Reconciling Techno-simplicity and Eco-complexity for future food security

Ecological intensification has been proposed as a paradigm for ensuring global food security while preserving biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Ecologicalintensification was originally coined to promote precise site-specific farming practices aimed at reducing yield gaps, while avoiding negative environmental impacts (techno-simplicity). Recently, it has been extended to stress the importance of landscape complexity to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services (eco-complexity). While these perspectives on ecological intensification may seem distinct, they are not incompatible and should be interwoven to create more comprehensive and practical solutions. Here, we argue that designing cropping systems to be more diverse, across space and time would be an effective route to accomplish environmentally-friendly intensification of crop production. Such a novel approach will require better integration of knowledge at the landscape level for increasing agro-biodiversity(focused on interventions outside fields) with strategies diversifying croppingsystems to manage weeds and pests (focused on interventions inside fields).Fil: Poggio, Santiago Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Producción Vegetal. Cátedra de Producción Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Macfadyen, Sarina. CSIRO; AustraliaFil: Bohan, David A.. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique; Franci

Fashion Education in Sustainability: Change Through Experiential Crossings

Sustainability is distinguished by its multidimensional, messy, big and small transformational change processes that impact the world on all scales and timelines that are both short and long. This is, whilst challenging, full of diverse possibilities. To be path makers and navigators through this complexity requires us to teach and learn skills, knowledge and understanding of our relationships with each other and with our natural world. It requires us to hone our skills of imagination as well as our practical skills of creation and communication. Education for sustainability offers us a means to unlock the current fashion educational paradigm, which has become, in many cases, a service led model of educational provision for current business functions. It offers the means to change towards education that is based on a nurturing of culture, creativity and critical thinking, so that we are capable of responding to global and local contexts to contribute towards thriving societies, cultures and economies. The places, players, and their roles in this process differ substantially from traditional fashion education hierarchical models. This paper explores this changing paradigm through a case study at London College of Fashion, guided by Dilys Williams, Director Centre for Sustainable Fashion. The project worked with thirty undergraduate students across disciplines in fashion design and communication, their tutors, and a world leading sportswear brand’s design, communication and education teams. The author has developed an experiential and reflexive learning process through a number of iterations to explore design for sustainability (DfS) through teaching and learning methods that visualize our interdependence, support a mutual learning environment, and begin to explore cause and effect of our actions and interactions. This project engages this approach to explore ways in which the business could de-couple success from the throughput of material goods through this project based in the UK and the US

The Making of a Social Object: Collaboration between Nike and Centre for Sustainable Fashion

Introduction: The Centre for Sustainable Fashion (CSF) is a group of researchers, designers and communicators, brought together through shared ambitions around the possibility of fashion: a means to connect us to each other and with nature, and a means to make real our adaptability to time and place. It seeks ways for osmosis between human, ecological and technological elements to create a mixture that makes for better balance and a life well lived, as applied through fashion’s personal and collective practices. The centre’s work is situated in the cross referencing of research projects (often working with others outside of fashion), the development of innovative commercial practices (with large and small businesses), and the teaching and learning of design for sustainability (with undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD students). We seek ways and places to connect and be adaptable as individuals, evolving a unique sense of who we are in the world, as communities, whether location or interest based, and in our governance and political identities and actions. For this reason, we find ourselves sometimes in the House of Lords, at other times in remote villages, and always looking for space to be reflexive in our work. Sustainability can be distinguished by its multidimensional, non-conformist, not readily acceptable range of change processes and practices. It can lead us to consider fundamental qualities and characteristics of life and challenge our current habits and practices in their respect. It can question us as individuals, communities, and organisations, and can seek in us the qualities of imagination, interaction and sensitivity, along with practical skills of creation and communication. Sustainability is about who we are and what we do and make. This framing means a radical shift in how we experience life, quite different from many of the more easily palatable forms of sustainability within current practices, where efficiencies in existing systems form the visible changes that take place. Designers are well placed to explore these questions and habits, especially when placed in the cross-frame of research, education and current practice. What might be deemed risk in one area can become experimentation opportunity in another. Just such a stretching was tested when Nike’s Sustainable Business Innovation team approached us with a question, charged with possibility, whilst challenged by current infrastructures of global business. ..

