15

From environmental concerns towards sustainable food provisioning. Material flow and food consumption scenario studies on of agri-food systems

MTT is publishing its research findings in two series of publications: MTT Science and MTT Growth. Doctoral Dissertation

MTT CREATES VITALITY THROUGH SCIENCE Helmi Risku-Norja

www.mtt.fi/julkaisut

The MTT Science series includes scientific presentations and abstracts from conferences arranged by MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Doctoral dissertations by MTT research scientists will also be published in this series. The topics range from agricultural and food research to environmental research in the field of agriculture.

MTT, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland. Tel. +358 3 4188 2327, email [email protected] 15

From environmental concerns towards sustainable food provisioning. Material flow and food consumption scenario studies on sustainability of agri-food systems

Doctoral Dissertation

Helmi Risku-Norja

Academic Dissertation: To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki, for public examination in Auditorium 1041, Biokeskus 2, Viikki, Viikinkaari 5, on 4th February 2011, at 12 o’clock noon. Supervisors:

Professor Juha Helenius Department of Agricultural Sciences University of Helsinki, Finland Professor Sirpa Kurppa Biotechnology and Food Research MTT Agrifood Research Finland Jokioinen, Finland

Pre-reviewers: Professor Mikael Hildén ISBN 978-952-487-300-0 (Print) Climate Change Programme ISBN 978-952-487-301-7 (Electronic) Finnish Environment Institute ISSN 1798-1824 (Printed version) Helsinki, Finland ISSN 1798-1840 (Electronic version) http://www.mtt.fi/mtttiede/pdf/mtttiede15.pdf Professor Ilmo Massa Copyright MTT Agrifood Research Finland Department of Biological and Helmi Risku-Norja Environmental Sciences Distribution and sale University of Helsinki, Finland MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Media and Information services, Opponent: FI-31600 Jokioinen, phone +358 3 41881, Adjunct Professor Petri Tapio e-mail [email protected] Finland Futures Research Centre University of Turku, Finland Printing year 2011 Cover picture Giuseppe Arcimboldo 1527– Custos: 1593, Italy. Professor Juha Helenius Printing house Tampereen Department of Agricultural Sciences Yliopistopaino Juvenes Print Oy University of Helsinki, Finland

2 MTT SCIENCE 15 From environmental concerns towards sustainable food provisioning. Material flow and food consumption scenario studies on sustainability of agri-food systems

Helmi Risku-Norja

MTT Economic Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen [email protected]

Abstract

griculture is an economic activity interaction between human economic that heavily relies on the availability activity and resource use. Specifically, of natural resources. Through its the material flow approach (MFA) has Arole in food production agriculture is a established its position through application major factor affecting public welfare and of systematic environmental and economic health, and its indirect contribution to accounting statistics. However, very few gross domestic product and employment studies have applied MFA specifically to is significant. Agriculture also contributes agriculture. The MFA approach was used to numerous ecosystem services through in this thesis in such a context in Finland. management of rural areas. However, the environmental impact of agriculture is The focus of this study is the ecological considerable and reaches far beyond the sustainability of primary production. agro­ecosystems. The questions related to The aim was to explore the possibilities farming for food production are, thus, of assessing ecological sustainability manifold and of great public concern. of agriculture by using two different approaches. In the first approach the MFA- Improving environmental performance methods from were of agriculture and sustainability of food applied to agriculture, whereas the other is production, “sustainabilizing” food based on the food consumption scenarios. production, calls for application of wide The two approaches were used in order range of expertise knowledge. This study to capture some of the impacts of dietary falls within the field of agro-ecology, with changes and of changes in production mode interphases to food systems and sustainability on the environment. The methods were research and exploits the methods typical applied at levels ranging from national to of industrial ecology. The research in these sector and local levels. Through the supply- fields extends from multidisciplinary to demand approach, the viewpoint changed interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, a between that of food production to that of holistic approach being the key tenet. food consumption. The main data sources were official statistics complemented with The methods of industrial ecology have published research results and expertise been applied extensively to explore the appraisals.

MTT SCIENCE 15 3 MFA approach was used to define the feasibility of re-localising food production system boundaries, to quantify the material and environmental impacts of such flows and to construct eco-efficiency re-localisation in terms of nutrient indicators for agriculture. The results balances, gaseous emissions, agricultural were further elaborated for an input- energy consumption, agricultural land use output model that was used to analyse the and diversity of crop cultivation. food flux in Finland and to determine its relationship to the economy-wide physical The approach is applicable anywhere, and monetary flows. The methods based on but the calculation parameters need to be food consumption scenarios were applied adjusted so as to comply with the specific at regional and local level for assessing circumstances. The food consumption feasibility and environmental impacts scenario approach, thus, pays attention to of re-localising food production. The the variability of production circumstances, approach was also used for quantification and may provide some environmental and source allocation of greenhouse gas information that is locally relevant. (GHG) emissions of primary production. GHG assessment provided, thus, a means The approaches based on the input-output of cross-checking the results obtained by model and on food consumption scenarios using the two different approaches. represent small steps towards more holistic systemic thinking. However, neither one MFA data as such or expressed as eco- alone nor the two together provide sufficient efficiency indicators, are useful in information for “sustainabilizing” food describing the overall development. production. Environmental performance of However, the data are not sufficiently food production should be assessed together detailed for identifying the hot spots of with the other criteria of sustainable food environmental sustainability. Eco-efficiency provisioning. This requires evaluation and indicators should not be bluntly used in integration of research results from many environmental assessment: the carrying different disciplines in the context ofa capacity of the nature, the potential specified geographic area. Foodshed area exhaustion of non-renewable natural that comprises both the rural hinterlands resources and the possible rebound effect of food production and the population need also to be accounted for when striving centres of food consumption is suggested towards improved eco-efficiency. to represent a suitable areal extent for such research. Finding a balance between the The input-output model is suitable for various aspects of sustainability is a matter nationwide economy analyses and it of optimal trade-off. The balance cannot be shows the distribution of monetary and universally determined, but the assessment material flows among the various sectors. methods and the actual measures depend Environmental impact can be captured on what the bottlenecks of sustainability only at a very general level in terms of total are in the area concerned. These have to material requirement, gaseous emissions, be agreed upon among the actors of the energy consumption and agricultural land area. use. Improving environmental performance of food production requires more detailed Key words: and more local information. MFA, eco-efficiency, input-output modelling, food consumption The approach based on food consumption scenarios, application and evaluation scenarios can be applied at regional of the methods, environmental or local scales. Based on various diet sustainability, agriculture, food options the method accounts for the production and consumption

4 MTT SCIENCE 15 Kohti kestävää ruokahuoltoa. Materiaalivirta- ja ruoankulutus­ skenaariomenetelmät ruoantuotannon kestävyyden arvioinnissa

Helmi Risku-Norja

MTT Taloustutkimus, 31600 Jokioinen [email protected]

Tiivistelmä

aatalous on taloudellista toi- Teollisen ekologian tutkimusmenetelmiä mintaa, joka on ratkaisevasti on käytetty paljon selviteltäessä ihmisen riippuvainen luonnonoloista taloudellisen toiminnan ja luonnonvarojen Mja luonnonvaraperustasta. Ruoantuotan- käytön suhteita. Materiaalivirtatarkastelu non kautta maatalous on aivan oleellinen (MFA) on vakiinnuttanut paikkansa ym- hyvinvointiin ja kansanterveyteen vaikut- päristöä ja taloutta kuvaavissa tilastointi­ tava tekijä, mutta sen epäsuora vaikutus järjestelmissä, mutta sitä ei ole paljoakaan kansantalouteen ja työllisyyteen on myös käytetty maatalouden yhteydessä. Tässä merkittävä. Maaseutualueiden maankäy- tutkimuksessa MFA-menetelmiä sovitetaan tön kautta maatalous tuottaa myös monia nimenomaan maatalouden tarpeisiin, ja ekosysteemipalveluja. Toisaalta maatalous tarkastellaan niiden soveltuvuutta maata- myös kuormittaa ympäristöä, eikä ympä- louden ekologisen kestävyyden arvioimi- ristökuormitus rajoitu maatalousekosystee- sessa. Tutkimuksessa esitetään myös toi- meihin, vaan vaikutukset ulottuvat laajalle nen lähestymistapa, joka perustuu erilaisiin niiden ulkopuolelle. ruokavaliovaihtoehtoihin, ruoankulutus­ skenaarioihin. Molempia tapoja käyte- Maataloudesta aiheutuvan ympäristö­ tään arvioitaessa, miten muutokset ruoan­ kuormituksen vähentäminen sekä ruoan­ kulutuksessa tai tuotantotavassa heijastuvat tuotannon kestävyyden kaikinpuolinen ympäristöön. Menetelmiä sovelletaan kan- kohentaminen vaativat hyvin monen eri santalouden, toimialakohtaisen ja alueelli- alan asiantuntijuutta. Tämä väitöskirjatyö sen tason tarkasteluun ottamalla huomi- kuuluu agroekologisen tutkimuksen pii- oon sekä ruoan­tarjonta että sen kysyntä. riin, sillä on yhtymäkohtia sekä ruokajär- Empiirisenä aineistona on käytetty viral- jestelmä- että kestävyystutkimukseen, ja lisia maataloustilastoja, ja niitä on täyden- työssä on sovellettu teollisen ekologian me- netty julkaistuilla tutkimustuloksilla sekä netelmiä. Näiden tutkimusalojen keskei- asiantuntija-arvioinneilla. nen periaate on kokonaisvaltaisuus, ja ne edustavat monitieteistä, tieteidenvälistä ja Tutkimuksen systeemirajaus, materiaalivir- lisääntyvässä määrin myös poikkitieteistä tojen määrittäminen ja maatalouden eko- tutkimusotetta. tehokkuusmittareiden muodostaminen perustuivat MFA-laskentaan. Tulokset so- vitettiin integroituun panos-tuotosmal-

MTT SCIENCE 15 5 liin, jonka avulla tarkasteltiin ruoantuotan- monimuotoisuuden, vesistöjen rehevöity- toon liittyvien materiaali- ja rahavirtojen misen sekä happamoitumisen ja ilmaston- liikkeitä kansantalouden eri toimialojen muutoksen; mittareina ovat maatalouden välillä. Ruoankulutusskenaariomenetel- maankäyttö ja viljelykasvimonimuotoi- mää puolestaan käytettiin alueellisen ta- suus, peltojen ravinnetaseet, kasvihuone- son tarkastelussa, kun arvioitiin ruoantuo- kaasupäästöt sekä happamoittavat päästöt. tannon paikallistamisen toteutettavuutta Ympäristövaikutusten arviointi perustuu sekä paikallistamisen ympäristövaikutuk- niihin muutoksiin, joita erilaiset ruoka­ sia. Ruoan­kulutusseknaariomenetelmää valiovaihtoehdot toteutuessaan näissä mit- käytettiin myös kansantalouden tason ai- tareissa aiheuttaisivat. Menetelmää voidaan neistoon tarkasteltaessa maatalouden kasvi- käyttää missä tahansa, mutta laskennassa huonekaasupäästöjen eri lähteitä ja niiden käytettävät muuttujat täytyy sovittaa olo- osuutta kokonaispäästöistä. Tämä mahdol- suhteiden mukaan. Menetelmän avulla voi- listi kahdella eri menetelmällä saatujen tu- daan siten saada paikallisesti merkityksellis- losten rsitiintarkistamisen. tä tietoa ympäristövaikutuksista.

MFA-tulokset sellaisenaan tai ekotehok- Panos-tuotosmalli ja ruoankulutusskenaa- kuusmittareina ilmaistuna ovat käyttökel- riotarkastelu ovat pieniä askeleita kohti ko- poisia kuvattaessa toimialan kehitystä ylei- konaisvaltaista systeemistä tarkastelutapaa.­ sellä tasolla. Niiden avulla ei kuitenkaan Kumpikaan menetelmä ei kuitenkaan yk- pystytä tunnistamaan ekologisen kestävyy- sin – eivätkä menetelmät yhdessäkään – den kannalta kriittisiä seikkoja tai kriit- tuota riittävästi tietoa ruoantuotannon tisiä alueita. Pyrittäessä ekotehokkuuden kestävyyden kohentamiseksi. Ruoantuo- kohentamiseen ekotehokkuusmittareita tannon ympäristövaikutuksia tulee arvi- ei myöskään pitäisi käyttää yksioikoisesti, oida osana kestävää ruokahuoltoa yhdessä vaan ympäristön kantokyky, luonnonva- muiden kestävyyskriteerien kanssa. Tämä rojen riittävyys sekä mahdolliset rebound- edellyttää, että monen eri tieteenalan tut- vaikutukset pitää myös ottaa huomioon. kimustulokset sovitetaan yhteen ja nii- tä arvioidaan tietyn maantieteellisen alu- Panos-tuotosmalli kuvaa ruoantuotantoon een puitteissa. Ruoka-alue, joka käsittää liittyvien raha- ja ainevirtojen jakautumis- sekä ruoantuotantoalueet maaseudulla että ta eri toimialojen välillä, ja se soveltuu si- ruoankulutuksen keskittymät kaupungeis- ten kansantalouden tason tarkasteluihin. sa voisi edustaa tutkimuksen kannalta so- Malli laskee ruoantuotanto- tai kulutus­ pivaa alueellista ulottuvuutta. Jotta kestä- rakenteen muutosten vaikutukset ympäris- vyyden eri osa-alueet tulevat tasapuolisesti töön ottamalla huomioon luonnonvarojen huomioonotetuksi, tarvitaan kompromis- kokonaiskäytön, kasvihuonekaasu- ja hap- seja. Tähän ei ole yleispätevää ohjetta, sil- pamoittavat päästöt, maatalouden energian­ lä olosuhteet vaihtelevat eri alueilla. Näin kulutuksen sekä maatalouden maankäytön. ollen arviointimenetelmät ja toimenpiteet Maatalouden ekologisen kestävyyden kriit- riippuvat paikallisista olosuhteista, ja ne tisten kohteiden tunnistaminen vaatii kui- täytyy sopia yhdessä paikallisten toimijoi- tenkin yksityiskohtaisempaa paikallistason den kanssa. tietoa.

Ruoankulutusskenaariomenetelmä sovel- Avainsanat: tuu alueellisen ja paikallisen tason tar- MFA, ekotehokkuus, panos-tuotosmalli, kasteluihin. Sen avulla voidaan arvioida ruoankulutusskenaario, menetelmien ruoantuotannon paikallistamisen toteutet- soveltuvuus, ekologinen kestävyys, tavuutta sekä paikallistamisen vaikutuksia maatalous, ruoantuotanto ja -kulutus ympäristöön. Menetelmä ottaa huomioon

6 MTT SCIENCE 15 List of original publications

This thesis is based on four peer-reviewed articles, published in international scientific journals. The articles are referred in the text by their Roman numerals, and they are reprinted with the kind permission of their respective copyright holders.

I Risku-Norja, H. 1999. The total material requirement -concept applied to agriculture: a case study from Finland. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 8, 4–5: 393–410.

II Risku-Norja, H. & Mäenpää, I. 2007. MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. 60, 4: 700–711.

III Risku-Norja, H., Hietala, R., Virtanen, H., Ketomäki, H. & Helenius, J. 2008. Localisation of primary food production in Finland: production potential and environmental impacts of food consumption patterns. Agriculture and Food Science Finland 17, 2: 127–145.

IV Risku-Norja, H., Kurppa, S. & Helenius, J. 2009. Diet choices and greenhouse gas emissions – assessment of impact of vegetarian and organic options at national scale. Progress in Industrial Ecology 6(4): 340–354.

As the first author of the articles I-IV included in the thesis Risku-Norja was responsible for planning, outlining and writing the articles and for interpretation of the results in the context of each article.

The articles II and III are outcomes of multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary research based on large amount of data representing various research fields. Retrieval and analysis of data has, therefore, required expertise knowledge from the respective research fields. Article II is based on analysis of ecological-economic input-output data and on a model constructed from these data; the architect of the model is Mäenpää, who is also responsible for the economic data in the article. In Article III Hietala is responsible for the Shannon diversity index data and calculations, Virtanen for those of the nutrient balances and Ketomäki produced the data dealing with the use of natural products. Risku-Norja estimated the production capacity and feasibility of localised food production and quantified the gaseous emissions. Helenius contributed to the overall design of the data presentation through application of his expertise in agro-ecological and food system research.

Article IV is based on the experiences of the previous research and is an attempt to interpret and reconcile multidisciplinary data within an interdisciplinary framework. Risku-Norja provided and analysed the data; the agro-ecological expertise of Helenius and the familiarity with the food system approach of both Kurppa and Helenius contributed significantly to overall focus and structural design of the article.

MTT SCIENCE 15 7 List of figures and tables

Figure 1. Development of the total material requirement (TMR) of agriculture during 1970–2006, 1000 tons. Figure 2. Development of the agricultural input use and the average yield level 1970– 2006 compared to the base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. Figure 3. Development of the volumes of the direct material inputs during 1970–2006; 1000 tons. Figure 4. Development of the yields of the various products within the miscellaneous group “all other products” in 1970–2007 compared to the base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. Figure 5. Development of eco-efficiency of agriculture in 1970–2007 expressed as the ratio of total yield to the use of biocides, fertilisers, lime for soil improvement and fossil energy consumption relative to he base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. Figure 6. Development of energy consumption in agriculture in 1970–2007 expressed relative to he base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. Figure 7. The many linkages in food production.

Table 1. Overview of the type of data and their sources used in articles and in this thesis.

8 MTT SCIENCE 15 Contents

1 Introduction ...... 11 1.1 Background...... 11 1.2 Agriculture, food production, environment and – an overview...... 12 1.2.1 Productionistic approach, agrochemicals and efficiency...... 12 1.2.2 Life-sciences integrated approach ...... 13 1.2.3 Organic farming ...... 14 1.2.4 Local food movement ...... 15 1.3 Development in Finland ...... 16 1.4 Assessing environmental impacts...... 17 1.5 Aims of the study...... 18

2 Conceptual framework ...... 19 2.1 MFA approach ...... 20 2.2 Eco-efficiency and material intensity...... 21 2.3 , foodprint, foodshed ...... 22

3 Data requirements, data sources and methodological background...... 23 3.1 Quantification of the material flows of agriculture ...... 23 3.2 Farm model database...... 26 3.3 Material flow balances of the farms...... 27 3.4 Input-output approach...... 27 3.5 Food consumption scenario approach...... 28

4 Extending the methods to agriculture and the findings ...... 28 4.1 Material flows...... 28 4.1.1 Streamlining material flow accounting for agriculture ...... 28 4.1.2 Application to empirical data ...... 29 4.1.3 Critical evaluation ...... 30 4.2 Eco-efficiency indicators...... 32 4.2.1 Constructing eco-efficiency indicators for agriculture...... 32 4.2.2 Application to empirical data ...... 33 4.2.3 Critical evaluation ...... 34 4.3 Input-output model for food flux...... 35 4.3.1 The model ...... 35 4.3.2 Application to empirical data...... 36 4.3.3 Critical evaluation ...... 37 4.4 Food consumption scenario –approach...... 38 4.4.1 Developing the method...... 38 4.4.2 Application to empirical data in local and in nation-wide context... 38 4.4.3 Critical evaluation ...... 40

5 Discussion ...... 41 5.1 Material flow accounting and indicators ...... 41 5.2 Towards systemic thinking: modelling and scenarios ...... 43 5.3 The impact of consumers’ food choices ...... 44 5.4 Expanding the research from disciplinary towards transdisciplinary approaches: foodshed as a frame for sustainable food provisioning ...... 45

MTT SCIENCE 15 9 6 Conclusions ...... 48

7 Acknowledgements ...... 50

References ...... 50

10 MTT SCIENCE 15 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Finland has adopted the common terms of employment, but also as a source agricultural policy of the EU and of income for farm households (Statistics agriculture is administered by the Ministry Finland 2008). of Agriculture and Forestry. The goals for future development have been defined in the In a society where the status is based mainly Ministry’s strategy for the use of the natural on the economic performance, agriculture is resources, the core issue being sustainable not particularly highly regarded. However, production. The progress towards the despite the apparently small contribution defined goals is described using a number to national economy, the importance of of indicators addressing topics such as agriculture extends well beyond this. The production structure, use of resources, basic task of agriculture is production of environmental consequences of production, adequate quantities of healthy and safe biodiversity, animal welfare and continuity food. Agriculture is a major factor affecting and profitability of production (MMM public welfare and health through food 2002). production, and its indirect contribution to GDP and employment is notable. In this Because of the northern location and of the role, agriculture maintains and takes care geology, farming in Finland is challenging. of the open cultural landscape and of the The growing season is short, the soil is biodiversity of agro-environments. naturally acid and the cold winter increases energy costs. The climate also effectively On the other hand, the environmental reduces both yields and the variety of impact of agriculture is considerable. crops that can be cultivated. On the other Arable land comprises only about 8% of hand, agriculture also benefits from the the total surface area of Finland. However, cold climate and remote location as these the impacts of agriculture are not restricted effectively restrict plant and animal diseases, to agro-ecosystems, but there are far- and the prerequisites for organic production reaching consequences, because the gaseous are, therefore, good in Finland. There is also emissions from agriculture directly enter the abundant available farmland that would atmosphere and the nutrient surpluses and allow for considerable expansion of organic biocides enter the soil, where they remain or production (III). are subsequently leached into watersheds or enter the groundwater and the food chains. Agriculture is an economic activity that heavily relies on the availability of natural In recent years, the contribution of agriculture resources. Agriculture appears to play a very to overall sustainability has been stressed and small role in the Finnish national economy: understood more comprehensively rather in 2006 the share of agriculture, including than being solely a matter of the farming fisheries and game and reindeer husbandry, environment. In addition to supplying represented about 4% of the total employed food, through management of rural areas labour force; in 1970 its share was nearly agriculture also contributes to other 16%. The share of agriculture in the Finnish provisioning, supporting, regulating and gross domestic product (GDP) has oscillated cultural ecosystem services (e.g. Atkinson et around 1% since the mid1990s. The role al. 2005b, Lal 2008, MEA 2005, Lal 2009, of agriculture has diminished not only in Lichtfouse et al. 2009).

