CAN REGIONAL, ORGANIC AGRICULTURE FEED THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY? A Case Study for Hamburg and North Germany

CAN REGIONAL, ORGANIC AGRICULTURE FEED THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY? A Case Study for Hamburg and North Germany Sarah Joseph Hamburg.bio HCU REAP MSc. Thesis hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 1

STRUCTURE hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 2

STRUCTURE 1 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 3

STRUCTURE 1 2 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 4

STRUCTURE 1 2 3 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. The merits of organic agriculture. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 5

STRUCTURE 1 2 3 4 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. The merits of organic agriculture. Quantify the potential to feed the local community with organic and regional agriculture. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 6

STRUCTURE 1 2 3 4 5 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. The merits of organic agriculture. Quantify the potential to feed the local community with organic and regional agriculture. Discussion of results. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 7

STRUCTURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. The merits of organic agriculture. Quantify the potential to feed the local community with organic and regional agriculture. Discussion of results. Examples of alternative food networks (AFNs). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 8

STRUCTURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highlights of our current system of food production and consumption. Focus of this thesis. The merits of organic agriculture. Quantify the potential to feed the local community with organic and regional agriculture. Discussion of results. Examples of alternative food networks (AFNs). Conclusions and outlook. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 9

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES Image source: cdn.history.com hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 10

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 11

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through (1) technological advances that greatly increased the productivity of agricultural land and labour Image source: own photo machinery hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 13

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through (1) technological advances that greatly increased the productivity of agricultural land and labour Image source: own photo machinery Image source: flickr.com agricultural chemicals hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 14

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through (1) technological advances that greatly increased the productivity of agricultural land and labour Image source: own photo machinery hamburg.bio Image source: flickr.com crop genetics agricultural chemicals HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 15

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through (1) technological advances that greatly increased the productivity of agricultural land and labour (2) government policies which promote the ever decreasing (internal costs) of food production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 16

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system has been shaped through (1) technological advances that greatly increased the productivity of agricultural land and labour (2) government policies which promote the ever decreasing (internal costs) of food production staple crops such as: corn, soy, cereals, etc. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 17

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is highly centralized just a handful of companies control the majority of the market in sales ex: in Germany, five food retailers accounted for 70% of the revenue from food retail products in 2014 and they are able to exert market power upstream Edeka Group Schwarz Group Metro Group Rewe Group Aldi Group Rest of the market Adapted from (Statista, 2014). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 18

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is highly specialized fostered by technological advances and government policies, it became more and more lucrative to specialize in just one or a few species of plants or animals, breaking the holistic cycle of the farm hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 19

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our food system is highly globalized hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 21

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our food system is highly globalized hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 22

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our food system is highly globalized hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 23

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our food system is highly globalized hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 24

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our food system is highly globalized hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 25

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES on the plus side... hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 26

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is the most productive in the history of the world hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 27

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is the most productive in the history of the world x6 x10 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 32

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES but unfortunately... hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 33

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is out of balance 795 million people do not have enough food to live a healthy, active life hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 34

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is out of balance 600 million people are clasified as obese (with a BMI of 30 or more) 795 million people do not have enough food to live a healthy, active life hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 35

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is highly complex, with low transparency hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 36

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system is highly complex, with low transparency Image source: flickr.com hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 37

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES our global food system significantly contributes to destruction of our environment, health and social equity hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 39

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet has changed significantly in the past 100 years, with the greatest change coming after World World II hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 43

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet has changed significantly in the past 100 years, with the greatest change coming after World World II increased productivity hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 44

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet has changed significantly in the past 100 years, with the greatest change coming after World World II increased productivity rise in income hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 45

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet has changed significantly in the past 100 years, with the greatest change coming after World World II increased productivity rise in income increased trade hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 46

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet increased in caloric intake throughout the world Global increase in per capita food consumption kcal / (person*day) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1969 1979 1989 2005 2015 2030 2050 Year Developing countries Developed countries Adapted from (FAO(a), 2012). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 47

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet increased in caloric intake throughout the world, including more processed food Global increase in per capita food consumption kcal / (person*day) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1969 1979 1989 2005 2015 2030 2050 Year Developing countries Developed countries Adapted from (FAO(a), 2012). Image source: static4.techinsider.io hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 48

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet increased in caloric intake throughout the world, including more processed food, more exotic food Global increase in per capita food consumption kcal / (person*day) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1969 1979 1989 2005 2015 2030 2050 Year Developing countries Developed countries Adapted from (FAO(a), 2012). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 49

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet increased in caloric intake throughout the world, including more processed food, more exotic food and a significant increase in meat consumption Global increase in per capita food consumption kcal / (person*day) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1969 1979 1989 2005 2015 2030 2050 Year Developing countries Developed countries Adapted from (FAO(a), 2012). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 50

