Sustainability

Food Security

Borders are porous, and foods do not require passports to travel. Moreover, with the global demand for food and the rising specialisation in food production, will food one day become a source of insecurity? Will food require safeguards, since they are consumed by people daily every single second? Can food dependency be a source of weakness in a conflict between countries? These questions are asked when food security is questioned.

Extract from World Health Organisation (WHO) on food security :-

Food Security

The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”. Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences. In many countries, health problems related to dietary excess are an ever increasing threat, In fact, malnutrion and foodborne diarrhea are become double burden.
Food security is built on three pillars:

Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.
Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

Food security is a complex sustainable development issue, linked to health through malnutrition, but also to sustainable economic development, environment, and trade. There is a great deal of debate around food security with some arguing that:

There is enough food in the world to feed everyone adequately; the problem is distribution.
Future food needs can - or cannot - be met by current levels of production.
National food security is paramount - or no longer necessary because of global trade.
Globalization may - or may not - lead to the persistence of food insecurity and poverty in rural communities.

Issues such as whether households get enough food, how it is distributed within the household and whether that food fulfils the nutrition needs of all members of the household show that food security is clearly linked to health.
Agriculture remains the largest employment sector in most developing countries and international agriculture agreements are crucial to a country's food security. Some critics argue that trade liberalization may reduce a country's food security by reducing agricultural employment levels. Concern about this has led a group of World Trade Organization (WTO) member states to recommend that current negotiations on agricultural agreements allow developing countries to re-evaluate and raise tariffs on key products to protect national food security and employment. They argue that WTO agreements, by pushing for the liberalization of crucial markets, are threatening the food security of whole communities. Related issues include:

What is the net impact of the further liberalization of food and agricultural trade, considering the widely differing situations in developing countries?
To what extent can domestic economic and social policies - and food, agricultural and rural development policies - offset the diverse (and possibly negative) impacts of international policies, such as those relating to international trade?
How can the overall economic gains from trade benefit those who are most likely to be suffering from food insecurity?
Do gains “trickle down” to enhance economic access to food for the poor?
How can food and agricultural production and trade be restrained from the over-exploitation of natural resources that may jeopardize domestic food security in the long term?
How to ensure that imported food products are of acceptable quality and safe to eat?

http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/

Ensuring Food Security by focusing on suppliers

- Adapted from Farming-related interest/ lobby group

http://www.farmingfirst.org/principles/

Readings

Food Security Journal: http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/
WHO report on Food Security 1996 http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/
Food Security in the US: USDA http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=FOOD_SECURITY
Measurements of Food Security in the US: Annual reports : http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsec/Measurement.htm
Asian Food Security: http://asiasociety.org/policy/environment/water-and-food-security/never-empty-bowl-sustaining-food-security-asia (Video included)

Food Security in Singapore

Questions for Reflection:-

How critical is Food Security to the survival of Singapore as a nation-state?
How resilient is Singapore to food supply shocks?
How important is government-led initiatives in ensuring food security, in the Singapore context?

Readings

S Rajaratnam School of International Studies: Asia Food Conference http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/article.asp?id=163
Powerpoint presentation on Food Security: Agriculture http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/events/docs/ICAFS-PPT-Rudy_Rabbinge.pdf
‘Singapore boosts local farming for food security’ http://farmlandgrab.org/12397
Farming First: Discussion of six principles for food security: http://www.farmingfirst.org/2011/08/experts-discuss-asian-food-security-in-singapore/ http://www.farmingfirst.org/principles/

Water Security

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/24/us-singapore-water-idUSSIN27852320080624

Extract on Singapore’s world-class efforts at ensuring Water Security (Independence in Water Supply; Sovereign control over water supply)

Singapore's Water Cycle Wizardry

Singapore's toilet-to-tap technology has saved the country from shortages—and a large electricity bill

By SANDRA UPSON, 7 JUNE 2010

Nature’s hydrological cycle relies on sunlight to evaporate water, leaving behind salt and other impurities and returning freshwater to Earth in the form of rain and snow. But it can be capricious: Most freshwater evaporates from the oceans, where it rises through the atmosphere and then cools to form clouds. Winds push around the clouds, driving a few of them over land, where they deposit a mere tenth of the world’s precipitation, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Singapore decided to cut the atmosphere out of the transaction and to replace evaporation with speedier mechanisms—membranes.

Here’s how it works: First, a treatment plant gathers up the city’s used water and separates out the large, easily removable impurities. About 60 percent of the water is released into the sea. The rest gets sent to a NEWater factory. The water enters contaminated with bacteria, viruses, and all sorts of carbon-based particles and emerges cleaner than what flows from just about any tap in the world.

The main tactic of the water trade is to simply push water through tiny holes—the smaller the holes, the fewer the undesirable molecules that can sneak through. The art is to do so without sending the electricity bill skyrocketing or clogging up the tiny holes with grime. Here, the first step is to force the water through a membrane that blocks particles of up to 0.2 micrometers in size, catching most bacteria and protozoa. The membrane looks like a cylinder filled with skinny, hollow tubes. The stream flows into the porous straws. Water molecules push through the pores and collect outside the membranes, while the larger particles continue traveling inside the tubes, to be disposed of separately.

The water still needs to be stripped of any viruses that might be adrift in the flow. For this the partially treated stream needs a reverse-osmosis membrane. In one configuration, paperlike sheets of membrane more than a meter long are sandwiched between sheets called spacers. The stack of membranes and spacers is wound up into a cylinder, like a thick roll of wrapping paper. The core of the cylinder is an empty channel where the clean water collects.

As the stream is pushed into one end of the roll, the impurities slide along the spacers and never penetrate the polymer membrane. The water molecules, however, escape through the 0.0001-µm pores and slip into the central channel.

These two steps remove just about everything, but in a third and final step, mercury lamps generate ultraviolet-light rays that penetrate the water. The radiation scrambles the genetic material of any bacteria and other microorganisms that might have slipped through, destroying their ability to reproduce. Now the water is ready for the tap.

Singapore’s Water Cycle Wizardry (continued)

The significance of NEWater is much greater than its literal contribution in drops or buckets or liters per person. "NEWater is key to our whole strategy," Seah says.

Seah is a soft-spoken, dapper man with a face that collapses frequently into a brassy laugh. He’s been with the Public Utilities Board for almost two decades, and he’s seen the NEWater project through to maturity. "The real beauty of NEWater is its multiplying effect," he explains. What he means is that if the utility recycles 50 percent of its wastewater, Singapore can squeeze one more drop out of every two it desalinates or collects from the sky. "If I can achieve 100 percent recycling, I wouldn’t even need rain," Seah says.

That’s critical, given how few options Singapore has. Half of the island has already been converted into rainwater catchment areas, and three new reservoirs will soon bring it to two-thirds. The other source of freshwater is Singapore’s one desalination plant, which consumes so much energy it can cover only a fraction of the overall demand.

Consider the details. To remove salt from seawater, Seah says the treatment plant must apply a pressure of about 7 megapascals. To remove impurities from wastewater, he requires less than 1 MPa. That translates directly into the energy cost for the whole plant—more than 4 kilowatt-hours per thousand liters of water for seawater desalination, versus 0.7 kWh for NEWater. "It’s a no-brainer," says Seah, and his eyes crinkle into a laugh. "Win, win, win!" he says.

Asit Biswas, an international water-policy expert who splits his time between the National University of Singapore and the Third World Center for Water Management, in Mexico, sees Singapore as one of the few places where the water authorities agree with his own controversial position—that water scarcity simply does not exist. What does exist, just about everywhere, is bad water management.

The problem, he says, is that people tend to assume that water is like oil or any other fossil fuel and that it behaves according to the same basic economic principles. "But water is not oil," he says. "Once we use oil, it breaks down into various components. You can’t put it back together." Water, despite its tendency to evaporate and trickle out of reach, doesn’t change its molecular structure. "There is no limit to how many times water can be reused," Biswas points out.

That simple fact radically changes the way that water is counted. What’s available to a city or country is not just a matter of how much ice sits in a Himalayan glacier or how much rain falls during monsoon season. Suddenly, Singapore is water rich. The water that falls from the sky may have once washed the streets of Paris or filled Cleopatra’s bathtub. Now it’s augmented with some of the water used by Harry Seah, Asit Biswas, and everybody else in Singapore. The utility isn’t waiting for nature to turn its used water fresh again—it’s letting technology do the job.

Extracted from:-

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/singapores-water-cycle-wizardry/0

(The full text of the article is strongly recommended reading material)

Map showing Singapore’s National Taps: NEWater recycling plants and (Tunnel Sewerage System) linkages between reservoirs, to divert excess rainfall between reservoirs for storage

Source:- http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/1599649

IMMINENT WATER CRISIS IN INDIA

Imminent Water Crisis in India

Nina Brooks, August 2007

"There will be constant competition over water, between farming families and urban dwellers, environmental conservationists and industrialists, minorities living off natural resources and entrepreneurs seeking to commodify the resources base for commercial gain"

-UNICEF report on Indian water.

Intro

More than two billion people worldwide live in regions facing water scarcity and in India this is a particularly acute crisis. Millions of Indians currently lack access to clean drinking water, and the situation is only getting worse. India’s demand for water is growing at an alarming rate. India currently has the world’s second largest population, which is expected to overtake China’s by 2050 when it reaches a staggering 1.6 billion, putting increase strain on water resources as the number of people grows. A rapidly growing economy and a large agricultural sector stretch India’s supply of water even thinner. Meanwhile, India’s supply of water is rapidly dwindling due primarily to mismanagement of water resources, although over-pumping and pollution are also significant contributors. Climate change is expected to exacerbate the problem by causing erratic and unpredictable weather, which could drastically diminish the supply of water coming from rainfall and glaciers. As demand for potable water starts to outstrip supply by increasing amounts in coming years, India will face a slew of subsequent problems, such as food shortages, intrastate, and international conflict.