MTT SCIENCE 15 11 This holistic agroecological approach Its justification is, however, increasingly emerged already in the late 1920s; the roots questioned, and there is growing interest are in the German and American research in alternative supplies of food (e.g. tradition (Wezel et al. 2009). Among the Nabhan 2002, Whatmore 2002, Halweil pioneers of the early 20th century is the 2004, Lang and Heasman 2004, Patel Russian agronomist Bensin, who was 2008). Agricultural production and food the first to introduce the acro-ecology distribution have experienced successive concept (Bensin 1928, via reference in developmental phases during history, Wezel et al. 2009). The first agroecological characterised by profound paradigmatic publications dealt with application of changes (Lang and Heasman 2004). ecological principles to crop production Among the voluminous agricultural (e.g. Friederichs 1930). Regional-based research, different foci can be identified human ecology perspective (without which have addressed questions posed using this term) was brought about into at different times. They are, thus, firmly the research already in the 1940s through anchored to the socio-material reality analysis of the ecological, technological, and reflect the state of the art and the socio-economic and historical factors conceptions of their era. influencing crop production (Klages 1942), whereas Aldo Leopold in his essays and 1.2 Agriculture, food reflections took up the questions of land production, environment and sickness and land ethics (Leopold 1949). sustainable development – The nowadays widely used ecosystem an overview health concept is largely based Leopold’s environmental philosophy. In the early 1.2.1 Productionistic approach, 1990s the theoretical and practical aspects agrochemicals and efficiency of ecosystem health were thoroughly examined, and its philosophical and The focus of the mainstream food supply ethical underpinnings and implications system consolidated in the mid 20th for environmental policy and ecosystems century is economic profit and on increasing management were discussed by Costanza the volumes of the saleable products. et al. (1992) and further elaborated by e.g. Prevailing economic conditions that favour Rapport et al. (2000) and Rapport (2007). scaling-up of industrial production and Lang and Heasman (2004) raised the issues establishment of fewer but larger trans- of environmental quality and human health national food corporations have driven the that are inextricably connected and cannot food trade towards a globalised system of be addressed within the present mainstream centralisation and increasingly intensive food supply system. They called for a new production and distribution through holistic food policy based on empowering long distance transports (e.g. Whatmore the civil society in “sustainabilizing” food 2002). production through radical restructuring of the food supply. The productivity is highly reliant on the input of agrochemicals, i.e. fertilisers and The questions related to agriculture and various biocides, antibiotics against animal to food production are, thus, manifold diseases and chemical supplementation for and of considerable public concern. The improved nutritional status of the livestock. prevailing trend supported by current The focus on increasing the production economic conditions is globalisation and volumes resulted in an era of agrochemicals. scaling-up of industrial production and Synthetic fertilisers became the dominant establishment of fewer, larger trans-national source of plant nutrition, and the control food corporations (e.g. Whatmore 2002). of weeds, pests and fungal diseases became

12 MTT SCIENCE 15 heavily dependent on application of the production. The life-sciences integrated chemical biocides. Production became approach (Lang and Heasman 2004: restricted to only a few cultivated species, 21–25) has been adopted particularly by and the animals gave way to new races that those scholars who emphasize win-win have been bred to maximize production solutions in regard to the environment and in large-scale industrialised agricultural the economy. The focus is on developing enterprises (Lang and Heasman 2004, clean technologies, re-designing products WRI 2006). and processes, improving and looking for renewable substitutes The externalities of the current global for non-renewable raw materials. This food markets imply high costs to perspective represents technological the environment and to animal and approach to ecological modernisation human health. The current agricultural research, and it is also the key tenet of the practices contribute to environmental Knowledge-Based BioEconomy strategy of detriments such as erosion and severe the EU Seventh Framework Program (EU deterioration of the arable soils, pesticide 2009). Ecological modernisation is a school pollution, pest adaptation and resistance, of environmental social science, which desertification, water eutrophication, depending on the context, can be seen as decrease of biodiversity and climate an analytical approach, a policy strategy or change. The critical natural resources, as an environmental discourse. In addition water, plant nutrients and arable land are to technology, ecological modernisation has becoming increasingly scarce, and with been used in social, economic and environ­ the food production distanced from food mental policy contexts (Milanez and Bührs consumption the environmental impacts 2007). accumulate alarmingly in the source areas of food production resulting ultimately The life-sciences integrated approach in significant losses of yields worldwide has also been criticised: Lang and (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2005b, Gliessman Heasman (2004) claim that the rapid 2007). The present high costs of energy expansion of biotechnology in farming and agrochemicals also decrease economic and in food manufacture is a modernised profitability for farmers. Large fluctuations continuation of the productionistic in the producer prices (FAOSTAT 2010) efficiency era characterised by corporate add insecurity to making a living out of power and pursuit of supremacy in global farming. markets. Through the Knowledge-Based BioEconomy strategy it has implications 1.2.2 Life-sciences integrated approach also for the development of rural areas. With the strong emphasis on science and Today the emphasis in mainstream food technology research, there is a risk that production is shifting from the simple practical and tacit knowledge based on productionistic approach based on familiarity with local circumstances is left agrochemicals towards application of aside (Allaire and Wolf 2004, Lang and biotechnology, such as nutrigenomics and Heasman 2004, Marsden 2004). genetically modified organisms and, in food processing also synthetic enzymes. From the global perspective, agriculture for The research aims at solving environmental food production has come to crossroads. problems through techno-scientific Mainstream agri-food production features development. Advancements in scientific unsustainable use of natural resources research and the technological innovations such as farm land, phosphorus, and non- open new possibilities for environmental renewable energy sources (Lang and adaptation of the growing demand of food Heasman 2004). The strivings to slow down

MTT SCIENCE 15 13 the climate change is not compatible with pollution of groundwater, watercourses and the continuous increase of fossil energy coastal seas became evident both within and consumption in food production and in outside the agroecosystems. This created food transports. Substitution of the fossil social pressure to reduce environmental energy with cultivated energy crops is not impact by promoting organic production a solution as it competes for the shrinking relying on nature benign agricultural land resources for food crop production practices. The aim is to secure ecosystem (MEA 2005). In addition, there are health by preserving soil fertility through significant socio-economic consequences of conservative soil management practices, distortions in the global food markets such intercropping, using cover crops, mulching, as starvation and malnutrition, obesity­ flaming, crop rotation and reduced tilling. and other food related health problems. These measures are also essential for the Through nutrition transition overweight control of weed as the use of chemical and other diet-related health problems herbicides is banned. Biological control, are increasingly manifest not only in the rather than insecticide, is used against affluent West, but also in developing insect pests (Altieri and Nicholls 2004, countries (Popkin and Ng 2007, Popkin IFOAM 2008, Watson et al. 2008). 2009). Despite the promising potentials biotechnological applications have not Organic production is strictly regulated relieved global nutrition problems, but by national and international laws. have rather increased polarisation into rich Requirements vary from country to and poor both within nations and world- country, but generally involve a set of wide. This together with the rising prices production standards for farming and of food, fuel and agrochemicals makes the processing that include avoidance of present situation particularly unsustainable synthetic chemical fertilisers, pesticides, (Lang and Heasman 2004). antibiotics, food additives etc., genetically modified organisms, irradiation and the Introduction of new technologies need to use of sewage sludge. Other requirements be accompanied by fundamental changes include use of farmland that has been free in social structures (Geels 2004, Milanez from chemicals for a number of years, and Bührs 2007, York and Rose 2003). keeping detailed written audit trails, and This has led to serious consideration of maintenance of the organic products organic and re-localised food production strictly separated from other, non-certified as alternatives, that better comply with products (EC 2007, IFOAM 2008). the sustainability goals of both the agri- Organic certification, thus, defines the food sector (Puolanne et al. 2002, Allaire conditions for production, but there are and Wolf 2004, Seppänen 2004) and of no commitments as to geographic location overall rural development (Goodman of the production. Therefore, organic food 2004, Marsden 2004, Gliessman 2007, may be of local produce or as well part of Patel 2008). international food chains.

1.2.3 Organic farming Organic production was an early solution to the environmental disbenefits of Environmental awakening in the late food production. With the focus on the 20th century was largely a consequence environment, it has not met with the of the era of agrochemical intensity and demands for productivity globally and the concomitant changes in the terrestrial by all production organisms. However, and aquatic ecosystems (Carson 1964). organic products have established their The adverse impacts such as deteriorating share in the food markets and, e.g. in quality of cultivated soils, erosion and Finland there is an imbalance between

14 MTT SCIENCE 15 their demand and their supply (Kottila sustainability in the agri-food sector (e.g. 2010). Conventionalisation of organic Kloppenburg et al. 1996, Bellows and production is an emerging problem. It Hamm 2001, Pretty et al. 2005, Levidow stems from the consumers’ keen interest and Darrot 2010). However, “local food” in organic products which has created is a broad term of different dimensions business opportunities to provide niche ranging from physical space to historical, products with high premium and profits for cultural and social features and covering the agrifood corporations. Consequently, also high-quality specialist food products organic products have become increasingly with a guarantee of origin or traditional part of the mainstream global food trade speciality (e.g. DuPuis and Goodman 2005, where production is controlled by the Holloway et al. 2006). It is used in various large agrifood corporations (Pollan 2006, contexts ranging from food strategies Holt and Amilien 2007). International (DuPuis and Goodman 2005, e.g. Delind trade means long transports and placeless 2006) to environmental applications (e.g. food with the producers and consumers Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2003, Pretty et distanced from each other (Follett 2009). al. 2005, Schlich and Fleissner 2005) and from corporate responsibility (Pollan 2006, 1.2.4 Local food movement Follett 2009) to viability of rural areas (e.g. van der Ploeg et al. 2000). A more Local food movement focuses on food geographically tuned definition implies, sovereignty or on restoring the decision- that food production and consumption making regarding food to local actors (Patel are spatially close (e.g. Kloppenburg et al. 2008). Contemporary consumer campaigns 1996, Tansey and Worsley 2000, Renting aim at promoting re-localisation of food et al. 2003, Watts et al. 2005). In Finland, production by directing the consumers local food has been loosely defined as toward more local food purchasing as part production and consumption of food that of sustainable eating habits (Norberg- promotes the economy and employment Hodge et al. 2002, Jaffee et al. 2004, Nestle in a region by utilizing its resources 2006, Sonnino 2007). The core of the food (Lähiruokatyö­ryhmä 2000, Mononen localisation movement is in the joint activity 2006). Local farming comprises concepts of producers and eaters. The consumers such as farmers’ markets, community especially appreciate proximity, diversity, supported agriculture (CSA) and food ecological sustainability, local economy co-operatives. “Local food” is often and culture, ethics, seasonality, health equated with organic production. It may aspects and possibilities for participation well be organic, although not necessarily and communication (Kloppenburg et al. certified as such, but it may also rely on 2000). the farming practices of conventional production. The signification of local food The proponents claim that re-localising is, thus the proximity of food producers food production assures the environmental and consumers. It is not to be confused protection by truly challenging the with the concept “locality food” which foundations of the conventional global is identified and marketed by the specific food production and of the large scale place of origin – Protected Geographical organic production – “the big organic” – Indication (PGI) – to the consumers, who with standardized products, price-based may be very far from the site of production competition and consolidated power (Patel (Marsden et al. 2000). 2008, Follett 2009). For the stakeholders local food systems Re-localising food production is, thus, represent sustainability (Kloppenburg emerging as an option for improving et al. 2000). However, as with organic

MTT SCIENCE 15 15 production there is a danger that through The area of Finland extends 1157 km in niche products customized for specific north-south direction. Differences in natural consumer groups, large corporations usurp circumstances, together with political and local production (Pollan 2006, Hinrichs economic factors as well as the decisions and Allen 2008). Some critics suspect also made in the past (path dependence) have that revival of local farming in western led to regional specialisation in practising countries may turn out to limit exportation agriculture. Due to the geomorphology and from developing countries and reduce, the climatic conditions, a major part of crop income for poor farmers (Nestle 2006). cultivation is concentrated in south and southwest Finland, whereas cattle farms 1.3 Development in Finland are mainly located further north. Most pig and poultry farms are located in southwest and western Finland. Other factors such as The areas suitable for agriculture in Finland the size of the farms, location in relation were taken into cultivation already by to the markets and opportunities for the 1970s, and the share of agricultural additional income contribute to regional land as a proportion of total land area has differences both regarding production slightly declined since the beginning of structure and the overall importance of the 1970s to 2007, from 9.4% to 8.2%. agriculture for the regional economies. This corresponds to a reduction of about Recent investments have shifted the 23% in the area of cultivation or a drop main emphasis of agricultural production from 2.6 million hectares to the stabilised gradually to the western and southern parts level of about 2 million hectares (MMMa, of the country (Niemi and Ahlstedt 2007). Annual issues). During the same time The regional differences are expressed also period, the number of people working in the rural landscape; while cultivated in agriculture has decreased by 37%, and areas are concentrated in the western and the number of farms fell by over 75%, the southern parts of the country, in other areas farmland having, thus, been redistributed; marginalisation of agriculture has meant simultaneously with the decrease in the loss of fields with open sceneries taken over number of farms, the number of large farms by regenerating forest, and rural areas have with an area over 100 hectares arable land lost their visual diversity and traditional has increased. In 1990 their number was charm (Risku-Norja et al. 2011). Inevitably 486, and in 2008 it was already over 3000 agricultural monocultures and closing-in (MMM 2009). Consequently, the average of the landscape, with accompanying loss size of the farms has almost doubled from to of field margins, have also had a negative 18 hectares to 34 hectares (MMM 2009). impact on biodiversity (Hietala-Koivu et al. The change is evident in specialisation and 2004, Stenseke 2006). The environmental concentration of the main production lines impact of agriculture is considerable also both at the farm and at the regional level in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (Niemi and Ahlstedt 2007). Nevertheless, and nutrient leaching and consequent the majority of the farms are still family eutrophication of the inland waterways farms, and these are struggling for survival. and the Baltic archipelago (Syväsalo et al. The consequences are particularly severe in 2004, Yli-Viikari et al. 2007). the sparsely populated rural areas, where the natural resource sectors represent On the other hand, agriculture has decisively 15.7% of the working places; in urban- contributed to the creation of open cultural adjacent rural areas the share is only 5.6% landscapes and associated biodiversity, the (Statistics Finland 2008). maintenance and management of which is crucially dependent on food production. This is because grasslands, green fallows,

16 MTT SCIENCE 15 cultivated and natural pastures are consumption. With the exception of important in securing habitat heterogeneity sugar, Finland is practically self-sufficient and providing abundant ecological niches in the production of the basic food items for farmland wildlife and for game species (MMM 2009). Self-sufficiency contributes (Benton et al. 2003, Hietala-Koivu 2003, significantly to food safety and food Luoto et al. 2003a, Weibull et al. 2003, security. However, because national food Hietala-Koivu et al. 2004), some of which production is dependent on imported have recently become rare or extinct. energy and feed proteins, in terms of These areas have been created by and are food security in times of crisis, the degree maintained to a large extent by dairy cattle of self-sufficiency is actually lower than and other grazing animals (Luoto et al. suggested by the domestic supply–demand 2003a, Luoto et al. 2003b, Pykälä et al. relationship. 2005, Stenseke 2006). It also contributes to other ecosystem services such as The Finnish consumers also value highly biofuel production, waste management, the quality of domestic foodstuffs (Isoniemi carbon sequestration, genetic resource et al. 2006). Various labelling schemes have conservation, scenery and amenity values been introduced to provide information for recreation and the viability of rural about the origin and mode of production areas. to the customers, but regarding public catering information is usually not provided Since the mid 1990s organic production to the customers (Risku-Norja et al. 2010), has emerged as a serious alternative to and realisation of the recommendations has conventional farming. Following the not been consequently followed-up. There European recommendations for sustainable is keen interest both among the citizens public procurement, the public sector has (Hyvönen and Perrels 2008, Kottila 2010) been obliged to use organic and local food and among public caterers to improve through political decisions having been sustainability of food supply by increasing made, for example in Sweden, Norway, the share of both local and organic food Austria and Italy. Similar recommendations (Paananen and Forsman-Hugg 2005, have been expressed also in Finland Isoniemi et al. 2006, Muukka et al. 2008, aiming at expanding the share of organic Kottila 2010, Risku-Norja et al. 2010). (local) food in public procurements by In the absence of shared understanding 10–15% annually, and at accounting for and a holistic approach the responsibility the environmental aspects in all public for sustainable food choices is left on the procurements by 2010 (KULTU 2005). individual actors’ judgement.

