I have been a bit busy lately. I accepted a part time job as a cook in a bio restaurant cooking for lunch, what  is, as you might know, supposed to be the principal meal in France :-)

There is one thing worth mentioning on this blog about this activity, and that touches the basic issue of most of my messages: economies of scale.

That is: it is difficult under present economic conditions NOT to make use of economies of scale. Trying to maximize economies of scale goes against the heart of sustainable farming. Ploughing with a large tractor compacts the ground. A large distribution network increases the number of transport  kilometers incorporated in food. The specialization of labour makes the farmer losing sight of the interconnectedness of the ecosystem on his farm. The reduction of farmers within a certain region reduces also the number of experiments being done on daily basis that tests the adaptability of the methods to the regional conditions.

Now cooking:  economies of scale have brought us the miracle of kitchens without cooking. It is more a kind of assembly. I believe it was Mc Donalds who first made this concept into a success. Or was it the Russian soup kitchen? It is hard to deny that the taste of food is suffering. But what the heck: it is not too bad, it is way cheaper, control can be done more systematic, and it is quick! If it is only taste: it would have been an issue for elitists. But I am afraid it is not. Now the economies of scale of farming and the food industry is of course closely linked, or already one and the same. A large scale, AFFORDABLE, restaurant can hardly deal with a lot of suppliers. It makes the system too complicated and risky. So it tends to avoid small-scale farmers, unless these farmers manage to unite their marketing channels. Which is for THEM a very complicated issue. In practice it doesn’t happen. Small-scale farming is therefore supported by well intended, mostly well to do, citizens. Who motivate their choice mostly by arguments of taste and nutritional value.  These are not my most important arguments, I find them hard to proof, which makes it difficult to identify myself with our most important supporters!

My quest in my kitchen is to OPTIMISE economies of scale up to a point it is not jeopardizing the sustainability of the farms that are supplying our restaurant. But under present economic conditions it is, like small-scale farming, in fact an impossible job, dependent on well doers and clients that happen to like our menu so much that they are willing to pay the “value added”.  So, here I am pealing my potatoes, carrots and onions everyday for a 40 people crowd or so. Thinking about a piece of equipment that our local vegetable shop back in the 70’s already invested in: a potato pealing machine…
 
 
Valorizing forest, hedge and fruit tree cuttings in local gardens, farms and green municipality spaces.
 
Shredding from fresh branches, the so-called Ramial Chipped Wood (RCW), is an abundant resource and a very valuable mulch for improving soils and for reducing evaporation. This local resource is not optimally used at the moment in our valley due to lack of knowledge and not functioning locals supply chains. RebelFarmer decided to start a project to work on those two axes.
 
Improving local awareness and widening up action range for citizens, self-governments and farmers by campaigning
1. Reduce burning of branches and shredding: it pollutes the environment and they are too valuable as soil amendment to be burned. The community rents out a shredder + person for a very economic price (10 euros per hour);
2. Reduce garden waste: avoid, reduce or replace redwood bark (Sequoia), cedar (Cedrus), spruce (Picea), larch (Larix) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga), laurel (Prunus) and buxus in the garden. Due to toxic substances produced by these plants, to suppress germination of neighbouring plants (“allelopathic effect”), the shredding can’t be used as RCW, and due to high content of “oily” substances it pollutes easily the chimney in case it is used as firewood.. Cuttings of these trees and shrubs can only be used under the same plantings or be burned in high temperature incinerators (not local);
3. Integrate local RCW into municipality policy for mulching park spaces, reduce its inconveniences like impurity, messy impression and its popularity by scavenging birds and other animals;
4. Use RCW as soil amendment in agriculture, study local soil-RCW-climate interactions, study for which cultures it works best, and in which quantities.
 
Improve the functioning of local supply chains
1. Improve quality of RCW throughout the chain: rewarding suppliers for good quality RCW, setting up a quality seal for good quality RCW;
2. Studying price mechanisms, by which price RCW becomes competitive with other comparable forms of soil amendments?
3. Improve communication and facilitate cooperation between the chain participants: improve delivery and storage conditions, accessibility and capacity, involve community members in the forest thinning.
 
The results of the project will be:
- Increase RCW utilization in the local supply chains by 50 m3 in the first year and 200 m3 the following year.
- The involved target groups, 6 municipalities, 2 waste collection
services, 20 landscaping businesses, 1000 gardeners and 4 organic farmers know about the possibilities of BRF and have the means to gain more knowledge on its production and utilization.
 
