rick cheesman novascotia organic certified dream 2010alrcinput.pdf

input to the discussion Agricultural Land Review Committee

1

A response to the Discussion Paper by the

Agricultural Land Review Committee

submitted by Rick Cheeseman 7729 Rte 321, Roslin, B0K 1K0, 447-3683

Ver 1.1, 24-Feb-10


2

Statement of Purpose:

The purpose of this presentation is to provide input to the Discussion Paper by the Agricultural Land Review Committee regarding the future of agricultural land in Nova Scotia, in order to answer the following questions posed in that paper:

  Is there an agricultural land issue in Nova Scotia?

  Should we do something about it?

  What should we do about it?

  If this involves public expenditures, are we willing to pay for it?


3

The goal of this presentation is to outline the attributes of a sustainable food resource base for Nova Scotia, to provide a direction for the future use of Nova Scotia’s agricultural land.

From the perspective of this presentation, the only viable food resource base is one that is sustainable, and the only way to protect agricultural land is to farm it sustainably. That is, all goals of the Provincial Interest on Agricultural Land are fulfilled by achieving sustainability.

Sustainability is one stop shopping.

This presentation takes the Nova Scotia Provincial Interest Statement on Agricultural Land as its baseline:

Reference: http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/muns/plan/provint/intro_ag.asp


4

20th Century Agriculture: the paradigm

Today's dominant agricultural paradigm is, by its own definition, an industrial food production system.

Characteristically, it is:

  commodity-based   market-driven   high-input   energy-intensive   export-oriented

Originally, 'high-yield' was also specified as a characteristic but that is now sharply contested around the world (except as it relates to the profits of the corporations that supply farm inputs and handle the outputs).


5

"It's no longer the case that we have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won.”

James Schlesinger, 2008

Schlesinger was referring to 'peak oil', the time when the world’s demand for oil outstrips the world’s ability to supply oil.

Schlesinger is a PhD Economist, was Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford, and was Secretary of Energy under Carter. That is, he is a voice of authority.

While Secretary of Defense, Schlesinger opposed amnesty for draft dodgers and pressed for development of more sophisticated nuclear weapons systems. That is, he is NOT a pinko hippie tree-hugging protester; he is about as no-nonsense and hard core as you can get.

20th Century Agriculture: peak oil


6

20th Century Agriculture: sustainability

In today's industrial food production system, 'sustainability' essentially means finding ways to sustain the flow of fossil fuel-based inputs into the system and onto the land.

When discussing sustainability, one can choose to blind oneself to 20th century agriculture's role in climate change, the environment, soil fertility, the food/health connection, and on.

The one thing that cannot be denied or ignored is its dependence on fossil fuels.

Peak oil, in and of itself, makes the 20th century agricultural paradigm unsustainable.


7

20th Century Agriculture: the Green Revolution

The 20th Century industrial food production system is euphemistically referred to as the ‘Green Revolution’.

It is important to remember that the term ‘Green Revolution’ is not and never was a reference to the ecological benefits of 20th century agriculture.

‘Green Revolution’ was conjured up by a US government marketeer as a more palatable expression for the 'high-input, high-yield’ paradigm being championed at the time. It had the added bonus of being in sharp contrast to the Red Revolution (that is, the ‘Communist threat’).


8

20th Century Agriculture: health

More than any other factor, health determines our happiness.

Today, fifty percent of Canadians are going to get cancer, obesity is at epidemic proportions, environmental and food allergies are rampant, heart disease and strokes are endemic; the list goes on.

It is well documented that these are the diseases of modern society.

Every month delivers more research that relates these modern diseases to our food: ‘the Western Diet’.


9

20th Century Agriculture: the health cost

A 2009 study released by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute reports that two-thirds of health-care costs can now be attributed to chronic diseases associated with unhealthy eating.

66.7%!

How happy is that?

At the least, these costs will bankrupt our governments.

At the worst, . . .


