This site provides a whole range of case studies that have been conducted in the Northeastern part of the US. The cases touch on wind-power, biodiesel production and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from farm related processes.
Climateandfarming.org: Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Farming
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Revise, Revise, Revise....
Despite the fact that my last research proposal was accepted by my committee it is looking like I may have to change gears in order to secure the necessary funding to conduct the project.
The problem is that there isn't much research funding for work focused on food systems. There is funding available for work looking into health, sustainable ag and labor related to food security, but nothing on the function of food systems in the context of food security.
But the issue is not all that bad. For the past few months I have been involved in a side project with the BIOAg organic farm here at WSU, which is focused on closed-loop farming systems and the role of such production systems in reducing agricultural related greenhouse gases.
It was kind of a simple idea and I really just thought of the research as an exercise for myself and the farm manager here at WSU. However, the interest in the project has just taken off and people are already wanting to use the models for their farm projects outside of WSU. Plus, there appears to be clear funding opportunities for work like this. The strange thing is I never really pictured myself doing this for a PhD, but it seems that the interest and opportunities for research funding have place this research in position to be drafted into an alternate proposal.
It is just strange how far I have come from I first began this journey.
Anyway, I haven't been posting much because my time has been completely consumed with the elections here in the US and this project. But for all of those interested in what is going on I will post a little blurb shortly...
The problem is that there isn't much research funding for work focused on food systems. There is funding available for work looking into health, sustainable ag and labor related to food security, but nothing on the function of food systems in the context of food security.
But the issue is not all that bad. For the past few months I have been involved in a side project with the BIOAg organic farm here at WSU, which is focused on closed-loop farming systems and the role of such production systems in reducing agricultural related greenhouse gases.
It was kind of a simple idea and I really just thought of the research as an exercise for myself and the farm manager here at WSU. However, the interest in the project has just taken off and people are already wanting to use the models for their farm projects outside of WSU. Plus, there appears to be clear funding opportunities for work like this. The strange thing is I never really pictured myself doing this for a PhD, but it seems that the interest and opportunities for research funding have place this research in position to be drafted into an alternate proposal.
It is just strange how far I have come from I first began this journey.
Anyway, I haven't been posting much because my time has been completely consumed with the elections here in the US and this project. But for all of those interested in what is going on I will post a little blurb shortly...
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Brainstorming Food-Systems
So as I said in the previous post that there are some basic assumptions regarding agri-food systems. Based on some of these assumptions I have constructed a visual stock and flow diagram of a generic production system. Now, I do not claim that this is correct or that the connections lead to validated behavior among food production systems, but it does help me in thinking about the variables that exist within just one part of the system that includes dimensions of production, processing, distribution and access or consumption.
But this image of the production system is just on part of a larger system. From the highest level view, the overall agri-food system would be generalized by this simple diagram.
The most basic question may be, "why does there appear to be a closed loop between production and consumption?" The reason for this is that in communities where subsistence based food production is central, there is often no distribution and limited processes except in instances where food preservation is central. Yet, this processing is not the same as what one finds in conventional food systems where the emphasis is on processing to create value-added products through raw food materials, i.e. Doritos corn chips processed in Houston, TX from corn grown in Iowa.
Now, consumption feeds back into production because the food people eat is one of the primary means through which they reproduce their productive capacity, which is their labor power. The other primary means would be ingesting water and sex for child bearing (the means of re-producing labor power over a longer time horizon).
But this image of the production system is just on part of a larger system. From the highest level view, the overall agri-food system would be generalized by this simple diagram.
The most basic question may be, "why does there appear to be a closed loop between production and consumption?" The reason for this is that in communities where subsistence based food production is central, there is often no distribution and limited processes except in instances where food preservation is central. Yet, this processing is not the same as what one finds in conventional food systems where the emphasis is on processing to create value-added products through raw food materials, i.e. Doritos corn chips processed in Houston, TX from corn grown in Iowa.
Now, consumption feeds back into production because the food people eat is one of the primary means through which they reproduce their productive capacity, which is their labor power. The other primary means would be ingesting water and sex for child bearing (the means of re-producing labor power over a longer time horizon).
Formally Announcing New Research Path - Food Security and Climate Change
It has been a while since I posted a blog entry, but I have a good reason. I have been off the Internet for a bit so that I could focus my attention on re-drafting my dissertation topic. I have hinted at this shift in some previous posts, but it is official. So Monday of next week I get the opportunity to defend the proposal, which I already suspect will get overwhelming approval.
I have decided to post a quasi-lengthy abstract about the proposal. Note: some of the specifics are likely to be amended based upon the feedback I get from this meeting, but the general focus will remain.