 
A growing group of people is interested to learn about the relations between people and nature from a critical perspective. The emergence of this movement calls for more places where such learning is provided and facilitated.

Many people deeply criticize our preoccupation with technology. We like to believe that technology can solve all our problems and that nature can be mastered. But can technology save us from all our problems? There is a strong call for the acknowledgment that health has not so much to do with mastering sickness by new technology but more with insight how to flourish. At the same time this is stressed for our most direct relation with nature: agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
 
It may not be surprising that a large reservoir of knowledge about human interaction with nature, and how nature works, manifests itself in the domain of agricultural systems. But at the same time successful agricultural systems enabled people to live in cities and as a result the majority of the people were cut off from the complexity and biodiversity of their natural surroundings.
 
The new movement is that a growing amount of people from cities are looking for new learning experiences in the countryside and the agricultural domain. It is not longer sufficient to sit back and relax on a campsite, or to do safari, but people want to participate in what is going on, and learn from it, get embedded in it. At the same time they want to offer their children to do the same thing. There is a realisation that certain experiences and knowledge can only be obtained outside the concrete jungle. These experiences can vary from getting access to open space, quietness, a touchable link with age-old history or seasonal cycles. What is important in this respect is that they not longer just want to be amused, as is the case in traditional tourism, but that they all search for experiences on the countryside that are meaningful for them in other ways.
 
At the same time, in different places at the countryside, successful experiments are going on where people learn about their links with nature and about how to live from and with nature in a cooperational manner. All from a somewhat different angle, but they all increasingly open their doors for students.

New thinking on ecology, agriculture, forestry and nutrition

There are some extra-ordinary lessons on ecology to be learned in rural communities. An example is food styles. Some people on ecological farms started to experiment with raw food or wheat-free food and its possible advantages for health and ecology. In Finland there are “circular schools”. Courses are given at different times in different farms and communities on issues like permaculture and alternative food styles. One of the Finnish students is (re)discovering how to make raw vegetables better digestible by lactic fermentation Also he is experimenting with low temperature baking. He is ready, like many others, to share his experience sofar.
 
Preventing the Nature Deficit Disorder of children

Children are intrigued by nature. If children can experience a developed ecosystem with all its diversity they are naturally impressed. They feel part of a greater thing. It has recently been shown that grown-ups are more prepared to protect nature if they had such experiences in their youth. The conclusion the other way around is maybe more shocking: it is almost impossible to raise awareness on the values of nature among adults if they did NOT have extensive nature experiences in their youth. If so many people do not find it important, is it then still fundamental to protect nature? Can we really live without nature? From a holistic point of view, people are part of life systems, sometimes called biospheres. A person is a biosphere in itself, containing 10 times more bacteria and other life forms than the number of own body cells, distributed over more than 100 different species. We are nature and nature is in us. If we want to respect ourselves, we need to respect nature, that is: our relations with the environment and other living beings. Diminishing our natural environment and biodiversity means risking our own existence.
 
Organic farms and communities in nature areas are perfect places for children to offer such intensive nature experiences. There are creative ways to facilitate even more these learning experiences, for example by letting children taste different products, and to let them discover the origin of our food.  In the Netherlands a project is started, called: ”De smaak te pakken” (In English: get the taste). It is a mobile tent-kitchen that can be built in a city park. A cook, and several animators show children in playful way what food is made of, how the original ingredients taste and where they come from.  

Learning from the past for the future

In many rural communities traditional ways of agriculture and forestry are still being practised, and many traditions that are connected to it are still alive. Many of the technical methods and also the traditional cultural skills seem to be of value again in industrialised societies. A nice example is the art of gardening and of conserving and cooking with seasonal food products. In Eastern Europe it is now possible to help the aged population in surviving in their villages, and at the same time learn from their vast experience with this. They can also teach songs, dances and old rituals in which the natural pace of nature and the seasons is being reflected.
 
New ways to survive on the countryside

At the same time, new communities are developing in the countryside where people survive by applying more alternative scientific methods of agriculture like permaculture and organic agriculture. They are often actively involved with local authorities in the renovation and management of traditional landscapes, connecting nature areas by eco-corridors, saving agro-biodiversity, etc etc.. They offer interesting experimental grounds for ecological building techniques, re-inventing or combining traditional building techniques and local materials with new scientific approaches. The same counts for renewable energy production and energy-saving. The new rural communities are more open than traditional communities. Inhabitants move more frequently or live only seasonally on the countryside. Also they have often jobs outside their village. The community is in a way not local but more global, connected through a network of rural and urban activist communities, for example the Transition Town movement, the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), the Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF) network, the European Centre for Eco Agro Tourism (ECEAT) and the European Youth For Action (EYFA).