10

20th Century Agriculture: the environment

Environmental ‘contributions’ of the industrial food production system:

  Accounts for 20% of the entire carbon footprint of industrialized nations

  There are a growing number of organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Council of Canadians, who warn that depleted and contaminated aquifers are going to fuel a fresh water crisis that will trump the oil crisis in the next decade, and that the consequences will be far more dire than any of the climate change predictions for the same period.

  The largest source of two of the three most dangerous global warming gases: methane and nitrous oxide

  Fertilizer and pesticide use has devastated soil fertility and toxified land, air, and sea around the world

  By far the largest user of fresh water, accounting for roughly 70% of all water withdrawals (for comparison: industry–20%; domestic–10%)


11

20th Century Agriculture: IAASTD, Part 1

IAASTD:

  won the support of 57 countries; only three dissented (Canada, U.S., Australia)   Dissenters accused the assessment of being ‘unbalanced’ and attacked the

authors’ independence despite the fact that all dissenters were among the stakeholders who selected the reports’ authors in the first place.

The overarching observation of IAASTD is that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT AN OPTION.

  International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development

  the first major global assessment of agriculture   initiated by the World Bank and United Nations

Food and Agricultural Organization   final reports delivered in April 2008


12

20th Century Agriculture: IAASTD, Part 2

IAASTD concluded that Canada's dominant form of agriculture – high-input, energy-intensive, export-oriented industrial food production – is no longer a viable option as it:

  causes soil and water degradation

  increases deforestation   undermines rural livelihoods   is neither socially nor

environmentally sustainable   depletes natural resources   accelerates climate change   if unchecked, will threaten future

world food supplies

The Canadian government has all but buried the IAASTD conclusions, not even submitting the reports to the standing committee on agriculture and agri-food.


13

20th Century Agriculture: conclusions

  20th century agriculture is not sustainable.

  20th century agriculture does not meet or even approach the goals of Nova Scotia’s Statement of Provincial Interest on Agricultural Land.

  Direct, significant support from the federal level for moving away from 20th century agriculture does not seem likely.

  protect agricultural land   viable and sustainable food resource base


14

Sustainable Agriculture: getting started

  Most of Nova Scotia’s farming operates in the 20th century paradigm.

There is probably no way to encourage people to rethink their options until the price of their particular commodity collapses and/or escalating input costs decimate their income.

If the past teaches us anything about the future, then the former is inevitable. Peak oil tells us that the latter is unavoidable.

  An immediate option is to focus on abandoned farmland and bring that into sustainable production.


15

Sustainable Agriculture: X for export

Nova Scotia might be able to achieve long term profitability in a global marketplace when:

  we take all those obese children and put them to work on farms, and pay them nothing

  we take all our environmental laws and trash them   we take all our labour laws and lock them out   we take all our regulations and bury them   the U.S. and Europe end all their farm subsidies   we change corporate law so that corporations are only allowed to make

money when it is not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health or safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of the corporation's employees. (Now THAT would be worthy of bonuses.)

There is a perception that an inability to be successful exporters is a bad thing, a failure of our way of doing things.

That perception is wrong.


16

Sustainable Agriculture: local

If we appreciate that achieving long term profitability in the global market is a crap shoot at best, then it follows that we must become successful by serving a local market.

The positive response to the Select Nova Scotia initiative and the burgeoning ‘locavore’ movement indicate that many Nova Scotians are seeking healthier food options from sources that are close to home.

However, though the success of Select Nova Scotia is recognized, the actual % of market share is still very small and it is not growing rapidly enough to justify bringing thousands of new acres into production.

Also, local in and of itself does not guarantee sustainability: local 20th century production is as unsustainable as 20th century production anywhere else on the planet.

‘Local’ alone is not enough.


17

Sustainable Agriculture: organic

As distasteful as the ‘O’ word seems to be to many Nova Scotian agriculturalists, organic agriculture is the soup base of sustainability.

