By Pasi Heikkurinen, David Skrbina, Juha Helenius, Kari Koppelmäki, Toni Ruuska, Tina Nyfors
Human food systems are causing ecological crises. Calls for sustainable change echo in global policy from the UN’s Agenda 21 to the EU’s Farm-to-Fork Strategy and the United States’ Green New Deal. Despite these efforts, ecological indicators continue to show strong signs of risk and the biosphere continues to suffer grievous losses (Vitousek et al, 1986; Bar-On, 2018; IPBES, 2019).
According to the I=PAT formula, the conjunction of population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T) define the ecological impact of humans, including food systems (see Chertow, 2000; Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2008; Holdren, 2018). The increasing role of global markets in contemporary food systems makes the achievement of policy goals heavily dependent on agribusiness (Gumbert and Fuchs, 2018). Sustainability requires a transformation of the industrial food system model, including reformulating the strict separation between consumption and production, and addressing fossil fuel addiction.
A new systemic innovation called ‘Agro-ecological Symbiosis’ (AES) could transform food production to a post-fossil era. AES is a local, biocircular organization that produces both food and energy. Ecological benefits of the model have been proven (Koppelmäki et al., 2019). This, and the emergent social and economic benefits, have attracted research interest across Europe. The primary objective of the symbiosis is to stay within the ecological limits of specific agroecosystems, connecting AES to the idea of sufficiency—living a high-quality life that is globally sustainable (Princen, 2005).
AES is formed by farms, food processors, and renewable energy systems working in close proximity. A network of AES (NAES) would create a place-based food system replacing the consolidated supply chain. From local to regional to global scales, NAES can produce a resilient, distributed food production system consistent with Sustainable Development Goals (Helenius et al., 2020), as well as can contribute to other sustainable policy initiatives.
References
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506-6511.
Chertow, M. R. (2000). The IPAT equation and its variants. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4), 13-29.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2008). Nature’s economy and the human economy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 9-16.
Gumbert, T. and D. Fuchs (2018). The power of corporations in global food sector governance, in Handbook of the International Political Economy of the Corporation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Helenius, J., S. E. Hagolani-Albov, & K. Koppelmäki (2020). Co-creating Agroecological Symbioses (AES) for sustainable food system networks. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 588715.
Hoffmann, M. et al. (2010). The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science, 330(6010), 1503-1509.
Holdren, J. P. (2018). A brief history of “IPAT”. The Journal of Population and Sustainability, 2(2), 66-74.
IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Available at https://ipbes.net/global-assessment.
Koppelmäki, K., Parviainen, T., Virkkunen, E., Winquist, E., Schulte, R.P.O., and Helenius. J. (2019). Ecological intensification by integrating biogas production into nutrient cycling: Modeling the case of Agroecological Symbiosis. Agricultural Systems 170. 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.12.007
Princen, T. (2005). The Logic of Sufficiency. MIT Press.
Vitousek, P. M., et al. (1986). Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience, 36(6), 368-373.