RebelFarmer would like to consolidate this diffuse group of people into a network with access to critical literature, information, practical assignments and volunteering opportunities. On the RebelFarmer website it is described in more detail where learning experiences are currently offered.


References

Pollan, Michael 1991, Second Nature, A gardener’s education
Rapport, David J. et all (ed) 1999, Managing for Healthy Ecosystems

Louv, Richard 2005, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder

Chevian, Eric / Aaron Bernstein (ed) 2008, Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity


Other organisations specialised in nature-humans relations

www.wildernessawareness.org
www.natureskills.com
www.natureinstitute.org
www.nsfarming.com
www.leisa.info
www.schumachercollege.org.uk
www.birdwooddowns.com
www.edibleestates.org
 
 
"Crude oil futures for delivery in 2015 are currently trading near $85 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange"

Any thoughts about this: normally people that warn against peakoil complain that they are not heard in the media. What about if they UNDER-estimated their influence, and traders and investors become afraid from all the predictions that have been made in the media and start buying up more future stocks of oil, and driving up current prices with it. Peakoilers would see in the rising prices a scarcity that they have predicted. But in fact, what they see is the result of what they partly have been causing themselves.

I say this because it reminds me on what happened with the "multiculturalism debate" in the Netherlands. You know this debate went totally wrong, resulting in a transformation of a tolerant country to one of the most hostile ones in Europe towards immigrants. What went wrong here is that the proponents of multiculturalism have too long profiled themselves as underdogs, because they felt that they were not heard, while in fact a lot of policy attention was paid towards it. The problems of "integration" (in the beginning still a very not-political correct term in the NL) were in fact so huge, that it seemed like that the government did nothing to help to close the gap between newly immigrated people and the established Dutch. This was utterly condemned by the "new right", who believed that all the governmental support just aggravated the problem: it prevented that immigrants were confronted with "necessity" that they should "integrate". Like I said: this was in the beginning language only expressed by extreme right in the NL, now it is common sense (and I emigrated to France...)

Anyway, back to oil: the biggest hatred and accusation from "oilpeak-deniers" or "climate change deniers" come from the fact that "money-squandering schemes" or "taxpayer money" are spilled to create a "no-growth" scenario, while in fact according to them this money should be spent on stimulating growth, because only growth can compensate for pollution.

Now, I don't predict that the whole climate debate will finally come back this ideology, but maybe if peakoilers would reflect more about their own position in the debate, there would be less an ideological war as I can see right now between them and its "debunkers".

I think the two best known websites on both side of the peak oil front, The Oil Drum and Peak Oil Debunked, are already doing a relatively good job in trying to stay "objective". And although I agree it is like fighting a war, which necessitates scientific theory to back up eachothers' ideological and moral standpoints, both parties need people who are above the party lines.

Personally I am in favor for searching for no-growth scenarios (and for a world without borders ;-) but I did some economics on my university and with this background I can't see yet a serious theory that can guide a transformation. The Stiglitz commission might be a beginning. But massively claiming no-growth already as an ideology, because we feel have not enough (media/governmental) support might make its own fear come true: indeed no-growth but one without solidarity.

Some of the more "objective information"that I know off: The Hirsch report

 
 
Are we actually replacing stuff so many times because we want to stay in touch with modernity, or just for fun,  just because out of habit or because we are bored?

Is fun shopping a fundamental right on leisure, considering our incredible efforts that we spend on our job, or do we do it just because we are bored?

Do we buy pre-packed and pre-cooked food because we have terribly busy life and we can’t spare a minute. Or are we just being lazy, and we don’t care enough about our health?

Are we going on holiday so many times by airplane because it is one of the few opportunities to relax from our busy, productive life? Or do we lack the fantasy to amuse ourselves closer to home and without touroperator?

Are we going by car to our work because it is the only efficient way, and we need a private moment, and public transport is terrible? Or is our car a status symbol, and we don’t really care about the effect of cars on the environment?

Do we have trust in our farmers and science to produce safe food without impact on nature to worry about? Or are we just interested in the price of food, and we don’t really care where food comes from and how it is has been produced?