In 2000, organic production represented 1.4 Assessing 6.7% of the cultivated area (MMM 2009). environmental impacts The aim was to expand the share to 15% of cultivated land by the year 2010 through There is a worldwide consensus that the promoting organic animal husbandry in negative human impact on ecosystems particular (MMM 2001). The organically must be radically reduced. In order to cultivated area reached 7.2% in 2004, but define unambiguous quantitative goals the has since slightly decreased being 6.6% in current state of affairs and the development 2008 (MMM 2009). trends need to be known. Indicators are designed to express development trends and Basic foodstuffs, meat, milk, eggs, fish, the extent of realisation of defined goals in grains, potatoes, sugar, oilseeds, vegetables, a way that is simple, concise and easy-to- fruits and berries represent about 90% intepret. They are, therefore, important of present day average Finnish food tools for decision-makers in planning and

MTT SCIENCE 15 17 monitoring (Hardi and DeSouza-Huletey for tracing the paths of e.g. plant nutrients 2000, Sandersson 2000, Shields et al. within the economy in order to decrease 2002). During recent years there has been their flows by improving the efficiency of a proliferation of measures that provide nutrient use and by closing their cycles accountable quantitative measures on within the system (Antikainen 2007). environmental impacts (MMM 2004a, EC 2005, Halberg et al. 2005, Yli-Viikari The quantification is used for descriptive et al. 2007, Giljum et al. 2008, OECD purposes, often presented as time-series 2008). Both the administrative and data in following-up the development research communities have been active in over time. The data are also commonly this “indicator industry” (e.g. Herzi and used in combination with other data to Dovers 2006, Rydin 2007, Bockstaller et construct more specific indicators. The al. 2008, Mickwitz and Melanen 2009). approaches can be applied at very different scales ranging from global to individual, Industrial ecology is a fairly new field e.g. global ecological footprint, ecological of science that studies the processes of footprint of the nations/regions or personal i.e. the natural ecological footprint. The indicators can be resource use of human activities and the calculated also for single products. LCA interactions of the resource use with nature. methods are used to provide product and Various methods have been developed process-specific data on environmental within this research field in order to impacts; the system definition is, provide accountable quantitative measures therefore, much more specific. Similarly on environmental impacts based on the to footprinting and MFA/SFA methods, premise that “what can be measured can be the LCA results are also commensurate improved” (Bringezu 2003, Hinterberger and expressed e.g. as CO2 equivalents et al. 2003). that are allocated to the different impact categories. The commonly used methods are material flow accounting and analysis (MFA), Input-output modelling requires statistical substance flow analysis (SFA), input-output data in the form of economic and/or modelling, footprinting methods and life physical input-output tables, and it is used cycle assessment (LCA) as well as various to study the interactions among the various combinations of these. In addition to the sectors of the national economy, i.e. how numerical quantification, the methods the changes in one sector are propagated are also used for analysing the complex in other sectors. interactions within the defined systems, and they have significantly contributed to 1.5 Aims of the study improving understanding of the processes induced through human activity and their impact on the ecosystems. In this study the possibilities to assess environmental impacts of Finnish The quantitative measures provided by the agriculture are explored by using MFA- and SFA- methods are expressed quantification of the material flows and eco- as a single figure in units of weight, and efficiency indicators as well as two different those of footprinting methods as area analytical methods. The first method deals units. Whereas the MFA deals with flows with the input-output modelling of the of all kinds of materials, the SFA is more material flows of the food flux, and the detailed and deals with flows of chemical other is based on the food consumption compounds or even those of the elements scenario approach. The methods are comprising the materials. It has been used applied at levels ranging from national to

18 MTT SCIENCE 15 sector and local levels in order to capture overall sustainability assessment is discussed some of the impacts of dietary changes in the concluding chapter. and of changes in production mode on the environment. Through application of the The research tasks of the thesis are: supply-demand approach, the viewpoint • Developing material flow accounting changes between that of food production for agriculture to that of food consumption. • Developing eco-efficiency indicators for agriculture The aim of the thesis is to develop the • Presenting the input-output model for approaches and methods so as to design food flux them specifically for applications in • Developing the approach based on food agriculture, and to critically evaluate their consumption scenarios applicability on the basis of empirical • Critical evaluation of the methods data from Finland. The relevance of • Deriving a framework for sustainability the approaches in assessing ecological assessment of food provisioning. sustainability and their contribution to

2 Conceptual framework

his study falls within the fields of thesis, retrieval and analysis of the data agro-ecology, food systems and has required expertise knowledge from sustainability research and uses various research fields, and an attempt is Tthe methods typical of industrial ecology. made to interpret the results from the food The research in these sciences ranges from supply-demand perspective. The research multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary and approach is, thus, multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary, the differences being interdisciplinary. the depth of integration of knowledge from various research fields. While in This study deals with ecological the multidisciplinary approach each sustainability of primary production and disciplinary field remains separate and food consumption. The approaches have uses its own methods to add breadth to been developed on the basis of the MFA the research through specific viewpoint, and footprinting methods, and here they interdisciplinarity involves crossing the are modified so as to address agriculture borders between various disciplines. It specifically. LCA methods are widely requires formulation of a common frame of applied for assessing environmental reference among different disciplines, and loading in production and consumption integration of data and methods within systems. However, unlike in MFA, SFA, this framework. Transdisciplinarity takes and in input-output modelling, LCA is the research beyond the academic world process-specific and the system boundary by engaging the various actor groups, is drawn around a system of a specified organizations and stakeholders through product. Development and assessment of participatory processes of knowledge LCA methods is beyond the scope of this production and interpretation (Bruun et study. al. 2005, Baumgartner et al. 2008). In this

MTT SCIENCE 15 19 2.1 MFA approach has been created through MFA (WCED 1987, Ayres 1989, Adriaanse et al. 1997, MFA stands both for Matthews et al. 2000, Bartelmus 2007), and material flow accounting. All economic and its role in monitoring the state of the activity is based on use of materials, all environment is now established (Bringezu of which are ultimately derived from et al. 2004, CEC 2005, Weisz et al. 2005, nature to where they are finally returned. Giljum et al. 2008, SERI 2010). This creates a continuous throughput of various materials from the nature into the The central concepts in MFA are total anthroposphere, the physical space used material requirement (TMR), direct for human inhabitation and economic material inputs and hidden flows. TMR activity, and back to the nature, often in an comprises all the material flows caused by altered form and in the wrong places. The productive human activity. It consists of quantity and quality of the various material the materials the various products are made flows determine the impact of economic of or the direct material inputs, and of activities on the environment. The MFA those natural resources, which are handled approach focuses on quantifying the during the production of the commodities, material throughput and thereby reducing but which are not included within the final its volume within the economy. product. These are the hidden flows; TMR, thus, is the sum of direct material inputs The measures to relieve environmental and the hidden flows. Natural resources are impact have been traditionally symptomatic understood broadly to comprise both the and focused on pollutants, repairing exploitable raw materials and the nature subsequent damage, and treating the as the object of economic activity. TMR consequences. Concerning the supply of sums up diverse material flows, and it is the raw materials, the main issue has been a general, but very unspecific indicator the exhaustion of non-renewable natural of environmental impact. Its use as an resources. However, irrigation, earth environmental indicator is based on the translocations associated with extraction of law of conservation of mass; diminishing raw materials and soil erosion alter natural the volume of material throughput ecosystems thoroughly, continuously relieves environmental impact in advance and on a global scale. Recognising the in the source areas of exploitable natural serious threat caused by these large flows resources, and also results in reduced of non-poisonous materials has gradually amounts of wastes and emissions and their shifted the focus upstream to preventing undesirable effects at the front end of the environmental deterioration in advance. nature-anthroposphere interface. The volumes of all these material flows are accounted for in MFA. When assessing the volumes of the material flows, those natural resources that are used The methodology has been systematically abroad but the exploitation of which is developed since the late 1980s in the attributable to domestic consumption must Wuppertal Institute of Climate and also be accounted for. This is because with Environment in Germany and by the globalisation of the trade, the raw materials European network for Coordination used in products often originate and they of Regional and National Material are refined elsewhere than where the final Flow Accounting for Environmental products are consumed. Considering only Sustainability (Bringezu 1993, Hinterberger the domestic production would lower the et al. 2003 and references therein, national TMR, since the hidden flows ConAccount 2006). A meaningful interface associated with the imported goods, between the economy and the environment

20 MTT SCIENCE 15 including those for transportation, would aimed at lowering the environmental be ignored (Mäenpää et al. 2000). burden without decreasing the volume of production or its profitability and human MFA is nowadays incorporated into welfare. In practice, this means reducing statistical accounting, and the volumes the material flows or the throughput of of material flows are used for continuous materials within the economy. This means monitoring of the state of the environment dematerialization of the economy by and for eco-efficiency assessments producing more from less. The ultimate (Adriaanse et al. 1997, Giljum 2006, aim of eco-efficiency is to increase resource Giljum et al. 2008, OECD 2008, SERI efficiency by reducing the use of energy 2009). In the system of environmental and and materials per production unit and economic accounting (SEEA), material at the same time, to create cost savings flow accounting has been streamlined so and competitive advantage (Adriaanse et as to comply with the structures of the al. 1997, Ekotehokkuustyöryhmä 1998, national accounts (EUROSTAT 2001, Lovins 2008). The aims are often expressed UN et al. 2003, Wernick and Irwin as factor goals (e.g. Factor10 Club 1997, 2005, OECD 2007a, Schoer et al. 2007, Reijnders 2008). OECD 2008). The need to unify the concepts and calculation methods has Eco-efficiency can be also expressed resulted in the handbook for material flow as a precise index as the output-input accounting (OECD 2007b), providing the ratio, which is used as an indicator (e.g. basis for compilation of national physical Marcotte and Arcand 2006). Lately eco- input-output tables. In Finland, material efficiency has been increasingly used in flow accounting has been developed in even more precise application to describe co-operation with Eurostat as a part of the relationship between the economic NAMEA, the national green account gains and the environmental impact of for a tool to follow up the use of natural productive activity; unit gross national resources (Mäenpää 2005). product per total material requirement, GNP/TMR is often used as such an index, 2.2 Eco-efficiency and (Adriaanse et al. 1997, EUROSTAT 2001, material intensity CEC 2005, Giljum 2006, Giljum 2008, Dietz and Neumayer 2007). The inverse Various phases of a product’s life cycle cause of eco-efficiency, material intensity, is unwanted environmental externalities. The also often used; e.g. in MIPS and SIPS impacts are usually most profound during measures designating material respective the primary phases of production and can surface intensity per service unit, which be related to the volume of extracted raw have been introduced in order to provide materials used as direct material inputs information about the sustainability of and as hidden flows that are displaced and performance of the products for consumers alter thus the environment. Eco-efficiency (Schmidt-Bleek and Lettenmeier 2000, aims at reducing the hidden flows without Burger et al. 2009). compromising the volume of exploitable production, the direct material inputs. Focusing on eco-efficiency and resource intensity has drawn attention to the trade- Eco-efficiency is, thus, closely connected off between the output of production to the material flow approach. The eco- and environmental impact. At first, eco- efficiency concept was introduced in efficiency was used more loosely when the early 1990s (BCSD 1993, OECD referring to getting more out of less: more 1997). It is a broad term that is used to output with less environmental impact. describe generally the social strategies Later the use of the concept has become

MTT SCIENCE 15 21 more or less fixed. It is nowadays mostly productive land and sea needed to understood in economic terms to mean maintain the prevailing consumption more economic output with fewer material patterns at national, regional, local, or environmental inputs. Improving the corporate/organizational or individual level labour productivity by intensifying the (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, Wackernagel use of energy and materials has been et al. 2004). Footprint accounting is similar the basic concept behind all economic to the MFA and LCA approaches, whereby activity already before the growth of the the consumption of energy, biomass (food environmental awareness. The essence of and fiber), building materials, water and the eco-efficiency is to widen the focus other resources are commensurate and from labour productivity to resource converted into a single measure, which in productivity, which is the precondition the case of footprint is normalized land for sustainable production and economies area or so called global hectares. (Höhn 1997, Lovins 2008). When applied to food production only, Increasing eco-efficiency is a means to the ecological footprint is reduced to a provide new possibilities for integrated foodprint, which refers to the area needed environmental protection, and it is, to produce the food to satisfy the national, therefore, one of the central concepts in regional or individual food demand. strivings towards improved sustainability Originally the term was introduced by (WBCSD 2000, CEC 2005, Voet et al. 2005, Susanne Johansson (2005), and foodprint Giljum 2006, Dietz and Neumayer 2007, area was calculated in compliance with OECD 2008, Reijnders 2008). Sustainable the LCA approach, by defining the system development is also stated as a goal in the so that in addition to agricultural land Finnish Matti Vanhanen’s II government (including the ca 7% fallow), also the platform, and the various ministries of indirect land use for ecosystem support, the government stress eco-efficiency indirect resource use and degraded land as a means of promoting sustainable are accounted for. development (VN 2007). Eco-efficiency approach is one of the basic premises of the Inspired by the local food movement and interdisciplinary research field of ecological food system research, David Kloppenburg economics. The concept has been keenly et al. (1996) introduced in the mid 1990s incorporated into the business strategies the “foodshed” concept, as an analogy (Verfaillie and Bidwell 2000, WBCSD to “watershed”. Foodshed designates 2000), and it is especially advocated by the extent of the source areas of food the proponents of technological strand production that surround the population of aiming at centres. These rural hinterlands are needed favourable combination of the economy to provide the population with the basic and environment (Young 2001). food items. The foodshed is part of a given bio- or ecoregion, which is characterised 2.3 Ecological footprint, by a geographically distinct combination foodprint, foodshed of climate, hydrology, soil, landforms, and species (Omernik 2004). This ecoregion Human existence is ultimately dependent dictates the natural border conditions of on the availability of biologically productive food production and it, thus, includes the land. With increasing population it is local agricultural production systems, where becoming an exhaustible resource and its food is grown. Ecoregions cover relatively allocation among nations is of outmost large areas, and the concept is reserved for importance. Ecological footprint is a describing natural circumstances. concept that relates to the area of bio-

22 MTT SCIENCE 15 The “foodshed” emphasises the grown and processed. Foodshed concept is connectedness of place and people and founded on the bioregionalistic school of of nature and society by linking food environmental sociology stressing the ethics, intimately to its source area and its natural economically self-reliant communities circumstances. The size of the foodshed and the cultural context of the bioregion depends on the population basis of the and emphasizing the significance of local area in question, and on the availability of populations, knowledge, and solutions year round foods and the variety of foods (Curtis 2003, Evanoff 2010).

3 Data requirements, data sources and methodological background

he focus here is on primary The MFA approach is methodologically production and on food developed in Article I. In Article II the data consumption; the intermediate on the physical material flows are fitted Tphases of processing and distribution within the national physical input-output are beyond the scope of this thesis. A table in order to analyse the impacts of justification can be sought from the changing food demand and supply at the fact that by far the largest proportion of scale of nation-wide economy. In Article III environmental impacts is attributable the impacts are considered at regional and to agriculture (e.g. Foster et al. 2006, local scales. Because input-output data are Virtanen et al. 2009). Since the study does not available at the local scale, the impacts not deal with the environmental impacts of were assessed using the food consumption the whole food chain, the process-oriented scenario approach developed on the basis LCA approach was not considered. The of the footprinting methods. In Article IV, methods used here have been developed on the scenario approach was applied to study the basis of the MFA approach, and they the GHG emissions at the national scale. have been greatly inspired by the footprint/ The application of the methods, thus, is foodprint and the foodshed concepts. based on the balance between food supply and food demand, and this is considered The starting point is the definition of the at various levels ranging from that of the system and assessment of the material flows agricultural and food sector to national of agriculture (I). The articles II, III and level in the articles II and IV, to the regional IV deal with assessing the consequences of level in article III and even per capita level food production, of increasing the share again in article IV. An overview of the type of organic production or of changing of data used in the four publications and food consumption habits. The assessment the data sources is compiled in Table 1. methods are based on food demand, and the methods are applied at national and 3.1 Quantification of the at local/regional levels. The products material flows of agriculture accounted for comprise the basic domestic foodstuffs, meat, milk, eggs, fish, grains, The total volume of plant production potatoes, sugar, oilseeds, vegetables, fruits comprises the direct material inputs of and berries, and animal feed. agriculture into the economy. Animal

MTT SCIENCE 15 23 Table 1. Overview of the type of data and their sources used in articles and in this thesis. ARTICLE I and up-dates for this thesis Type of data Data source(s) Production statistics Statistics on plant production MMM annual issues (a) Agricultural land use MMM annual issues (a) Horticultural statistics MMM annual issues (b) Statistics on fisheries, reindeeer, game Statistics of Game and Fisheries Research Gathering the wild Statistics of the Forestyry Research Institute Input use Energy consumption in agriculture Statistics Finland 2009; until 1996 supplied by Juutinen 1999 Agrochemical sale statistics Statistics of the Kemira Agro Ltd/Yara, the Lime Association and the Plant Production Inspection Centre, ref. MMM annual issues Factors for estimation ancillary biomass and erosion Expert apparaisals Production for own use Surveys of the Statistic Finland, Expert apparaisals

ARTICLE II Type of data Data source(s) Farm models Alamantila & Riepponen 1998, Koikkalainen & Rikkonen 2002 Material flow balances of the modelled farms Mäenpää and Vanhala 2002 Data on food consumption Tennilä 2000 National input-output data Statistics Finalnd 1999 Import of food items Official statistics of the Finnish customs

ARTICLE III Type of data Data source(s) Production statistics MMM annual issues (a) Food consumption data MMM 2004b Feeding requirements of production animals Tuori et al. 2002, expert appraisals Data on use of wild products in South Savo Muilu 2004 Numbers of production animals MMM annual issues (a) Nutrient balances OECD 2001 N and P content of the food plants KTL 2004 N and P content of the fodder plants Tuori et al 2002 N and P of manure Ministry of the Environment 1998 N and P sales and other data specific for South Savo Expertise apparails N losses Grönroos et al. 1998, Pipatti 2001 Use of seeds ProAgria 2003 Application of fertilizers Environmental subsidy scheme, Puurunen et al. 2004 Crop diversity McGarigal & Marks 1995, MMM 2003 Data on GHG and acid emsissions Emissions from soil Statistics Finland 2007 Emissions from animal husbandry Grönroos et al. 1998, Pipatti 2001, Statistics Finland 2005 Conversion factors IPPC 2005, Ministry of the Environment 1998

24 MTT SCIENCE 15 Table 1. Continue

ARTICLE IV Type of data Data source(s) Production statistics MMM annual issues (a) Food consumption data MMM 2007 Feeding requirements of production animals Tuori et al. 2002; expert appraisals Data on GHG and acid emsissions Emissions from soil Statistics Finland 2007 Emissions from animal husbandry Grönroos et al. 1998, Pipatti 2001, Statistics Finland 2005 Conversion factors IPPC 2005, Ministry of the Environment 1998, Statistics Finland 2009 Energy consumption of different production lines Foster et al. 2006; input-output model for agriculture Energy consumption associated with fertilizer use Grönroos et al. 2006 production is based on these direct inputs pattern that can obscure the long-term and, therefore, represents the next step development trends. To avoid this problem, in the material flow. In order to avoid the annual variations were smoothened out double counting, the animal production by using running averages1 of five years is not accounted for in quantification until 2005. From thence they were based of the TMR. The hidden flows consist on annual figures. of the ancillary biomass i.e. those parts of the plants that are necessary for plant The TMR of the agricultural sector growth but are not used further. Other also comprises the reindeer husbandry, constituents of the hidden flows are eroded the catches of hunting and fishing soil, soil enrichments, fertilisers, biocides and harvesting of the wild berries and and growth regulators as well as of the mushrooms (METLA 2010, RKTL energy consumption. A considerable part 2010). Because their production does of the hidden flows consist of material not require manufactured inputs, these translocations which in case of agriculture products are considered to be primary comprise the ploughed soil material and inputs from nature; the same applies to the cleared land areas, in case new land is reindeer husbandry which is largely based taken for cultivation. on natural grazing. On the other hand, the animal production fur animals’ farming The data are based on the official statistics and the aquaculture are based on the feed obtained and validated by standardized feeding, whereby the primary inputs are statistical procedures of the respective refined into a different form. Therefore, authorities. The main data sources for the products from these sectors are not the plant production in Finland are the included; the fodder production is naturally Yearbook of Farm Statistics and Register of accounted for. the Garden Enterprises published annually by the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Because the yield volumes are crucially dependent on 1 In time series data each value is substituted with the weather conditions of the growing the arithmetic average of this value and two adjacent season, quantification on the yearly values on both sides; the aim is to at reduce seasonal basis produces a highly variable zigzag or incidental variation.