Achieving Community Level Food Security:
Constructing Equitable, Sustainable and Resilient Food-Systems in the Face of Global Climate Change
Revised Abstract 9/9/2008
Justin Smith
INTRODUCTION:
With continued uncertainty over the impacts of climate change, rising fuel prices and degradation of the natural resource base necessary for agricultural production, there is a remerging Malthusian fear regarding the world's ability to feed itself in the coming decades (Evans, 1998; Meadows, Randers & Meadows, 2004; FAO, 2006; Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006). The concerns are perhaps more relevant than ever before when one considers the continued inability of governments, international institutions, NGOs and private firms to adequately address the persistence of food insecurity in selected populations throughout the world. In fact, depending upon the source it is estimated that between 750 and 900 million are currently undernourished and when factoring the impacts of resource loss, climate change and population increases the numbers are expected to nearly double to 1,300 million by 2080 (Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006).
In response, a number of idealized solutions have emerged, sparking debate on how best to ensure the long-term sustainability of agricultural production systems while simultaneously reducing food insecurity among vulnerable populations. At one end of this debate are those who believe that the answer lies in “perfecting” the prevailing model of agricultural modernization that has been developed over the past 60 years. This conception of a modern agricultural system emphasizes industrialization and mass production of food commodities linked to global trading systems (Lyson, 2004, Pollan, 2006). At the other end is an alternative model of local food systems that emphasizes local production, distribution and consumption of foods produced in more sustainable production systems and that are integrated with an ideal of self-reliance (Curtis, 2003; Lyson, 2004; Morgan, Marsden & Murdoch, 2006; Connell, 2008). Within the context of these two idealized types lies a variety of strategies that represent a complex hybridization of these two competing conceptions. Many of the hybrid strategies have been proposed by international institutions such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. These strategies aim to support both trade and industrialization policies, yet with a principle focus on communities and self-reliance (FAO, 2006).
However, with the complexity of issues surrounding food security, such as increasing populations and the end of cheap oil, as well as the wide regional variations in climate, resource base and socio-political environments, it is unclear which configuration(s) will produce the kinds of stability and access needed by those most vulnerable to food insecurity. For example, can industrial based agri-food production systems eventually provide the means to achieve food security? What are the impacts of such systems on the environment and how do they feedback to either increase or decrease food production? Similarly, do local agri-food systems provide more sustainable means through which to achieve food security? Again, what are the environmental impacts and do such systems actually enable distribution of food to the most vulnerable? And finally, are hybrid systems better suited than either of the other food-system configurations to address the problems of environmental impact and food access in a world confronted by climate change? In an effort to fill in the gaps missed by past research, this investigation seeks to assess the capacity of different agricultural production strategies in meeting a basic (yet critical) three part criteria: 1.) Social equity by ensuring food-security for "ALL" segments of a population, 2.) Environmental sustainability by successfully reducing (if not eliminating) negative environmental impacts, and 3.) Resilience by successfully mitigating/adapting to environmental shocks associated with global climate change.
Linked to the questions put forth above, the research is guided by a set of assumptions that among all agri-food systems land, labor, water, energy (solar, biofuel, petrol, etc.) and capital are present. It is also assumed that the ways in which these assets are managed and interact other elements within the system (and elements outside the system) will produce varying patterns of dynamic behavior in relation to peoples access to nutritional requirements for healthy livelihoods, environmental sustainability, and resilience, or the time delays in food output associated with environmental shocks. Both the questions and assumptions will be assessed by examining two case studies scaled to focused on two individual communities, one in the US and the other in India (this is open based upon request from funders seeking to address similar questions). The case studies will allow for a comparative analysis into the capacity for shifts in food system configurations commensurate with the three overarching themes of the research. This comparative analysis is also meant to open up windows into the potential for differing policies contingent upon resources, climate, and social context. Differing configurations and impacts on both environment and food security might indicate a further need for locally based analysis regarding policies linked to food security rather than a reliance on broad frameworks meant to be applied uniformly across diverse regions and populations. An additional rationale for this approach is based upon a need to provide an empirically based conceptualization of different food-system configurations and the degree to which they address food security, as well as allowing for the identification of diversified and alternative solutions in achieving environmentally sustainable and resilient food systems specifically relevant to the communities of interest.
The inherent complexity in apprehending the role that agricultural production systems play in impacting the environment and in supporting food access among all sectors of a population suggests the need for a systems based approach, rather than breaking all of the pieces into discrete parts for separate analysis. To accomplish this task the empirical studies will serve as the basis for constructing a portfolio of interconnected system dynamics models that will focus upon the stocks and flows of production, distribution and consumption with a special emphasis upon the system feedbacks that exist between communities, the environment and food stocks.
System dynamics, as a methodology, is one approach to help in understanding the dynamic character of complex non-linear systems by emphasizing the feedbacks that lead to dynamic behavior (Coyle, 1977; Ford, 1999). The main components that make up these models are described as stocks and flows, where the stocks represent points of accumulation within the system, whereas the flows describe the movement of materials such as food, water, energy, CO2 and capital throughout the system. By breaking down the components of local food systems into these explicit parts it is possible to simulate the movement of resources into the system, track the flow of greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production, as well as other negative environmental inputs. The methodology also enables a way to understand the effects of shocks on food production and consumption that are critical to evaluating the stability and resilience of the system (Ford, 1999). Based upon this conception the use of system dynamics provides several opportunities that are critical to identifying the types of policies and practices leading to more sustainable and equitable food systems.
