Since peak oil became an issue of public security, I mean since it became clear that it could turn out potentially desastrous, a new discipline arose. A growing number of academics tries to explain society as increasingly complex as a result of the abundance of cheap energy. The law of entropy applied in social science. Now the era of cheap oil seems to come to an end soon, the question is, what will happen to our highly globalised and integrated economy and social fabric? Especially high-tech industry is seen as vulnerable for “oil-shocks”. Will industry be downgraded in complexity and regionalised? What kind of technologies are likely to be candidate for such “ relocalisation”? Let’s take the agri-food industry as an example. I will describe three steps in our history of agricultural development and food processing to illustrate the growing level of complexity. Then I assume that the level of energy availability and access will diminish but oil will still be available, although much more expensive. Further I assume that the economy will structurally show no or very feeble growth. On basis of my experience as rural development expert in developing countries, and as voluntary cook in the developed countries, I will speculate which food and food processing techniques will become attractive or necessary alternatives. Middle ages
Industrialisation period
Post/hyper modernity
I see essentially two highly complex systems in the agri-food industry that are (still) separated. One is the crop variety – weed control – growth enhancers system (the production system), and the second is the food processing – assembling – distribution system (the food industry). They are still separated because there is still a large sector of farmers, although increasingly squeezed between the two, who are managing to achieve enormous scale advantages in their family businesses and thus resist to be swallowed by industry. The first industry, on the production side, is dominated by a few players in the chemical industry (Monsanto as the biggest), the second is dominated by a few players in the processing industry like Unilever. Upscaling is still possible in farming and food processing, and if the availability of cheap energy will pose no limit in this, a merge of the two industries and the further shrinking of family based farming is very likely. From an economic and technical viewpoint the management of a few million hectares of cropland under one company that exploits, process and distribute the products is very feasible and fits in the logic of the post/hyper modern conditions. As long there is cheap energy, it is more economic to completely dis-assemble food to its basic molecules, and construct food with it into products that fits with or follows comsumer demand or its created phantasies. The basic molecules are carbohydrates, proteines and fatty acids. Mix them, add some flavour and salt, and you have a pizza, or a cake. The big advantage is that it doesn’t matter from which crops these molecules are coming from. The objective becomes not to produce as much crops per unit labour, but as much of those basic materials. Fresh fruits, vegetables, cheese and meat will stay longest an exception on this tendency, as they are the hardest to artificially assemble like “real”. The main factors for centralisation and globalisation of the agri-food industry are 1. Continuous reduction of labour costs or increased labour productivity 2. Continuous growth of needed capital for investment In the last century, research & development for the agri-food industry has importantly shifted from publicly funded to privately funded, and are thus more or less integrated in the labour-productivity equation. Training of future employees ofcourse still heavily depends on public funding and is a key factor why the industry does not move directly to low wage / cheap natural resource countries. The transportation of the raw materials towards the processing industry and the final markets are a relatively minor expenditure in the production costs. Analysis of the last oil spike, showed that when the crude oil price tripled, average food prices rose 20% as a result of it. Many studies show in general an immediate effect of an oil price spike on economic growth. Economic growth depends in the US for more than 70% on consumer demand. All “minor” price rises together, like in food, but especially in housing and transport, will force consumers to economise on luxury items like holidays, electronics, fashion cloths and family housing. This will slow down economy. One of the most profound effects of a stagnant economy is the lack of investment capital, like we have seen in the last years. Still, cheap food will remain one of the few sectors able to make profits, and therefor can re-invest. But in this case they need to invest not only in their own equipment and infrastructure but also take responsibility of the quality of their suppliers who might not doing so well. Machinery, means of transport, stockage, etc, AND THEIR suppliers of raw materials: metals, plastics, etc. It is clear that the production costs will not only rise because of oil, but also because of keeping unhealthy sectors alive, just for the sake of having the supply needed to keep the industry going. At the same time the self-sufficiency production system that depends more on local resources, like own gardens and small scale, mixed, organic farming will likely become more affordable, as labour still is the largest production cost in this system, and labour will become cheaper when the economy is stagnant, and unemployment rises. The conclusion for this part would be that in a stagnant economy with high oil prices, the trend towards globalised food systems will remain, food in