Municipal transitions: The social, energy, and spatial dynamics of sociotechnical change in South Tyrol, Italy

With the aim of proposing recommendations on how to use social and territorial specificities as levers for wider achievement of climate and energy targets at local level, this research analyses territories as sociotechnical systems. Defining the territory as a sociotechnical system allows us to underline the interrelations between space, energy and society. Groups of municipalities in a region can be identified with respect to their potential production of renewable energy by means of well-known data-mining approaches. Similar municipalities linking together can share ideas and promote collaborations, supporting clever social planning in the transition towards a new energy system. The methodology is applied to the South Tyrol case study (Italy). Results show eight different spatially-based sociotechnical systems within the coherent cultural and institutional context of South Tyrol. In particular, this paper observes eight different systems in terms of (1) different renewable energy source preferences in semi-urban and rural contexts; (2) different links with other local planning, management, and policy needs; (3) different socio-demographic specificities of individuals and families; (4) presence of different kinds of stakeholders or of (5) different socio-spatial organizations based on land cover. Each energy system has its own specificities and potentialities, including social and spatial dimensions, that can address a more balanced, inclusive, equal, and accelerated energy transition at the local and translocal scale

Delivering on net zero: Scottish Agriculture

The aim of this study was to identify whether, how and at what cost agricultural GHG emissions in Scotland could be reduced by 35% by 2045. In 2017, Scottish agricultural GHG emissions were estimated to be 7.6 Mt CO2e making the 35% target 2.7 Mt CO2e. Building on previous work by SRUC and others, 37 different measures to reduce GHG emissions were evaluated, focusing on improvements in nitrogen fertiliser use, organic manure/slurry storage and use, mechanisation, soil management, cropping systems and management, livestock nutrition, health and breeding, as well as improved farming systems integrating multiple measures, represented by conservation agriculture, organic farming, pasture-fed livestock production and agroforestry. Land use changes, such as from agriculture to peatland or forestry, as well as non-agricultural activities (including input manufacturing, food processing, retailing and consumption) were outside the scope of the study, although consideration was given to food losses on farms arising from decisions in other sectors. Embodied GHG emissions in inputs and impacts of output changes on other countries were also not assessed. In theory, if taken up 100% and accounting for no interactions, the measures could reduce Scottish agricultural emissions by almost 100%. In practice, there are many reasons why measures might not be implemented in combination, or adopted, by all farmers. We estimated that the most promising measures could potentially deliver 2.9 Mt CO2e annually, or 38% of 2017 GHG emissions, and concluded that the 35% target is achievable by 2045. 75% of Scottish agricultural GHG emissions are related to livestock production. This is not surprising given the importance of grassland and rough grazing in Scottish agriculture, which together account for almost 80% of agricultural land. Given this context, measures focused on tillage crops are relatively unimportant with respect to their potential for GHG reduction. The measures with most potential (all specified on annual basis) that we identified were: a) Reduction in nitrogen fertiliser use. Measures to use nitrogen more efficiently, including better use of organic manures, could potentially generate reductions of nearly 350 kt CO2e, or 13% of the target, within the next 10 years, if adopted on most farms. b) More radical reductions in nitrogen fertiliser use, by encouraging the use of legumes in grassland to eliminate or substantially reduce the need for N fertiliser, could reduce emissions by nearly 300 kt CO2e, or 11% of the target, within the next 15 years, if adopted on 40% of grassland. c) The use of legumes combined with rotational grazing techniques in diverse-species grassland, which help build soil organic matter and sequester carbon, could increase the total benefit to 540 kt or 20% of the target. This could potentially be linked with a pasture-fed livestock approach. d) Reducing methane emissions associated with ruminants by using feed additives including 3NOP, nitrates, probiotics, high dietary fat sources and seaweed derivatives could make a significant contribution. In the case of 3NOP, emissions could be reduced by 265 kt or 10% of the target within 10 