India’s water crisis is predominantly a manmade problem. India’s climate is not particularly dry, nor is it lacking in rivers and groundwater. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution. In managing water resources, the Indian government must balance competing demands between urban and rural, rich and poor, the economy and the environment. However, because people have triggered this crisis, by changing their actions they have the power to prevent water scarcity from devastating India’s population, agriculture, and economy. This paper is an overview of the issues surrounding India’s water scarcity: demand and supply, management, pollution, impact of climate change, and solutions the Indian government is considering.

I. Demand and Usage

In 2006 between the domestic, agricultural, and industrial sectors, India used approximately 829 billion cubic meters of water every year, which is approximately the size of Lake Erie. By 2050 demand is expected to double and consequently exceed the 1.4 trillion cubic meters of supply.

Domestic

India’s 1.1 billion people need access to clean drinking water. The demand for drinking water is divided between the urban and rural populations, and comprises about 4-6% of total water demand. Due to the amenities of typical urban life, such as flush toilets and washing machines, people living in cities tend to lead more water intensive lives. The urban population has doubled over the past 30 years, now representing 30% of India’s total population and is expected to reach 50% of the total population by 2025. Population growth is going to accelerate the water crisis in India, especially as more and more people move into the cities and become part of the middle class. Because the rivers are too polluted to drink and the government is unable to consistently deliver freshwater to the cities, many urban dwellers are turning to groundwater, which is greatly contributing to the depletion of underground aquifers. Rural citizens face a similar crisis. Currently 30% of the rural population lack access to drinking water, and of the 35 states in India, only 7 have full availability of drinking water for rural inhabitants. Most people who live in rural areas demand less water for day-to-day living than people living in cities, and the majority of their water demand comes from agricultural needs.

Agricultural

Despite the recent rapid growth in the services and industrial production, agriculture is still an integral part of India’s economy and society. Between 1947 and 1967 India underwent the Green Revolution, which concentrated on expanding farm yields by double-cropping existing farmland and using seeds with improved genetics. The result was a huge increase in agricultural production, making India one of the world’s biggest exporters of grain. The availability of canal water led farmers to adopt highly profitable, but extremely water intensive crops, such as sugar cane. In addition, India achieved its goal of obtaining food security. The rural economy sustains two-thirds of India's 1.1 billion citizens. Unfortunately, this huge surge in agriculture, required significant water resources for irrigation and accelerated the onset of present water shortages.

India’s agricultural sector currently uses about 90% of total water resources. Irrigated agriculture has been fundamental to economic development, but unfortunately caused groundwater depletion. Due to water pollution in rivers, India draws 80% of its irrigation water from groundwater. As water scarcity becomes a bigger and bigger problem, rural and farming areas will most likely be hit the hardest. Thus far, food security has been one of the highest priorities for politicians, and the large farming lobby has grown accustomed to cheap electricity, which allows extremely fast pumping of groundwater, which is something they are unwilling to give up for the sake of water conservation. If India wants to maintain its level of food security, farmers will have to switch to less water intensive crops. Otherwise India will end up being a net importer of food, which would have massive ramifications for the global price of grain.

Industrial

Water is both an important input for many different manufacturing and industrial sectors and used as a coolant for machines, such as textile machines. Cheap water that can be rapidly pumped from underground aquifers has been a major factor in the success of India’s economic growth. For example, the garment industry in Tirupur, a city in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, was growing faster than anyone thought possible for several decades. By 1990’s, however, the town was running out of water, which is a critical input for dyeing and bleaching. Despite the many benefits from a thriving economy, industrial waste is largely responsible for the high levels of pollutants found in India’s rivers and groundwater. Many corporations end up polluting the very water they later need as an input. According to the Ministry of Water Resources, industrial water use in India stands at about 50 billion cubic meters or nearly 6 per cent of total freshwater abstraction. This demand is expected to increase dramatically in the next decade, given the enormous forecasts of 9% growth for 2007 alone.

II. Supply

Surface water and groundwater are the sources of India’s water supply. Other sources, such as desalination, are negligible because they are not cost effective.

Surface Water

The main rivers, the Ganges, Bramhaputra, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri, Indus, Narmada, and Tapti, flow into the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea.They can be classified into four groups: Himalayan, coastal, peninsular, and inland drainage basins. The Himalayan rivers, such as the Ganges, are formed by melting snow and glaciers and therefore have a continuous flow throughout the year. The Himalayas contain the largest store of fresh water outside the polar ice caps, and feed seven great Asian rivers. This region receives very heavy rainfall during the monsoon period, causing the rivers to swell and flood.The coastal rivers, the Bramhaputra and the Krishna, especially on the west coast, are short in length with small catchment areas. The peninsular rivers, which include the Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, and Kaveri, flow inland and also greatly increase in volume during the monsoon season. Finally, the rivers of the inland drainage basin, such as the Mahanadi and the Godavari, dry out as they drain towards the silt lakes such as the Sambhar, or are lost in the sands.

India receives an average of 4,000 billion cubic meters of rainfall every year.Unfortunately, only 48% of rainfall ends up in India’s rivers. Due to lack of storage and crumbling infrastructure, only 18% can be utilized. Rainfall is confined to the monsoon season, June through September, when India gets, on average, 75% of its total annual precipitation. Once again, due to India’s storage crunch the government is unable to store surplus water for the dry season. Such uneven seasonal distribution of rainfall has not stimulated the development of better capturing and storing infrastructure, making water scarcity an unnecessary yet critical problem.

Groundwater

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in both urban and rural India. It is also an important source of water for the agricultural and the industrial sectors. India possesses about 432 bcm of groundwater replenished yearly from rain and river drainage, but only 395 bcm are utilizable. Of that 395 bcm, 82% goes to irrigation and agricultural purposes, while only 18% is divided between domestic and industrial. Total static groundwater available is approximately 10,812 bcm.

Groundwater is increasingly being pumped from lower and lower levels and much faster than rainfall is able to replenish it. The average groundwater recharge rates of India’s river basins is 260 m3/day. The Delhi Jal Board, which is responsible for supplying potable water, estimates that water tables are dipping by an average of .4 meters a year. In addition, the human, agricultural, and industrial waste that pollute India’s rivers seep into the ground, thus contaminating the groundwater. Groundwater crisis is not the result of natural factors; it has been caused by human actions. During the past two decades, the water level in several parts of the country has been falling rapidly due to an increase in extraction. The number of wells drilled for irrigation of both food and cash crops have rapidly and indiscriminately increased.

Source: World Bank Report on Water in India

III. Climate Change

Climate change is exacerbating the depleting supply of water. As the climate warms, glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau have been melting.According to the IPCC, global temperatures have warmed by .76 Celsius over the last 100 years. This will result in increased flooding initially, especially during the monsoon season when rainfall is already at its heaviest. However, in subsequent years, there will be less and less glacial meltwater to continuously supply India’s rivers. Nearly 70% of discharge to the River Ganges comes from Nepalese snow-fed rivers, which means that if Himalayan glaciers dry up, so could the Ganges. The Ganges has numerous tributary rivers which supply water to hundreds of millions of people across India. Therefore, if the Ganges even partly dried up, it would have drastic consequences for a huge population.The glaciers, which regulate the water supply to the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Thanlwin, Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, are believed to be retreating at a rate of about 33-49ft each year.

Climate change also has an effect on rainfall patterns, but, how it will affect them is still uncertain. Nonetheless, scientists agree that climate change will ultimately make rainfall more erratic and cause unpredictable weather. Many believe the increased average water temperate in oceans, will increase the probability and intensity of monsoons during the summer.As one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, India contributes significantly to global warming, but is not required under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its emissions because it is a developing country. This is yet another regrettable example of how India sacrifices its environment and its future supply of resources for economic growth.

IV. Water Management

The tragedy of India’s water scarcity is that the crisis could have been largely avoided with better water management practices. There has been a distinct lack of attention to water legislation, water conservation, efficiency in water use, water recycling, and infrastructure. Historically water has been viewed as an unlimited resource that did not need to be managed as a scarce commodity or provided as a basic human right. These attitudes are changing in India; there is a growing desire for decentralized management developing, which would allow local municipalities to control water as best needed for their particular region.

Since independence India’s primary goals have been economic growth and food security, completely disregarding water conservation. This has caused serious ramifications being felt today, as many citizens still operate under these principles. Unlike many other developing countries, especially those with acute water scarcity issues such as China, Indian law has virtually no legislation on groundwater. Anyone can extract water: homeowner, farmer or industry as long as the water lies underneath their plot of land. The development and distribution of cheap electricity and electric pumps have triggered rapid pumping of groundwater and subsequent depletion of aquifers. There are approximately 20 million individual wells in India that are contributing to groundwater depletion. The owners of these wells do not have to pay for this water, so there is no incentive to conserve or recycle it; in fact they are incentivized to overdraw resources. Generally, the more water they use, the more they can produce. Industry applies the same logic, and rather than reusing the water used for cooling machines, they dump it back into rivers and canals, along with the pollution it has accumulated.

Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has warned against over-pumping, but local officials won’t take any action, such as raising electricity tariffs, that would upset the huge farm lobbies. India needs to keep boosting agricultural production in order to feed its growing population, but to do so without jeopardizing the amount of water available, farmers must switch to less water intensive crops.

The central government in India also lacks the ability to store and deliver potable water to its citizens, especially as supply shrinks. There is currently a water storage crunch, because means for storage, such as temple tanks and steep wells, have fallen apart. China is able to store 5 times as much water per person as India, making it blatantly clear how poor India’s water management is. The government claims that 9 out of 10 people have access to water. Yet, even if this were factual, it disregards the fact that almost of all of that water is too contaminated to use. None of the 35 Indian cities with a population of more than one million distribute water for more than a few hours per day. The water situation in the capital, New Delhi, is typical of most cities in India, in that New Delhi does not lack water, merely good infrastructure.