The identification of appropriate place-based policies through system dynamics is further supported by the ability to experiment with our assumptions by iterating through various simulations that can help track the effects of these policies on the system. For example, by reducing the flow of greenhouse gas emissions in the model in order to reach some environmentally sustainable standard, it is possible to simulate the effects of such a policy on food productivity and distribution. Such a cap on emissions might reduce food availability and increase costs for consumers (as well as producers). Such a consequence might adversely affect all income levels or only those with the least spending (or productive) power. The model could be further adapted to reflect increases in land use for food production to offset emissions caps and maintain similar food outputs. But would this reduce prices? What would the effects be on the environment if such a policy were implemented? Perhaps, a policy is to increase small-scale part time farming among the poorest. We can simulate to see if such a policy helps in offsetting potential external factors that might affect food consumption. This sort of iterative approach enables deeper understanding of the types of impacts that policies can have on the effectiveness of a system, and thereby in identifying the sort of food system configurations that best meet these criteria, as well as which configuration poses the weakest potential for success based upon the community context.
While computer simulation is one piece of the research it is important to note that there are limits to the quantification of certain aspects of social systems. Together, with the case studies and the computer models it is possible to strike a balance between the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of food security in relation to food production systems. By integrating these two approaches into a coherent ‘whole it is hoped that this research will provide a guide to help managers, governments and NGOs to use this research as a stepping off point for conducting similar place-based analysis for understanding the impacts (intended as well as unintended) of following specific policies related to food security in a world facing potentially dramatic environmental shifts.
Sources:
Connell, D., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). ‘Farmers’ markets and the ‘good food’ value chain: a preliminary study, Local Environment, 13:3 169-185.
Curtis, F. (2003). Eco-localism and sustainability. Ecological Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 83-102.
Evans, L.T. (1998). Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
FAO. (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating world hunger – taking stock ten years after the World Food Summit. Accessed on 6/20/2008 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.HTM
Ford, A. (1999). Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press; Washington, DC.
Lyson, T. (2004). Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Tufts University Press, Medford, MA.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.
Morgan, K., Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (2006). Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: a natural history of four meals. Penguin Press, New York, NY.
Slater, R., Peskett, L., Ludi, E., & Brown, D. (2006). Climate change, agricultural policy and poverty – how much do we know? Overseas Development Institute. Accessed on 6/25/2008 at www.odi.org.uk/publications/nrp/109-climate-change-agricultural-policy-poverty-reduction.pdf
I have decided to post a quasi-lengthy abstract about the proposal. Note: some of the specifics are likely to be amended based upon the feedback I get from this meeting, but the general focus will remain.
Constructing Equitable, Sustainable and Resilient Food-Systems in the Face of Global Climate Change
Revised Abstract 9/9/2008
Justin Smith
INTRODUCTION:
With continued uncertainty over the impacts of climate change, rising fuel prices and degradation of the natural resource base necessary for agricultural production, there is a remerging Malthusian fear regarding the world's ability to feed itself in the coming decades (Evans, 1998; Meadows, Randers & Meadows, 2004; FAO, 2006; Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006). The concerns are perhaps more relevant than ever before when one considers the continued inability of governments, international institutions, NGOs and private firms to adequately address the persistence of food insecurity in selected populations throughout the world. In fact, depending upon the source it is estimated that between 750 and 900 million are currently undernourished and when factoring the impacts of resource loss, climate change and population increases the numbers are expected to nearly double to 1,300 million by 2080 (Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006).
In response, a number of idealized solutions have emerged, sparking debate on how best to ensure the long-term sustainability of agricultural production systems while simultaneously reducing food insecurity among vulnerable populations. At one end of this debate are those who believe that the answer lies in “perfecting” the prevailing model of agricultural modernization that has been developed over the past 60 years. This conception of a modern agricultural system emphasizes industrialization and mass production of food commodities linked to global trading systems (Lyson, 2004, Pollan, 2006). At the other end is an alternative model of local food systems that emphasizes local production, distribution and consumption of foods produced in more sustainable production systems and that are integrated with an ideal of self-reliance (Curtis, 2003; Lyson, 2004; Morgan, Marsden & Murdoch, 2006; Connell, 2008). Within the context of these two idealized types lies a variety of strategies that represent a complex hybridization of these two competing conceptions. Many of the hybrid strategies have been proposed by international institutions such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. These strategies aim to support both trade and industrialization policies, yet with a principle focus on communities and self-reliance (FAO, 2006).