I tend to be more and more dualist in my thinking about sustainable development, although my preference goes out for pluralism. What the hell do I mean? I mean that it seems that two main assumptions are driving people in their consumption behaviour. One is: believing that we can still gain productivity because of still endless possibilities for division of labour and subsequent economies of scale in the production process. Caring for the environment is a luxury that we can pay from our ever growing production (the “productivists”). The other is: we were able to reach our current productivity because of over-exploitation of human and natural resources which is not sustainable in the long run. We need to find satisfaction in a more modest behaviour (the “ecologists”).

Purely based on arguments, the productivists are clearly loosing grounds. Fresh water, food, energy, rare metals, phosphor, signs of depletion of resources have been on red the last years, scaring many people. Even the link has been made between the price of oil, reflecting its scarcity, and the economic crisis in which we all are amidst. Now you see the two thought strands radicalising.

The productivists are calling on their last trump. There is enough oil in the ground for centuries to go, and in the meantime our scientists will come up with something, like they have always did, to deliver us cheap energy. Like nuclear fusion or something. The ecologists say: we haven’t the time, and we can’t be sure! And here is where it is radicalising. The productivists started to accuse the ecologists of self-fulfilling prophecy. They spread fear that humans are not creative enough to cope with shortages of resources. Instead of stimulating innovation and economic growth, they advocate backwardness and economic stagnation. If the ecologists will gain sufficient power they make their own fear come true. On the other hand, we have the ecologists saying: it is an illusion to think that economic growth will enable us to limit environmental and social degradation sufficiently. We have to limit our greed. And it is greed that is driving economic growth. Anyone that is not respecting the precautionary principle of the UN Rio Treaty of 1992, is performing a criminal act against humanity.

Until recently everybody believed in the merits of economic growth, except for a few hippies. It changed very rapidly. Now it has become difficult to take the “nuclear fusion argument” really seriously. On the other hand there is still no serious economic model for “no growth”. Is there a middle way argument? Or will an ideological war begin?

RebelFarmer is in a strange position. One the one hand we would like to help ordinary people, that are struggling with their quality in their life, because they lack access to a good environment, nice food and rich nature. On the other hand: we are in the middle of spoiled, fat and bored consumers who are lacking drugs when the economy is in a crisis. Can we clearly recognize our “target group”? No, not really. In fact the ideological war is taking place in ourselves. We all have a bit of both of it in ourselves, and we all doubt. So we will just muddle through. Investing not really enough in our ecosystems and in our social fabric in order to cope with a post-peak resource reality and investing too much in money squandering schemes like CO2 compensation so that the world economy is not able to thrive like it should in order to create pleasures for the working class.

It is astonishing to see that the amateuristic capitalism-hippy fights of the 60’s became an ideological conflict on world scale in such a short time. We are forced to choose sides. But it is the dualism in all of us, of all times with which we are kept being confronted: finding resistance to our own gravings for drugs, competition instincts and power abuse.

Eco-documentaries for the masses:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIY7SrKdsg

New ways of measuring gross domestic product (GDP):
Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
 
 
Today’s newspaper mentions good and bad news for organic agriculture. The good news is that in France the sector experienced a 25% growth in 2008, and an annual growth of 10% the last ten years. The bad news is that production can not meet the demand and the growth is mainly realised by imports. Now, why is that?

All those years, during the neo-liberal epoch, we had to hear over and over and again that the market is the most important driver of change. Ecological alternatives were all nice and clear, but if the people didn’t ask for it, all ecological people would remain in their own little bubble producing for eachother, living from a a miserable salary. Now, something wonderful happened. Finally the message came through about the contamination of our environment by agricultural pesticides and nitrates, and about our bad food habits. Parents became worried about the quality of the food of their children at school, companies and institutes became worried about the food in their canteens. The government took up an article in the new environmental legislation that public institutes should serve more healthy food.

But how can one measure the rate of healthy-ness? There is in fact only one clear indicator available that satisfies most people involved: the percentage of organic food in the meal. Organic food has a label and this can be tracked down in the administration of the cantinas... So that is how demand is created. And that is one of the most important reasons in fact to have a label. Normally the World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not allow discrimination in the market place. And until recently the European Union followed this principle, with for example as consequence that it was forbidden for a school to grant a contract to a food supplier on the condition that it should be (partly) organic. This changed several years ago. The EU now allows “positive discrimination” in public procurement for labeled products that have considerably less negative environmental impact than comparable products without label. It resulted in an explosion of demand. Organic agriculture finally became a serious economic sector in France, as one of the last countries in Europe. But such long hesitation of France came from somewhere. There are not enough organic farmers or production in France to meet to growing demand, although many people would like to work in the sector. Something is terribly wrong.