New Delhi demands 36 million cubic meters of water per day. The New Delhi Jal Board supplies just over 30 million cubic meters per day, but only 17 million cubic meters actually reach consumers due to infrastructure problems, such as leaking pipes. The government has avoided proper maintenance of pipes and canals, which is now causing major inefficiencies in water use. As New Delhi’s water supply runs through 5,600 miles of pipes, up to 40% leaks out. The Jal Board sends tankers to New Delhi with water that people have to wait in long lines to get, and what they receive is of questionable quality.Rather than fixing the pipelines, the government is falling back on these tankers, which is an expensive and inefficient method of delivering water to its citizens. Despite these feeble attempts, 27% of homes in New Delhi receive tap water for less than 3 hours a day. As a result of the government’s inability to provide adequate water, private water suppliers, which charge exorbitant prices, have spring up and people have begun to dig neighborhood wells, depleting groundwater even further.

V. Pollution

Given that India does not regulate water usage, it should come as no surprise that there is also little regulation on pollution and even less enforcement of what regulations do exist. Millions have been spent on pollution clean-up, but no one knows where it went (most likely into the pockets of corrupt government officials) because no changes have been seen. In 2005, a government audit indicted the Jal Board for having spent $200 million on pollution clean-up achieving essentially no tangible results. A combination of sewage disposal, industrial effluents, chemicals from farm runoffs, arsenic and fluoride has rendered India’s rivers unfit for drinking, irrigation, and even industrial purposes.

New Delhi alone produces 3.6 million cubic meters of sewage every day, but, due to poor management less than half is effectively treated. The remaining untreated waste is dumped into the Yamuna River. New Delhi actually cannot get rid of the sewage it produces because 45% of the population is not connected to the public sewage system. Meanwhile, the quantity of sewage is constantly increasing due to population growth. Those not connected to sewage lines end up dumping their waste into canals, which empty into a storm drain that runs into the Yamuna, dumping all of the waste into the river. When the water reaches downstream cities they have to heavily treat it, which subsequently drives up the cost.

Every river in India is polluted to some degree. The water quality in underground wells violates the desired levels of dissolved oxygen and coliform, the presence of which is one measure of filth, in addition to having high concentrations of toxic metals, fluoride, and nitrates. India’s rivers also have high fluoride content (see Figure 4), beyond the permissible limit of 1.5ppm, which affects 66 million people. The polluted water then seeps into the groundwater and contaminates agricultural products when used for irrigation.Over 21% of transmissible diseases in India are related to unsafe water. Millions of the poorest are affected by preventable diseases caused by inadequate water supply and sanitation.

Solutions

An immediate solution to India’s water crisis is to change water management practices by regulating usage with effective legislation.However, as previously mentioned, there is significant opposition to raising electricity tariffs, and there would most likely be even more resistance to enacting tariffs on water itself.

Another proposed solution to the water crisis is the privatization of water. Proponents claim that a privatized water supply would prevent waste, improve efficiency, and encourage innovation. The World Bank supports a policy of privatized water in India, claiming that water could be supplied to all of India’s inhabitants, but at a higher cost. Many people vehemently oppose this plan arguing that it will not only exacerbate poverty, but also that privatization does not have a good track record around the world.

India is also considering large-scale engineering projects, similar to those adopted in China, such as the South-to-North Water Diversion Project.However, as India is the world’s largest democracy, such projects have been extremely difficult to pass because they are controversial and have stirred lots of debate and much resistance. The most talked about project is the $112 billion Interlinking of Rivers project. The ILR was approved by the president in 2002 and is due to be completed in 2016. This project will link all 37 rivers by thousands of miles of canals and dozens of large dams. This project is intended to increase the amount of water available for irrigation and would add 34,000mw of hydropower to the national pool. Civil society organizations and traditional water managers have dismissed the ILR because it has the potential for stirring international conflicts, by reducing the water that flows to bordering countries, such as Bangladesh. In addition, ILR is expensive, will most likely face the same fate as India’s dams: broken and inefficient due to lack of maintenance and reinvestment.

The Indian government is already trying to get states to start rainwater harvesting in order to more efficiently tap into the huge quantity of monsoon rain. Collection of rainwater recharges water tables, allows easier accessibility to water resources, and increases availability for irrigation throughout the year leads to improved village.

Retrieved from: http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/global-water-crisis/606

Questions for Reflection:-

How is water sustainability linked to the future survival of Singapore as a nation-state?
What are the limits to growth of NEWater recycling technology? Can maximum capacity be reached?
What next, after NEWater?

Other resources:

1. Water vs Energy: Links to a underrecognised security issue of water: http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/special-report-water-vs-energy

2. Asia’s next challenge: Securing the Asia’s Water Future :http://asiasociety.org/policy/environment/water-and-food-security/securing-asias-water-future

3. Asia’s Water Insecurity: Defining the Geopolitics of a Thirsty World: http://www.waterpolitics.com/2009/04/17/asias-water-insecurity/

Maritime Protein

A chart from the AVA showing Singapore’s diverse supplies of Fish and other Maritime Protein

Source: AVA Department of Food Supply Resilience Department (Presentation to Geography Teachers 9 April 2011)

An extract from a local writer commenting on Singapore’s efforts to support local fisheries

A wake-up call for Singapore

Posted on January 8, 2010 | Leave a comment

8 Jan 2010 Straits Times Forum
FISH FARM WOES
I REFER to recent reports about fish farms off Pasir Ris Beach and around Pulau Ubin being hit by plankton bloom. About 20 floating farms lost 300,000 fish worth about $2.7 million.
This should be a wake-up call for Singapore which depends on food imports to feed its growing population of 4.98 million. With climate change playing havoc with weather patterns, food producers will be increasingly at the mercy of nature’s whims.
As recently as 2008, there was a shortage of rice. Leading rice-exporting countries Thailand and Vietnam became protective, banning exports. I hope Singaporeans have not forgotten this.
Singaporeans consume an estimated 100,000 tonnes of fish a year. Local foodfish aquaculture accounts for about 5 per cent of this. Yet this 5 per cent is what Singaporeans hunger for – tropical fish like grouper, seabass, snapper and lately, cobia.
Appetite for fish is growing too – especially saltwater fish, which is high in Omega 3 fatty acids and heart- friendly. Nutritionists often recommend a regular diet of fish over meat.
Singapore has limited space for fish farming as most of the sea is reserved for shipping lanes. Singapore fish farm industries are considered small with most struggling to remain viable.
Fish farming is capital-intensive and fraught with unknown risks. Grouper takes about 18 months to grow, seabass about one year, sea snapper about 11/2 years and cobia one year. Repeated injections of funds are needed to buy feed for the fish to grow.
Now, fish farmers off Pasir Ris and Pulau Ubin have woken up to find their prized fish stock wiped out, along with their much-anticipated income through sales for the upcoming Chinese New Year. After a year of hard work and thousands of dollars spent, they are left high and dry.
Right now, what they need is financial help, to tide over this difficult time. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) should reach out to the affected farmers and explore with other government agencies how to support them in their hour of need.
And, as suggested by Mr Liu Fook Thim on Tuesday (‘Set up body to handle food crises’), AVA should also consider setting up an alert system to monitor oxygen levels in the sea and warn of potential dangers.
Winston Lee

http://understandingfishfarming.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/a-wake-up-call-for-singapore/

Questions for Reflection:-

What is the most critical aspect of ensuring a supply of fish and maritime protein?
Can local supplies from the sea replace imports? Why?
What more can be done, to ensure food security and sustainability of fish and maritime protein, in the Singapore context?

Resources

1. Fish Farming and Food Security in Singapore http://understandingfishfarming.wordpress.com/page/2/

2. AVA presentation on Food Security: Geography Teacher’s Seminar http://sg.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=Axt7wna.gDxPrn0Act8j4gt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWR0YzdzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NnMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=150bu04sr/EXP=1329393982/**http%3a//files.gtasg.webnode.com/200000200-bcdd2bdd5e/AVA%2520Geography%2520Teachers%2527%2520Association%2520Annual%2520Seminar%2520final.pdf * File available as separate attachment

Rice Security

An extract from Rice Research Institute :-

Singapore’s National Research Foundation (NRF) will invest up to US$8.2 million (SGD$10 million) over 5 years in a new rice research program to help ensure there is enough rice to meet the future demands of Singapore and the region.

Rice research partners (left to right): Prof. Prakash Kumar, NUS; Dr. Naweed Naqvi, TLL; Dr. Hei Leung, IRRI.

The decision is expected to have an important impact on regional food security and encourage other Asian nations to invest in similar programs.

Provided in the form of a grant from the NRF, the money will support a new joint research program between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory (TLL) in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). The research will address some of the most pressing concerns faced by rice farmers in Asia, especially how rice farming can become better adapted to climate change.

The program will also seek to develop new rice varieties with built-in protection against diseases, and reduce the need for limited inputs such as water, thus increasing sustainable rice production and ensuring long-term food security.

IRRI’s Deputy Director General for Research Dr. Achim Dobermann said, “We are delighted to see Singapore stepping up as a regional leader with this investment in international rice research.

“We need to be thinking beyond national borders to help tackle food supply issues,” he added. “And, Singapore is showing real leadership within Asia by doing just that.”

Rice cultivation occupies about 140 million hectares in Asia, with annual production around 600 million tons. It is a staple food for more than half the world’s population, with developing Asian countries equating food security with access to rice supplies. Rice production faces serious constraints due to global environmental changes and ever-increasing demand.

Singapore relies entirely on imported rice and is thus subjected to the fragility of rice supplies and price escalations in international markets. According to IRRI, the world needs to produce 8-10 million tons more rice every year to ensure a reliable supply of rice and keep rice prices affordable. Investments in rice research are essential to provide rice farmers with new rice varieties and smarter ways to grow more rice on less land to ensure and protect future rice supplies in Asia.