However, with the complexity of issues surrounding food security, such as increasing populations and the end of cheap oil, as well as the wide regional variations in climate, resource base and socio-political environments, it is unclear which configuration(s) will produce the kinds of stability and access needed by those most vulnerable to food insecurity. For example, can industrial based agri-food production systems eventually provide the means to achieve food security? What are the impacts of such systems on the environment and how do they feedback to either increase or decrease food production? Similarly, do local agri-food systems provide more sustainable means through which to achieve food security? Again, what are the environmental impacts and do such systems actually enable distribution of food to the most vulnerable? And finally, are hybrid systems better suited than either of the other food-system configurations to address the problems of environmental impact and food access in a world confronted by climate change? In an effort to fill in the gaps missed by past research, this investigation seeks to assess the capacity of different agricultural production strategies in meeting a basic (yet critical) three part criteria: 1.) Social equity by ensuring food-security for "ALL" segments of a population, 2.) Environmental sustainability by successfully reducing (if not eliminating) negative environmental impacts, and 3.) Resilience by successfully mitigating/adapting to environmental shocks associated with global climate change.
Linked to the questions put forth above, the research is guided by a set of assumptions that among all agri-food systems land, labor, water, energy (solar, biofuel, petrol, etc.) and capital are present. It is also assumed that the ways in which these assets are managed and interact other elements within the system (and elements outside the system) will produce varying patterns of dynamic behavior in relation to peoples access to nutritional requirements for healthy livelihoods, environmental sustainability, and resilience, or the time delays in food output associated with environmental shocks. Both the questions and assumptions will be assessed by examining two case studies scaled to focused on two individual communities, one in the US and the other in India (this is open based upon request from funders seeking to address similar questions). The case studies will allow for a comparative analysis into the capacity for shifts in food system configurations commensurate with the three overarching themes of the research. This comparative analysis is also meant to open up windows into the potential for differing policies contingent upon resources, climate, and social context. Differing configurations and impacts on both environment and food security might indicate a further need for locally based analysis regarding policies linked to food security rather than a reliance on broad frameworks meant to be applied uniformly across diverse regions and populations. An additional rationale for this approach is based upon a need to provide an empirically based conceptualization of different food-system configurations and the degree to which they address food security, as well as allowing for the identification of diversified and alternative solutions in achieving environmentally sustainable and resilient food systems specifically relevant to the communities of interest.
The inherent complexity in apprehending the role that agricultural production systems play in impacting the environment and in supporting food access among all sectors of a population suggests the need for a systems based approach, rather than breaking all of the pieces into discrete parts for separate analysis. To accomplish this task the empirical studies will serve as the basis for constructing a portfolio of interconnected system dynamics models that will focus upon the stocks and flows of production, distribution and consumption with a special emphasis upon the system feedbacks that exist between communities, the environment and food stocks.
System dynamics, as a methodology, is one approach to help in understanding the dynamic character of complex non-linear systems by emphasizing the feedbacks that lead to dynamic behavior (Coyle, 1977; Ford, 1999). The main components that make up these models are described as stocks and flows, where the stocks represent points of accumulation within the system, whereas the flows describe the movement of materials such as food, water, energy, CO2 and capital throughout the system. By breaking down the components of local food systems into these explicit parts it is possible to simulate the movement of resources into the system, track the flow of greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production, as well as other negative environmental inputs. The methodology also enables a way to understand the effects of shocks on food production and consumption that are critical to evaluating the stability and resilience of the system (Ford, 1999). Based upon this conception the use of system dynamics provides several opportunities that are critical to identifying the types of policies and practices leading to more sustainable and equitable food systems.
The identification of appropriate place-based policies through system dynamics is further supported by the ability to experiment with our assumptions by iterating through various simulations that can help track the effects of these policies on the system. For example, by reducing the flow of greenhouse gas emissions in the model in order to reach some environmentally sustainable standard, it is possible to simulate the effects of such a policy on food productivity and distribution. Such a cap on emissions might reduce food availability and increase costs for consumers (as well as producers). Such a consequence might adversely affect all income levels or only those with the least spending (or productive) power. The model could be further adapted to reflect increases in land use for food production to offset emissions caps and maintain similar food outputs. But would this reduce prices? What would the effects be on the environment if such a policy were implemented? Perhaps, a policy is to increase small-scale part time farming among the poorest. We can simulate to see if such a policy helps in offsetting potential external factors that might affect food consumption. This sort of iterative approach enables deeper understanding of the types of impacts that policies can have on the effectiveness of a system, and thereby in identifying the sort of food system configurations that best meet these criteria, as well as which configuration poses the weakest potential for success based upon the community context.
While computer simulation is one piece of the research it is important to note that there are limits to the quantification of certain aspects of social systems. Together, with the case studies and the computer models it is possible to strike a balance between the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of food security in relation to food production systems. By integrating these two approaches into a coherent ‘whole it is hoped that this research will provide a guide to help managers, governments and NGOs to use this research as a stepping off point for conducting similar place-based analysis for understanding the impacts (intended as well as unintended) of following specific policies related to food security in a world facing potentially dramatic environmental shifts.