general will be more expensive, but the price difference between globalised, monopolised food and local food production will become smaller, giving more opportunities to labour intensive food processing on smaller scale. The technology that will accompany such rise of local food chains, will have the image of the “weapons of the weak”. Especially the unemployed, the young, the old, etc., will be vulnerable to rising food prices, and will look for a supplement in local production. As investment for machinery will be scarce in a stagnant economy, the solutions for processing local food will therefor be simple, and small scale. Possibilities to upscale and improve “household methods” can be mainly found in communal kitchens and restaurants. In this case the ability to process large amounts of local surplus with lower prices, can compensate for the enormous difference of “professionality” with the globalised food industry. Methods that do not require major investments are among the following: - Cooling / Freezing : buying extra refrigerators / building extra basements - Fermentation: upgrade wine production, make own cheese and yoghurt, lacto-ferment vegetables in large pots - Make own basic ingredients: vinegar, mustard, mayonaise, fonds, etc. - Marmelades: small scale jam making machinery - Drying in air / construct a drying place for ovens These kinds of activities will therefor not be a basis for new jobs, but are supplementary activies either on household or restaurant level, that will compensate for loss of income because of unemployment. The most promosing methods of agricultural production in this context are “difficult to fail” systems, and autonomous with regards to soil fertility. In this respect I can mention the following: - New orchards in streets and public spaces with clever pruning and harvest system - Agroforestry systems with as much perennial or self seeding plants as possible - Urban agriculture: Raised bed gardens with clever irrigation system and small scale composting like vermi-composting Finally, means of transport that will allow to transport bulky products and compost, that doesn’t cost a lot of money, suitable for peri-urban environments: - Transport bikes, bikes with cards, motorised or not - Minitractors with card Well, it is all not very revolutionary, it just shows the path that is already taken. The gap between haves and havenots is growing, and the gap between “developing” and “developed” world is closing! 2 Comments 5% unemployment or somewhat less is generally considered by economists to represent a beneficial “reserve army” of potential workers that can be hired when a certain sector suddenly needs them. But in France unemployment has been far more than 5% and 1% more than the European average already for decades. And I can see no quick improvement. While we are still in the middle of crisis, we are already moving in to a next difficult phase that requires a lot of public intervention. A transition to energy sources alternative to cheap oil, a warming climate, deterioration of ground water and degradation of agricultural soils. At the same time there are still a lot of under-utilised resources. Things that the modernisation process has left as being “not economically exploitable”: huge forests that lost the competition with Nordic countries, enormous amounts of agricultural mountain land that lost the battle with the plains, large number of small plots like road sites and areas around industrial and shopping buildings, communal land and ofcourse: waste. The lack of management of many of those areas, or the mismanagement, are in fact a threat to nature or the environment: monoculture as solution for easy management (grass, pine trees), or pavements of concrete. Although waste is more recycled nowadays, the mountain doesn’t really diminish. My idea would be to improve access for the economically deprived to these under-used resources in sustainable way: introduce to them edible landscapes or in other ways useful landscapes (hedges), invent creative ways to turn waste in resources These solutions must be easy to learn and to do, should not take a lot investments, or just a one time start-off investment as part of a social program. And it should be not very far from home. It should be a contribution to the quality of life of unemployed people, not a complete alternative for a job, so maximum two days per week, in order not to create a permanent situation, or “economic trap” for them. Some possibilities: - Organise forest thinning days, after which the thinning wood is sold as soil amendment to farmers (our famous Ramial Chipped Wood) - Make more consumer goods recyclable, so that parts can be re-used, and give unemployed people access to the place where this waste is being gathered - Plant fruit and nut trees in parks and besides roads, and let them being managed and harvested by a collective of unemployed people - Create communal gardens on all this underutilised land where unemployed people are guided to produce vegetables and fruits for themselves - Create space for communal restaurants where unemployed people can cook for themselves, to reduce costs, and where the scale advantage can create interesting links with urban gardens and food stores (overproduction, close to overdate food) I guess these possibilities will be developed by itself if the unemployment remains high, like is the case in developing countries. The demand for communal gardens in France is already skyrocketing. But at this moment there is still the opportunity to guide those developments in a sustainable way. The objective would be to create as much and equal access to this land and materials for as much unemployed people as possible and to prevent that they will fight for it. |
RSS Feed