The project will be led by Professor Prakash Kumar from NUS’ Department of Biological Sciences and Dr. Naweed Naqvi from Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, Singapore.

“This grant from the National Research Foundation will enable our teams to help improve yield and disease resistance in rice, and to adapt the crop to rapidly changing environmental conditions,” said Prof. Kumar.

Dr. Naqvi added, “Our collaboration with IRRI will help position Singapore as a strategic partner in regional and global food security. We will now be able to link the excellent research done here in Singapore to many other rice improvement activities worldwide.”

NRF’s support for this project will contribute to Singapore’s future food security, as well as to regional capacity building, ensuring stability of rice production, and positively influencing agriculture and food related policies.

Additionally, this project positions Singapore as an important partner in the Global Rice Science Partnership, a new global strategic plan for rice research, led by IRRI in partnership with some 900 organizations worldwide.

http://irri.org/news-events/media-releases/singapore-invests-in-regional-rice-security

Food Security

RICE

S. Iswaran's reply to Parliament Questions on rice issues

Published Date: 21/04/2008

Question No 551 of Notice Paper No 69 of 2008

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Er Lee Bee Wah, Member for Ang Mo Kio.

Question:

To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of moves from some rice exporting countries to curb their exports (a) how will this impact the supply of rice to Singapore; (b) whether there is any government-to-government contact to secure supplies for Singapore should the situation worsen; and (c) whether there is any special government task force monitoring the situation.

Question No 553 of Notice Paper No 69 of 2008

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mdm Cynthia Phua, Member for Aljunied.

Question:

To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that there is no illegal hoarding of rice by unscrupulous traders or retailers to take advantage of the rising prices.

Answer:

The global price of rice has risen substantially since the beginning of 2008. This is driven by a multitude of short and long term factors such as increasing global demand, adverse weather affecting crops, falling yields of farmland and underinvestment in farming technologies in rice producing countries. Some rice producers like Vietnam, India and China have reduced or curbed rice exports to ameliorate the impact on domestic prices. However, these export restrictions are mainly placed on white rice and not the premium rice that we mainly consume in Singapore. As such, these moves have not disrupted our rice supply.

More importantly, our rice merchants are still receiving their rice orders and there is no curtailment in the import of rice. Thailand, which is a major source of rice for us, has not limited its exports and has pledged to continue meeting global orders. Its rice harvest last year was healthy, leading to a significant 72% increase in its exports in the first three months of this year.

Singapore’s demand for rice is also very small compared to total global rice production. For example, we account for only 2% of Thailand’s total rice exports.

Over the years, Singapore’s rice imports have also been well-diversified from several countries which helps to mitigate the effect of any supply disruptions in a particular source country.

Given the market volatility and global developments, MTI is monitoring the situation closely in consultation with other agencies like MND, AVA, MFA and IE Singapore, as well as the market players.

Cynthia Phua’s question has a more domestic focus. MTI has been monitoring the rice market very closely. Our rice importers have been conducting their business responsibly and maintaining normal supplies to consumers, despite the volatility in global markets. There is no evidence or report of rice importers colluding to restrict supplies and drive up prices. In fact, the importers have requested to bring in more stock to meet increased demands from consumers. MTI is supportive of this move.

MTI has responded to our rice importers’ request by allowing additional imports of rice with more flexibility to their mandated stockpile requirements. In doing so, the Government aims to facilitate those who are keen to import beyond their normal quantities to meet market demand. This will also help ensure that Singapore has a slightly bigger buffer of rice than at present so as to cushion us even more against any possible future supply shock.

It is not in the interest of rice importers to indulge in any form of anti-competitive behaviour. We have a competitive rice market with more than 30 importers. Any attempt by errant importers to withhold supply and increase prices will result in loss of customers and market share to other market players.

Also, as a condition of their license, rice importers are not allowed to engage, directly or indirectly, in price fixing or other unfair trade practices relating to the import or sale of rice. We view such anti-competitive behaviour very seriously, and will not hesitate to take action against any errant business.

Source: http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=13381

Singaporean to promote philanthropy for food security

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

To help promote philanthropic investment in rice research – one of the most effective means for tackling poverty and food insecurity – the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has announced the appointment of Singaporean national Mr. Leo Chen Ian as the new executive director of the IRRI Fund, Singapore.

The IRRI Fund develops and facilitates support for rice research to reduce poverty and hunger in Asia and around the world. “We’re very pleased Ian has agreed to join the IRRI Fund because of his experience with philanthropy in Asia and his strong educational background in science,” IRRI’s Development Director Mr. Duncan Macintosh said.

Each Singaporean eats more than 60 kilograms of rice every year and imports around 275,000 tons of rice. Singaporeans depend on rice farmers in other nations to supply their rice and, through the IRRI Fund, Singaporeans can directly help these rice farmers by supporting rice research.

According to the Global Rice Science Partnership, “very few other development investments have similar efficacy in poverty eradication.” It also forecasts that, by 2035, rice research could boost supplies enough to reduce anticipated rice price increases by an average of at least 13%, lift 150 million people out of poverty, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The IRRI Fund facilitates scientific collaboration and educational programs, sponsorships, and partnerships through conferences, events, and publishing opportunities related to the promotion of rice and rice research. For example, the IRRI Fund and the Science Centre Singapore recently organized a rice exhibition to help show Singaporean children how to grow rice.

Mr. Leo is the former executive director of the Centre for Asian Philanthropy, which was set up in 2008 in Singapore to encourage and link charitable donations to organizations in need across Asia. At the IRRI Fund, Mr. Leo will lead a small team working to build support for the work of IRRI and facilitate collaboration with educational and research organizations such as the National University of Singapore and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory.

“I’m really looking forward to showing philanthropists in Singapore how support for rice research can have a major impact on the lives of the poor, and help ensure enough rice for future generations without damaging the environment,” said Mr. Leo. “Traditional philanthropy has a long, generous history in Singapore, but philanthropy focused on science and important strategic goals like food security is relatively new, and it’s time Singapore played a leading role in this area.”

Source: http://irri.org/news-events/media-releases/singaporean-to-promote-philanthropy-for-food-security

Harvesting the benefits of a rice futures market

Written by Bob Zeigler

Resources

• Asia Society / IRRI task force outlines strategy to combat hunger in Asia (Media release, 27 Sep 2010)

• Rice in the global economy - strategic research and policy issues for food security

This article was first published in The Straits Times, 18 May 2011.

Rice farmers across Asia work hard to produce rice for Singapore and other countries that depend on rice imports to meet national demand for the grain. Most of Singapore’s rice comes from Thailand – the world’s biggest exporter of rice and home of Singapore’s favorite rice – Thai Jasmine rice.

Thai rice farmers are currently battling one of the most destructive pests of rice that is wreaking havoc across their paddies – brown planthoppers. Not only do they eat their way across rice crops, but they also transmit two viral diseases that can severely stunt and discolor the plant and prevent grain formation.

This year’s brown planthopper outbreak in Thailand follows outbreaks in 2010 that were described by Khun Manit Luecha, director of Thailand’s Chainat Rice Seed Center, as, “the worst outbreak of BPH [brown planthopper] I have seen in my career since 1977.”

Pesticide misuse is one of the main culprits in outbreaks of brown planthoppers because it kills their natural predators, which can lead to population explosions. Moreover, brown planthoppers can develop resistance to pesticides. Thai rice farmers and their government need practical ways to reduce this pesticide misuse and manage pests in more effective ways that don’t harm the environment.

The good news is there is a solution – integrated pest management, which, through the use of pest-resistant varieties and a smarter understanding of pest dynamics, uses a mix of strategies to minimize pest damage while eliminating or reducing pesticide use.

Singaporeans are increasingly acting to create a greener world. But how can Singapore help Thai rice farmers – and other rice farmers around the world – use less pesticide, become “greener”, and still deliver rice to the tables of billions of people who depend on it everyday as their staple food?

For farmers to invest in ecologically sound management practices they need to receive a reasonable price for their crop. Sadly, today’s rice markets – both national and international – are opaque. Prices are decided by a chaotic mix of flawed government price polices, import and export restrictions, secretive trading practices, and smuggling.

Because of these challenges, when rice prices rise they do not usually translate into increased income for farmers, yet consumers still have to pay extra. As was the case in Thailand, spikes in rice prices can motivate farmers to try and grow rice continuously, fertilize their rice more in an effort to boost yields, and attempt to protect their investment by spraying more pesticides to keep pests at bay in the short-term. One result in Thailand was devastating crop losses due to brown planthopper damage. And of course, when prices fall, farmers carry the burden.

Singapore has a unique capacity to do one thing better than any other country in the world to help create a better rice market – host an international rice futures exchange. It may seem odd in this time of unstable commodity prices to suggest that such an important food crop be opened to speculators. But, historically it is just such markets that have stabilized commodity prices, or at least allowed all to see price movement and participate fairly in the market. It is no surprise that the world’s first futures market was invented to stabilize rice prices in Japan in 18^th century Osaka.

Singapore is the natural home for an international rice futures market because it has political stability, a reputation for high integrity, strict banking regulations, good infrastructure, and trading experience and capacity. It has an interest in rice, with Singaporeans eating about 60 kilograms of rice every year, yet it is not a producer. This is critical because most other Asian countries produce rice and therefore may have a vested interest in adversely influencing a futures market through regulation that may restrict the sale of rice.

International rice trade volume more than tripled between 1978 and 2008, so there is good reason to expect further growth in trade – but will farmers benefit? Rice futures markets already operate in the United States, China, India, Japan, Thailand, and other Asian countries, but they primarily cater to domestic traders and play a minimal role in price discovery at the international level.

During the rice price crisis of 2007-2008 the world saw rice prices go from US$350 to nearly $1,000 per ton in one year. Short sighted national policies resulted in more controls on the flow of rice in and out of countries, which has included many secret government deals reducing rice price transparency further.