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES the average human diet increased in caloric intake throughout the world, with a significant increase in meat consumption Increase in average German per capita meat consumption per year 100 75 Kilograms 50 25 0 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 2015 Year Adapted from von Alvensleben (1999) and (BMELV, 2011). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 51

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES unsustainable land use & deforestation unsustainable water use, & pollution ENVIRONMENT loss of biodiversity soil erosion, salinization & degradation contribution to climate change hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 52

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES obesity & lack of access to healthy foods HEALTH risk of exposure to harmful chemicals antibiotic use & risk of superbugs risk of bacteria outbreak hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 53

1. CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM: CHARACTERISTICS, CHANGING DIET & CHALLENGES food shortages, hunger vs. obesity worker safety & exploitation SOCIAL EQUITY fewer farmers & decreased prospects animal welfare risks hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 54

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD to make the food system more sustainable, we must move towards organic production methods hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 55

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD 1. To what extent can a population in an industrialized region with agricultural resources feed itself by regionally and organically grown agricultural products? 2. How can regional organic food production be promoted and expanded by the individual consumer s consumption choices? hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 57

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD 1. To what extent can a population in an industrialized region with agricultural resources feed itself by regionally and organically grown agricultural products? 2. How can regional organic food production be promoted and expanded by the individual consumer s consumption choices? 3. What characteristics do alternative food networks possess to promote these choices? hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 58

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD I address these questions by exploring (in quantitative terms): hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 59

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD I address these questions by exploring (in quantitative terms): 1. The individual consumer s agricultural land footprint for food production according to various diet scenarios with different compositions of specific food groups. 2. The maximum number of persons that can be fed according to identified diet scenarios within the selected regions taking into account land use breakdown of agricultural land. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 61

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD I address these questions by exploring (in quantitative terms): 1. The individual consumer s agricultural land footprint for food production according to various diet scenarios with different compositions of specific food groups. 2. The maximum number of persons that can be fed according to identified diet scenarios within the selected regions taking into account land use breakdown of agricultural land. 3. The effect of more sustainable individual German diet consumption choices on the overall land footprint for food production, and thus the potential to feed the regional community with regional organic agriculture. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 62

2. FOCUS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS & METHOD 1. Conduct research of background information 2. Interview relevant experts in the field 3. Conduct analysis 4. Develop conclusions and summary of results hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 63

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 64

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE One of the most important points that many people forget is that this soil we are working worldwide is not for just one generation, and it didn t come one generation before us. It has to stay for thousands of years. We have to work to maintain and enhance the soil. We have a big responsibility. -Demeter-certified Farmer hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 65

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE health: sustain and enhance health of soil, plants, animals and humans, prohibiting the use of artificial fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) ecology: encourage biodiversity, work with the living ecological systems and cycles, promote them and sustain them fairness: promote animal welfare, raising livestock in a manner that is appropriate to the respective species as possible, and prohibiting the use of antibiotics, ensure fairness with regards to life and the environment hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 68

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE health: sustain and enhance health of soil, plants, animals and humans, prohibiting the use of artificial fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) ecology: encourage biodiversity, work with the living ecological systems and cycles, promote them and sustain them fairness: promote animal welfare, raising livestock in a manner that is appropriate to the respective species as possible, and prohibiting the use of antibiotics, ensure fairness with regards to life and the environment care: management should be precautionary and responsible, protecting the health and well being of current and future generations and the environment hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 69

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE support is provided under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU: farming associations: certifications in Germany: hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 70

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE the organic sector of production & consumption is still relatively niche in Germany accounting for roughly 6.3% of total domestic agricultural area (2014) third largest amount of organic area under cultivation in the EU Development of organic agricultural land in Germany (1996-2014) Percentage of total number of farms 10 5 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 10 5 0 Percentage of total agricultural land Years Adapted from (BMEL(b), 2015). hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 71

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 72

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 73

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas promotion hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 74

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas promotion high land prices hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 75

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas promotion high land prices competition of large retailers hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 76

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas high land competition of competition of promotion prices large retailers cheap imports hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 77

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas high land competition of competition of consumer promotion prices large retailers cheap imports habits hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 78

3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE: PRINCIPLES & ROLE approximately 30-50% of organic food must be imported to Germany barriers to increased production include: biogas high land competition of competition of consumer low financial promotion prices large retailers cheap imports habits prospects hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 79

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR FOOD PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT OF CHANGE IN DIET hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 80

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 81

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person the individual land footprint for food production is comprised of the land required to produce the crops and the animal products that are consumed both directly and indirectly by humans. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 82

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person the individual land footprint for food production is comprised of the land required to produce the crops and the animal products that are consumed both directly and indirectly by humans. food consumed in the unprocessed form hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 83