Sources:
Connell, D., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). ‘Farmers’ markets and the ‘good food’ value chain: a preliminary study, Local Environment, 13:3 169-185.
Curtis, F. (2003). Eco-localism and sustainability. Ecological Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 83-102.
Evans, L.T. (1998). Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
FAO. (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating world hunger – taking stock ten years after the World Food Summit. Accessed on 6/20/2008 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.HTM
Ford, A. (1999). Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press; Washington, DC.
Lyson, T. (2004). Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Tufts University Press, Medford, MA.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.
Morgan, K., Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (2006). Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: a natural history of four meals. Penguin Press, New York, NY.
Slater, R., Peskett, L., Ludi, E., & Brown, D. (2006). Climate change, agricultural policy and poverty – how much do we know? Overseas Development Institute. Accessed on 6/25/2008 at www.odi.org.uk/publications/nrp/109-climate-change-agricultural-policy-poverty-reduction.pdf
Monday, August 18, 2008
Randomness: Politcs, GPSI and MetisSD
I'm back from vacation and I have had a lot of time to think about a whole host of issues. It has also been a while since I have posted and a lot has gone on. Russia invaded Georgia, Russia threatens Poland with Nukes due to signing the missle defense system with the US, Obama is now a rock star with no real leadership experience, blah blah...
Oh and according to some, Obama and Polosi are going to cause the annihilation of our country. Out right laughable since the single greatest threat does not come from outside the US, but from within and that threat is the economy of mass consumption that persistently tells the country that we must consume in order to be viable, but forget our consumption has raped the Earth and that climate change threatens the very survival of humanity as a whole; that includes any notion of the nation-state we call the United States of America.
But anyway, enough of that! The GPSI site was approved and the site users are beginning to add content. As soon as I get the thumbs up that the site is ready for the public from the perspective that the content is ready I will go ahead and repost the link.
Along side getting this site completed I have been working on a new project directly related to the food systems research. The project has been tentatively named MetisSD which is a web based system dynamics application that provides a causal loop diagram application, an equation builder for stocks and flows as well as an interface to pattern languages that are intended to support the testing of various policy interventions or more specifically, the application of patterns to address the forces that emerge within the systems being modeled.
Right now, the main thing I have been working on is the construction of a database and the equation builder interface. From those two pieces all else follows. As soon as I have some I will post some screen shots of the interface that I'm working on as well.
The other thing I have been working on is the development of a mental model that will serve as the foundation for the numerical or SD model. This part is proving to be much more complex and the range of variables and dimensions tells of the huge undertaking that this project is shaping up to be, but then again it is sorely needed. I will be posting some ideas on this mental model in the next couple of weeks after a few more meetings with some colleagues on the topic but we are making progress.
Oh and according to some, Obama and Polosi are going to cause the annihilation of our country. Out right laughable since the single greatest threat does not come from outside the US, but from within and that threat is the economy of mass consumption that persistently tells the country that we must consume in order to be viable, but forget our consumption has raped the Earth and that climate change threatens the very survival of humanity as a whole; that includes any notion of the nation-state we call the United States of America.
But anyway, enough of that! The GPSI site was approved and the site users are beginning to add content. As soon as I get the thumbs up that the site is ready for the public from the perspective that the content is ready I will go ahead and repost the link.
Along side getting this site completed I have been working on a new project directly related to the food systems research. The project has been tentatively named MetisSD which is a web based system dynamics application that provides a causal loop diagram application, an equation builder for stocks and flows as well as an interface to pattern languages that are intended to support the testing of various policy interventions or more specifically, the application of patterns to address the forces that emerge within the systems being modeled.
Right now, the main thing I have been working on is the construction of a database and the equation builder interface. From those two pieces all else follows. As soon as I have some I will post some screen shots of the interface that I'm working on as well.
The other thing I have been working on is the development of a mental model that will serve as the foundation for the numerical or SD model. This part is proving to be much more complex and the range of variables and dimensions tells of the huge undertaking that this project is shaping up to be, but then again it is sorely needed. I will be posting some ideas on this mental model in the next couple of weeks after a few more meetings with some colleagues on the topic but we are making progress.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Related to the previous post…
In some ways, I have recognized that rather than taking a cookie-cutter (or biscuit-cutter: for my English friends) conception of the research and in configuring potential solutions to serious problems, what I see is the application of highly contextualized patterns formulated to fit the specific issues of health, environment, labor, political economy, culture and technology.
So even as I have put my work on patterns at rest, I’m confronted with the usability of these little gems of knowledge as well as the range of configurations that patterns enable for constructing complex systems. This would mean in one situation we might implement a biogas farm to help recycle waste, whereas in other situations continued use of fossil fuels might be both economically ideal and the level of usage negligible on climate. It is going to depend on the context and the patterns available.
Anyway, just an interesting insight!