An international rice futures market in Singapore could help in price discovery and stabilization of the global rice market. Farmers would benefit indirectly through the participation of market intermediaries’ such as cooperatives, traders, input suppliers, and credit organizations. And, market price information disseminated through a futures market could also directly help farmers negotiate better prices and make crop management decisions based on market data.

This is good news for farmers, consumers, and governments. Rice prices are more volatile now than they have ever been, yet stable rice prices help farmers manage their crop more strategically and allow them to plan crop management in the long term, giving them increased capacity to avoid rash pesticide-use decisions.

Singapore already has two well-functioning exchanges – the Singapore Commodity Exchange Limited and Singapore Exchange Limited where agricultural futures are traded. Adding a rice futures contract would be cost effective and convenient.

In establishing an international rice futures market, Singapore could also play its part in helping the world achieve food security, keeping rice prices affordable for poor rice consumers and stable for rice farmers, and ensuring its own supply of affordable rice into the future.

A transparent and vibrant international rice futures market is one critical factor that would help Thai rice farmers make strategic decisions to manage their rice in a more environmentally sustainable and far-sighted way and provide Singapore with “greener” Thai Jasmine rice.

http://irri.org/irri/our-people/blogs/bobs-blog-news-and-views-from-irris-director-general/harvesting-the-benefits-of-a-rice-futures-market

Questions for Reflection:

How critical is rice to the survival of Singapore as a nation state?
How can Singapore play a more important role in fostering rice security in Asia?
What more can be done to ensure rice security?

Resources

Singapore researchers get additional funding for rice research: http://irri.org/news-events/media-releases/singapore-invests-in-regional-rice-security ; http://www.tlv.sg/news/singapore-researchers-get-significant-boost-in-rice-research-for-regional-food-security/
The role of rice reserves in Food Security: - http://www.slideshare.net/bangladeshfoodsec2010/timmer-web-final
RSIS non traditional security : Setting up a rice exchange:- http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/people.asp?sid=&prev=people (Expert Group: March 2012)
The changing role of rice in Asia’s Food Security by Timmer; Asian Development Bank : http://www.adb.org/documents/papers/adb-working-paper-series/ADB-WP15-rice-food-security.pdf

Agricultural products (vegetables, plant nutrition) Security

Sowing seeds of food security for Singapore

March 21, 2011 by Eugene Tay

Primary 6 pupil Hui Ling Ler, 12, of Yu Neng Primary School in Bedok has developed a habit of regularly checking on the school’s gardens.
During recess and after school, she and her classmates will diligently water the plants in the school’s 20 experimental plots. They are anxiously awaiting the first harvest of some seeds they planted earlier in January – square watermelons.
Yu Neng’s little plots are but one of a growing number of urban farms emerging across the island.
The square watermelon plots are part of a larger initiative by The Living Project – a joint venture between Alpha Biodiesel and farming and landscaping firm Garden Asia. It works with emerging gardens across Singapore and aims to source for corporate funding to keep the gardens going. So far, it has secured funding from Starbucks and Brewerkz and is in negotiation with other companies.
Alpha’s chief executive Allan Lim said the idea was hatched late last year with Garden Asia director Kenny Eng because they ‘wanted to change the way Singapore society eats’.
And so, Comcrop – short for ‘community crop’ – was born.
The Living Project, which has 10 gardens, plans to groom at least 25 more this year and even more the next. It will do so by recruiting Singapore’s almost 400 community gardens which are managed by residents’ committees islandwide.
The firm has calculated that with 100 farms of an average conservative size of 25 sq m – about half the size of a standard studio apartment – it could harvest enough vegetables to provide up to 2per cent of Singapore’s needs, and do its part in helping to reduce the country’s reliance on food imports.
‘It seems small, but actually, it is a sizeable quantity to produce. And every little bit counts towards improving Singapore’s food security,’ said Mr Lim.
The project is timely, given that food security has been a pressing issue for governments worldwide recently as global food prices soared for the eighth consecutive month in February to hit a new record.
World Bank chief Robert Zoellick warned last month that global food prices have reached ‘dangerous levels’, adding that the impact could complicate fragile political and social conditions in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Climate-related disasters, such as storms and droughts which have damaged the world’s agriculture-producing countries, will continue to disrupt supply even while demand is expected to go up. The United Nations’ International Fund for Agricultural Development (Ifad) has said that global food production needs to rise by 70 per cent to meet the world’s population growth – expected to rise from sevenbillion this year to ninebillion by 2050.
So what does this mean for Singapore? Industry experts interviewed by The Straits Times say it is high time food security featured more prominently in national debates. After all, Singapore imports more than 90 per cent of its food and is a price taker in global markets.
Inflation, which has been on the rise, has been partly fuelled by the rising costs of food, which accounts for 22 per cent of the consumer price index. In Singapore, food prices rose 0.9 per cent in January this year, compared with the month before.
Singapore Environment Council executive director Howard Shaw said: ‘We should consider food security with as much urgency and vigour as we have considered water and energy security.’
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has been taking steps to improve this over the years. It has diversified the city’s sources of food and partnered the private sector in projects such as the Jilin Food Zone in China, where key food items will be produced and secured for Singapore. It has also set higher standards for the industry. Last week, it announced targets for local fish farms to increase productivity or face losing their licences.
The Government is also promoting local farming, which plays an important supporting role in ensuring food supply resilience. The AVA’s $10 million food fund, launched in 2009, helps firms raise farm efficiency by automating labour-intensive processes such as vegetable packing and feeding of fish.
Ifad regional economist of Asia-Pacific Ganesh Thapa said there is more Singapore can do to improve the stability of food supply in the region.
Ifad, which aims to eradicate rural poverty and ensure global food security, has 166 member states but Singapore is not one of them.
Mr Thapa said Singapore could consider joining the organisation, supporting it through donations or contributing to policy work.
Singapore’s strength as a finance centre can also play a role in empowering these communities, Ifad president Janayo Nwanze told The Straits Times in Rome last month. ‘Many of the farmers in South-east Asia lack access to loans. Through access to financial services and markets, such farmers can increase their productivity and strengthen the supply of food to the cities.’
Mr Nwanze also highlighted one other obstacle in ensuring the sustainability of global food production: Farmers suffer a poor image, and young people in particular do not think it is a respectable job.
In this regard, The Living Project hopes to help Singaporeans appreciate farming. Said Garden Asia’s Mr Eng: ‘We want them to appreciate growing their own food, appreciate what they eat.’

http://www.greenbusinesstimes.com/2011/03/21/sowing-seeds-of-food-security-for-singapore-news/

An extract on growing one’s own food supplies: Vegetables

Grow your own kailan?

Ideas sought from public on how best to grow vegetables in high-rise apartment buildings

Jan 21, 2012

SINGAPORE - An Internet link about a DIY system which allows people to grow vegetables in high-rise apartments got Minister of State for National Development Lee Yi Shyan thinking: "Can we do the same in our HDB flats?"

"There are some 9,000 HDB blocks. With food security a challenge in land-scarce Singapore, surely there is potential to supplement our food supply through urban farming?" he said in a Facebook post yesterday.

He also called for ideas to grow vegetables on common corridors and within flats.

"It should be a DIY product, where residents can install it themselves and maintain it in a fuss-free way," Mr Lee said.

The best idea stands to win a cash prize of S$300. The initiative is part of the Ministry of National Development's "Cool Ideas for Better HDB Living".

Farmers Today spoke to lauded the idea, but noted that many of these vertical farming solutions such as hydroponics and vertical pot frames were not new, and that such practices would catch on more with retirees than working couples.

"Singaporeans are too comfortable about food, they don't understand food security ... And for the effort put in to grow vegetables, they would rather go to the supermarket," said Gardenasia's director Kenny Eng.

Depending on what type of vegetable is grown, it could take between 30 and 90 days before the next crop.

"It is possible to grow local vegetables like chye sim, kailan, kangkong and sprouts, but not cabbages and carrots, which need a colder climate", said Chiam Joo Seng Towgay Growers' director Thomas Tan.

Mr Eng thinks that growing herbs such as dill, coriander and rosemary in flats may be more practical than vegetables.

Singaporeans consumed 96 kg of vegetables per person in 2010, Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan said in a blog post yesterday. That was 2kg more than in 2009.

He also noted a "significant" shift in Singaporean's consumption preferences from fresh to frozen fish. From 2002 to 2010, frozen fish expanded its market share from 20 to 40 per cent.

"From the health view point, this preference for white meat is commendable," said Mr Khaw. "Even more commendable is the consumption for vegetables. At 96kg in 2010, vegetables exceeded all the meat items. As a former Health Minister and a vegetarian, I say: Well done, Singaporeans! Have a healthy year ahead."

The public has until April 30 to submit their "Cool Ideas for Growing Vegetables at Home" to hdbbri_innovation@hdb.gov.sg

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120121-0000063/Grow-your-own-kailan

From garden city to urban farms

October 15, 2011 by Eugene Tay

By Asit K. Biswas and Leong Ching, For The Straits Times, 15 Oct 2011.

Here’s an unthinkable thought for World Food Day tomorrow – could Singapore be self-sufficient in food one day? Surely, an impossible dream – it is too small, its land too expensive, and it’s far cheaper to import.

These very same stones were hurled at the issue of water in 1965. But Singapore has gone from almost totally dependent on imported water from Malaysia, to importing 40 per cent today, and by 2061, when its second water agreement with Malaysia expires, self-sufficiency.

Food, however, has never been given the same strategic position as water – gram for gram, it has a far higher value and can be imported from a diverse number of sources. Today, food comes from Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, China and the United States.

Only 738ha, or about 1 per cent, of land is set aside for farming, compared with 12 per cent for roads and 15 per cent for housing.