MTT SCIENCE 15 25 The actual use of agrochemicals is not using plant-specific factors. The volume registered, but the volumes sold each of eroded soil was estimated on the basis year are known precisely. The data are of the area of cultivated land using a value provided by Kemira Agro Ltd/Yara, the of 1700 kg/ha, which is an approximate Lime Association and the Plant Production average erosion loss in Finland. These Inspection Centre, and they have been factors as well as the volume of the various retrieved from the Yearbook of Farm products for own consumption are based Statistics (MMMa). on expert appraisals. The details of the calculations and the conversion factors Energy consumption in agriculture was have been published separately (Risku- quantified on the basis of the energy Norja 2000). statistics compiled by Statistics Finland; the data until 1996 in Article I were supplied 3.2 Farm model database by Juutinen (pers. comm). Although in the MFA approach, all material flows should be expressed in tons, the energy consumption Farm models are hypothetic average- was expressed in terajoules; at that time sized single-product farm enterprises that the contribution from different sources of represent different agricultural production primary energy to agriculture could not lines. The production circumstances of be allocated, and there was considerable southern Finland are assumed in this work. uncertainty also regarding the conversion With the models, the products and the factors for the different forms of energy production inputs of each farm type are (Juutinen 2000). quantified and priced. The basic principles of farm model construction were described The data used in this study are based on by Ala-Mantila and Riepponen (1998) and the up-dated times series 1970–2006 of by Koikkalainen and Rikkonen (2002); Statistics Finland in which the different the database is maintained and up-dated forms of energy have been specified. by the MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Compared to the earlier data series, the Economic Research. up-dated statistics throughout the time series point to several percent lower energy All the production costs are accounted consumption. Electricity consumption for in the farm models, the production expressed as MWh was converted to inputs are specified as material inputs, megajoules using a conversion factor of work, general costs and capital costs; the 3.6, and the megajoules were converted to latter three categories are necessary only for ton equivalents of primary energy source the economic impact assessment, whereas using the factor 0.02388 (Statistics Finland data on the volumes of the material inputs 2009). In the official statistics energy are needed for assessing environmental consumption of the machinery used in impacts. The basic data for the models agriculture and in forestry has not been comprise agricultural statistics, published separated, but is given as a single value. In research data as well as expert appraisals. 2004, the share of forestry machinery was approximated to be 15% of the light fuel The production lines covered by the farm oil use (Lampinen and Jokinen 2006); this models were: conventional and organic percentage has been subtracted from the wheat, rye, barley, oat, milk, beef, pork, volume of the light fuel oil use throughout egg and piglet production, and in addition the time series data. conventional sugar beet, rape seed, potato, open air vegetable, green house vegetable, Ancillary biomass was estimated on the fruit and berry as well as cut flower and basis of the volume of plant production

26 MTT SCIENCE 15 nursery garden production (Koikkalainen i.e. plant, slaughter and food wastes. The and Rikkonen 2002). gaseous emissions end up directly into the atmosphere. The sewage is partly recycled 3.3 Material flow balances back into the food flux and partly expelled of the farms from the system. The other outputs enter the soil, remain there or are subsequently The basic principle of the MFA approach moved into the watersheds or into the air is the principle of conservation of mass; (II, Figure 1). The details of compiling the therefore, in quantifying the material flows farm balances were described by Mäenpää the inputs should balance the sum of the and Vanhala (2002). outputs plus the growth of the reserves. Photosynthesis is the fundamental process 3.4 Input-output approach for both plant growth – formation of the reserves – and for creating the yield, which represents the direct material inputs Input-output tables are a statistically of agriculture to the economy. In the organised presentation of both monetary internationally standardized material flow and physical material flows, and they are accounting procedures, photosynthesis is often used in the context of the nationwide regarded as a phenomenon of nature and, economies. In the cross-tabulated input- consequently, water and air are regarded as output table the columns of the table so called free goods, and are not accounted comprise the various production sectors for when quantifying the material flows of the economy, and the four categories of (Adriaanse et al. 1997, CEC 2001). In the end use of the products (private and order to account for the water, carbon public consumption, capital formation and dioxide and air or those free goods, that export). The production sectors are shown are necessary for the photosynthesis, the also in the rows of the table; the labour and system boundaries were redefined so capital inputs are shown beneath the table as to include also these free goods into as the basic inputs. The rows show how the system (II, Figure 1). Therefore, the much of that sector’s produce (output) material flow data of the farm models were has been used both as an intermediate complemented by quantifying the volumes product (input) in other sectors and as end of these substances so as to balance the products. The columns show the inputs or inputs and outputs of each farm model. how much the sector has used intermediate products from the other sectors, and how The inputs from nature are water, carbon much it has used the basic inputs of labour dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) plus and capital. Therefore, in each sector the solar energy, the inputs from the other values in rows and columns add up to the sectors of the economy include fertilisers, same amount. The input-output table is biocides and energy in the form of fuels compiled in physical and monetary terms. and electricity. The yield from plant The flows from the producer sectors to cultivation enters the food flux as the direct the various user sectors are concretely material input of agriculture. The outputs illustrated with an input-output table to nature from plant cultivation are the allowing, thus, its detailed examination gaseous O2, CO2 and ammonia (NH3) and analysis. The input-output model is from the manure that is applied to the constructed on the basis of factors derived soil. The outputs from animal husbandry from the matrix of the input-output table, are CO2, water vapour, and methane and it shows the links between various (CH4), and the output from consumption sectors at the national scale both in terms of is CO2. Other outputs are sewage as well the products’ volumes and their monetary as the wastes from the products proper, values.

MTT SCIENCE 15 27 3.5 Food consumption scenario approach scenario. Construction of the method was influenced by the area-based footprinting approach and by the modelling approach Food consumption scenario approach of the input-output methods. was developed in article III and further elaborated in article IV. In this approach, Environmental impacts are assessed in food demand is coupled with the physical terms of nutrient balances, greenhouse basis of food supply by considering the gas and acidifying emissions, agricultural production capacity in relation to food energy consumption, agricultural land use consumption. Scenarios are various and the diversity of crop cultivation. These fixed dietary options, which are used to indicate eutrophication of watersheds, assess feasibility of re-localising food climate change, acidification and landscape production and the impact of dietary changes, respectively. The details of the changes on the environment. The current calculations and the exact figures for the average food consumption is used as calculation parameters were published the benchmark, and the impact of the in a technical report (Risku-Norja et al. different food consumption scenarios is 2007). The extensive data requirements compared with that of the benchmark were compiled in Table 1.

4 Extending the methods to agriculture and the findings

his section summarises on the one 4.1 Material flows hand the actual research results regarding the volumes of material 4.1.1 Streamlining material flow flows,T eco-efficiency development (I) and accounting for agriculture environmental impacts of changes in food consumption and food production (II, The total material requirement of III, IV). On the other hand, the findings agriculture comprises both the exploitable regarding suitability of the used approaches yield representing the direct material to agriculture are also captured. Therefore, inputs from agriculture into the economy, for each of the approaches – MFA, eco- and the hidden flows associated with the efficiency, input-out modelling and food production of the yield. consumption scenario – the methodological design is first described. The results from Quantification of the TMR according applying the method to empirical data are to the MFA guidelines (OECD 2007b), subsequently presented and finally, the necessitates inclusion of the material applicability of the approach is critically flows of agriculture proper as well as the evaluated. data both from the related production sectors and the data regarding products for own use. The volumes of hunting and professional fishing are well documented

28 MTT SCIENCE 15 by the Game and Fisheries Research 4.1.2 Application to empirical data Institute, and those of the retailed wild mushrooms and berries by the Finnish The results of the simplified quantification Forest Research Institute. However, a are shown in Figure 1, in which the data variable amount of the cultivated and of Article I have been updated until 2007 wild products and of reindeer meat goes and complemented with the volumetric for own use. Estimations of their volumes data on the energy consumption, including are based on extrapolations­ from various consumption of primary energy sources of surveys. There are, therefore, several electricity. The resulting time series data uncertainties in the data sources. In order do not change the picture for the overall to improve the relevance and reliability of development. Until 1998, the differences the MFA approach, the quantification of are not detectable on the graphs and there material flows has been simplified so as to have been hardly any changes in the relative comprise only the agricultural production shares of the hidden flows from the TMR as presented in the official statistics. or of the fodder from the total yield since 1998. The MFA principles would require that even the volume of ploughed soil is part TMR of agriculture in Finland is currently of the hidden material flows, and should about 35 millions tons or about 6 tons per be quantified. The estimated volume of capita per annuum. The exploitable yield, ploughed soil is 3000 tons per hectare direct material inputs into the economy, (Mäenpää et al. 2000); using that figure is about 13–14 millions tons, and of this the share of hidden flows would be 99.9% about 60% is roughage for animals, mainly of the TMR of agriculture, and it would hay and silage. As about half of the cereal essentially consist only of ploughed soil. production is also used as animal fodder, Although estimated, ploughed soil was, the animal feed stuffs amount thus to therefore, not accounted for in Article I 67–75% of the direct material inputs. The nor in the updated data of this thesis. share of the hidden flows from the TMR is

1000 tons 40,000 35,000 30,000 Energy 25,000 Agrochemicals 20,000 Erosion 15,000 Ancilllary biomass 10,000 Forage 5,000 DMI, excl. forage 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 1. Development of the total material requirement (TMR) of agriculture during 1970–2006, 1000 tons. 5-years running averages until 2004, thence annual figures. Data source: Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

MTT SCIENCE 15 29 considerable, about 60%, and they consist was a sharp increase from 1970, and at mainly of ancillary biomass and eroded the end of the 1980s it was threefold soil. Agrochemicals currently comprise less compared to that of 1970. In the first half than 5–6% of the hidden flows; from 1970 of the 1980s, electricity use was reduced to the end of the 1990’ie their share was somewhat, and during the new millennium about 6–8%. The share of energy from the it has remained at a fairy stable level, which hidden flows is about 2% (Figure 1). is about 2.5 times higher than in 1970.

The up-dated time series data from 1970 4.1.3 Critical evaluation to 2007 in Figure 2 show that the total yield per hectare has roughly doubled The purpose for quantifying material since 1970. The peak, total yield about 7 flows of agriculture was to analyse the tons per ha, appears to have been attained natural resource use of the sector and in the l990s. No marked differences are to improve understanding about the evident since then, and the total yield levels material throughput from agriculture to appear to have stabilised. Use of lime for other sectors of the economy. Because of soil improvement and of biocides increased inclusion of data on the related production from 1970 to the early 1990s. A short sectors and on the products for own use, period of marked reduction was seen in quantification of the material flows of the mid 1990s. Liming is now at about agriculture according to international same level as in 1970, but biocide use has standards is rather tedious. The related been again increasing continuously in the production sectors and their share new millennium. The fertiliser use was from the direct material flows comprise fairly stable until late 1980s, but has been fisheries (under 1%), hunting, non- markedly reduced since then (Figure 2). food production and reindeer husbandry Energy consumption increased somewhat (under 0.1%). Also gathering of the wild until the latter half of 1980s, since when berries and mushrooms (under 0.1%) as it has slowly decreased and was at about well the products for own use (about 1% the same level as in 1970 in the 2000s. based on estimations) were accounted Regarding electricity consumption there for in the MFA assessment in Article I.

3.5

3.0 Yield/ha 2.5 Fertilizers 2.0 Biocides 1.5 Energy

1.0 Electricity

0.5 Lime 0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 2. Development of the agricultural input use and the average total yield level in 1970–2006 compared to the base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. The figure is based on 5-years running averages of input use until 2004, after that on annual data. Data source: Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

30 MTT SCIENCE 15 The total share of these from the TMR of volume of the yield; erosion is estimated agriculture is 1–2%. Their exclusion from on the basis of cultivated area and ancillary the TMR of agriculture does not invalidate biomass on the basis of the yield itself. the conclusions based on the earlier MFA Their inclusion into to the TMR does data (I; Figure 1). The simplification only not reveal any environmentally relevant makes accounting easier and increases information, but hides the small flows the consistency of the data, because caused by the fertiliser, biocide and energy quantification is based on official statistics use, the environmental impact of which is for all included data. potentially much more important. In the national accounts, erosion and ancillary Without inclusion of ploughed soil over biomass can, therefore, be excluded from 90% of hidden flows consist of eroded soil the hidden flows. and ancillary biomass. Ancillary biomass does not actually enter the material Sector-wise scrutiny of the material flows throughput, but is tilled back into the of agriculture provides an overview of field already during the harvesting phase. the development within the sector over On the other hand, erosion in Finland recent decades. Development trends is of minor importance and may create may reveal details that call for further occasionally problems that are restricted considerations. For example, the marked to confined areas (Mansikkaniemi 1982, increase in electricity consumption Peltonen 1996). In those cases erosion is and the simultaneous decrease in other without doubt an important environmental energy consumption shown in Figure 2 factor, because a significant part of the suggests introduction of new technologies phosphorus loading of the watersheds to agriculture, the environmental is brought about by the surface run- consequences of which are worth a close off (Uusitalo et al. 2001). However, in scrutiny. the national account, both erosion and ancillary biomass are calculatory estimates, When the MFA data on agriculture are and their volumes are closely linked to the disaggregated into few categories, the data

1000 tons 16,000

14,000

12,000 All other food plants 10,000 Oil seeds 8,000 Potato 6,000 Sugar beet 4,000 Cereals Forage 2,000

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 3. Development of the volumes of the direct material inputs during 1970–2008; 1000 tons. 5-years running averages until 2004, thence on annual figures; Data source: Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

MTT SCIENCE 15 31 reveal a picture of relative importance within “all other products” are not evident of the various production sectors over in Figure 3. One possibility is to consider time (Figure 3). The data may inspire the development of the various flows in contemplation of the underlying societal relation to a given benchmark situation. change such as food consumption patterns This is done in Figure 4, where the or export and import of agricultural changes are made visible by considering products and the reasons for the change the development of the volumes of various that has resulted in re-distribution of the flows relative to that in 1970. production lines. However, before such re-distribution can be detected by analysing 4.2 Eco-efficiency indicators time series data, the changes must be very profound and would certainly not have gone unnoticed even had the time series 4.2.1 Constructing eco-efficiency data not been presented. indicators for agriculture

The MFA approach is suitable for analysing Improving eco-efficiency means getting overall trends only at a very rudimentary more out of less or reducing the hidden level. If there are large differences in the flows in order to increase the ratio of volumes of the various contributions to the products to environmental consequences. total yield-TMR -ratio, the development In agriculture, the benefit is the volume of of the volumetrically small flows is not the products from plant cultivation, which detectable, and it has to be considered can be measured in tons or on a monetary separately. For example, there are marked basis. De facto, eco-efficiency is usually changes in the mutual proportions of the expressed in monetary terms as the ratio of products within the miscellaneous group e.g. gross national product or value added to “all other products”. Because cereal and TMR, which is used as an overall indicator forage production comprise about 90%, of environmental impact. In agriculture, and potato and sugar beet together another however, eco-efficiency indicators of this 5–6% of the direct material inputs, the kind are not very useful. This is because the eventual, potentially interesting changes volume of production crucially depends on

5.0 15 Oil seeds 4.5 10 Cereals 4.0 5 Forage 3.5 0 3.0 Green house vegetables 1970 1976 1982 1988 19942000 2006 2.5 Potato 2.0 Sugar beet 1.5 Fruit, berries, honey 1.0 Open air vegetables 0.5 0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 4. Development of the yields of the various products within the miscellaneous group “all other products” in 1970–2007 compared to the base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. The inserted figure shows the development for oil seed production. Data source: Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

32 MTT SCIENCE 15 the weather conditions during the growing or ancillary biomass or both are of no use season and the added value of agriculture is in assessing eco-efficiency of agriculture at largely dictated by agricultural policy. the national level. Locally, where erosion is a real problem, it provides important The trade-off between the production and information about the phosphorus loading the environment sacrificed for the sake of of the watersheds (Uusitalo et al. 2001), and the production is also one expression of should be accounted for in environmental eco-efficiency. In that case, the input is assessments of agriculture. environmental disturbance and the benefit is expressed in terms of production, i.e. the Improvement in eco-efficiency means direct material inputs into the economy. minimising the use of the inputs without Environmental disturbance is often compromising the volume of the measurable in quantitative terms, but it production. This is shown as an increase is not easily translated into unambiguous in the ratio of the yield to the input use. universal indicators. This is because the Constructing indicators on the basis of actual impacts of the various discharges the total yield, agrochemicals and energy on the environment are dependent on consumption are simple indicators that the circumstances, which vary greatly in provide more information than using scales ranging from regional to field plot. one compound figure such as e.g. TMR. This makes the interpretation far from Quantitative data on use of fertilisers, simple. Besides, the kind of data needed biocides, and energy use are also readily for follow-up are usually not available. available.

Because of the intimate mutual and 4.2.2 Application to empirical data direct positive interdependence between ancillary biomass and erosion, which have Regarding fertilisers, the indicators been estimated using calculatory factors constructed on the basis of total yield- based on the average values (4.1.3) and the agricultural input -ratio show marked yield, indicators including data on erosion improvement in eco-efficiency since late

3.5

3.0

2.5 Fertilizers Biocides 2.0 Fossil energy 1.5 Lime All inputs 1.0 0.5

0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 5. Development of eco-efficiency of agriculture in 1970–2007 expressed as the ratio of total yield to the use of biocides, fertilisers, lime for soil improvement and fossil energy consumption relative to he base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. Data sources: Information Centre of Agriculture and Forestry, Kemira Agro Ltd/Yara, the Lime Association and the Plant Production Inspection Centre, Statistics Finland.

MTT SCIENCE 15 33 1.4

1.2

1.0 Fossil energy 0.8 30 Total energy 25 0.6 20 Renewable energy 15 0.4 10 % renewable 5 0.2 0 0 8 9 0.0 1970 19751 19851990 19952000 2005 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 6. Development of energy consumption in agriculture in 1970–2006 expressed relative to the base level in 1970; 1970 = 1. The inserted figure shows the development of renewable energy as percentage of total energy consumption during 1970–2006. Data source: Statistics Finland.

1980s (Figure 5). As to the biocides, to systemic responses to the introduction there was a short period of improved eco- of new measures that offset the beneficial efficiency in the mid 1990s, but around the impact of the taken measures. This rebound turn of the millennium the trend changed, effect tends to be forgotten when focussing and the eco-efficiency is now at the same on the ratios (e.g. Hanley et al. 2009). level as in 19702. Expressed as fossil energy consumption, eco-efficiency has improved The rebound effect is illustrated by the by about 50% from 1970 to 2006, the development of fossil energy consumption improvement having taken place especially (Figure 6), which increased from 1970 since the mid 1990s (Figure 5). until late 1980s. Since then it has declined, and it is today at about the same level 4.2.3 Critical evaluation as in 1970. Thus, despite the improved eco-efficiency of about 50% shown in Eco-efficiency expresses only the ratio Figure 5, the actual use of fossil energy between output and input, not their has varied over the considered time period, actual volumes. This needs to be borne and its current use and, consequently the in mind when interpreting the figures; environmental impact associated with its the cause of environmental impact is not use, is at about the same level as in 1970. the ratios, but the actual physical volumes Thus, over the considered time period, of the environment-burdening materials. eco-efficiency improvement has taken place Improved eco-efficiency does not, thus, with concomitant increase of fossil energy automatically equate with relieving use. en­vironmental impact. This may be due It is further worth noting that compared to the 1970s, the electricity consumption, 2 Here only the volume of biocide use is accounted which is mainly based on fossil sources for; the introduction of small dose herbicides of primary energy, has almost tripled coincides with marked eco-efficiency improvement (Figure 2). This substitution of energy in the 1990s. Use of conventional herbicides source has also bearing on the environment increased again at the end of that decade. and should be accounted for. However,

34 MTT SCIENCE 15 eco-efficiency of electricity consumption in order to analyse the movements of the cannot be expressed in terms of total food-related material and monetary flows yield, because electricity does not produce within the economy and the consequent anything measurable, but is related to impacts on the environment. The data production of services such as e.g. heating sources were the farm models’ data basis, or cooling of farm houses and production (3.2) material flow balances of the farms buildings or is needed in some phase of the (3.3) as well as the food consumption production process. statistics and national input-output tables. Regarding renewable energy, after a short and sharp increase in the early 1970s, its In the national input-output table use started to decline already in the 1970s, agriculture is presented as one sector reached its bottom in the late 1990s, and (Statistics Finland 1999). In order to has begun slowly increase again only during examine more closely the material flows the 2000s. In its height in mid 1970s, of the food flux, the national data on the share of renewable energy from total agriculture were re-allocated to four energy consumption was about 26%, in sub-sectors: plant production, animal mid 1990s it was about 15% and is now production, garden production and other about 23% (insert graph in Figure 6). agriculture. The number of farms in each different production line (farm model) was Also the time delay between improved eco- adjusted so as to comply with the total efficiency and any detectable improvement output of that line as expressed in the in the state of the environment may be national production statistics. These data considerable; e.g. despite the significantly were then fitted within the national input- improved eco-efficiency of fertiliser use output table. since the mid 1980s (Figure 5), the content of soluble soil phosphorus has continued Biological processes – photosynthesis and to increase until the end of the 1990s. animal metabolism – have a key role in Only during the recent years has the trend the food flux. Because these processes are been levelling out, but still it has not yet not accounted for in international material been reversed (Uusitalo and Ekholm 2003, flow accounting standards (CEC 2001), the Uusitalo, pers.com. 2010). Another delay national input-output data of agriculture is expected before the reduced fertiliser were modified so as to include the data use improves the nutrient status of the derived from the material flow balances of eutrophied watersheds and of the Baltic each of the model farms. Sea (SYKE 2005). This shows the length of time needed to evaluate efficiency of Both plant and animal products contain the measures introduced in environmental varying amounts of water. Metabolism policy. requires oxygen and liberates carbon dioxide and water vapour, enteric 4.3 Input-output model for fermentation produces also methane. In food flux order to quantify the gaseous emissions, the animal metabolism cannot be overlooked, 4.3.1 The model and ignoring the water would result in a considerable material imbalance, e.g. in The food flux comprises the four mutually case of milk production the outputs would linked loops of plant production, livestock greatly exceed the inputs, which would husbandry, food processing and food violate the principles of MFA. On the consumption. The input-output model other hand, the ancillary biomass need not for the Finnish food flux was constructed to be accounted for, because it is returned