So even as I have put my work on patterns at rest, I’m confronted with the usability of these little gems of knowledge as well as the range of configurations that patterns enable for constructing complex systems. This would mean in one situation we might implement a biogas farm to help recycle waste, whereas in other situations continued use of fossil fuels might be both economically ideal and the level of usage negligible on climate. It is going to depend on the context and the patterns available.
Anyway, just an interesting insight!
Ignoring the Debate to Generate Real Solutions!
For the context of this post see: Metamorphosis!
In doing an evaluation of the literature on food security and food systems I’m wondering if the actual focus of the questions being asked should be local vs. global, or alternative vs. mainstream. It would appear to me that such reification could seriously constrain the research. And while I’m not going to fault those who have taken this stance in the past, but there is so much overlap that by creating such a dichotomy between these paradigms one runs the risk of presenting an oversimplification. Now, I do agree that there are clear differences, but is this research really about the debate between the mainstream industrial system versus local eco based food system(s) or is it about optimal solutions to support food access, sustainability and stability? I mean, what are we after here?
The real goal is to address food insecurity, and simultaneously identify patterns of sustainable and resilient food systems in the wake of climate change. This means our food systems need to be environmentally sustainable in the sense that they lessen the negative environmental impacts of agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption. This includes reducing the carbon waste that is generated and pumped into the atmosphere, this means addressing the usage of and over-dependence upon inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate water ways and strip soils of essential nutrients. This also means addressing the global reach of food distribution and fossil fuels used to ship these products world-wide as well as the energy consumption and creation of waste products associated with the processing and subsequent consumption of these food goods. With these issues in mind it is hoped that we as a society can drastically cut these impacts and thereby minimize the potential for catastrophic climate change.
However, most scientists are in agreement that climate change is upon us and that the damage has been done. Right now, our job is to avert an all out biotic collapse. So if we are constructing food systems to minimize the effects of food production (etc) on our climate, then we will also need to understand how these methods fair when confronted with the types of climatic shifts that most are warning us of. With the types of shifts expected our way in the next 50 to 100 years, it is necessary for us to assess whether the types of solutions we decide to implement within the food systems of the world will be able to withstand the shock of regional adverse weather, soil degradation, rising sea levels and subsequent massive population migrations away from coastal cities. According to most scientists the effects of climate change will be more severe depending upon the region, which would suggest that regional variations in the configuration of food systems would be most appropriate. This means certain regions will be more dependent upon global imports of food and it might be necessary for these regions to begin identifying alternative means for generating the type of capital needed to feed themselves in a volatile world.
Yet, coupled with these issues is the persistent need to maintain our work to eradicate food insecurity and chronic hunger. Forget climate change for a second, we still have nearly 2 billion people who are food insecure at any given time throughout the year and according to the Food and Agricultural Organization we have roughly 10 million people dying annually from hunger. That kind of death toll is more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined! So we have a tripartite problem to address. One, we need to minimize the carbon leak (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere, our practice of food production need to become more ecologically aware, meaning we need a global adoption of agro-ecological principles for food production. Second, we need to construct systems that include practices, trade and networks that support adaptive and flexible systems that can withstand shocks and disturbances brought on by climate shifts (which are already happening). And third, we need a system that is configured in such a way that it provides a level of food equity that ensures that ALL people have their nutritional needs met, in a healthy and just way. This doesn’t mean tons of canned vegetable that processed with massive amounts of sodium and calcium chloride for preservatives, or access to a McDonalds on every street corner, but rather healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.
Now the hypothesis is that a mixture of global and local food system configurations is going to be needed to address these issues in the future, but with an emphasis upon the local eco based system. But what is that ratio for say the Sahel or the Negev, meaning what percentage of food consumption could take place within the region of origin compared to the percentage of food imported from around the world and still minimize the greenhouse gases, ensure food access for all and provide a stable and resilient food system?
To accomplish this task and fully engage this question I still think it will be appropriate to include the discussion on mainstream versus alternative, but this discussion is more of a means to provide a basis for understanding the impacts of climate change on food security, or the environmental impacts of food production (eg the climate) and each opposing side could be assessed in relation to either one’s ability to provide healthy access to food. This would suggest the need to generate two generic models indicative of each of these two paradigms followed by place-based models that allow for mix-up of these different paradigms in order to identify the optimal configuration for each region in the study.
In doing an evaluation of the literature on food security and food systems I’m wondering if the actual focus of the questions being asked should be local vs. global, or alternative vs. mainstream. It would appear to me that such reification could seriously constrain the research. And while I’m not going to fault those who have taken this stance in the past, but there is so much overlap that by creating such a dichotomy between these paradigms one runs the risk of presenting an oversimplification. Now, I do agree that there are clear differences, but is this research really about the debate between the mainstream industrial system versus local eco based food system(s) or is it about optimal solutions to support food access, sustainability and stability? I mean, what are we after here?
