BIOS: Ecological reconstruction

The Finnish food system – including food production, processing, transport, marketing and consumption – will inevitably change due to three factors.

First, the environmental impact of the food system must be diminished. Primarily, this has an effect on primary production, where most of the impact is caused, although decreasing food waste and the corresponding problem of ‘unnecessary production’ in Finland is mainly a task for trade and end consumption. Second, production must be made more resilient in the face of environmental changes. As the precise nature of the changes is hard to predict, a flexible orientation is called for. Third, as the global food system is transformed, the changes will be reflected in Finland in various ways. The division of labour in the current system will change and Finland will be unable to rely on the global food system to the extent that is has done thus far.

In reducing the environmental impact, the key elements are a decrease in the portion of animal production, eliminating the role of fossil fuels as much as possible from materials necessary for production (fodder, fertilisers, fuels, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals), decrease in nutrient leakage, revitalisation of soil nutrient circulation, increase in carbon storage in soils and cutting food waste so that unnecessary production can be decreased.

In Finnish agriculture, peatlands cleared only for the purpose of manuring stand out as a considerable yet easily eliminated source of greenhouse gases. This problem can be addressed quickly.

Adaptation to environmental changes relies on measures such as diversifying the repertoire of cultivars, cooperation between producers and the scientific community in identifying new vectors of disease and pests and developing new methods of cultivation.

Diminishing environmental impacts and adapting to environmental changes are not separate tasks: the food system must be developed with both challenges in mind. Adaptation cannot happen through increased energy and resource inputs. Here, the agroecological perspective, which emphasises knowledge of local conditions instead of universal rules, is key.

Agriculture contains examples of the positive synergies highlighted by the IPCC and other organisations: there are measures that simultaneously help in reaching several of the sustainable development goals, such as environmental, economic and social goals. Important research and expertise on these methods exist in Finland, and Finland should forcefully advance the implementation and dissemination of the results.

The transition implies a full overhaul of agricultural subsidies. The current model is based on subsidies for production and must be replaced by a model that is based on environmental considerations, such as results in decreasing environmental impact and increasing resilience and adaptation. Finland has to support this kind of change in the EU’s agricultural policies, as those policies set the overall conditions for national action.

The transition also demands that producers have the capacities and willingness to engage in learning, piloting and cooperation with, for instance, researchers. This, in turn, means that agriculture must provide a decent livelihood for producers. A great social challenge is increasing the economic rewards for producers while directing production towards sustainability. Economically viable local production does not help much if it is still strongly reliant on animal production and monocropping.

The transition in production also entails a transition in consumption: less demand for animal products and increased use of plant products, more varied products and concentrating on seasonally available ones. As the habits of individual consumers change slowly, key roles in the early phase will be played by public purchases of food, pioneering entrepreneurs, availability of new ready-made and processed products and meals and information campaigns. Advancing the use of local sustainable fish stocks deserves a special mention because, currently, the majority of fish consumed in Finland causes proportionally too much environmental damage.

Changes in the global food system also mean that Finland cannot continue to rely on the current global division of labour. Finland is relatively self-sufficient in food (70–75 per cent), but relies heavily on imports of the materials and energy needed for production. The goal is not full self-sufficiency, as international trade has enriching cultural effects and fairer trade can also help development in poorer countries. Some international trade in food is also ecologically rational – but such rationality should not be confused with the kind of efficiency that is determined by labour prices and differences in production costs due to lax environmental regulations. For instance, a lower level of energy use is not a sufficient reason for imports if the energy used is produced with more pollution or if the production, on the whole, causes loss of biodiversity, loss of arable land or water scarcity.

Climate change and other environmental and natural resource problems are damaging the prospects for food production in many areas of the world. Many current export countries will have to concentrate more on feeding their own populations. This will affect how much Finland can rely on imports. The global market will not offer as much surplus food as before. Raising the level of self-sufficiency and more varied national production will have significant effects on regional and local development. Instead of a poorer and emptying countryside, the future may bring regional and local revitalisation, as more varied and economically viable agriculture requires more human labour. Alongside urbanisation, there will be a rejuvenated countryside, which will also lay the foundation for a new relationship between cities and the countryside – including a more equal and respectful cultural encounter between the two.

A sustainable national food system presupposes a sustainable global food system. Therefore, international leadership by Finland is called for, for example, in the institutions of the EU and the UN. Connecting environmental issues with questions of food security and prevention of hunger and poverty are also essential for rich countries, since the stability of food systems in poorer countries directly affects, for example, urbanisation, population growth and migration.