It is not a great logical leap to conclude that our success as a race is predicated upon organic agriculture.

The reasons are legion, and go back to our roots. Humans have farmed for 10,000 years and farming's success is our legacy: in a speck of time a steady, reliable supply of food that supported and enhanced physical and mental health catapulted us to the top of the food chain.

Up until the latter half of the 19th century, when chemical inputs began replacing traditional methods for maintaining soil fertility, all our food was organic, by default. Today, after 150 years (about seven generations) of manufacturing chemicals and manipulating biology to replace time-proven farming practices, our food is making us sick and our food production system is destroying our soils, polluting our air, and sucking up most of our fresh water.


18

Sustainable Agriculture: organic yields

The first thing ‘Green Revolution’ advocates will say is that organic agriculture just can’t produce the same yields.

A 22-year study on corn and soybean production at Cornell University showed that organic farming approaches for these crops produced the same yields but used an average of 30 percent less fossil energy, conserved more water in the soil, induced less erosion, maintained soil quality, and conserved more biological resources.

  AND the organic farmers did not introduce a myriad of pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and GMO crops into the environment

  AND the organic farmers did not have to pay for these very costly, oil-dependent, corporately-controlled inputs

  AND the organic farmers could save and replant their seeds, as farmers have done for millennia


19

Sustainable Agriculture: certified organic

(Aside: It is assumed that viewers of this presentation appreciate the importance and significance of setting and applying a standard.)

The Canadian Organic Standard (COS) has been released and ratified for international and interprovincial trade.

Local stakeholders have approached the Government of Nova Scotia for ratification of the COS for Nova Scotia but as yet no action has been taken.

No one will argue that the Canadian Organic Standard is perfect. But it does provide, in an overly-bureaucratized, industry-diluted way, rules and processes that preserve the original intent of organic farming: to produce food in a manner that respects and preserves the links and natural balances among soil, plants, insects, birds, animals, and humans so that all life is supported and strengthened.

Ratification of the COS could be a small but significant first step in the implementation of a sustainable paradigm for agriculture in Nova Scotia.


20

Sustainable Agriculture: the cost of certified organic   Lower input cost: Organic inputs are less expensive, and will become

increasingly so with every hike in the price of oil. And, given peak oil, the price of oil is going to hike.

  Higher nutrient value: It has been shown, repeatedly, that certified organic food is never less nutritious, and most often more nutritious, than industrial produce. It definitely tastes better, and it keeps longer.

  Lower health care costs: Better nutrition means healthier, happier people.

Today, certified organic food retails for more than its industrial counterpart. The reasons are at the political level, not the farm gate. Two major reasons:

  Industrial crops are heavily subsidized. Organic is not.

  Industrial costs do not include externalities, which are immense (health, environment, etc.). Certified organic farming doesn’t just minimize those costs, it’s modalities are defined so as to prevent those costs from arising in the first place.

Given a level playing field, certified organic agriculture provides more nutritious, better tasting food at lower cost – today.


21

In the 1950s and 60s, Canadians spent 20% to 30% of their disposable income on food. Today, it is under 10%.

  Canadians pay less for food than anyone else on the planet.   On average, countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) spend 8.3% more of their disposable income on food. Australians spend 12.7% more, the Japanese spend 35.7% more, and Mexicans spend over 125% more.

  Four thousand farms go out of business every year in Canada.   Cheap food is fueling escalating health care costs.

Fair trade for Nova Scotian farmers would provide a reference point for defining and developing profitable farming. Fair trade as a marketing strategy could show consumers why local, certified organic food is going to cost more than what they are used to. Bottom line: you can afford to eat, but the person producing the food can’t.

And an end-to-end cost/benefit analysis of fair trade, local, certified organic food compared to industrial food (with externalities in) could be presented in ways that Nova Scotian consumers would be willing to pay more for their food. Simply put: live long and prosper, or die young and fat.