Did we interfere too much with the market? Created too much “artificial demand”?  Or is the government not interfering enough? Allowing the strongest players to dominate, leaving no space for innovative young farmers? I think there is a combination of factors, but it boils down to one thing: the new message did not came through to important players and decision makers in French agriculture: the ministry of agriculture, regional chambers of agriculture and the main agricultural research institutes. They decide about stimulation and guidance measures, research programmes and use of available land.

It is just two years ago that I spoke with a young couple in the Jura, looking since ages for 5 hectares of land to start organic horticulture. They would be the first ones in the whole province! The government has the right to buy agricultural land as first buyer if there is a threat that it will be lost for other uses.  One of the rare opportunities to obtain land is from the governmental agency that buys and sells this kind of land. If you want something done by any French governmental agency you have to supply them with a “dossier”. And this dossier is decided upon mainly by a few mainstream farmers.  So no chance.

It is very seldom that an entire economic sector grows up without governmental support, especially in agriculture. So what basically happened in France is that the government stimulated demand, without stimulating production. The decision-makers with the old productivist ideas are still in power. They must be around 60 by now.  They are open for approaches to use a bit less fertilisers and pesticides, let it be only for economic reasons. But they will never, NEVER, allow something weirdly holistic like organic agriculture seriously compete with their “scientific” based agriculture. Unfortunately for them, other labels that claim to be environmentally friendly and that fit more with a productivist approach, such as “sustainable agriculture” (Rainforest Alliance) or Agriculture Raissonée (“reasonable use” of pesticides)” never became a succes. But if the organic label will fail because too many people become disappointed that their food needs to be imported, there is a new chance on the horizon for a new environmental label! Of course I hope that the dinosaurs retire first.
 
 
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
  • Local food crops
  • Local varieties
  • Sylvo-Agro-Pastoralism as way to suppress weeds and supply of fertility to crop land
  • Farm based food processing
  • Food conservation based on drying, fermentation and salt
  • Mainly consumption of local produce
  • Variable food and food quality intake

Industrialisation period
  • Introduction of global varieties (corn, potatoes, tomatoes, etc)
  • Concentration on bulk food. Higher yielding wheat, abandonment of local grains (spelt)
  • Deep labour as means to suppress weeds, and to profit from humus in deeper layers, general pesticides
  • Local cooperatives
  • Food conservation based on chemical food preservatives, powderisation, concentration
  • Product sourcing mainly on regional scale
  • Rise of protein intake, diminution of vitamins

Post/hyper modernity

  • Domination of few GMO varieties, patent protected
  • Protection of local varieties by special niche markets (“bio”) and public policies (“gene banks”)
  • Specialised pesticides and fertilisers
  • Multi-national companies
  • Radiation, sterilisation, deep freeze, controlled atmosphere
  • Ingredients from all over the planet
  • Rise of carbohydrates intake, enriched food

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!
 
 
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.  
 
 

It does not seem to be very difficult to do an excercise in how the world could look like under conditions of severe shortages of oil. Dmitry Orlov in his blog turns to the collapse of the ex-USSR for inspiration , but one might as well can have a look to anywhere on this planet, except where I used to live, the still well functioning welfare states, most of them in nordic Europe. As soon as one has in mind a post peak scenario of resource scarceness, one can give meaning to whole lot of present day events.

A shrinking economy is an importance consequence of a resource crash. The state will have less tax income, and will need to form alliances with large corporations for keeping the country going. General tendency in many present day countries is already a contracting state willingly (neo-liberalism) or unwillingly, loosing control and direction over major policies, but gaining force in the spheres where it remains most active (army, police, intelligence, banking). Large multi-national companies are able to rule key high-tech industries, and are able even with resource scarcity to keep running key technologies needed for certain essential high-tech sectors like food production, mining, and chemical industry. The question remains who will control mobile telephone and internet industry.