years, if adopted on most dairy and some other cattle farms. This would require approval of 3NOP as a feed additive so that it can be marketed, and that at an affordable price. e) Improved animal health and breeding, with increased fertility, growth rates and yields, and reduced morbidity/mortality could reduce total livestock numbers needed to deliver the same output, and deliver 366 kt emission reductions (14% of the target) with 40-50% uptake. f) Organic farming, with 40% uptake, could potentially deliver 730 kt CO2e reductions or 27% of the target. This is a result of combining no synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use with an overall 10% reduction in livestock numbers and the conversion of 20% of tillage land to rotational grassland. The financial impacts of these changes are reduced due to the premium markets for organic food. g) Agroforestry also offers potential for substantial reductions: 570 kt (21% of the target) with 30% uptake. This is assuming 10% of farmland is used for trees, with consequent output reductions for crops and livestock, although with some scope to mitigate this. Despite their emission reduction potential, organic farming and agroforestry both have the disadvantages of higher initial investment costs, greater complexity acting as a disincentive to adoption and longer lead-in times, as well as output reductions that, if demand remains unchanged, could lead to an increased requirement for imports and increased emissions elsewhere. However, the widespread adoption of these approaches would need to be considered in the context of changing human and animal diets, and the potential for reducing food losses and waste also highlighted in the report. The financial assessment of these measures indicates that many are likely to be associated with increased costs and, in the absence of other financial benefits, reduced incomes, which would need to be addressed by policy support in some form. In several cases, reductions in nitrate leaching, ammonia emissions and other impacts leading to improvements in water and air quality could provide further justifications for support. In some cases, the improved productivity, for example associated with improved animal health and breeding, could create a win-win situation, with emissions reduction combined with financial benefits. As most of the measures are unlikely to be driven by market forces, policy interventions are likely to be needed, including: • Farming system payments for innovative approaches (whole or part farm) • Input reduction and improved soil management, including support for advice and investments • Regulatory and fiscal options including input taxes and quotas or tradeable carbon quotas linked to input use and sequestration opportunties • Carbon, nitrogen and sustainability auditing • Training, advice and skills • Improved greenhouse gas monitoring and statistics • Targeted research, and • Dietary change and food waste reduction In almost all cases, the practices and systems that could be adopted are well developed and understood, but actions are needed to ensure that financial and knowledge barriers are addressed in order to facilitate their adoption so that the desired GHG mitigation targets can be achieved

Desertification indicators for the European Mediterranean region: state of the art and possible methodological approaches [= Indicatori di desertificazione per il Mediterraneo europeo: stato dell'arte e proposte di metodo]

The Italian Environment Protection Agency (ANPA), and the Desertification Research Centre at the University of Sassary have worked jointly to provide decision-makers with an in-depth analysis of the state of the art and methodologies applicable to the evaluation of the desertification phenomenon. ANPA has promoted this important research activity, within the wider and more dynamic framework of actions it conducts in the Italian National Committee, providing its support to the definition and start up of the National Plan to Combat Desertification and Drought. The complexity of the phenomena and their causes leads to the individuation of a plurality of “actors” who might take the responsibility to carry out actions aimed at combating Desertification and Drought. Indicators represent a crucial link in the chain that, from knowledge, leads to taking decisions and promoting responsible behaviours: starting from an evaluation of the various, physical, biologic, socio-economic processes that contribute to land degradation and desertification, the goal is to individuate indicators that might prove useful in territorial planning and public information activities, and that might be a suitable answer to the request for direct knowledge of the status and evolution of the phenomenon, as well as the opportunity to take actions aimed at mitigating and, above all, preventing the occurrence of the phenomenon