Sustainable Agriculture: fair trade


22

Sustainable Agriculture: institutional buying

The Government of Nova Scotia has been very proactive in encouraging Nova Scotians to go out and buy local, even if it costs a bit more.

The Government of Nova Scotia has been somewhat less proactive in taking its own advice.

The Government of Nova Scotia could require all government institutions to transition their food source to local, fair trade, certified organic producers and processors.

Just that one policy change would create and maintain a large, sophisticated, richly diverse, sustainable agricultural base.

Volume would be sufficient to assuage the box store ‘all stores or no stores’ dictate, so ALL Nova Scotians would have ready access to this high value food.

One small step for government, one giant leap for sustainability.


23

Sustainable Agriculture: tourism, and more

Witness the phenomenal growth of the locavore movement and the creation of Food Policy Councils everywhere in the world.

Thousands of people want sustainable food, and are willing to go out of their way to get it.

  With the Government of Nova Scotia actively supporting the creation of a truly sustainable agricultural infrastructure and with local, fair trade, certified organic food available everywhere, Nova Scotia could well become a tourist destination for thousands who would never come here otherwise.

  And Nova Scotia would become an example for the rest of the world, an attractive place to come to live and work for the brightest and the best.

  And Nova Scotia’s children would be able to find meaningful, well-paying employment at home.

And these are just a few of many benefits that could grow from this one seed of sustainable agriculture.


24

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning , Part 1

In the 20th century, the economic position for agriculture was founded upon, and is still defined by, a commodity-based view:

  This frames agricultural production in terms of manufacturing units run off assembly lines into an industrialized, market-driven economy.

There are two serious flaws in that view:   Agricultural products are living beings, not

inanimate widgets; there is a measurable loss of quality in treating living beings as widgets, and that loss translates into increased health care costs.

  You can substitute or work around not having a particular widget – life goes on; without food, life ends.

Agriculture as an economic activity has been positioned inappropriately.


25

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning, Part 2

Rather than viewing farmers as widget manufacturers, it is healthier and safer to position agriculture as an intermediate good.

Intermediate goods:   create indispensable value by what they

energize and facilitate   examples: electricity, roads, postal service,

money   are considered so essential to social well-

being and security that governments support and regulate them rather than abandoning them to ‘market forces’


26

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning, Part 3

From the Agricultural Land Review Committee Discussion Paper: “The ideal situation is for agriculture to be the most profitable use of the land without need for government assistance. A less ideal case is when agriculture must rely on government assistance to be profitable.”

Government assistance is always going to be needed for agriculture. But that does not mean handouts and bailouts. Agriculture in Nova Scotia can be profitable, but that is going to be difficult until government changes the way it thinks about agriculture.

Repositioning agriculture as an intermediate good can provide a powerful conceptual framework for redirecting government policies and bureaucracies towards sustainability.


27

Summary:

A profitable, sustainable agricultural industry can be created in Nova Scotia that will provide local, certified organic, fair trade food in sufficient quantity to drastically reduce or eliminate Nova Scotia’s dependence on imported food and generate a large, sophisticated, richly diverse, healthy, and successful sustainable agricultural infrastructure.

The benefits:   food self-sufficiency, food sovereignty   healthier soils, healthier people   decreases in diet-related disease,

lower health care costs   decreased carbon footprint, positive

contribution to a greener future   revitalization of rural communities, a

return to our roots   reversal of soil and water degradation,

support for reforestation   environmental and social

sustainability


28

Conclusion: Answering the ALRC Discussion Paper Questions

  Is there an agricultural land issue in Nova Scotia? Yes, and there are two issues: the amount that is being abandoned and the way that the rest is being cultivated.

  Should we do something about it? Yes.

  What should we do about it? Develop a sustainable agricultural infrastructure as outlined in this presentation.

  If this involves public expenditures, are we willing to pay for it? There is no ‘if’. We can pay now at the farm gate or we can pay later at the emergency room door.

rick cheesman novascotia organic certified dream 2010alrcinput.pdf

Documents