Cities after all are for vibrancy and dynamism, for buzz and nightlife, and more recently for gambling, high fashion, champagne and car races.

But here are good reasons for Singapore to rethink its urban landscape. For one, global cities are being redefined with urban agriculture seen as a viable, efficient and environmentally-friendly complement to farms.

In 2008, London launched a scheme to turn 2,012 plots of unused land into tiny farms to grow food by 2012. More young people and professionals are taking up farming.

In Milan, a 27-storey apartment complex is now under construction. Named Bosco Verticale (Vertical Forest), it is the brainchild of architect Stefano Boeri. Each apartment will have a balcony with oaks and amelanchiers to filter air, providing shade in summer; in winter, sunlight will shine through the branches. This is a new collaboration of out-of-the-box-thinking by architects, engineers, botanists and town planners.

Similarly, in Valencia, 96 apartments are being built, with 8m balconies cantilevered in the sky. Residents of Torre Huerta (Orchard Tower) will literally be able to pick oranges and lemons from the sky.

Then, too, issues of food safety and security are increasingly important. Tainted food and food viruses require vigilant checks and accreditation while extreme climatic events have led to wild fluctuations in prices.

In 2007, high food inflation prompted the Government to set aside more land for farming and to give $5 million to support agricultural entrepreneurs. Since then, however, little has been said.

We argue that urban agriculture is not only possible, it provides an alternative and equally exciting vision of Singapore. Three lessons from an impossible dream three decades ago – the water story – may help.

Overcome physical constraints

Singapore was thought to be too small to hold enough water. We overcame this by pushing out into the sea – Marina Barrage is a fresh water lake reclaimed from the sea. We also used all the drains and recycled every drop used.

Land scarcity applies too in agriculture. But why not push upwards into the sky?

A good prototype for vertical farming has already been developed by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority and a private company. This ‘farm’ is a collection of two-storey tall structures, rotating slowly, so the sun shines on each in turn. This increases the yield per metre by five times.

Aside from new technology, old-fashioned urban planning may help.

Nanyang Technological University estimates that 2,331ha of farm land would supply enough greens for Singapore. Meanwhile, the National University of Singapore has estimated that there is a rooftop area of approximately 1,000ha in HDB housing blocks. There are also green spaces in between blocks, the common areas in corridors.

Physically, we can do far better than the 7 per cent of vegetables that we are producing now.

Political champion

For innovative food policies to have a place at the table, a political champion is needed. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had said that every policy ‘bent at the knee’ for water. Food policies too need similar high-level commitment.

The current goals are modest – limited self-sufficiency in eggs, fish and leafy vegetables. The target is to increase production from 23 per cent of eggs, 4 per cent of fish and 7 per cent of leafy vegetables to 30 per cent for eggs, 15 per cent for fish and 10 per cent for leafy vegetables by 2015.

For the longer term, an ambitious target would be to have near self sufficiency in these areas.

Appreciating food

Singapore imports 90 per cent of all its food. Yet each year, Singapore throws out 570 million kg of food, mainly edible food scraps – one fifth of its supply.

A frugal attitude and self control are needed – order only what we can finish, plan meals so that we do not have to throw out stale food.

These things will take time, judicious investments and enduring policy commitment. Yet, Singapore’s edge lies exactly at this praxis – witness its remarkable policy successes in areas as diverse as water, public housing and industrial infrastructure.

We believe that Singapore can add urban agriculture to the list.

The first writer is a distinguished visiting professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and the second is a PhD candidate at the same school.

Source: The Straits Times via Wildsingapore

HDB rooftops as farmland?

By Yang Razali Kassim, The Straits Times, 24 Aug 11.

Food security is an emerging global concern. Certain realities define food security planning for Singapore: It is not an agricultural country, has not much land to grow its own food, and is almost totally dependent on food imports.

As such, Singapore may be viewed as being just a passive food importer – perpetually subject to the vagaries of external forces when it comes to feeding its own people.

Such a reading, however, could change.

There are indications of a fundamental rethink in Singapore’s food security strategy. Indeed, a mental map of a multi- pronged strategy, spearheaded by research and development, is emerging on Singapore’s food security front that could turn old limitations into new strengths.

The clearest indication came out of the inaugural International Conference on Asian Food Security on Aug 10-12, held here and initiated by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and National Development Mohamad Maliki Osman spelt out how Singapore is moving to become a contributing player to support the global quest for a more stable global food system amid volatile supplies and prices.

There are four prongs to this strategy. The first is research and development. Singapore will leverage on its excellent infrastructure, intellectual property regime, a pro-enterprise tax structure and a financial ecosystem that supports both publicly and privately funded research.

Its National Research Foundation recently awarded a US$8.2 million (S$9.9 million) grant to a joint project between the National University of Singapore, the Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory and the International Rice Research Institute, to address pressing food concerns such as the need to develop rice strains that can adapt to climate change. The potential benefits extend beyond Singapore.

The second strategy, related to the first, is to grow Singapore into an agribusiness hub. The Economic Development Board is encouraging big players to set up their operational headquarters and trading operations, as well as engage in upstream research, in Singapore.

Two examples are Syngenta and Bayer CropScience, whose research laboratories aim to develop ‘elite’ crop varieties for the region.

The third strategy is to turn Singapore’s own domestic market into a ‘test lab’ of sorts, especially for urban agriculture.

Singapore’s highly urbanised population could be turned into an advantage by pursuing urban farming. Indeed, Singapore could leverage on its dense population to find unique, urban solutions to food security.

Agricultural production can be creatively brought within the city space, such as through ‘rooftop farming’, thus reducing Singapore’s reliance on food imports.

The success of urban farming can eventually be shared and replicated in other cities, said Dr Maliki. One pilot project on rooftop farming was started last year when the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority engaged a local company, SkyGreens, to do a commercial ‘vertical farming’ prototype.

Singapore’s potential in urban farming has attracted quiet international attention. The Urban Agriculture Network (UAN) set up under the auspices of the United Nations Development Programme once declared Singapore a possible world leader in some aspects of urban agriculture – food production from its residential and commercial rooftops.

In other words, the rooftops of thousands of HDB blocks can potentially be turned into urban farmland. New economic opportunity for Singapore could come from two particular techniques – aeroponics (growing plants without soil and water) and aquaponics (growing plants using recycled fish waste).

According to the UAN’s Western Pacific offshoot in Australia, these two technology spin-offs from hydroponics and aquaculture could make Singapore a world leader in rooftop production of fresh vegetables, fruit and flowers; certain types of seafood in specially designed containers; and a greener, cleaner cityscape that contributes less to global warming and therefore climate change.

A fourth, but no less important, strategy is the shift towards greater local production of three key food items – eggs, leafy vegetables and fish. A $20 million Food Fund, launched in December 2009, is in place to incentivise farms to explore new farming technologies to ensure Singapore’s food supply resilience.

Singapore’s multi-pronged strategy fits in with the search for holistic solutions to solve food security issues. It dovetails with at least three fronts in the global action to tackle food security: Asean, through the Asean Integrated Food Security Framework; the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum through measures to enhance food security within the Asia-Pacific region; and the Group of 20 which aims to tackle food price volatility through international coordination.

In a nutshell, Singapore’s overall strategy is to seek win-win partnerships locally, regionally and globally as food security issues transcend national boundaries.

By taking care of its own needs while being useful to the world, Singapore is now playing its part in tackling the global food security problem.

The writer is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. Source: The Straits Times via Wildsingapore

Inflation? Grow your own food

July 1, 2011 by Eugene Tay

Future global food demand is expected to increase by some 70 per cent by 2050.

That’s according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

The organisation said more sustainable farming efforts are needed to feed what is expected to be a nine-billion 2050 population.

In addition, with rapidly growing global population, and supply playing catch up, inflationary pressures continue to hang over most rice bowls in Asia.

In Singapore, a social enterprise with global backing is looking to help community members come back to their roots, and at the same time combat inflation on a small scale.

Singapore is renowned for its greenery, but perhaps not its urban farming.

In North West Singapore, however, efforts are under way to get people and corporates to come back down to the ground to plant food and to experience food sustainability.

In Singapore, as with most of Asian economies, food prices have continued on a steady rise.

In May food prices rose 2.8 per cent on-year due to more expensive prepared meals and ingredients.

The founders behind the social project ComCrop said it can even go a small way in combating inflation.

Alpha Biofuels chief executive director Allan Lim said: “In a way, I feel that we may not be able to counter the global inflation and food prices.

“But let’s say if we have 200 of such farms and we have about 200 in Singapore, big and small, and every one of them grows some kind of herb. And these herbs, like chilli, and spices, when the food prices go up, the neighbourhood could actually just come down and grab the chillies and go back and cook.

“You don’t really need your hard earned money in the supermarkets buying these.

“So if we could concentrate on growing a single kind of crop, or two, three kinds of crops, and this could become sustainable and then the residents could actually use these.

“We could effectively counter a little bit of the inflation but we couldn’t solve the inflation problem”.

The project has won the support of globally renowned UN Messenger of Peace Jane Goodall who said more of such farms should be set up in every country.

Ms Goodall said that such sustainable and even organic farming is achievable to support perhaps even global demand.

“I truly believe that organic farming, if it gets the government behind it, if it doesn’t have to compete with agro business — which right now it does — you know it might cost a little bit more but there will be much less waste, it will be valued,” Ms Goodall said.

“It will taste good, it will make us healthier, and we probably save on our doctors’ bills because there’s absolutely no questions but then lots of our problems got to do with the residue, pesticides and fertilisers”.

It is estimated that the world needs to invest a US$209 billion in agriculture in developing countries to support demand by 2050.

Source: Channel NewsAsia

The hidden price of discounting fresh fruit and vegetables

Cover Picture: We take for granted cheap and plentiful fruit and vegetables and “forget” about shortages. AAP

How should we consider the potential broader ramifications of Coles’ recent promise to reduce by 50% the price of fresh fruit and vegetables?