Organic Agriculture and Food Utilization

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 90. Food safety: Many aspects of organic agriculture reduce the risks of pathogens (zoonoses), mycotoxins, bacterial toxins and industrial toxic pollutants, compared to conventional agriculture. However, some other aspects potentially increase them. Reduced resistance to antibiotics in zoonotic pathogens indicates a better prognosis for patients if an infection does occur. For natural plant toxins, the content in plants appears to systematically be 10 to 50 percent higher than in conventional plants. However, this is in a range of concentrations where these compounds have no toxic effect and may even benefit human health. 91. Pesticide poisoning: This is an area where very substantial health problems have been documented, especially among farmers and their families. Pesticide poisoning causes some 20 000 deaths per year globally and an average of 11 days wages lost due to illness, per farmer per incidence, in some areas. Even symptom-free workers often exhibit biomarker changes indicating increased risk of diseases, including Parkinson’s disease. With the present level of knowledge, elimination of such horrible conditions, which can be achieved on a short timescale, is the quantitatively single most important benefit of organic farming in terms of human health. Still, long-term occupational exposure to copper also increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease, but not as much as exposure to synthetic pesticides. 92. Pesticide residues: The levels in organic products are consistently 4 to 5 times lower than in conventional products. However, no definitive causal connection with harm to consumers has ever been demonstrated for food produced in accordance with general (conventional) food safety rules. Errors and accidents can cause contamination with harmful levels of pesticides, but this risk is eliminated when no pesticides are present. Across the different safety risks in both systems, the best managers achieve much better standards than the average producers, and the occurrence of serious hazards is so low that no significant differences have been demonstrated between production systems. 93. Food quality: Consumers generally appreciate that food is authentic and trustworthy and produced with care for them and the environment. So reduced food additives and pesticide residues, good traceability and emphasis on animal welfare all support the perception of organic food as being of high-quality. Differences in taste between organic and conventional food products are strongly affected by interaction with local aspects and therefore show few general trends. Only poultry (broiler) produced according to the organic standards results in a clearly differentiated taste compared with mainstream conventional products. 94. Nutritional adequacy: In developing countries, organic agriculture has several advantages for the provision of nutrients, such as higher Zn/phytate ratio and better amino acid composition in cereals. Also, a more balanced diet due to the greater diversity of organic rotations, including legumes and various types of vegetables, and the need for animals on each farm provide important nutritional benefits. In developed countries, nutritional value is much more difficult to determine. However, the higher levels of plant secondary metabolites and conjugated fatty acids in milk may provide important protection against cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases known to be influenced by diet. 95. Human health: Epidemiological studies have shown better health scores among consumers of organic food for immunological characteristics and weight control, and similar benefits have been reproduced in animal studies, supporting a possible causal role of the food production system. 96. Post-harvest operations: Higher activity of plant defense mechanisms in organic plants reduces the losses during transport and storage. The preference for local products and short supply chains also reduce the loss of quality during transport. 97. Pollution of drinking water: Organic farmers have substantially higher economic incentives than conventional farmers to establish and maintain sufficient capacity for collection, composting and incorporation of animal and human wastes as valuable fertilizer. This is particularly important in areas where sanitation is not provided or standards not enforced by the authorities. Such measures will also substantially reduce contamination with nitrates and phosphorus. There is little evidence that these minerals have any harmful effects on humans, if the drinking water is free of pathogens, except by promoting blooms of toxic algae. 98. Pollution of the environment: Persistent pesticides (such as DDT) have damaged wildlife globally and are still being used in many developing countries. Organic agriculture protects the local environment against all types of pesticides and has potential to benefit the global situation if the proportion of land under organic management becomes large enough to reduce the total use. Pollution with nitrate and phosphorus are major causes of eutrophication. Organic farms leach lower levels of phosphorus into drainage water than conventional ones. For nitrate, the loss from organic farms tends to be slightly lower than conventional, except when comparing organic outdoor pig production with conventional indoor production. However, recent data indicate that organically managed soil may be more efficient at denitrification, releasing most of the nitrate into the atmosphere as harmless N2. If this is a general trend, the benefits of organic farming are much larger than previously estimated