MTT SCIENCE 15 35 to the soil on harvesting and it does not combination; one is to increase the share of enter the material throughput within the organic production, and this can be done economy. In addition to the agricultural with any combination of the products input use, the material flow balances of covered by the farm models. The other the plant production farms include data approach is based on food consumption, derived from the photosynthetic equation wherein the impact of dietary changes (6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2). is assessed. Here again, any diet can be For livestock farms the plant products are chosen as long as the total energy intake is incorporated into growth and maintenance kept constant. Thus, if meat consumption of the living animals and in animal products decreases, corresponding amount of the through transformation of the plant feed energy has to be allocated to the vegetarian in the metabolic processes; the calculations products. In assessing the impacts, the were carried out on the dry matter basis environmental and economic consequences (Mäenpää and Vanhala 2002). of the various options were compared against the situation in 1995. (II.) The model enables assessing some environmental and economic consequences, Because of the lower yields, the more if the production structure, share of organic extensive organic production requires production or Finnish food consumption more cultivated land area to reach the were to be altered (II). Environmental­ same production volumes as conventional impact is assessed on the basis of the agriculture. The need for fallows, in material flow balances of the farms and it particular, to secure biological nitrogen is expressed in terms of agricultural land fixation is greater by an order of magnitude. use, total material requirement (TMR), Therefore, using the indicators provided fuel consumption, electricity consumption by the model, increasing the share of as well as GHG and acidifying emissions; organic production with greater land use these were given as CO2 respective SO2 requirements appears environmentally equivalents using the conversion factors of less favourable when compared with IPCC (2005). Economic consequences are conventional agriculture. This is shown deduced from the monetary input-output by the increase in greenhouse gas and data and expressed as agricultural output, acidifying emissions and also in the TMR. agriculture’s share from GDP, employment On the other hand, energy use is reduced and import. The impacts can be viewed because of the reduction in fertiliser at the level of agriculture, of the food input. The changes in consequence of sector as a whole, of all other sectors – increasing the share of organic production in combination or separately – and at the are substantial only with regard to the level of the national economy. The basic agricultural land use. structure of the input-output table and the principles of constructing the model Organic production is economically were described by Vanhala and Mäenpää beneficial, as it increases the value (2002). added of agriculture. Because of the small contribution of agriculture to the 4.3.2 Application to empirical data national economy, the environmental and economic impacts of increasing organic The integrated input-output model was production are perceptible only at the level used to assess the impacts of changing of agriculture or the food sector, at most. food production and consumption on When viewed at the nationwide level, the environment and economy (II). their contribution to the environment or In this model, there are basically two economy is extremely small. (II.) approaches that can be used separately or in

36 MTT SCIENCE 15 The impacts of changing food consumption friendly application would give the results patterns appeared to be more perceptible both in figures and in graphs. than the impact of increasing the share of the organic production. There are, however, The environmental impacts are described in numerous ways to compose diets with terms of TMR, GHG and acid emissions, constant energy intake, and the impacts energy consumption and agricultural land depend critically on the composition of use. Out of these, farm land area is a more the diet. The more vegetarian diets are useful general indicator for agriculture environmentally less burdensome than than TMR, since both the environmentally those containing products of the more significant input use and the production resource-intensive livestock husbandry. volume are related to it. Because of the A major part of the GHG of agriculture highly aggregate nature of the data originates from the cultivated soils, comprising the total material requirement livestock husbandry also contributes and because a large proportion of the to them, and it is the major source of hidden flows is calculatory, TMR is not a acidifying emissions as ammonia (Syväsalo good indicator for environmental impact et al. 2004, Statistics Finland 2007, II). The in agriculture (see 4.1.3). negative economic impact was due to lower degree of processing of vegetarian products Eutrophication of the watersheds resulting in the lower value added. The trough nutrient leaching is the major impact was, however, restricted to the agri- environmental issue in Finnish agriculture, food sector (II.) and it is not accounted for in the model. Evaluation of the environmental impacts 4.3.3 Critical evaluation is based on the material balances of the farm models, which represent national The model captures some of the economic averages. Regional climate, cultivated and environmental impacts, when either species, cultivation methods and timing of food consumption or production structure the cultivation measures influence energy is changed. It allows increase freely the consumption and gaseous emissions as share of organic production in any single well as nutrient balances. In contrast to the production line or in any combination of energy consumption and gaseous emissions, the production lines that are described the nutrient balances are also crucially with the farm models. Similarly, it allows dependent on the weather conditions of free choice among any combination of the growing season and on hydrology, the food items, as long as the total energy topography and soil type; these vary at intake is kept constant. The model is the scale of field plot. Still the impacts of very flexible, but the user has to use her nutrient leaching reach to regional level, own judgement in order to compose and the impacts have national significance nutritionally reasonable diet options. via fishery branch and recreational use of nature. Therefore, although the Finnish The results of the modelling are expressed average nutrient balances can be calculated, as actual volumes or economic losses and such a figure would have little significance gains, not as changes relative to a given regarding the actual situations and it does benchmark year. When expressed this not help in identifying the key areas of way, the significance of the change may be nutrient loading and in targeting the difficult to perceive. The model could be measures aimed at actually improving the improved by incorporating into it a base state of the environment. level and expressing the results relative to that, as was done in Article II. A user- At the moment, the model is based on the input-output data from 1995, and on the

MTT SCIENCE 15 37 farm models constructed in the early 2000. The options used in the food consumption The data requirement of the input-output scenario approach can be compiled model is large, and up-dating it is tedious, depending on the focus of the research, but not impossible. The major task, the e.g. in Article IV one of the diets was actual construction of the model itself, is compiled so as to exclude all the products done. Also the availability and aggregation from ruminants. In general, because in level of the data from the existing statistics relation to the dietary recommendations, compiled by various authorities for their the average Finnish food consumption own purposes has been clarified, and the is still biased towards animal products conversion factors needed to convert all (Heikkinen and Maula 1996, Helakorpi data into weight units are now available. et al. 2003, Prättälä 2003), the dietary scenarios in III and IV feature an increasing Input-output analysis allows sector-wise use of vegetarian products ending up with considerations, but shows also the results a purely vegan diet. For all options, the at the national scale, which is important imported fruit is substituted with domestic in order to obtain a comprehensive fruit and wild and cultivated berries. The view. Despite its restrictions, the model energy intake of the diets is kept constant provides a general picture of what the and the diets are also nutritionally balanced changes in production structure and in in terms of reasonable daily intakes of food consumption patterns or in both carbohydrates, fats and proteins. can bring about and where the impacts are most evident. The significance of the All fodder including the protein feed for input-output approach is that the model the animals – rapeseed and pulses – is reveals the net impact at the national assumed to be domestic in the calculations. level. For example, when machine Both in organic and conventional animal entrepreneurs from outside agriculture husbandry the feed intake is assumed to are used, in the input-output approach be the same; consequently the output energy consumption would be allocated per animal is also the same. However, in to the service sector, not to agriculture. The organic production, the yields per hectare model cannot be cheated by redistributing are 20–65% from those of conventional the impacts among the sectors. production (Mäder et al. 2002, Lötjönen et al. 2004, Kirchmann et al. 2007, Rosen 4.4 Food consumption and Allan 2007, Birkhofer et al. 2008, scenario –approach Dresboll et al. 2008), and this accounts for differences in the areas of agricultural land 4.4.1 Developing the method needed for food and feed production.

The starting point is the demand for food 4.4.2 Application to empirical data in based on the number of people living within local and in nation-wide context the considered area. The food demand defines the agricultural land area needed for The food consumption scenario approach various cultivated food plants, as well as the was used to study the impacts of numbers of different production animals. re-localising food production (III). The The area needed for different feed crops case study area was South Savo, and the is calculated on the basis of the numbers assessment was based on different options of production animals and their feeding of food demand that was to be met using requirements. Environmental impacts are locally produced basic food items. Both estimated on the basis of changes in these organic and conventional production key parameters. systems were considered, and in order to find an optimal unit for re-localinsg, ’local

38 MTT SCIENCE 15 supply’ was considered at three levels: half of the environmental load of food municipal, joint of municipalities and production. The remainder was due to the province level. net production in excess of demand in the source area; this excess was exported from Concerning the basic foodstuffs, the South the area. (III.) Savo region could satisfy its own demand, but localising primary production for own At the nation-wide context, the food food consumption would require some consumption scenario approach was redistribution of the production lines used to explore closer the contribution within the farming sector. If production of the soil, production animals, fertilizer were based on organic farming, the current use and energy consumption to the average food consumption would require agricultural GHG emissions and to assess all the cultivated land area to satisfy the the possibilities to reduce GHG emissions local demand, but with the other options through diet changes. The impact of only part of the cultivated land area changing food demand on GHG emissions (58–79%) would be needed. (III.) was calculated on the per capita per annuum -basis, and then considered at different Food consumption patterns apparently scales ranging from agriculture, entire do have an impact on the environment. food sector and nation-wide level. Both Compared with crop cultivation, the more conventional and organic production was resource-demanding animal husbandry is addressed (IV.) in many respects more of a burden on the environment. Choosing a vegetarian diet The total volume of the GHG emissions seems to be environmentally beneficial due to consumption in Finland is about in terms of reducing GHG and acid 60 000 million kg CO2 equivalents, and emissions, and nutrient loading. On the the contribution of the food chain is about other hand, the vegetarian diet option was one quarter (Mäenpää 2004). Within the not optimal in terms of its effect on the food chain, primary production produces diversity of wild species. For these, the about 70% of the GHG; this includes the areas covered with vegetation throughout fertilizer manufacture and agricultural the year are especially important. In energy consumption. The results are in agriculture, these areas include grasslands, compliance with LCA results recently green fallows, cultivated and natural reported elsewhere (Virtanen et al. 2009). pastures the maintenance of which is largely reliant on dairy cattle and other The major source of GHG in primary food grazing animals. Regarding crop diversity, production is the cultivated soil. For current organic production results in higher average food consumption the emissions diversity indices for all diet options; the from the soil represent 62%, the share of differences, however, are very small. As the emissions due to enteric fermentation is to the gaseous emissions, compared with 24% and energy consumption and fertiliser conventional production, the extensive manufacture both contribute about 7%. organic production causes more GHG The relative shares as well as the actual emissions, because the main source is the volumes naturally vary depending on the cultivated soil. On the other hand, organic diet. Because of the extensive production production results in slightly lower acid mode, organic production needs more emissions, the sources of which are animal area, and regarding GHG emissions the dung and fertilisers. (III.) environmental performance of organic production is consequently poor. (IV.) Depending on the diet option, local food demand caused at most only about

MTT SCIENCE 15 39 A strict vegan diet would result in nearly In the case study, the focus was on the 50% reduction in GHG emissions due hinterlands of the urban consumption areas to primary production, and excluding (III). Because the sparsely populated rural the ruminant products (milk, beef and areas also produce food for urban centres, mutton) from the present day food both the rural source areas of production consumption the reduction would be 33%. and urban sinks of food consumption need Contribution of the considerable emission to be addressed in balancing food supply reductions within agriculture would result and demand and in assessing environmental in decreasing the total GHG emissions due impacts of local food production. to consumption in Finland by about 8% for the vegan diet and about 5% for the The geographic extent of re-localisation, diet with no ruminant products. (IV.) the foodshed of Kloppenburg et al. (1996) within which the balance is to be reached, 4.4.3 Critical evaluation depends on the population basis of the surrounding consumption centres. Because The food consumption scenario approach of the varying production structure in the combines food consumption, production hinterland source areas, “local” is also capacity and assessment of environmental different for different foodstuffs. “Local” impacts caused by the changes in food is, thus, not fixed to any given distance nor consumption. The approach is based on is it same for all products, but remains a balancing food supply and demand, and concept covering various spatial scales. both conventional and organic production can be taken into account. In contrast In Article IV dealing with GHG emissions to the flexibility of the input-output only, national averages were used, and model which allows free choice in both the data were complemented so as to food demand and percentage of organic include also the GHG associated fertiliser production, the approach based on food manufacture and agricultural energy consumption scenarios is restricted to diet consumption. Also regarding the nutrient options that have to be fixed in advance. balances and crop diversity the approach The base line option is present day average could be extended to the national level. The food consumption, against which the calculation may be an interesting exercise, impacts of dietary changes are compared. but results would not be informative for The results of changing food consumption identifying the problem areas. For the are shown together with the present day reasons explained in section 4.3.3, the situation; the impacts of changing food average Finnish nutrient balances are consumption habits are, thus, easily seen. extremely abstract figures. Calculating the average crop diversity would require The given diet scenario represents the aggregation of data from the field plot average food consumption of the population level and redistributing it evenly within the within the considered area. The parameters Finnish agricultural land; it is an enormous dealing with production potential, crop task, and the informative value of the result diversity and nutrient balances and gaseous is at the very least questionable. emissions were adjusted according to the production circumstances of South Savo, At this stage, the approach is a proto which was the case study area (III). The type application and the feasibility and approach can be used in other regions various environmental impacts have been by changing the calculation parameters calculated separately. The approach could accordingly.

40 MTT SCIENCE 15 be developed further so as to provide a data the agricultural land use, numbers calculation model into which the user feeds of various production animals, GHG and the values of the variables describing the acid emissions, nutrient loading potential specific production circumstances and the and crop diversity. By pricing the products, population size. The model would then inclusion of at least some kind of economic calculate on the basis of food consumption information would also be feasible.

5 Discussion

n this section the results of the thesis Irwin 2005, Huppes et al. 2006, Bartelmus are brought into a wider sustainability 2007, Schoer et al. 2007, Giljum et al. context. The role of the approaches 2008, OECD 2008). Ipresented here, their limitations and the potential usage for decision making in The indicators based on the MFA and foot- measuring environmental performance printing approaches are used as universal of food production are considered in ways to illustrate and monitor the progress sections 5.1 and 5.2. Subsequently the towards the defined goals. Many of these bearing of the food-related environmental can be used at scales ranging from national information on actually improving the state to regional, local and individual (e.g. Kitzes of the environment is considered (5.3). et al. 2009, Limnios et al. 2009, Weinzettel In closing, a framework for sustainability and Kovanda 2009). Product- and person- assessment is outlined by pointing out on specific variants of the measures have the one hand, the need to expand the scope been particularly designed for consumer of the issues and, on the other hand, to information; these comprise, for example, simultaneously bring the issues to a area- ecological rucksacks and footprints, specific context so as to refrain from generic material and surface intensity per service application and interpretation (5.4). unit, food miles (e.g. Schmidt-Bleek and Lettenmeier 2000 and references therein) 5.1 Material flow accounting as well as LCA results that are available in and indicators increasing amounts. Along with various labelling schemes (e.g. Wiedmann et al. There is a global consensus that the 2006, Hyvönen and Perrels 2008, Baldo environmental impact of food production et al. 2009, Burger et al. 2009) these have needs to be radically reduced and more been introduced in order to encourage sustainable means to feed the world adoption of more sustainable consumption population need to be found. It is habits both among nations and individual claimed that because the problems related citizens. to environmental deterioration as a consequence of the current way of food Single figure compound expressions production are global in character, the based on commensurate data such as the solutions require clearly defined policy footprint or TMR have their place and goals and combined efforts among the function as a general frame of reference for nations (e.g. Bringezu et al. 2004, CEC descriptive purposes. When used critically 2005, EUROSTAT 2005, Wernick and and wisely, they can be used for setting

MTT SCIENCE 15 41 up overall goals and for monitoring the emissions serves as an example of the realisation of the defined goals as well as first, and changing the conversion factor for international comparisons. They are for N2O to CO2 equivalents provides an signals, but not very specific signals, and example of the latter. Unless the results they are of little use in locating the hot are corrected, the indicators based on time spots or the environmentally most critical series data may give an erroneous picture target areas or issues, to which the (policy) of the development. This is a serious measures should be directed in order to problem because indicators are mostly used actually achieve an improvement in the explicitely for follow-up and monitoring. state of the environment (e.g. Fiala 2008). In the worst case, the better figures are a Instead of compressing environmental consequence of the tricks of calculation, impacts into a single figure like TMR and and have nothing to do with the impacts ecological footprint, the eco-efficiency on the environment. In the case that a real indicators based on the category-specific improvement has taken place, the new way measures as done in section 4.2.1 are of calculating may hide what has actually easier to comprehend and interpret for happened, and what the cause of the practical purposes. Also disaggregating the positive contribution actually is. compound indicators into their constituent parts is more informative than a single Finally, measuring may become an figure ( e.g. Voet et al. 2005, Weisz et al. end in itself. Research that focuses on 2005, I; Figures 1, 3); the LCA-results developing measurement methods, although expressed as CO2 equivalents producing internationally comparable are also always presented category-wise data and universal indicators may divert and allocated to the specific phases of the the focus from the actual environmental production chain. problems, and the actors from seeking solutions to these. In striving to fulfil Another problem associated with international policy commitments, the the indicators expressed as a single slogan “what can be measured can be commensurate figure is their opaqueness. improved”, has turned in some cases into The basic requirement is that design of improving the measurements, a kind of a indicators is based on transparent data. “paralysis by analysis” because of devoting In practice, the calculation procedures are disproportionate effort to agreeing about extremely tedious, and the raw data are, the methodology and interpretations, therefore, beyond the reach of the users. actual measures are not taken. This severely restricts users’ possibilities to critically evaluate the information provided Political decision-makers and authorities by the indicator. The interpretation requires at various levels have been assigned expert knowledge, and transparency turns the responsibility for environmental out to be rather theoretical. Furthermore, monitoring, and in that role they need the results such as e.g. LCA-data are often indicators when outlining the policy aims not even public, but are considered to be and setting quantitative goals for reducing owned by those who have produced them environmental stress and following the (Ecoinvent 2010, SimaPro 2010). realisation of the defined goals. Although there has been an explosive proliferation In addition, as knowledge increases, the of sustainability indicators and indicator basic presumptions or the calculation systems, the effectiveness of this “indicator parameters or both may change. This industry” in promoting sustainability has affects comparability over time. Excluding been seriously questioned (e.g. Rydin 2007, the GHG emissions related to burning Wilson et al. 2007). Also the user interviews peat when quantifying the total GHG in Finland showed that the indicators in

42 MTT SCIENCE 15 general, have not been particularly effective of shifting the environmental burden, in informing the actors or in affecting i.e. instead of improving the state of the their behaviour (Rosenström 2009, Yli- environment, corrective measures at some Viikari 2009). The use of indicators is part of the system create problems elsewhere largely influenced by how they were within the same system (Ehrenfeld 2008). originally developed. If they are merely transferred from academia to policymakers, Even though input-output models are their practical relevance tends to remain deterministic, linear and time invariant, modest. Producing the knowledge jointly the approach is, nevertheless, a step towards with the researchers and policymakers and more holistic systemic thinking. Input- appreciating the local actors’ experiences output model of the food flux provides an and providing them with a possibility to idea about the complex interrelationships further develop the indicators, considerably between nature, agriculture and the enhances their relevance (Rydin 2007, various sectors of the economy because the Mickwitz and Melanen 2009 ). intermediate phases are also incorporated into the model. Environmental impact 5.2 Towards systemic assessment, however, remains at a very thinking: modelling and general level. Identifying the hot spots for scenarios targeting the measures requires a lot more environmental information, and at a much Input-output modelling has been widely more local scale. Detailed input-output used especially within the research field data are, however, not available at local of ecological economics, which represents scale, and this restricts the use of the input- one strand of the ecological modernization output methods in the Finnish case. -school. The aim of the method is to capture the linkages and the mutual interplay The food consumption scenario approach, between economy and natural resource on the other hand, is place-based; food use (Sinclair et al. 2005, Huppes et al. consumption, production capacity and 2006, Kerkhof et al. 2009, Weinzettel and environmental impacts are linked together Kovanda 2009). Specifically regarding the in the context of the specific area under food sector, this approach has been applied consideration. The approach can be applied e.g. in Switzerland (Faist et al. 2001, Kytzia at scales ranging from personal to nation- et al. 2004). Even more sophisticated wide, and it can be slotted into the local approaches combining LCA data into the circumstances, which are decisive as to the input-output model are used to provide critical environmental issues that most more information about environmental urgently need to be addressed. Because of impacts of the use of materials (e.g. Sinclair the key role of local circumstances, nation- et al. 2005, Seppälä et al. 2009, Weinzettel wide application of the food consumption and Kovanda 2009). scenario approach presented here is restricted to assessing feasibility of self- The input-output approach allows analysis sufficient food production and quantifying at national level and reveals, how the the gaseous emissions (4.3.3, 4.4.3). The money and material flows are distributed approach itself is applicable anywhere, among the various sectors of the economy, but the calculation parameters need to be and how pulling the lever in any one of the adjusted so as to comply with the specific sectors is reflected in the other sectors. The circumstances. The information provided approach is unbribable in the sense that it on environmental impacts is not generic, does not allow re-allocating environmental but it has to be interpreted in relation to impacts among different sectors. This kind the actual circumstances, and it is not of “emission trade” is a school example comparable across different regions.