In the face of cheap fruit and vegetables, it is hard to take seriously concerns about our future food security and health. After all, why worry about tomorrow when fresh, seasonal, healthy food is so cheap today?

However, food security requires reliable supply, access and distribution of nutritionally sound food. While Coles promotes the price-cuts as a win-win for producers and consumers, claiming they have helped farmers offload stock that would otherwise go to waste, the current state of overproduction demonstrates the very volatility of our food supply.

It is worth keeping in mind the bigger picture to this debate. In recent years concerns about the potential impact of climate change on future food security, rising concerns about the health impact of artificial chemicals and a growing obesity epidemic have increasingly politicised what we eat and how it is grown.

The rise of a global industrial agriculture system and world food economy has intensified the disconnect between people and the food they consume, rendering invisible the pathways food travels before arriving on our plates.

At the same time, this food system and the supermarkets it supplies have enabled cities to thrive by freeing people from the constraints of food production. But this has resulted in people in urban populations losing the knowledge of how to produce our own food. This in part has also led to a loss of cooking knowledge, an over-reliance on convenience food and an increase in obesity and related health concerns.

While we are not suggesting that everyone needs to know how to grow food to counteract these issues, it seems that our growing disconnection from food, and loss of knowledge about its production – the lottery of weather, the seasonal requirements and market demands — is fuelling many of these problems.

The breaking of the drought and other favourable weather conditions have produced an abundance of some produce in some areas. As consumers in NSW pay less than $2 a kilo for tomatoes, pears, cucumbers and peaches at Coles this week, memories of paying upwards of $12 a kilo for bananas following Cyclone Larry may start to fade.

Memories may be even more readily erased of the broader global context when in 2008 and 2011 the rising cost of food led to riots and political instability in many nations, not to mention that tens of thousands of people that went hungry.

In times of plenty, the food crises of recent history seem to be readily forgotten. This kind of “forgetting” is ably supported by the industrial agricultural system in developed nations such as Australia.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council’s 2011 State of the Industry report shows that we have one of the world’s most concentrated retail environments. The big supermarkets encourage shoppers to expect year-round availability of fresh produce at reasonable prices. In fact, research indicates that the majority of shoppers could be classified as “budget conscious”, concerned primarily with price. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the “average” Australian household spends $17 per week on fresh fruit and vegetables. With the price cuts this $17 dollars may stretch further, but at what other cost?

The supermarket shopper’s focus on price suggests the majority invest little concern in bigger picture issues related to issues of food security, ethical food production and trade and health.

But we should beware of being lulled into a false sense of security at a time when we need to be planning for our food futures.

Source: The Conversation
http://onenesspublishing.com/2012/02/the-hidden-price-of-discounting-fresh-fruit-and-vegetables/

Questions for reflection

What is the feasibility of having residents plant vegetables for their own consumption?
What more can be done to ensure food security, in this aspect?

Resources

Singapore Institute of Planners and Surbana Consultants: Potential for High-Rise Farming http://www.sip.org.sg/uploadPDF/How%20Does%20Your%20Market%20Garden%20Grow_18Aug09_fellowship_.pdf

Security of Meat Sources

A prophetic extract from 2011: Do contrast it with article on lab-grown hamburger in Feb 22 following the article

Historically, meat has been for the world’s rich. Lab-grown meat could change that forever—while helping solve the environmental and resource dilemmas of the future.

Amid widespread speculation that the current market for food production won’t be able to provide for the world’s population by 2050, a recent innovation cooked up in a Dutch lab has been getting attention for its in vitro meat – also known as cultured or fake meat. A concept which is "becoming a holy grail for anyone concerned about the environmental and ethical impacts of rearing millions of animals around the world each year for human consumption," says The Guardian.

In another article from The Guardian, a group of Oxford researchers said that lab-grown meat could help feed the growing world population while reducing the impact on the environment.

The product may seem distasteful, but the statistics are compelling. This more sustainable method of producing protein promises to increase the chances of food security for the world’s poor while simultaneously protecting the environment. The projected resource savings from artificial meat are remarkable–an Oxford study estimated it could be engineered to use only 1 percent of the land and 4 percent of the water required for conventional meat.

For decades, environmentalists have been lamenting meat production, according to The Guardian:

Links between meat consumption and climate change have been widely known for many years, partly due to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest to make room for the livestock. Clearing these forests is estimated to produce a staggering 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire transport sector.

Many scientists are adamant that changes will have to be made. But will it be possible to strike a balance between preserving the environment and providing for the world’s rapidly increasing population? As it is, the statistics on global hunger are alarming. According to the UN’s World Food Programme, there are 925 million chronically hungry people, 98 percent of whom live in the developing world. More than one in seven people do not have enough protein and energy in their diet.

The UN estimates that to feed a global population of 9 billion by 2050, food production will have to increase by 70 percent. Table: Farming First

Increased meat-eating usually correlates with a country’s rising affluence, but this could soon change. Many scientists insist that with further research, man-made meat will someday be on the menu of solutions to the global resource dilemmas of the future.

Source: http://www.globalenvision.org/2011/08/03/test-tube-meat-could-it-feed-world-one-day

Artificial burger costing $400K to be launched this year

AFP | Wed Feb 22 2012

The world's first "test-tube" meat, a hamburger made from a cow's stem cells, will be produced this fall.

Canada, Feb 19, 2012 - The world's first "test-tube" meat, a hamburger made from a cow's stem cells, will be produced this fall, Dutch scientist Mark Post told a major science conference on Sunday.

It will also be the world's priciest burger.

Prof Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.

The ingredients for his first burger are "still in a laboratory phase," he said, but by fall "we have committed ourselves to make a couple of thousand of small tissues, and then assemble them into a hamburger."

Post, chair of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, said his project is funded with 250,000 euros (S$415,200) from an anonymous private investor motivated by "care for the environment, food for the world, and interest in life-transforming technologies."

For the first serving in October, Prof Post plans to ask renowned British chef Heston Blumenthal (in picture above) to cook the meat, and the anonymous financier behind the project will decide who to invite to eat it.

Post spoke at a symposium titled "The Next Agricultural Revolution" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver.

Speakers said they aim to develop such "meat" products for mass consumption to reduce the environmental and health costs of conventional food production.

Conventional meat and dairy production requires more land, water, plants and disposal of waste products than almost all other human foods, they said.

The global demand for meat is expected to rise by 60 percent by 2050, said American scientist Nicholas Genovese, who organized the symposium.

"But the majority of earth's pasture lands are already in use," he said, so conventional livestock producers can only meet the booming demand by further expansion into nature.

The result would be lost biodiversity, more greenhouse and other gases, and an increase in disease, he said.

In 2010 a report by the United Nations Environment Program called for a global vegetarian diet.

"Animal farming is by far the biggest ongoing global catastrophe," Patrick Brown of the Stanford University School of Medicine told reporters.

"More to the point, it's incredibly ready to topple ... it's inefficient technology that hasn't changed fundamentally for millennia," he said.

"There's been a blind spot in the science and technology community (of livestock production) as an easy target."

Brown, who said he is funded by an American venture capital firm and has two start-ups in California, said he will devote the rest of his life to develop products that mimic meat but are made entirely from vegetable sources.

He is working "to develop and commercialize a product that can compete head on with meat and dairy products based on taste and value for the mainstream consumer, for people who are hard-core meat and cheese lovers who can't imagine ever giving that up, but could be persuaded if they had a product with all taste and value."

Brown said developing meat from animal cells in a laboratory will still have a high environmental cost, and so he said he will rely only on plant sources.

Both scientists said no companies in the existing meat industry have expressed interest.

http://www.soshiok.com/article/17644

Ecology, Livestock, and Food Security: Is meat production wasting our resources?

Nov 29th, 2011 by Alex Boehrer

Livestock production globally and in the United States is at the heart of many environmental and ecological dilemmas of the 21^st century. Producing livestock for food in the U.S. has been shown to lead to a variety of problems, including but not limited to habitat degradation, high greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution. Additionally, the mead industry uses a disproportionate amount of natural resources. For each of these issues, understanding the ecology behind the problem is key to eventually adopting less damaging practices.

First, let’s examine the case of cattle raised for industrial meat production. The fact is that land required to raise thousands of cattle takes up a significant amount of natural habitat. One study estimates that ‘30% of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production’ (Bittman 2008). This land would have originally housed diverse ecosystems based primarily on a prairie environment, with grasses forming the backbone of this system. With such a large number of cows in one area, however, the prairies are reduced to dry, dusty, desert-like zones, almost devoid of life entirely. Furthermore, some areas of the world are cutting down large swaths of forested land to support grazing; this is especially concerning considering rainforests and other high-diversity areas are being degraded. One study showed that ‘70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture’ (FAO 2006). One prime example of the effects of habitat destruction is the extinction of the Tasmanian tiger, which was officially declared extinct in 1936. The Tasmanian tiger’s extinction has been linked to a loss of habitat due to raising cattle and sheep (Owen 2003). Meanwhile habitats near feedlots or grazelands are likely to suffer due to edge effects or habitat fragmentation. The picture below shows how grazing cattle can devastate a wetlands ecosystem near rangeland. On the right we see the edge of the pond totally devoid of vegetation, clearly free of any habitat for small amphibians. The left side is fenced off from the cattle and remains pristine.

Even large amounts of dust, which is blown from the barren lots into the lower troposphere, negatively affect nearby ecosystems. Habitat fragmentation (when populations are isolated because surrounding habitat has been destroyed) is dangerous because these species are at a higher risk for extinction (Hanski 1999).