The real goal is to address food insecurity, and simultaneously identify patterns of sustainable and resilient food systems in the wake of climate change. This means our food systems need to be environmentally sustainable in the sense that they lessen the negative environmental impacts of agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption. This includes reducing the carbon waste that is generated and pumped into the atmosphere, this means addressing the usage of and over-dependence upon inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate water ways and strip soils of essential nutrients. This also means addressing the global reach of food distribution and fossil fuels used to ship these products world-wide as well as the energy consumption and creation of waste products associated with the processing and subsequent consumption of these food goods. With these issues in mind it is hoped that we as a society can drastically cut these impacts and thereby minimize the potential for catastrophic climate change.
However, most scientists are in agreement that climate change is upon us and that the damage has been done. Right now, our job is to avert an all out biotic collapse. So if we are constructing food systems to minimize the effects of food production (etc) on our climate, then we will also need to understand how these methods fair when confronted with the types of climatic shifts that most are warning us of. With the types of shifts expected our way in the next 50 to 100 years, it is necessary for us to assess whether the types of solutions we decide to implement within the food systems of the world will be able to withstand the shock of regional adverse weather, soil degradation, rising sea levels and subsequent massive population migrations away from coastal cities. According to most scientists the effects of climate change will be more severe depending upon the region, which would suggest that regional variations in the configuration of food systems would be most appropriate. This means certain regions will be more dependent upon global imports of food and it might be necessary for these regions to begin identifying alternative means for generating the type of capital needed to feed themselves in a volatile world.
Yet, coupled with these issues is the persistent need to maintain our work to eradicate food insecurity and chronic hunger. Forget climate change for a second, we still have nearly 2 billion people who are food insecure at any given time throughout the year and according to the Food and Agricultural Organization we have roughly 10 million people dying annually from hunger. That kind of death toll is more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined! So we have a tripartite problem to address. One, we need to minimize the carbon leak (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere, our practice of food production need to become more ecologically aware, meaning we need a global adoption of agro-ecological principles for food production. Second, we need to construct systems that include practices, trade and networks that support adaptive and flexible systems that can withstand shocks and disturbances brought on by climate shifts (which are already happening). And third, we need a system that is configured in such a way that it provides a level of food equity that ensures that ALL people have their nutritional needs met, in a healthy and just way. This doesn’t mean tons of canned vegetable that processed with massive amounts of sodium and calcium chloride for preservatives, or access to a McDonalds on every street corner, but rather healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.
Now the hypothesis is that a mixture of global and local food system configurations is going to be needed to address these issues in the future, but with an emphasis upon the local eco based system. But what is that ratio for say the Sahel or the Negev, meaning what percentage of food consumption could take place within the region of origin compared to the percentage of food imported from around the world and still minimize the greenhouse gases, ensure food access for all and provide a stable and resilient food system?
To accomplish this task and fully engage this question I still think it will be appropriate to include the discussion on mainstream versus alternative, but this discussion is more of a means to provide a basis for understanding the impacts of climate change on food security, or the environmental impacts of food production (eg the climate) and each opposing side could be assessed in relation to either one’s ability to provide healthy access to food. This would suggest the need to generate two generic models indicative of each of these two paradigms followed by place-based models that allow for mix-up of these different paradigms in order to identify the optimal configuration for each region in the study.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Defining Food Security
I have been tasked to formulate a working definition of food security in order to orient a study on the role that climate change and political conflict could have on peoples ability to meet nutritional requirements. The focus is aimed at achieving long-term food security among developing nations, but it could be extended to address potential threats posed to the so-called developed countries as well.
The definition that seems most useful for this analysis is the one developed at the World Food Summit of 1996 and accessed in a policy brief by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. In this definition four central dimensions have been identified as being critical to understanding food security.
These dimensions follow from here:
Beyond the set list offered by the FAO on the topic of food security, there are number of elements that must be considered within each of these dimensions.
Elements to emphasize:
Sources:
Overseas Development Institute, 2006. Policy Brief - Future of Food Production and Climate Change.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 2006. Policy Brief - Food Security
Mtika, Mike. 1998. Social and Cultural Relations in Economic Action: Peasant Food Secuirty in the Context of AIDS. Washington State University.
The definition that seems most useful for this analysis is the one developed at the World Food Summit of 1996 and accessed in a policy brief by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. In this definition four central dimensions have been identified as being critical to understanding food security.
These dimensions follow from here:
Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through domestic production or imports (including food aid).(Source: FAO, 2006 Policy Brief - Food Security)
Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity bundles over which a person can establish command given the legal, political, economic and social arrangements of the community in which they live (including traditional rights such as access to common resources).
Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in food security.
Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security.
Beyond the set list offered by the FAO on the topic of food security, there are number of elements that must be considered within each of these dimensions.
Elements to emphasize:
Labor - this is critical since labor is the means by which agricultural production takes place and in turn the fruits of one's labor feedback to enable future labor for continued agricultural production. This would suggest that health also plays a central factor as a person's health influences the productive capacity of one's labor.Now, this is not complete and each element will be further refined but it presents a good start for developing a holistic view of food security and will support further development of appropriate models in order to map the potential impacts of climate change and political conflict on food security in specific communities.