Low and middle class citizens loose at this moment important security on all levels: employment, health, protection against crime. In general people are less and less valuable as consumer for the economy. Their expenditures as consumers no longer stimulates the beginning of large investment projects. No money from consumers and scarce resources means it will be very difficult to start any large investment projects, meaning less jobs, meaning less buying power, meaning even less investment in new projects. Economy contracts to essential elements. No more paid leisure activities, no more foreign holidays, no more new furniture and cloths each year, no more glossy magazines, no more luxury, foreign, off-season food, less television and expensive action movies. So far so good. Would many environmentalists say. That is what we have been waiting for so long. But ofcourse people will not just accept all this just like that, without some kind of ... motivation. Work hard, in an insecure environment without getting compensated will cause rebellion. The state, the “mafia” and strong corporations backed up by the state and the mafia will take care that rebellion will be very difficult. But by force alone they will not able to surpress rebellion. So we need a new ideology or religion. Something that we have already and the many people believe in already, called: technology. The last prophet about whom everybody is talking as our big hope is called nuclear fusion. Only this energy source will allow us to continue with our energy-intensive life style. Some people know it is possible (our priests), but the masses belief it is possible, without knowing or asking exactly what it is. So our scientist- priests can hide successfully that it will never become a commercial possibility.

But where will be room for manoeuvre for the free spirits, for the creative, for the responsible in all this? Basically in areas that are not interesting enough for the mafia, and not threatening for the state and for multinational corporations. Of course the anti-globalist movement will grow in power, but they will be very quickly be regarded as terrorists or disbelievers in modern technology.

Left-over technology from the consumerist times will be re-used to construct local networks in communication and health care. Laptops can communicate with eachother with local WIFI networks, and need just one linkage to the bigger internet. Local radio stations can be set up. Local social networks, such as immigrant or religious networks, will be functional in helping eachother out in local food, security and education issues. But still, people die of untreated or wrongly treated sicknesses and malnutrition. This looks familiar? Yes, because all the above described is happening already. Especially in Africa and… in the banlieues of Paris, Bruxelles and Rotterdam..

 
 

In the last blog I was speaking about Peak Oil risks, and our ability to prepare for it by finding resilience in growing your own food (and becoming a rebelfarmer!). Today I was pointed to a blogger that calculated the peak oil not as usually by the point of maximum production, but by the point of maximum affordability. His question was: how much barrels of oil can you buy with S&P500, an index of the 500 important industrial stocks? This graph shows that since the 50’s we have experienced two peaks of affordability: before the oil crisis of the 70’s and one, the highest, in 1999. Since 1999 we can buy less and less oil for the same amount of stocks. The blogger argues that it is highly improbable that we will ever reach a higher affordability than in 1999. This would mean that 1999 was our “true” peak oil, as the oil price, corrected for inflation with this methodology, will only continue to go up from this moment on.

Another blogger on (post) peak oil, who is getting famous status at this moment in the USA, Dmitry Orlov, mentioned that peak oil will not be one moment, but a process of acceptance by different population segments with different timings. See here a lecture of him.  
His view is that because a societal collapse is psychologically so hard to accept, people who are able to postpone the consequences of the new reality, will regard people that are already feeling the consequences and are acting according to it, just as “poor people”or “the less fortunate”. Combined with the idea that Peak Oil already happened this is an eye-opener to me. Recently I moved from the Netherlands to France and the economic situation here was quite a shock to me. The welfare state in the Netherlands is quite good developed, not in the least thanks to our gas trade. Here in France, one can simply not survive individually without a job. Consequence: stay with someone else in a house or live on the streets. In fact there are two parameters that have augmented the last decade in a quite scary way in France: the age of youngsters the moment they move out of their parents’ place and the amount of people living on the streets. These people are already living in the post peak reality. No car, or a mini-vehicle that goes max 40 km/h. Shopping at give-away centres, eating over date food from the supermarkets, or gathering food from the markets at closure time. The creative among them are squatting and living from the land in the Massif Central, where a lot of land is barren or are living in mobile homes, and move where the jobs are or where the climate is moderate. They are now still considered as the marginal or as radicals by the “establishment”. But it could very well be the new normal.

The basis of the theory of Dmitry Orlov is a societal comparison of the USA with the collapse of the former Soviet Union. After the collapse of the USSR, the citizens were faced with severe unemployment and resource shortages. The reason why nobody directly died of malnutrition was that they have never completely trusted to depend on state social security. The only social security that is holy in Russia is the right on daily bread. And the state managed at least to get its distribution going. Together with the fact that practically all families have some kind of access to a private plot of land for additional food, the country dragged itself through mainly on the shoulders of the working women and pensioners (according to Orlov, a significant part of the men were busy with hassling, fighting, drinking and being depressed about their lost jobs). This kind of resilience we do not have in Europe and the USA. The general lack of resilience makes us very vulnerable for societal collapse. RebelFarmer was established in order to offer training how to live on local resources and get back in contact with nature. And the most serious training we offer is indeed in Eastern Europe!