Next, consider the amount of food required to support the growth and development of a 1200-pound cow. Most animals produced for consumption in the U.S. and around the world are not simply ‘put out to pasture’ to eat grass, as they would have hundreds of years ago. In order to meet the ever-increasing demand for beef, producers have been feeding their animals high calorie grains (mostly corn) to facilitate the rapid growth of the cows. But basic ecology tells us that feeding farmed grains to cows is inefficient at best. Using the idea of trophic levels to model this interaction reveals that only 10% of the energy (calories) in corn will be stored in the cow as food energy for us to consume. This is due to the fact that some energy is lost through performing biological functions, and simply to heat. Combining this with the fact that close to 40% of the worlds harvest goes to feed livestock leaves us with a significant loss of energy (Boer 2011). Not only does grain-feeding livestock result in this ecological inefficiency, but the costs of farming such large amounts of grain are huge. This production requires huge amounts of water, land, and energy, further adding to the true cost of meat production. One study found that producing one kilogram of animal protein required 100 ties more water and 11 times more fossil fuel energy than 1 kilogram of grain protein (Pimental 2003). These costs can be seen as losses in ecosystem services because freshwater and nonrenewable resources like oil and coal are not available for other uses.

Finally we must examine the impacts of materials produced by the meat industry. Runoff from large feedlots has been known to pollute freshwater sources with high levels of nitrates phosphates and even pharmaceuticals (antibiotics) widely used to treat the cattle. The impacts on freshwater ecosystems due to these pollutants can be profound. Nitrates and phosphates cause harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficient ecosystems, leading to a decline in marine and freshwater species as well as insect species who rely on the habitat for reproduction. (UNEP 2008.) This loss in species diversity inherently decreases ecosystem services; for example many amphibian species help to control pests and their decline leads to a boom in these pest populations. Furthermore the carbon dioxide emitted in the production of a single pound of beef in an American-style feed lot is astounding. Accounting for factors such as land clearing, feed production, and packaging and transporting the final product to supermarket shelves, one report notes that producing one pound of beef emits 14.8 kg of CO2. In contrast, the combustion of one gallon of gasoline emits 2.4 kg of CO2 (Fiala 2008). This, in combination with the methane produced by livestock, makes meat production the largest contributor of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, falling even behind transportation. With climate change driven by these gases, it is evident that livestock could negatively affect the ecosystems on a global level.

With the human population booming and demand for meat products higher than ever before, it is evident that meat production practices must be altered in order to avoid a number of environmental disasters. But while many believe that advances in technology will allow us to sustain higher and higher levels of food production, I propose that we must fundamentally alter the way we produce meat for consumption in the U.S. A multifaceted approach would be necessary to effectively transform this system. Adopting smaller scale, sustainable farming practices, shifting to locally raised meats, and reducing the consumption of meat overall would help to repair the livestock industry in this country and around the world. One thing is certain: without altering our current consumption and production practices, the world will face ever-increasing food shortages in the coming decades.

One crucial step in reinventing the meat production system in the U.S. is to transition to smaller scale farms. These farms are able to focus on sustainable practices and can produce safer food that doesn’t harm the environment. First, cows raised sustainably on smaller farms generally eat grass, which means that they do not require feed. This consequentially reduces all aforementioned impacts of producing grains for cattle feed. Less water, energy, and land would be required to produce cows on small farms. This subsequently leads to less habitat destruction and fewer impacted species. Grass-fed cows have been shown to have a smaller carbon footprint; by enriching the soil on which they graze and spurring new grass shoots to grow, more carbon dioxide is sequestered in the land (Abend 2010). Additionally, animals that are pasture raised are healthier and live in a lower stress environment. This situation allows also for an increased degree of food safety. Since cows are evolutionarily designed to eat grass, many diseases and health problems can be avoided by allowing them to pasture graze, meaning that the final product is safer for the consumer (Bittman 2008). When cows are healthier, they do not require the cocktail of antibiotics that many industrial farms feed their cattle. This reduces the amount of pharmaceuticals polluting surface waters and means fewer resources are diverted to the cattle. For these reasons, smaller scale farms producing grass fed beef would provide safer and more sustainable alternatives to industrial meat production.

Although small, sustainable farms present part of a solution for irresponsible meat consumption in America, consumers must drastically change their practices as well. First consumers should consider where their meat is coming from. Encouraging locally raised meats, even if they aren’t organic or grass-fed, reduces the environmental footprint of packaging and transportation. Currently consumers seek the lowest monetary price possible, without considering health or sustainability as another aspect of true cost. But while purchasing industrially produced meat is cheaper in terms of sticker price, accounting for environmental and possible health costs makes it fundamentally more expensive than locally produced meats. Local meats are less damaging to the environment for several reasons. First, the transportation of meat from the farmer to the packager to the supermarket is not something we usually consider, but it is the amount of resources required for this process would be enormous. One study noted that switching to locally produced foods would save the same amount of fossil fuel resources as driving 1000 miles less per year (Engelhaupt 2008). Additionally, the packaging of meat to endure longer transport times requires large amounts of materials, mostly in the form of non-recyclable styrofoam and plastics. In this scenario, eliminating the middlemen and long transportation routes, dramatically increases the sustainability of meat consumption. However this would require consumers to alter their priorities and be constantly aware of the consequences of their choices in meat consumption.

Although relying on smaller scale or local farms is a move in the right direction, neither of these alone can solve the problem of sustainability in livestock production. In order to avoid large-scale habitat destruction and possible food shortage, individuals must cut down on their meat consumption overall. If citizens changed their ideas about how much meat should be consumed on a weekly basis, the livestock industry would be much more sustainable. The largest benefits just might be seen in the amount of habitat saved in critical ecosystems. Even when grass-fed and locally produced, there is no getting around the fact that cows need a large area of land to graze. By limiting grazing land use, habitat is not only conserved, but diversity lost due to edge effects and habitat fragmentation is also minimized. It is also clear that American’s do not need as much meat as we currently consume. The average American now consumes almost 200 pounds of meat per year, up from 50 pounds per person 50 years ago. This adds up to nearly 110 grams of protein every day, while many nutritionists estimate that the average person only needs around 30 grams a day (Bittman 2008).

If our overall demand for meat decreased, this would inherently lead to changes in the way our food is produced in the United States. For instance instead of focusing on producing the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time, farmers could emphasize the importance of quality in their meat production. This ‘quality over quantity’ idea should be the core of any plan to produce meat that is healthy for individuals to consume and healthy for the environment. Much research has been done on the comparative nutritional value of grass fed beef versus traditional grain fed beef. As it happens, grass fed beef is considered “healthier” for many reasons. It has much lower saturated fat content (similar to skinless chicken) and is lower in calories in general. Additionally, it contains higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids, shown to reduce stroke and heart attach risk (McCluskey et al 2005). Taking human health considerations one step further, we can consider the possibility of a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian lifestyle. While I have shown that a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet is not only healthy for the environment, many consider it healthier for consumers too. There are many studies that show lower meat intake correlates to lower rates of obesity, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and several cancers. Furthermore, vegetarians enjoyed increased longevity (Sabate 2002). It is clear that as long as proper care is taken to ensure nutritional quality, a vegetarian diet (or even one with marginally less meat) is healthy for both individuals and the environment.

While it is easy discuss the ideal situation, there are several potential problems associated with shifting the meat industry in the ways described above. It is inherently difficult to get consumers to change their ways, especially if these changes require additional effort on their part, or are more economically expensive. This presents a problem considering local and grass fed meats are expensive. While the cost of industrially produced meats do not always accurately represent their true costs, individuals will have trouble justifying the additional expense in today’s economic environment. Additionally the meat industry and associated agricultural industries would undoubtedly work hard to ensure their companies continue to flourish. But in the end, the monetary costs of sustainable meat are outweighed by the benefits they provide. As resource scarcity grows, it may even become more fiscally responsible to raise livestock in a sustainable fashion.

The costs of today’s meat industries are huge. The sheer amount of land required to raise cattle, for example, leads to far-reaching habitat destruction and fragmentation. These effects threaten biodiversity and species richness, as well creating numerous other problems. Additionally, the resources and land required to farm grains fed to these cattle are significant. Our freshwater sources suffer, as do nonrenewable energy resources. The energy required to produce meat, calorie for calorie, is extremely high compared to the energy required to produce vegetable sources of protein. Finally, products of the livestock industry are often major pollutants, including nitrates, phosphates, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. Each of these pollutants comes with its own set of ramifications. There are several changes that must be made in order to avoid severe ecological distress and food insecurity worldwide. First we must rely on smaller, more sustainable farms to produce grass-fed animals. This enables fewer resources to be used both to grow feed for the animals and for less pollution. Second, switching to local food would not only enable the reduction of resources required to package and ship food, it would allow consumers to think more carefully about where their meat comes from. Most importantly, perhaps, is the reduction in the overall amount of meat consumed in America. It is clear that such large amounts of meat are not necessary in a healthy diet, and limiting consumption limits all adverse effects of the meat industry. Swift action to limit the environmental degradation caused by the meat industry should be taken immediately if we are to avoid irreversible damages.

Source: http://blogs.cornell.edu/bioee1610/2011/11/29/ecology-livestock-and-food-security-is-meat-production-wasting-our-resources/

Other resources:

v Cultured meat as a solution -

http://oxford.academia.edu/HannaTuomisto/Papers/740015/Food_Security_and_Protein_Supply_-Cultured_meat_a_solution

v Singapore looking towards China for meat solution –http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/1285301165-FDI%20Strategic%20Analysis%20Paper%20-%2024%20September%202010.pdf

v US Meat Processors Association Food Security Plan: http://www.aamp.com/safety_security.php

SustainabilityatNJC

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Welcome and Administrative instructions

Research preparations (To be ready before the second session of the programme)

Food Security

Food Security

A wake-up call for Singapore

Sowing seeds of food security for Singapore

From garden city to urban farms

HDB rooftops as farmland?

By Yang Razali Kassim, The Straits Times, 24 Aug 11.

Inflation? Grow your own food

The hidden price of discounting fresh fruit and vegetables