direct subsidisation or border/domestic taxes, what could you do? Especially if you find, for example, that organic meat shipped within thirty miles is better than NZ meat, but bog standard UK meat is worse, and then Kenyan beans are better than UK beans on average but in the summer British beans are better because they don't need heating (made up example). The policy advantage of food miles is that it's not rocket science working out how to price long-distance production cycles out of the market. It's also possible that overall there's a correlation between LCAs and food miles, though I have no evidence for that other than that it's the case with paper and charcoal, and I suspect with organic food.

"Fourth, I wish you'd expand on that massive paragraph towards the end where you cite all of the other reasons to localise. The big question is of course how one could possibly integrate all of those issues into a unified perspective that can product decent policy :/

"Ah well, it made me think so mission success. Please post it on your blog, I'd like to link to it =)

"Tom"

Tom also sent some sections from the Stern Report which he thought were relevant to his second point:

Relevant to your paper...

Chapter 14 - Harnessing markets to reduce emissions

Economic theory suggests the following for mitigation policy:

* The marginal costs of mitigation are high when uncertainty is high, and when the technologies and practices involved are untested. So trying to abate rapidly in the short-term quickly becomes costly for firms. (This much can be seen in the costs borne by Peabody in constructing BedZED, especially with the CHP).
* Marginal damages will be more or less constant in the short-term because the emissions caused won't surface as problems until much later on, so the problems will only rise sharply when action isdelayed.
* This mismatch between short-term costs and long-term damages needs to be addressed. Stern raises this to argue that policy should be driven by a long term stabilisation target, with short-term policies based on tax, carbon trading and in some circumstances regulation being implemented with the high costs in mind). Common price signals need to be set that bear a relation to the long-term targets without
having too great an impact on short-term costs (pp.313-315).

Chapter 15 - Carbon markets in action

People, in particular businesses and investors, must have confidence in the longevity and stability of a particular policy, otherwise it will have additional mitigation costs. "Creating an expectation that a policy is very likely to be sustained over a long period is critical to its effectiveness" (p.325). Policy uncertainty provides an incentive to delay investment decisions (p.326).

If businesses believe that carbon pricess will rise in a particular way this should lead them to invest in low carbon assets (no mention of practices). But in the transitional period, particularly if the credibility of policies is in question, then these price rises may not be properly factored into decisions, so locking our economy into a high-carbon trajectory, making future mitigations efforts more expensive (pp.325-326).
* Not only in buying assets such as industrial plants and buildings, but also in developing business plans and re-orienting them around more globalised or localised production/consumption lifecycles.

Ed's comment: In relation to the second point, the government, instead of sticking to the 60% figure which it will have to change later anyway if it is serious about climate change, should change it now so that there will be less disruption with business etc in the long term. In relation to the third point, I have tried to answer some of those questions above (e.g. Tescos is working on how to measure emissions etc). In relation to the fourth point, see arguments made here. Thanks for all the feedback!

ed's website

Search

The negative development impacts of a "food miles" approach to agriculture