MTT SCIENCE 15 43 Even in Finland, the production conditions are based on the average food consumption differ greatly in different parts of the patterns. The results, therefore, assume that country, not to speak of global regional the specified dietary changes are adopted differences. There are therefore, no among the whole population. universal solutions. The sustainability space of the area in question – the playroom As regards the environment, it is the within which the measures have to be fitted actual volumes that are crucial, not (Binder and Wiek 2001) is specific for the reduction potential expressed as the different areas, and the sustainability percentages, especially if expressed as the space needs to be defined together with the reduction potential of a single sector. For relevant actors of the area. The methods example, compared to current average food to assess environmental impacts, the consumption, a vegan diet would nearly measures to relieve the impacts and the halve the GHG emissions of primary changes in modus operandi must be tailored production, and the non-ruminant diet according to the specific situation in order would reduce the emissions by about 30%. to address the issues that are most pressing However, the net effect from the total in view of the functioning of the system GHG emissions of the Finnish citizens’ as a whole. Therefore, in evaluating the consumption would be 8% and 5% less progress towards sustainability, the goals GHG emissions (III). The reduction in for improvement and the criteria for the actual volume of emissions is directly evaluation are to be specified for the area proportional to the number of people or region in question. adopting the vegan or the non-ruminant diet. If an individual were to change This systemic approach of the input- diet to that of a vegan, it would result in output modelling and food consumption a reduction of 810 kg CO2 equivalents scenario approach signals a paradigm (representing 8% of an individual’s total change from the technical environmental emissions). The corresponding figure for management, where the main focus is on adoption of a non-ruminant diet would isolated phenomena towards more holistic be 560 kg CO2 equivalents (5% of an approaches (Holling 2001, Folke et al. individual’s total emissions). If the entire 2005, Ehrenfeld 2008). The two methods Finnish population were to adopt the diets were used to quantify the GHG emissions there would be respectively 4200 million of the Finnish agriculture and to assess the kg and 2900 million kg less GHG entering impact of the dietary changes or changes the atmosphere. in the production mode on GHG emission reduction. This enabled cross-checking, Such profound changes among the whole and the close similarity of the results population are hardly realistic. Currently obtained with the two methods reinforces fewer than half a percent of the Finns faith on the reliability and the validity of are strict vegans (Vinnari et al. 2009). the approaches. In addition, consumer food choice and behaviour are not consistent, but the 5.3 The impact of citizens express various demands and consumers’ food choices wishes that change over time and depend on general overall trends and personal The results from both the input-output circumstances, including purchasing model (4.3, II) and from scenario approach power. The obtainable impact through the (4.4, III, IV) suggest that negative changes of the food consumption habits on environmental impacts can be reduced the environment is, therefore in practice, through changes in food consumption very small and can only be gauged over habits. In both approaches, the calculations a very long time span, if at all. Besides,

44 MTT SCIENCE 15 focusing on one aspect is an example of among the Finns. It has contributed to technical environmental management, the increased use of vegetarian products and “quick fixes” of Ehrenfeld (2008) which, by to improved public health, but emphasis looking for isolated solutions for wicked on nutritional aspects has partly led to problems such as climate change, is likely proliferation of imported fruits and exotic to create unexpected problems elsewhere vegetables (Helakorpi et al. 2003, Prättälä (Haug et al. 2010). For example, extensive 2003), and may thereby contribute to adoption of veganism in order to reduce neglecting the seasonality of vegetarian the GHG emissions is likely to reduce products. As for nutritional education, biodiversity of the agro-environments, public catering could profile as path- not to speak of the socio-economic breaker in food education and contribute consequences among the entrepreneurs to diffusion of ideas through social and employees in the agri-food sectors. learning (Brekke et al. 2003, Starr 2009, Young 2009) by providing a clear signal Responsibility for improving the state of regarding the kind of food that meets the the environment cannot be pushed solely sustainability criteria. Integrating public onto the consumers and their food choices, catering into civic sustainability education nor are recommendations alone sufficient. would require new mindset and innovative Although food itself cannot be substituted, actions. Regarding school food, examples a lot can be done by developing services and already exist (City of Helsinki 2010). In effective policy measures to gear consumer transition towards sustainability the most behaviour so as to promote environmental demanding phase is the acceptance of and human health (Lang and Heasman new ideas (Ehrenfeld 2008); this was the 2004, Halme et al. 2006, Collins and case also in the Helsinki example, but the Fairchild 2007). Compared with individual first steps now taken show that change is citizens, institutional consumers as a fairly possible. homogeneous consumer group provide a more effective channel for introducing 5.4 Expanding the new food consumption habits. This is research from disciplinary done already to some extent through the towards transdisciplinary sheer volume of public food purchases, but approaches: foodshed as a most importantly through civic education frame for sustainable food provided by the practical example of public provisioning catering services. Consumer information regarding the impacts of food choices is Interpreting indicators and results of an important part of civic food education. quantitative measurements is a delicate Personal food choices show to what extent task; they cannot be used to predict future the message of this education has been development and there is no direct cause adopted, and they also play an important and consequence relationship. Neither role in personal health. However, acting do indicators account for the possible in the private sphere does not directly intervening factors that may be introduced improve the state of the environment. The because of the time delay between the significance of the consumer information is measures aimed at improving the state of that increased awareness among citizens is the environment, and the actual impact on likely to increase pressure on the decision- the environment. makers to take a proactive role and to make use of the robust tools of policy-making. Rather than applying the , straightforward cost-benefit Public catering already plays an important evaluation is often stressed and the role in guiding nutritional behaviour environmentally negative consequences

MTT SCIENCE 15 45 are captured afterwards; the problems production system the basic challenge are addressed as they appear. It is a kind is to advance food security so as to meet of end-of pipe thinking looking for the needs of 10 billions people by the end symptomatic solutions, “quick fixes” aimed of the present century and to keep the at decreasing unsustainability. Restoring environmental impacts of production within the situation after the damage has the carrying capacity of the ecosystems. This occurred is more resource-demanding than has to be accomplished in compliance with preventing the damage in advance, and the other goals of sustainability. The basic in some cases the environment may even requirement is for adequate production have been irreversibly changed. Advancing of food, and every nation should have the sustainability calls for preventive measures. right and obligation to basic food security This requires fundamental solutions, or (Helenius et al. 2007, Patel 2008). changes in the current modus operandi. Such solutions can be found only by The sustainability concept incorporates looking for the roots of the problems. various diverse dimensions and requires that balance is achieved among them. Although the problems associated with the Sustainability has, however remained, a present day food production are global in rather abstract concept that was introduced character, and environmental deterioration into discussion by WCED (1987) referring has spread across the globe, the origin of generally to the documents of the Summits environmental impacts is closely tied to held by the UN in Johannesburg and Rio site. The symptoms have to be addressed de Janeiro, and of the MEA (2005) and where they appear, but in order to prevent IAASTD (2009). In these, sustainability them from appearing again, fundamental was defined broadly comprising elements solutions need to be looked for at the of nature, people and socio-cultural place of emergence. In introducing interaction to secure the prerequisites measures attention needs to be paid to of a good life for the present and future the functioning of the whole system. This generations all over the world. When necessitates a system innovation approach expressed in such grandiloquent but general which implies both technical innovations terms, the concept is not easily be translated and re-adjustments in the structures of the into action. The need to operationalise society, i.e. changes in the whole socio- sustainability in the context of some technical regime (Geels 2004, Geels and societally significant question has been Schot 2007, Ehrenfeld 2008). specifically emphasised (Ehrenfeld 2008, DeVries and Petersen 2009, Kauffman The overriding challenge is to address 2009, Scoullos 2009, van Ginkel 2009). current social, cultural, economic and environmental problems that are evident In the context of food and eating, the at scales ranging from local to global. various dimensions of sustainability With regard to environmental impacts, permeate the everyday experiences and the dispute has been whether the impacts natural bio-physical principles (Figure 7). should be measured per ton product or per Environmental impacts of food production hectare cultivated area. Those favouring the deal with impacts on soil, water, air, per ton approach argue for the increased biodiversity and landscape, while the efficiency, which would leave more room economic dimension is approached for other uses for the land. Those focussing through questions dealing with subsistence on the environment prefer the per hectare and profitability of food production. The approach. However, because global food social dimension concerns welfare of the security requires improving both the yield people involved in food production, and and the environment, regardless of the their working conditions as well as food

46 MTT SCIENCE 15 security and equity, health and nutrition could be an entire foodshed area including and the viability of rural areas. In addition, both the rural source areas of food food has deep roots in the culture, and production and the population centres eating is an aesthetic and socially unifying of food consumption (Kloppenburg et experience. There are also ethical questions al. 1996). In such a context the many concerning food production (Helenius linkages of food to sustainability shown 2003, Helenius et al. 2007, Patel 2008, in Figure 7 become obvious and the Risku-Norja and Mikkola 2010). These criteria for sustainable food provisioning criteria for sustainable food supply include, can be translated into a real life situation therefore, socio-cultural and ethical aspects that is concrete and approachable also as well as economic feasibility; it is not in practice. This directs the focus of the merely a matter of ecological sustainability research from contentious and ambiguous and ecological sustainability is not merely general en­vironmental costs and benefits to a matter of GHG emissions. actually promoting sustainability within a particular foodshed area. With the focus on Re-localised food production has been regional based human ecology perspective suggested as a strategy for sustainabilizing and on ethical aspects, the foodshed food provisioning (e.g. Levidow and approach actually brings the research back Darrot 2010). Instead of focusing on a to the roots of agroecology as found in single environmental issue, only at the plot the pioneering works of Klages (1942) and plant level or on farming systems, an and Leopold (1949). A big step forward is area-based approach with the focus on the taken by accounting for the new research food systems is stressed (Kloppenburg et methods and for the present day level of al. 1996, Gomiero et al. 2008, Lichtfouse knowledge that has been enriched with the et al. 2009). A useful unit in this research developments in various research fields.

Society & culture

Nutrition, health Traditions, customs Access, equity, sovereignty

Demand- Rural viability supply Landscape Food Subsistence production Atmosphere

Processing Ecosystem Biodiversity Trade services Water Profitability Soil

Economy Environment

Figure 7. The many linkages in food production. The figure is a modified version of that published by IAASTD (2009).

MTT SCIENCE 15 47 The starting point is to define the foodshed Improving sustainability of food production area for a given regional population – “sustainabilizing food production” – centre. This is done on the basis of food requires evaluation and integration of demand. Environmental performance of research results from many different food production is then assessed together disciplines including agronomy, ecology, with the other criteria of sustainable sociology, economics and politics. Finding food supply including issues concerning a balance is a matter of optimal trade-off labour standards, animal welfare, rural and this trade-off cannot be universally communities, equity, quality and cultural determined, but has to be agreed upon aspects of food as part of the overall among the actors of the area. Sustainability sustainability assessment specifically is not a static state, but a process. The vision designed according to the conditions of an alternative post-global green future of the area concerned. The assessment features a global network of local food methods depend on what the bottlenecks systems that acknowledges the significance of sustainability are in the area, and also and sovereignty of local populations, their on access to data. Formulation of the knowledge, and their solutions (Curtis management strategies and practical 2003, Lang and Heasman 2004, Patel implementation of the measures requires 2008, Evanoff 2010). In those conditions transdisciplinarity, i.e. participatory sustainability can become a self-orientating research involving both the disciplinary principle in all decision-making so that experts and the local actors and decision the measures are continuously revised and makers (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2005a, Lal modified in light of new knowledge and in 2008, Lal 2009, Lichtfouse et al. 2009). response to changing circumstances.

6 Conclusions

he key findings of this study and the dependent on it, and it is not affected implications based on these findings by the extremely changeable weather Tare summarised as follows: conditions of the growing seasons. Time series data on material flows of Improving eco-efficiency does not equate agriculture give an overall picture of with improvement in the state of the the development, but the total material environment. The carrying capacity of requirement (TMR) is not a good nature, the potential exhaustion of non- indicator of en­vironmental impacts in renewable natural resources and the possible agriculture. This is because the hidden rebound effect need also be accounted for. flows comprise over half of TMR of Therefore, eco-efficiency considerations agriculture, and about 95% of the hidden require appropriate designation of system flows is calculatory based on approximated boundaries. averages. Agricultural land use provides a better general indicator because the input The case of fertilizer use (4.2.3) shows use and energy consumption as well as that the time perspective between the production volume are intimately introduction of the measures aimed at

48 MTT SCIENCE 15 relieving environmental impacts and Extrapolating the results from the South actual improvement in the state of the Savo case study area (III) shows that environment is several decennia. national food self-sufficiency is feasible. If the share of vegetarian products is increased, The generic indicators based on self-sufficiency could even be based on commensurate data are unspecific signals organic production. In re-localizing that show overall development trends. In food production, both the source areas order to translate the information provided of production and urban centres of food by the generic indicators into practical consumption need to be accounted for. measures so as to actually improve the state “Local” is not fixed in regard of geographic of the environment, the environmentally distance, and it varies also depending on critical issues and areas need to be the product. identified. This requires more detailed data at local scale. Improving environmental performance of food production calls for socio-technical The integrated economic environ­mental innovations and policy interventions as input-output model shows the distribution well as for civic food education via public of money and material flows among the catering. Progress cannot be expected if various sectors. In lack of sufficiently the decision is left on to the individual detailed data the use of the model is consumers’ food choices. Effectiveness restricted to nation-wide economy analyses, of consumer information regarding and environmental impacts can be captured environmental impact of food production at a very general level in terms of, GHG is enhanced by providing means and and acidifying emissions, TMR, energy channels for citizen activity. consumption and agricultural land use. Environmental performance of food The approach based on food consumption production should be assessed together scenarios can be applied at regional or local with the other criteria for sustainable scales, and the environmental impacts food provisioning. There are no universal are considered from the viewpoint of solutions, but the sustainability issues need primary production. Based on various to be considered within a geographically diet options the method accounts for the defined context. feasibility of re-localising food production and the environmental impacts of such The many linkages in food production re-localisation in terms of nutrient balances, to sustainability call for inter- and gaseous emissions, agricultural energy transdisciplinary approach. This requires consumption, agricultural land use and actor oriented research, where the diversity of crop cultivation. The approach bottlenecks of sustainability are identified, is applicable anywhere, but the calculation the goals are defined and the measures parameters need to be adjusted so as to are tailored together with the actors and comply with the actual circumstances of the according to the specific situation, by target area. The indicators are, therefore, not paying serious attention to the practical and universal nor is the information provided tacit knowledge based on the familiarity by them comparable across different with local circumstances. regions, but it has to be interpreted in the area-specific context.

MTT SCIENCE 15 49 7 Acknowledgements

would like to thank the co-authors of the ten years of trials and errors into a the articles and the other colleagues thesis. I also thank the Professors Mikael both within and outside MTT Hildén (Finnish Environment Institute) IAgriFood Research Finland, who were and Ilmo Massa (University of Helsinki) involved in the various research projects who thoroughly reviewed the manuscript dealing with the topics of this thesis. of the thesis and contributed significantly I thank the Professors Juha Helenius, to the formulation of the final version. University of Helsinki, and Sirpa Kurppa, The research necessary both for producing MTT AgriFood Research Finland also for the articles and the thesis was publicly the critical and constructive comments and financed; the contribution of the Finnish for their encouragement while compiling tax payers is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Adriaanse, A., Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., S.A. 2005. Prospects, advantages and Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D. limitations of future crop production & Schütz, H. 1997. Resource flows: the systems dependent upon the material basis of industrial economies. management of soil processes. Annals World Resources Institute. 1st ed. of Applied Biology 146: 203–215. Washington D.C. 63 p. Ayres, R.U. 1989. Industrial metabolism and Ala-Mantila, O. & Riepponen, L. 1998. global change. Industrial Social Science Production Costs of Agriculture in Finland. Journal 41: 363–373. Maatalouden tuotantokustannukset Suomessa (in Finnish). Agricultural Baldo, G.L., Marino, M., Montani, M. & Economics Research Institute (MTT Ryding, S. 2009. The carbon footprint Agrifood Research Finland). Research measurement toolkit for the EU Reports 222. Helsinki. 120 p. . The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14: 591–596. Allaire, G. & Wolf, S. 2004. Cognitive representations and institutional Bartelmus, P. 2007. SEEA-2003: Accounting hybridity in agrofood innovation. for sustainable development? Ecological Science, Technology and Human Values Economics 61: 613–616. 29: 431–458. Baumgartner, S., Becker, C., Frank, K., Altieri, A.C. & Nicholls, C.I. 2004. Muller, B. & Quaas, M. 2008. Relating Biodiversity and Pest Management in the philosophy and practice of ecological Agroecosystems. 2nd ed. New York: economics: The role of concepts, The Haworth Press Inc. models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Antikainen, R. 2007. Substance flow analysis Ecological Economics 67: 384–393. in Finland: Four case studies on N and P flows. Helsinki, University of Helsinki, BCSD 1993. How Can Business Contribute Faculty of Biosciences, Department of to Sustainable Development? Getting Biological and Environmental Sciences. Eco-Efficient. Business Council for 1–50 p. Available on the Internet: http:// Sustainable Development. Report urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-11-2763-2 of the first eco-efficiency workshop. November 16-17 1993, Antwerpen. Atkinson, D., Black, K.E., Dawson, L.A., Dunsiger, Z., Watson, C.A. & Wilson,

50 MTT SCIENCE 15 Bellows, A.C. & Hamm, M.W. 2001. Local hidden flows and the structure of TMR. autonomy and sustainable development: Ecological Economics 51: 97–124. testing import substitution in localizing food systems. Agriculture and Human Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, Values 18: 271–284. K. & Klein, J.T. 2005. Promoting interdiscipolinary research: The case of Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. & Wilson, J.D. the Academy of Finland. Publications of 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat the Academy of Finland 8/05. Helsinki: heterogeneity the key. Trends in Ecology Academy of Finland. 206 p. and Evolution 18: 182–188. Burger, E., Giljum, S., Manstein, C. & Binder, C. & Wiek, A. 2001. Sustainability Hinterberger, F. 2009. Comprehensive spaces. A new concept to evaluate Ecological Indicators for Products: development using indicator systems. Three case studies applying MIPS and Paper Presented at the ISIEE Ecological Footprint. Transformation, Conference, Leiden, November 2001. Innovation and Adaptation for Sustainability 8th International Birkhofer, K., Bezemer, M.T., Bloem, J., Conference of the European Society for Bonkowski, M., Christensen, S., Dubois, Ecological Economics. ESEE. Ljubljana, D., Ekelund, F., FliessYbach, A., Gunst, Slovenia. 3 p. Available on the Internet: L., Hedlund, K., Mäder, P., Mikola, http://www.esee2009.si/papers/ J., Robin, C., Setälä, H., Tatin-Froux, Burger%20-%20COMPREHENSIVE%20 F., van der Putten, Wim H. & Scheu, ECOLOGICAL%20INDICATORS.pdf. S. 2008. Long-term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekström, M.P. Implications for soil quality, biological & Shanahan, H. 2003. Food and life control and productivity. Soil Biology cycle energy inputs: consequences of and Biochemistry 40: 2297–2308. diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecological Economics 44: 293–307. Bockstaller, C., Guichard, L., Makowski, D., Aveline, A., Girardin, P. & Plantureux, S. Carson, R. 1964. Silent spring. Greenwich, 2008. Agri-environmental indicators to Conn: Fawcett. Crest book t681. assess cropping and farming systems. 304 p. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28: 139–149. CEC 2001. Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators. A Brekke, K.A., Kverndokk, S. & Nyborg, K. methodological guide. Eurostat Theme 2003. An economic model of moral 2. Economy and Finance. European motivation. Journal of Public Economics Communities. Luxemburg. 85 p. 87: 1967–1983. CEC 2005. Thematic strategy on Bringezu, S. 1993. Towards increasing sustainable use of natural resources. resource productivity: how to measure COM(2005)670 final. Commission of the total material consumption of the European Communities. Brussels. regional or national economies? Available on the Internet: http:// Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 2: ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/ 437–442. index.htm.

Bringezu, S. 2003. Industrial ecology and City of Helsinki 2010. Laatuluokan euroop- material flow analysis. Basic concepts, palainen ruokakaupunki: Helsingin policy relevance and some case kau­­pungin ruokakulttuurin kehittämis­ studies. Wuppertal Institute, Greenleaf valinnat. Available on the Internet: http: Publishing, Germany, 1–15 p. Available //webcache.googleusercontent.com/ on the Internet: http://www.greenleaf- search?q=cache:9BQdhxwWMfAJ:ww publishing.com/content/pdfs/iebring. w.hel.fi/static/public/hela/Kaupungin- pdf. hallitus/Suomi/Esitys/2010/Halke_2010- 06-28_Khs_25_El/3E0E90D3-22BE- Bringezu, S., Schutz, H., Steger, S. & 44C6-A505-6FC5CF2CCC7F/Liite_1_ Baudisch, J. 2004. International Ruokakulttuurin_kehittamisvalinnat_ comparison of resource use and FINAL_3.pdf+rukakulttuurin+kehitt%C3 its relation to economic growth: %A4minen+AND+Helsinki&cd=1&hl=fi&c The development of total material t=clnk&gl=fi&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a. requirement, direct material inputs and Cited 10.7.2010.