Health - this enables efficient and optimal levels of labor output. Problems with health due to diseases and malnutrition severely constrain productive capacity. In turn, food insecurity negatively effects health.
Environment - Climate change, poor soil fertility, water scarcity, landscape, pests and temperature all mitigate (or potentially mitigate) food production.
Political Economy - this includes elements of trade, power relationships related to food production, distribution, processing and access. Problems of conflict might also fall under this heading as conflict poses serious threats to food supply stability.
Culture - Determines appropriate food types to be produced and how that food is handled and in some cases where that food originates.
Education - It is important that food producers have access to information related to alternative processes of cultivation, marketing skills as well as food preservation skills. Consumers also must have a level of education that can support healthy eating lifestyles, as well as environmentally friendly ways of interacting with food.
Technology - the use of pesticides, fertilizers, GMOs, transport systems, computer forecasting systems, GIS, etc. can have both positive and negative consequences, which must be weighed regarding not just food availability, but also food quality and long-term sustainability.
Sources:
Overseas Development Institute, 2006. Policy Brief - Future of Food Production and Climate Change.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 2006. Policy Brief - Food Security
Mtika, Mike. 1998. Social and Cultural Relations in Economic Action: Peasant Food Secuirty in the Context of AIDS. Washington State University.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Metamorphosis!
The past month has been a flurry of activity, revaluation of my research interests in light of stumbling across some new insights, and well honestly I have been undergoing a dramatic cognitive shift for the past year.
While most of my preliminary ideas have focused on issues such as biofuels adoption or water resource allocation linked with participatory practices using patterns and pattern langauges, things have shifted. In some ways DIAC-08 was the final straw pushing me over the edge. This shift in thinking resulted in a rapid redrafting of my PhD topic, a meeting with my committee chair, further refinement and now a newly approved research program.
The new (current) title of the research is:
Reconfiguring the World’s Agri-Food Systems – Food Security and Poverty Reduction in an Era of Climate Change?
The overarching research question(s) driving this work is:
Can a reconfiguration away from the mainstream agri-food system, towards alternative localized food-system(s) increase food security while also promoting poverty reduction and environmental restoration in the face of global climate change? Similarly, by promoting such a shift can an alternative food-system provide insulation from price volatility associated with shifts in production due to climate and conversion of food crops to biofuels?
To answer this question I'm tentatively planning on three case-studies that include a system dynamics approach to material flows modeling and policy analysis. Linked with the analysis phase is the construction of systems based policies to increase the resilience of local alternative food-systems. These policies will be fashioned in structure after patterns (see previous post: Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks? ).
Together with quantitative dimensions provided by the system dynamics models and the elements within specific "patterns as policies" it is suggested that a deeper understanding and thereby opportunity for successful interventions for reconfiguring our food systems will be more likely to achieve the benefits cited with local small-scale agriculture with regards to community economic development, reduction of environmental impact from agricultural production, poverty reduction and thereby support food security.
For those interested here is a link to the evolving research overview. However as you might notice this title is different than the one provided in this blog entry. This just means that I'm revising and clarifying the specifics of the research. Once this is complete I will restart the process of identifying case study locations.
While most of my preliminary ideas have focused on issues such as biofuels adoption or water resource allocation linked with participatory practices using patterns and pattern langauges, things have shifted. In some ways DIAC-08 was the final straw pushing me over the edge. This shift in thinking resulted in a rapid redrafting of my PhD topic, a meeting with my committee chair, further refinement and now a newly approved research program.
The new (current) title of the research is:
Reconfiguring the World’s Agri-Food Systems – Food Security and Poverty Reduction in an Era of Climate Change?
The overarching research question(s) driving this work is:
Can a reconfiguration away from the mainstream agri-food system, towards alternative localized food-system(s) increase food security while also promoting poverty reduction and environmental restoration in the face of global climate change? Similarly, by promoting such a shift can an alternative food-system provide insulation from price volatility associated with shifts in production due to climate and conversion of food crops to biofuels?
To answer this question I'm tentatively planning on three case-studies that include a system dynamics approach to material flows modeling and policy analysis. Linked with the analysis phase is the construction of systems based policies to increase the resilience of local alternative food-systems. These policies will be fashioned in structure after patterns (see previous post: Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks? ).
Together with quantitative dimensions provided by the system dynamics models and the elements within specific "patterns as policies" it is suggested that a deeper understanding and thereby opportunity for successful interventions for reconfiguring our food systems will be more likely to achieve the benefits cited with local small-scale agriculture with regards to community economic development, reduction of environmental impact from agricultural production, poverty reduction and thereby support food security.
For those interested here is a link to the evolving research overview. However as you might notice this title is different than the one provided in this blog entry. This just means that I'm revising and clarifying the specifics of the research. Once this is complete I will restart the process of identifying case study locations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)