MTT SCIENCE 15 51 Collins, A. & Fairchild, R. 2007. Sustainable on the Internet: http://ec.europa. food consumption at a sub-national eu/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/ level: an ecological footprint, nutritional agrienv/rep_en.pdf. Cited 05.11.2008. and economic analysis. Journal of Environ­mental Policy and Planning EC 2007. European Commission – Council 9: 5–30. Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, on organic production and labelling ConAccount 2006. Material flow accounting of organic products and repealing for environmental sustainbility. Available Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. on the Internet: http://www.conaccount. net/. Cited 10.4.2010. EU 2009. FP7 Theme 2: Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology, 2007 work Costanza, R., Norton, B.& Haskell, B. programme. Available on the Internet: 1992. Ecosystem health: new goals http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/kbbe/ for environ­mental management. Island about-kbbe_en.html. Press. 269 p. Ecoinvent 2010. Ecoinvent database. Curtis, F. 2003. Eco-localism and Available on the Internet: http:// sustainability. Ecological Economics www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Cited 46: 83–102. 6.4.2010.

Delind, L.B. 2006. Of Bodies, Place, and Ehrenfeld, J. 2008. Sustainability by Design: Culture: Re-Situating Local Food. A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Journal of Agricultural & Environmental our Consumer Culture. New Haven: Ethics 19: 121–146. Yale University Press. 233 p.

DeVries, B. & Petersen, A. 2009. Ekotehokkuustyöryhmä 1998. Ekotehok­ Conceptualizing sustainable kuus ja factor-ajattelu. (Eco-efficiency development: An assessment and Factors). Kauppa- ja Teollisuus­ methodology connecting values, ministeriön Työryhmä ja toimikunta­ knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. raportteja (Ad-hoc committee reports, Ecological Economics 68: 1006–1019. Ministry of Trade and Industry) 1/1998. 45 p. Dietz, S. & Neumayer, E. 2007. Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: EUROSTAT 2001. Economy-wide material Concepts and measurement. Ecological flow accounts and derived indicators. Economics 61: 617–626. A methodological guide.

Dresboll, D.B., Bjorn, G. & Thorup- EUROSTAT 2005. Development of Kristensen, K. 2008. Yields and the material use in the EU-15:1970-2001: extent and causes of damage in Material composition, cross-country cauliflower, bulb onion, and carrot comparison, and material flow grown under organic or conventional indicators. Luxembourg. regimes. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 83: 770–776. Evanoff, R. 2010. Bioregionalsm and Global Ethics. Studies in Philosophy. New York: DuPuis, E.M. & Goodman, D. 2005. Should Routledge. 305 p. we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Factor 10 Club. 1997. Carnoules Statement Rural Studies 21: 359–371. to Government and Business Leaders. A ten-fold leap in energy and resource EEA 2003. Environmental indicators: efficiency. Available on the Internet: Typology and use in reporting. European http://www.factor10-institute.org/. Cited Environment Agency. Copenhagen. 20 3.10.2009. p. Available on the Internet: http://eea. eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet- Faist, M., Kytzia, S. & Baccini, P. 2001. The circle/core_set/library?l=/management_ impact of household food consumption documentation/indicator_typology/_ on resource and energy management. EN_1.0_&a=d. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 15: 183–199. EC 2005. Agri-environment Measures - Overview on General Principles, Types FAOSTAT 2010. Agricultural price statistics. of Measures, and Application. Available Food and agricultural organization of the United Nations. Available on the

52 MTT SCIENCE 15 Internet: http://faostat.fao.org/site/351/ Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G. & Pimentel, D. default.aspx. 2008. Energy and environmental issues in organic and conventional agriculture. Fiala, N. 2008. Measuring sustainability: Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 27: Why the ecological footprint is bad 239–254. economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics 67: Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe Redux? 519–525. Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm change. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, Sociologia Ruralis 44: 3–16. J. 2005. Adaptivr goverance of social- ecological systems. Annual Review Grönroos, J., Nikander, A., Syri, S., of Environment and Resources 30: Rekolainen, S. & Ekqvist, M. 1998. 441–473. Maatalouden ammoniakkipäästöt. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute Follett, J.R. 2009. Choosing a Food Future: (SYKE). The Finnish Environment 206. Differentiating Among Alternative Food 68 p. Options. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 22: 31–51. Grönroos, J., Seppälä, J., Voutilainen, P., Seuri, P. & Koikkalainen, K. 2006. Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, Energy use in conventional and organic P., Evans, B., Flynn, A. & Mylan, J. milk and rye bread production in 2006. Environmental impacts of food Finland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and production and consumption. A report to Environment 117: 109–118. the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London: Manchester Halberg, N., van der Werf, H., Basset- Business School. Defra. 199 p. Mens, C., Dalgaard, R. & de Boer, I. 2005. Environmental assessment tools Friederichs, K. 1930. Die Grundfragen und for the evaluation and improvement of Gesetzmässigkeiten der land- und European livestock production systems. forstwirtschaftlichen Zoologie. Vol. 1: Livestock Production Science 96: Ökologischer Teil, Vol. 2: Wirtschaftlicher 33–50. Teil. Berlin: Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey. Halme, M., Hrauda, G., Jasch, C., Kortman, J., Jonuschat, H., Scharp, M., Velte, Geels, F. 2004. From sectoral systems of D. & Trindade, P. 2006. Sustainable innovation to socio-technical systems Consumer Services Business Solutions - Insights about dynamics and change for Household Markets. London: from sociology and institutional theory. Earthscan. 280 p. Research Policy 33: 897–920. Halweil, B. 2004. Eat Here. Reclaiming Geels, F. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of Homegrown Pleasures in a Global sociotechnical transition pathways. Supermarket. W.W. Norton & Company Research Policy 36: 399–417. Inc. New York: World Watch Institute. 236 p. Giljum, S. 2006. Materialflow-based indicators for evaluation of eco- Hanley, N., McGregor, P., Swales, J.K. & efficiency and dematerialization Turner, K. 2009. Do increases in energy policies. In: Lawn, P. (ed.). Sustainable efficiency improve environmental Development Indicators in Ecological quality and sustainability? Ecological Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Economics 68: 692–709. pp. 376–398. Hardi, P. & DeSouza-Huletey, J.A. 2000. Giljum, S., Hinterberger, F. & Lutter, S. Issues in analyzing data and indicators 2008. Measuring natural resource for sustainable development. Ecological use. Context, indicators and EU policy Modelling 130: 59–65. processes. SERI Background Paper No. 14. Vienna. 1–17 p. Haug, C., Rayner, T., Jordan, A., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., Monni, S., Gliessman, R.S. (ed.). 2007. Agroecology: Huitema, D., Massey, E., van Asselt, The ecology of sustainable food H. & Berkhout, F. 2010. Navigating the systems. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: Publisher. 392 p. evidence from policy evaluation studies. Climatic change 101: 427–445.

MTT SCIENCE 15 53 Heikkinen, S. & Maula, J. 1996. Finnish towards Sustainability by Material Flow food consumption 1860-1993. Helsinki: Accounting. In: Bringezu, S. et al. (eds). National Consumer Research Centre. Wuppertal Special 6: 10–14. Proceedings 47 p. of the ConAccount Conference 11-12 September 1997. Helakorpi, S., Patja, K., Prättälä, R., Aro, A. & Uutea, A. 2003. Health behaviour and Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the health among Finnish adult population, Complexity of Economic, Ecological, spring 2003. B 17/2003. Helsinki: and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4: National Public Health Institute. 198 p. 390–405.

Helenius, J. 2003. Eettinen elintarvike­ Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., tuotanto - kotimainen ja kansainvälinen Cox, R., Dowler, E. & Tuomainen, H. näkökulma. Available on the Internet: 2006. Possible Food Economies: A http://www.eettinenfoorumi.org/ Methodological Framework for Exploring foorumit_6_helenius.shtml. Cited Food Production-Consumption 19.10.2006. Relationships. Sociologia Ruralis 47: 1–19. Helenius, J., Aro-Heinilä, E., Hietala- Koivu, R., Mikkola, M., Risku-Norja, Holt, G. & Amilien, V. 2007. Introduction: H., Seppänen, L., Sinkkonen, M. & from local food to localised food. Vihma, A. 2007. Systems frame for Anthropology of Food S2 March. multidisciplinary study on sustainability Available on the Internet: http:// of localizing food. Progress in Industrial aof.revues.org/document496.html. Ecology 4–5: 328–347. Accessed on 2 July 2007.

Herzi, A.A. & Dovers, S.R. 2006. Huppes, G., de Koning, A., Suh, S., Heijungs, Sustainability indicators, policy and R., van Oers, L., Nielsen, P. & Guinée, governance: issues for ecological J.B. 2006. Environmental Impacts of economics. Ecological Economics 60: Consumption in the European Union: 86–99. High-Resolution Input-Output Tables with Detailed Environmental Extensions. Hietala-Koivu, R. 2003. Lost field margins. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10: 129– A study of landscape change in four 146. case areas in Finland between 1954- 1998. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Hyvönen, K. & Perrels, A. 2008. CLIMATE 165: 1–81. BONUS. Linking Carbon Footprints, Personal Emission Monitoring, and Hietala-Koivu, R., Lankoski, J. & Tarmi, Personal Emission Monitoring, and S. 2004. Loss of biodiversity and its Bonus Card Systems. social cost in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment IAASTD 2009. Global summary for decision 103: 75–83. makers. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Hinrichs, C.C. & Allen, P. 2008. Selective Technology for Development. 48 p. Patronage and Social Justice: Local Available on the Internet: http://www. Food Consumer Campaigns in Historical agassessment.org/. Cited 10.4.2010. Context. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 21: 329–352. IFOAM 2008. The Principles of Organic Agriculture. Available on the Internet: Hinterberger, F., Giljum, S. & Hammer, http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/ M. 2003. Material Flow Accouonting principles/index.html. Cited 10.4.2010. and Analysis (MFA). A valuable tool for analyses of society-nature IPCC 2005. CORRIGENDUM (GPGAUM- interrelationships. Entry prepared for Corr.2001.01, 15 June 2001). Available the Internet Encyclopedia of Ecological on the Internet: http://www.ipcc-nggip. Economics. Sustainable Europe iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/. Cited Research Institute (SERI). p. 1–19. 10.5.2009.

Höhn, B. 1997. Providing for the Future Isoniemi, M., Mäkelä, J., Arvola, A., Forsman- trough Avoidance – a Precondition Hugg, S., Lampila, P., Paananen, J. for Change in Ecological Structures. & Roininen, K. 2006. Kuluttajien ja Analysis for Action: Support Policy kunnallisten päättäjien näkemyksiä lähi-

54 MTT SCIENCE 15 ja luomuruoasta. Julkaisuja 1. Helsinki: Kloppenburg, J., Lezberg, S., de Master, Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus. 90 p. K., Stevenson, G.W., Hendrickson, J & Hendrickson, J. Grey, M.A. 2000. Jaffee, D., Kloppenburg, J. & Monroy, M. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: 2004. Bringing the “Moral Charge” defining the attributes of an alternative home: far trade within the North and food system with competent, ordinary within the South. Rural Sociology 69: people. Human Organization 59: 169–196. 177–186.

Johansson, S. 2005. The Swedish Koikkalainen, K. & Rikkonen, P. 2002. Maa- Foodprint. An agroecological study of ja puutarhatalouden tilamallit panos- food consumption. Doctoral thesis. tuotosmalliin (in Finnish). (Farm and The Swedish University of Agricultural horticultural models). In: Risku-Norja, Sciences. Uppsala: SLU. 96 p. Available H. (ed.). Material flows, ecoefficiency on the Internet: http://diss-epsilon. and sustainable compatibility of food slu.se:8080/archive/00000843/01/ production. Technical documentation. FOODPRINT.pdf MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Agrifood Research Working Papers 27: Juutinen, A. 2000. Energiamateriaalien 11–31. virrat. University of Oulu, Thule Institute. 23 p. Kottila, M.-R. 2010.Understanding the organic chain. The framework of the Kauffman, J. 2009. Advancing sustainability interaction between actors in organic science: report on the International chains in relation to the ecological Conference on Sustainability Science modernisation of food production. (ICSS) 2009. Sustainability Science Doctoral thesis. University of Helsinki, 4: 233–242. Department of Agricultural Sciences I Publications 13. Available on the Kerkhof, A., Nonhebel, S. & Moll, H. Internet: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978- 2009. Relating the environmental 952-10-4304-8. Cited 2.9.2010. impact of consumption to household expenditures: An input-output analysis. KTL 2004. FINELI - elintarvikkeiden Ecological Economics 68: 1160–1170. koostumustietopankki. Available on the Internet: http://www.fineli.fi/ Cited Kirchmann, H., Ryan, M.H. & Bergström, 10.5.2009. L. 2007. Plant nutrient use efficiency in organic farming - consequences KULTU 2005. Programme to promote of exclusive use of organic manures sustainable consumption and and untreated minerals. CAB Reviews: production. Finnish Ministry of the Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Environment. Available on the Internet: Science, Nutrition and Natural http://www.ymparisto.fi/default. Resources 2, 076: 1–12. asp?contentid=62075&lan=en. Cited 10.5.2009. Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede, S., Erb, K., Giljum, Kytzia, S., Faist, M. & Baccini, P. 2004. S., Haberl, H., Hails, C., Jolia-Ferrier, Economically extended - MFA: a L., Jungwirth, S., Lenzen, M., Lewis, material flow approach for a better K., Loh, J., Marchettini, N., Messinger, understanding of food production H., Milne, K., Moles, R., Monfreda, chain. Journal of C., Moran, D., Nakano, K., Pyhälä, A., 12: 877–889. Rees, W., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M., Wada, Y., Walsh, C. & Wiedmann, T. Lähiruokatyöryhmä 2000. Lähiruoan 2009. A research agenda for improving mahdollisuudet. Lähiruokatyöryhmän national Ecological Footprint accounts. loppuraportti. Maaseutupolitiikan yh­ Ecological Economics 68: 1991–2007. teistyöryhmän julkaisu 6/2000. Helsinki. 36 p. Klages, K.H.W. 1942. Ecological Crop Geography. New York: Macmillan Lal, R. 2008. Soils and sustainable Company. 615 p. agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28: 57–64. Kloppenburg, J., Jr., Hendrickson, J. & Stevenson, G.W. 1996. Coming into Lal, R. 2009. Soils and food sufficiency. the foodshed. Agriculture and Human A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Values 13: 33–42. Development 29: 113–133.

MTT SCIENCE 15 55 Lampinen, A. & Jokinen, E. 2006. Suomen Luoto, M., Pykälä , J. & Kuussaari, M. maatilojen energiantuotantopotentiaalit. 2003b. Decline of landscape-scale Ekologinen perspektiivi. Jyväskylä: habitat and species diversity after the University of Jyväskylä. Research end of cattle grazing. Journal for Nature reports in biological and environmental Conservation 11: 171–178. sciences 84. 160 p. Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, Lang, T. & Heasman, M. 2004. Food Wars - L., Fried, P. & Niggli, U. 2002. Organic The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Farming and Energy Efficiency. Science Markets. London: Earthscan. 365 p. 298 (5600): 1891–1891.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: Mäenpää, I. 2004. Kulutuksen ympä­ And Sketches Here and There. Oxford ris­tö­kuormitus (Environmental University Press. 227 p. impact of consumption). Thule Insititute, University of Oulu. Oulu, Levidow, L. & Darrot, C. 2010. Local Food Finland. Available on the Internet: Systems: practices and strategies. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download. Local Food Systems: practices and asp?contentid=42088&lan=FI. 36 p. strategies. Facilitating alternative agrofood networks (FAAN) European Mäenpää, I. 2005. Physical flow accounts, Workshop. European Community’s Calculation methods and concepts, Seventh Framework Progrmme. 46 p. Material balances of Finland 1999. Statistics Finland, Thule Institute, Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Helsinki, 171 p. Souchère, V., Alberola, C. & Ménassieu, J. 2009. Agronomy for sustainable Mäenpää, I., Juutinen, R., Puustinen K., agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Rintala, J., Risku-Norja, H., Veijalainen, Sustainable Development 29: 1–6. S. & Viitanen, M. 2000. Luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö Suomessa. Natural Limnios, E.A.M., Ghadouani, A., Schilizzi, resource use of Finland. Finnish Ministry S.G.M. & Mazzarol, T. 2009. Giving the of the Environment. Helsinki. The Finnish consumer the choice: A methodology Environment 428. 90 p. for Product Ecological Footprint calculation. Ecological Economics Mäenpää, I. & Vanhala, P. 2002. Biologinen 68: 2525–2534. aineenvaihdunta ja elintarviketalouden ainevirrat Suomessa 1995. Biological Lötjönen, T., Muuttomaa, E., Koikkalainen, metabolism and material flows of K., Seuri, P. & Klemola, E. 2004. the food sector in Finland in 1995. Laajamittaisen luomutuotannon In: Risku-Norja, H. (ed.). Material teknologia - taloudellinen toteutettavuus flows, ecoefficiency and sustainable ja ekologinen kestävyys. (Production compatibility of food production. technology of large-scale organic Technical documentation. MTT Agrifood farming as an economic and ecological Research Finland, Agrifood Research challenge). MTT Agrifood Research Working Papers 27. p. 32–99. Available Finland, Agrifood Research Reports on the Internet: http://www.mtt.fi/mtts/ 44. 131 p + 4 appendices. Available on pdf/mtts27.pdf. Cited 10.4.2010. the Internet: http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/ met44.pdf. Cited 10.5.2009. Mansikkaniemi, H. 1982. Soil erosion in areas of intensive cultivation in Lovins, L.H. 2008. Rethinking production. In: southwestern Finland. Fennia 160: State of the World 2008: Innovation for 225–276. a Sustainble Economy. The Worldwatch Institute. p. 32–44. Available on the Maxime, D., Marcotte, M. & Arcand, Y. Internet: http://www.worldwatch.org/ 2006. Development of eco-efficiency files/pdf/SOW08_chapter_3.pdf. Cited indicators for the Canadian food and 10.4.2010. beverage industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 636–648. Luoto, M., Rekolainen, S., Aakkula, J. & Pykälä, J. 2003a. Loss of plant species Marsden, T. 2004. The quest for ecological richness and habitat connectivity in modernisation: re-spacing rural grasslands associated with agricultural development and agri-food studies. change in Finland. Ambio 32: 447–452. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 129–146.

56 MTT SCIENCE 15 Marsden, T., Banks, J. & Bristow, G. MMMb Annual issues. Register of garden 2000. Food supply chain approaches: enterprises. Information Centre of the exploring their role in rural development. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 424–438. Helsinki, Finland.

Matthews, E., Amann, C, Bringezu, S. MMM 2001. Maa- ja metsätalousministe­ Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., Kleijn, riön luonnonvarastrategia. Uusiutuvien R., Moriguchi, Y., Ottke, C., Rodenburg, luonnonvarojen kestävä käyttö. Ministry E., Rogich, D., Schandl, H., Schütz, H., of Agriculture and Forestry. Publications van der Voet, E. & Weisz, H. 2000. The 8/2001. Helsinki, Finland. 112 p. weight of nations: Material outflows from industrial economies. World Resources MMM 2002. Strategy for sustainable use of Institute Report. Washington D.C. renewable natural resources in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. McGarigal, K. & Marks, B.J. 1995. Publications 8b. Helsinki, Finland. 94 p. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape MMM/TIKE 2003. Peruslohkojen sijainti structure. United States Deparment loh­kojen ala-, kehämitta- sekä of Agriculture, Pacific Nrothwest viljelykasvitietoineen vuodelta 2002 Research Station, General Technical Juvan kunnan alueelta. Tietoraportti. Report PNW-GTR-351. 132 p. Available on the Internet: http://www.fs.fed. MMM 2004a Indicators for natural resource us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr351.pdf. Cited use 2003. Luonnonvaramittarit 2003 - 10.10.2007. koottua tietoa luonnonvarojen tilasta ja kestävästä käytöstä. Ministry of MEA 2005. Ecosystems and Human Agriculture and Forestry. Helsinki, Well-being. Synthesis. A Report of the Finland. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 155 p. Available on the Internet: MMM 2004b. Balance sheets for food http://www.maweb.org/en/article. accommodates 2003. Information aspx?id=58. Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Helsinki, Finland. METLA 2010. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry: Tables and figures. Available MMM 2007. Balance sheets for food on the Internet: http://www.metla.fi/ accommodates 2006. Information metinfo/tilasto/julkaisut/vsk/. Cited Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and 10.3.2010. Forestry. Helsinki, Finland.

Mickwitz, P. & Melanen, M. 2009. MMM 2009. Yearbook of farm statistics The role of co-operation between 2007. Helsinki: Information Centre of academia and policymakers for the the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and development and use of sustainability Forestry. indicators – a case from the Finnish Kymenlaakso Region. Journal of Cleaner Mononen, T. 2006. Yhteiskuntatieteellisen Production 17: 1086–1100. elintarviketutkimuksen linjoja. In: Mononen, T. & Silvasti, T. (eds.). Ruoka­ Milanez, B. & Bührs, T. 2007. Marrying kysymys. Näkökulmia yhteiskuntatie­ strands of ecological modernization: teelliseen elintarviketutkimukseen. A proposed framework. Environmental Helsinki: Gaudeamus. p. 25–52. politics 16: 565–583. Muilu, H. 2004. Mandariinista mustikkaan. Ministry of the Environment 1998. Ohje koti­ Tutkimus paikallisten metsämarjojen eläintalouden ympäristönsuojelusta. hyödyntämisestä kouluruokailussa. Pro (in Finnish). Available on the Internet: gradu -tutkielma. Helsinki: Helsingin http://www.ymparisto.fi/download. yliopisto, sovelletun biologian laitos. asp?contentid=22354&lan=fi. Cited 61 p. 23.2.2004. Muukka, E., Kuosmanen, L., Ylinampa, M., MMMa Annual issues. Yearbook of farm Blomquist, U., Kärkkäinen, I., Malaska, statistics. Information Centre of the K., Soininen, T. & Soininen, J. 2008. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Lähiruokaa Suomen kunnissa. Selvitys Helsinki, Finland. lähiruuan käytöstä julkisella sektorilla. Publication series A of Savo Consortium for Education, Studies and reports,

MTT SCIENCE 15 57 publication 4. EkoCentria. Savonlinna, ruokapalveluissa. Esiselvitys päättäjien Finland. 58 p. näkemyksistä. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Agrifood Research Working Nabhan, G. 2002. Coming home to eat: The Papers 88. 32 p. + 2 appendices. pleasures and politics of local foods. Available on the Internet: http://www. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. mtt.fi/mtts/pdf/mtts88.pdf. 230 p. Patel, R. 2008. Stuffed and Starved: The Nestle, M. 2006. What to eat. New York: Hidden Battle for the World Food North Point Press. 624 p. System. UK: Portabello Books. 416 p.

Niemi, J. & Ahlstedt, J. (eds.). 2007. Peltonen, S. 1996. Maaperäeroosio ja Finnish agriculture and rural industries pintaveden laatu Unajanjoen valuma- 2007. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, alueen alaosassa Lounais-Suomessa. Economic Research, Publications 107a. (Soil erosion and water quality in the 96 p. lower part of the Unajanjoki drainage basin, southwestern Finland). Terra 108: Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T. & 143–159. Gorelick, S. 2002. Bringing the food economy home: Local alternatives to Pipatti, R. 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions global agribusiness. Bloomfield, CT: and removals in Finland. Technical Kumarian Press, Inc. 164 p. Research Centre of Finland. Espoo, Finland. VTT Research Notes 2094. OECD 1997. Ecoefficiency: Decoupling 59 p. + 95 appendices. Available on Economic Growth from Environmental the Internet: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/ Damage. OECD, Environment tiedotteet/2001/T2094.pdf. Cited Directorate, Environmental Policy 10.10.2007. committee. ENV/EPOC/PPC (97)8. Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma: OECD 2001. OECD Gross nitrogen balances. A natural history of four meals. 136 p. Handbook. The 2nd draft. 20 September 2002. Orgnisation for Co-operation and Popkin, B.M. 2009. The word is fat: new Development. Environment Directoriate. dynamic shifts in patterns of nutrition Paris. transition. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 55: 5–5. OECD 2007a. Measuring material flows and resource productivity. The accounting Popkin, B. & Ng, S.W. 2007. The nutrition framework. ENV/EPOC/SE(2006)4/ transition in high- and low-income REV1. Orgnisation for Co-operation and countries: what are the policy lessons? Development. Environment Directoriate. Agricultural Economics 37: 199–211. Paris. Prättälä, R. 2003. Dietary changes in Finland OECD 2007b. Measuring material flows and - success stories and future challenges. resource productivity. The OECD guide. Appetite 41: 245–249. ENV/EPOC/SE(2006)1/REV3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. & Morison, and Development. Environment J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: Directorate. Paris. An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy OECD 2008. Measuring material flows 30: 1–19. and productivity: Synthesis report. Paris: OECD. 57 p. Available on ProAgria 2003. Maatalouskalenteri 2003. the Internet: http://www.oecd.org/ ProAgria Maaseutukeskusten Liitto. dataoecd/55/12/40464014.pdf. Cited 10.4.2010. Puolanne, E., Wilenius, M. & työryhmät 2002. Elintarviketalouden reunaehdot Omernik, J.M. 2004. Perspectives on vuoteen 2030 mennessä – ETU the nature and definition of ecological 2030. Publications of the Ministry regions. Environmental Management of Agriculture and Forestry 9/2002. 34: 27–38. 127 p. Available on the Internet: http:// wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/ Paananen, J. & Forsman-Hugg, S. 2005. MMMjulkaisu2002_9.pdf. Cited Lähi- ja luomuruoka kunnallisissa 10.10.2007.

58 MTT SCIENCE 15 Puurunen, M., Turunen, H., Knuutila, K., Risku-Norja, H., Kurppa, S., Silvennoinen, Uusitalo, P., Turtola, E., Lemola, R., K., Nuoranne, A. & Skinnari, J. 2010. Laitinen P., Ylivainio, K., Risku-Norja, Julkiset ruokapalvelut ja ruokakasvatus: H., Jansson, H., Karhu, E., Grönroos, arjen käytäntöjen kautta kestävään J., Mattila, P., Pyykkönen, S., Ekhom, ruokahuoltoon. MTT Kasvu 10. P., Grallund, K., Rankinen, K., Räike, Jokionen: MTT. 51 p. Available on the A., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari, M., Pykälä, Internet: http://www.mtt.fi/mttkasvu/ J., Schulman, A. & Hietala-Koivu, R. pdf/mttkasvu10.pdf. Cited 2.9.2010. 2004. Horisontaalisen maaseudun kehittämis­ohjelman väliarviointi: Manner- Risku-Norja, H. & Mikkola, M. 2010. Suomi. Publications of the Ministry of Towards sustainable food systems Agriculture and Forestry 1/2004. 272 through innovative networks in public p. + 28 appendices. Available on the catering. Paper presented at the 9th Internet: http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/ European IFSA Symposium “Building julkaisusarja/MMMjulkaisu2004_1.pdf. sustainable rural futures - The added Cited 10.4.2010. value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty”. p. 1–8. Pykälä, J., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R.K. & Kontula, T. 2005. Plant species Risku-Norja, H., Voutilainen, O. & Yli-Viikari, richness and persistence of rare plants A. 2011. Rural development in Finland: in abandoned semi-natural grasslands revival of a natural resource sectors’ in northern Europe. Basic and Applied perspective. Society and Natural Ecology 6: 25–33. Resources 24: 75–84.

Rapport, D.J. 2007. Sustainability science: RKTL 2010. Game, reindeer and fishery an ecohealth perspective. Sustainability statistics. Available on the Internet: Science 2: 77–84. http://www.rktl.fi/tilastot/. Cited 3.3.2010. Rapport, D.J., Hilden, M. & Weppling, K. 2000. Restoring the health of the earth’s Rosen, C.J. & Allan, D. 2007. Exploring the ecosystems: A new challenge for the benefits of organic nutrient sources earth sciences. Episodes 23: 12–19. for crop production and soil quality. HortTechnology 17: 422–430. Reijnders, L. 2008. The Factor X Debate: Setting Targets for Eco-Efficiency. Rosenström, U. 2009. Sustainability Journal of Industria Ecology 2: 13–22. indicators. Much wanted, less used? Monographs of the Boreal Renting, H., Marsden, T. & Banks, J. Environment Research 33. PhD thesis. 2003. Understanding alternative food University of Helsinki, Faculty of networks: exploring the role of short Biosciences, Department of Biological supply chains in rural development. and Environmental Sciences. 77 p. Environment and Planning A, 35: 393– Available on the Internet: https://www. 411. doria.fi/handle/10024/44849. Cited 29.10.2010. Risku-Norja, H. 2000. Luonnonvarojen kokonaiskäyttö Suomen maataloudessa Rydin, Y. 2007. Indicators as a governmental 1970-97. Osaraportti 2. Oulun yliopisto, technology? The lessons of community- Thule Instituutti. Oulu. 34 p. Available on based sustainability indicator projects. the Internet: http://thule.oulu.fi/raportit/ Environment and Planning D: Society tmrfin/maatalous2.pdf. and Space 25: 610–624.

Risku-Norja, H., Hietala, R., Ketomäki, Sandersson, I. 2000. Evaluation in complex H. & Virtanen, H. 2007. Paikallinen policy systems. Evaluation 6: 433–454. ruokajärjestelmä: ruoantuotanto ja -kulutus sekä ympäristövaikutukset. Schlich, E.H. & Fleissner, U. 2005. The Aineisto ja menetelmät. (Localisation ecology of scale: Assessment of regional of food production and dietary changes: energy turnover and comparison with environmental impacts. Technical global food. International Journal of Life report). MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Cycle Assessment 10: 219–223. Agrifood Research Working Papers 135. 43 p. Available on the Internet: http:// Schmidt-Bleek, F. & Lettenmeier, M. 2000. www.mtt.fi/mtts/pdf/mtts135.pdf. Cited Luonnon uusi laskuoppi ekotehokkuuden 5.3.2009. mittari MIPS. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. 311 p.

MTT SCIENCE 15 59 Schoer, K., Gravgård, O. & Femia, A. 2007. pre.nl/simapro/prices.htm. Cited Harmonization of all SEEA Physical Flow 6.4.2010. Accounts into an SNA-coherent system in the light of the OECD Guidance Sinclair, P., Papathanasopoulou, E., Mellor, Manual on Material Flow Accounts. W. & Jackson, T. 2005. Towards an 12th Meeting of the London Group on Integrated Regional Materials Flow Environmental Accoounting. Rome, Accounting Model. Journal of Industrial 17-19 December 2007. 14 p. Available Ecology 9: 69–84. on the Internet: http://unstats.un.org/ unsd/envaccounting/londongroup/ Sonnino, R. 2007. The Power of Place: meeting12/LG12_2a.pdf. Embeddedness and Local Food Systems in Italy and the UK. Anthropology of Scoullos, M. 2009. The framework of Food 52. Sustainable Development (SD) and Education for Sustainable Development Starr, M.A. 2009. The Social Economic in Higher Education. Presentation at the of Ethical Consumption: Theoretical conference: Halfway through the UN- Considerations and Empirical Evidence. decade for Education for Sustainable The Journal Socio-Economics 38: Development Lessons learned and 916–925. missions to follow in higher education. Baltic University Programme in Finland. Statistics Finland 1999. Input-output 1995. Available on the Internet: http://www. Official Statistics of Finland. National bup.fi/index.php/Event-Reports- Economy 10. Helsinki. Protocols/conference-presentations. Statistics Finland 2007. Greenhouse html. Cited 2.3.2010. gas emissions in Finland 1990-2005. Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., National inventory report for the Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, UNFCCC. Available on the Internet: J.-M., Härmä, T., Korhonen, M.-R., http://www.stat.fi/greenhousegases. Saari­nen, M. & Virtanen, Y. 2009. Cited 20.5.2007. Suomen kansantalouden materiaali­ Statistics Finland 2008. Rural indicators virtojen ympäristövaikutusten arviointi (Maaseutuindikaattorit). Available on ENVIMAT-mallilla. Helsinki: Finnish the Internet: http://www.stat.fi/tup/ Environment Institute (SYKE). The tilastotietokannat/index_en.html. Cited Finnish Environment 20/2009. 134 p. 10.4.2010. Seppänen, L. 2004. Perspectives as Statistics Finland 2009. Energiatilasto, resources for the construction of local Vuosi­kirja 2008. Helsinki: Statistics food systems. 8th Annual Conference of Finland. The Nordic-Scottish University Network for Rural and Regional Development in Stenseke, M. 2006. Biodiversity and Ristiina, Finland, June 17-19, 2004. the local context: linking seminatural grasslands and their future use to SERI 2009. Overconsumption? Our use social aspects. Environmental Science of the world’s natural resources. ed. & Policy 9: 350–359. Sustainable Europe Research Institute. 36 p. Available on the Internet: http:// SYKE 2005. The Baltic Sea reacts with delay old.seri.at/documentupload/SERI%20 on environmental measures. Available on PR/overconsumption--2009.pdf. the Internet: http://www.environment.fi/ default.asp?contentid=130691&lan=EN. SERI 2010. The online portal for material Cited 26.5.2007. flow data. 2010. Available on the Internet: http://www.materialflows.net/. Syväsalo, E., Regina, K., Turtola, E. & Esala, Cited 10.4.2010. M. 2004. Greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching from organic Shields, D.J., Solar, S.V. & Martin, W.E. and conventional farming systems. In: 2002. The role of values and objectives Weiske, A. (ed.). Proceedings of the in communicating indicators of international conference: greenhouse sustainability. Ecological Indicators gas emissions from agriculture mitigation 2: 149–160. options and strategies. February 10-12, SimaPro 2010. SimaPro LCA software. 2004. Leipzig, Germany. p. 223–224. Available on the Internet: http://www.

60 MTT SCIENCE 15 Tansey, G. & Worsley, T. 2000. The food Council for Sustainable Development. system. A guide. London: Earthscan 30 p. + 5 appendices. Available on the Publications Ltd. Internet: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/ publications/measuring_eco_efficiency. Tennilä, L. 2000. Consumption of foodstuffs pdf. Cited 2.3.2010. 1998. Official Statistics of Finland. Incomes and Consumption. 18 p. Vinnari, M., Montonen, J., Härkänen, T. & Männistö, S. 2009. Identifying Tuori, M., Kuoppala, K., Valaja, J., Aimonen, vegetarians and their food consumption E., Saarisalo, E. & Huhtanen, P. 2002. according to self-identification and Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset. operationalized definition in Finland. Jokioinen: MTT. Public Health Nutrition 12: 481–488.

UN, EU, IMF, OECD & World Bank 2003. Virtanen, Y., Hyvärinen, H., Katajajuuri, Integrated Environmental an Economic J.-M., Kurppa, S., Nousiainen, J., Saari­ Accounting 2003. Handbook on national nen, M., Sinkko, T., Usva, K., Virtanen, J., acccounting. 572 p. Available on the Voutilainen, P., Ekholm, P., Grönroos, J., Internet: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ Koskela, S., Väänänen, S. & Mäenpää, I. environment/seea2003.pdf. 2009. Elintarvikeketjun ympäristövastuun taustaraportti. Ministry of Agriculture Uusitalo, R. & Ekholm, P. 2003. Phosphorus and Forestry. Helsinki. 148 p. Available in runoff assessed by anion exchange on the Internet: http://www.laatuketju. resin extraction and an algal assay. fi/laatuketju/www/fi/julkaisut/Microsoft_ Journal of Environmental Quality Word_-_Ketjuvastuu_15_12__final.pdf. 32: 633–641. Cited 2.3.2010.

Uusitalo, R., Turtola, E., Kauppila, T. & VN 2007. Hallitusohjelma, Pääministeri Matti Lilja, T. 2001. Particulate phosphorus Vanhasen II hallituksen ohjelma 2007. and sediment in surface runoff and Available on the Internet: http://www. drainflow from clayey soils. Journal of valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitus/hallitusohjelma/ Environmental Quality 30: 589–595. fi.jsp. Cited 10.4.2010. van der Ploeg, J.D., Renting, H., Brunori, van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Moll, S., G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, Schütz, H., Bringezu, S., de Bruyn, T., de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzman, E. & S., Sevenster, M. & Warringa, G. Ventura, F. 2000. Rural Development: 2005. Policy Review on Decoupling: From practices and policies towards Development of indicators to assess theory. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 391–408. decoupling of economic development and environmental pressure in the van Ginkel, H. 2009. Why Universities need EU-25 and AC-3 countries. European to change ... and how? In: Blomqvist, Community. 159 p. Available on E. & Lindroos, P. (eds.). Halfway the Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/ through the UN-decade for Education environment/natres/pdf/fin_rep_natres. for Sustainable Development. Lessons pdf learned and missions to follow in higher education. Baltic University Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Schulz, N., Programme in Finland. Presentation Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H. & Krausmann, F. at the conference. September 22-23, 2004. Calculating national and global 2009, Turku, Finland. Available on the ecological footprint time series: Internet: http://www.bup.fi/index.php/ resolving conceptual challenges. Land Event-Reports-Protocols/conference- use Policy 21: 271–278. presentations.html. Cited 2.3.2010. Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. 1996. Our Vanhala, P. & Mäenpää, I. 2002. ecological footprint - Reducing human Maatalouden materiaalivirtojen las­ impact on the Earth. Environment & kentamalli MaMa. MTT Agrifood Urbanization 8: 216. Research Finland, Agrifood Research Working Papers 27. p. 100–112. Available Watson, C.A., Stockdale, E.A. & Rees, R.M. on the Internet: http://www.mtt.fi/mtts/ 2008. Assessment and maintenance pdf/mtts27.pdf. Cited 4.3.2010. of soil fertility in temperate organic agriculture. CAB Reviews: Perspectives Verfaillie, H.A. & Bidwell, R. 2000. Measuring in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Eco-Efficiency: A guide to reporting Nutrition and Natural Resources 3: company performance. World Business 1–11.

MTT SCIENCE 15 61 Watts, D.C.H., Ilbery, B. & Maye, D. Geographics of Global Change. Malden, 2005. Making reconnections in agro- MA: Blackwell Publishers. p. 58–67. food geography: alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J. & Geography 29: 22–40. Wackernagel, M. 2006. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption WBCSD 2000. Eco-Efficiency: Creating categories with input-output analysis. more value with less impact. 36 p. Ecological Economics 56: 28–48. Available on the Internet: http://www. wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_ Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P. & Pelot, R. 2007. efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. WCED 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Ecological Indicators 7: 299–314. Oxford University Press. 400 p. WRI 2006. Earth trends. Available on the Weibull, A.-C., Östman, Ö. & Granqvist, Internet: http://www.earthtrends.wri. Å. 2003. Species richness in org/searchable_db. Cited 28.8.2006. agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm Yli-Viikari, A. 2009. Confusing messages management. Biodiversity and of sustainability indicators. Local Conservation 12: 1335–1355. Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 14: Weinzettel, J. & Kovanda, J. 2009. 891–903. Assessing Socioeconomic Metabolism Through Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment. Yli-Viikari, A., Hietala-Koivu, R., Huusela- Journal of Industrial Ecology 13: 607– Veistola, E., Hyvönen, T., Perälä, 621. P. & Turtola, E. 2007. Evaluating agri-environmental indicators (AEIs)- Weisz, H., Krausmann, F., Amann, C., Use and limitations of international Eisenmenger, N. & Hubacek, K. 2005. indicators at national level. Ecological Development of material use in the EU- Indicators 7: 150–163. 15: 1970-2001. Material composition, cross-country comparison, and York, R. & Rosa, E.A. 2003. Key challenges material flow indicators. Eurtostat. to ecological modernization theory: Luxembourg. Institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the Wernick, I. & Irwin, F. 2005. Material pace of eco-efficiency. Organization & Flow Accounts: A Tool For Making Environment 16: 273–288. Environmental Policy. Washington D.C. World Reources Institute. 49 p. Young, H.P. 2009. Innovation Diffusion in Available on the Internet: http://pdf.wri. Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, org/WRI_MFA_Policy.pdf. Social Influence, and Social Learning. American Economic Review 99: Wezel, A., Soldat, V., Wezel, A. & Soldat, 1899–1924. V. 2009. A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific Young, S. 2001. The emergence of discipline of agroecology. International ecological modernization: Integrating Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: the environment and the economy? 3–18. Second ed. New York: Routledge. Research in Environmental Politics. Whatmore, S. 2002. From farming to 253 p. agribusiness. The global agro-food system. In: Johnston, R.J. et al. (eds.)

62 MTT SCIENCE 15 15

From environmental concerns towards sustainable food provisioning. Material flow and food consumption scenario studies on sustainability of agri-food systems

MTT is publishing its research findings in two series of publications: MTT Science and MTT Growth. Doctoral Dissertation

MTT CREATES VITALITY THROUGH SCIENCE Helmi Risku-Norja

www.mtt.fi/julkaisut

The MTT Science series includes scientific presentations and abstracts from conferences arranged by MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Doctoral dissertations by MTT research scientists will also be published in this series. The topics range from agricultural and food research to environmental research in the field of agriculture.

MTT, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland. Tel. +358 3 4188 2327, email [email protected]