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR FOOD PRODUCTION & REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person The individual land footprint for food production is comprised of the land required to produce the crops and the animal products that are consumed both directly and indirectly by humans. includes crops grown to feed livestock, & products used as ingredients of other foods hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 84

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person based on four different diet scenarios with different compositions of meat and plant products that represent current consumption scenarios: Diet One: a potatoes-only diet, produced by conventional agriculture. Diet Two: the current average German diet, produced by conventional agriculture. Diet Three: based on data obtained from a local, Demeter-Certified farm, and in some cases data was adjusted or assumed, produced at least according to EU organic certification. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 89

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person based on four different diet scenarios with different compositions of meat and plant products that represent current consumption scenarios: Diet One: a potatoes-only diet, produced by conventional agriculture. Diet Two: the current average German diet, produced by conventional agriculture. Diet Three: based on data obtained from a local, Demeter-Certified farm, and in some cases data was adjusted or assumed, produced at least according to EU organic certification. Diet Four: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two (i.e. the current average German diet), except for the assumption that it is produced at least according EU organic certification. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 90

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person as a foundation: WWF study with consumption quantities and agricultural land footprint for food production already provided (conventional). divided total agricultural area for German food production (both domestic and abroad), subtract other uses, and divide by total population. to breakdown between food groups: divide the total area under cultivation by food group by the population. Food Group Cereal & products Potato & products Rice Legumes Sugar products (inc Vegetables Fruits Oils & fats Beef Pork Poultry Sheep/goat Eggs Other Meat Fish & products Milk & products Land Footprint for Food G Consumption (2) Status Quo Conventional Diet (m 2 )(A) Production Efficiency (m 2 /kg) Annual Consumption (kg) 231.0 2.4 95.6 21.0 0.3 70.7 11.0 2.1 5.3 0.5 1.2 0.4 30.0 0.6 48.0 30.0 0.3 95.4 99.0 0.9 110.5 119.0 6.0 19.9 351.0 27.0 13.0 468.0 8.9 52.6 150.0 8.1 18.5 24.0 26.7 0.9 84.0 6.3 13.3 23.0 11.5 2.0 18.0 1.3 14.1 602.0 5.1 118.8 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 91

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 2. calculate the organic comparison factor Food Group Case Study Comparable Studies Current Data Ave. Used Conventional (2) Yields / Demeter (3) (Ave) Seufert et al., Conv. Yield / Organic Yield (Ave) de Ponti et al., Conv. Yield / Organic Yield (Ave) destatis : Germany 2014/2015 Conv. Yield / Organic Yield (Ave) Conv. Yield / Organic Yield (Ave) (2) Status Quo Conventional Diet Land Footprint for Consumption (m 2 )(A) Production Efficiency (m 2 /kg) Annual Consumption Cereal & products 83% 74% 79% n.a. 79% 231.0 2.4 95.6 Potato & products 42% n.a. 70% n.a. 56% 21.0 0.3 70.7 Rice n.a. n.a. 94% n.a. 94% 11.0 2.1 5.3 Legumes n.a. 84% 90% 89% 66% 82% 0.5 1.2 0.4 Sugar products (including honey) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 74% 30.0 0.6 48.0 Vegetables 52% 67% 80% 73% 68% 30.0 0.3 95.4 Fruits n.a. 97% 72% 61% 77% 99.0 0.9 110.5 Oils & fats 60% 89% 74% n.a. 74% 119.0 6.0 19.9 Beef n.a. n.a. n.a. 351.0 27.0 13.0 Pork n.a. n.a. n.a. 468.0 8.9 52.6 Poultry 72% n.a. n.a. n.a. 150.0 8.1 18.5 Sheep/goat n.a. n.a. n.a. 72% 24.0 26.7 0.9 Eggs n.a. n.a. n.a. 84.0 6.3 13.3 Other Meat n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 23.0 11.5 2.0 Fish & products n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 18.0 1.3 14.1 Milk & products 69% n.a. n.a. n.a. 69% 602.0 5.1 118.8 Average: 74% (kg) hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 92

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT Square meters 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products Share plant products = 28% Share animal products = 72% Share plant products = 37% Share animal products = 61% Share plant products = 27% Share animal products = 72% 500 *share is in terms of total land footprint 0 1st: Potato Diet Conventionally Produced diet (328,5 m 2 ) Diet 2: Status Quo, Conventionally Produced Diet (2,388 m 2 ) Diet 3: Kat. Hof, Organically Produced Diet (2,346 m 2 ) Diet 4: Status Quo, Organically Produced Diet (3,102 m 2 ) hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 93

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person 2. define three regions and quantify total agricultural area for food production available within hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 94

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person 2. define three regions and quantify total agricultural area for food production available within because not all agricultural area will necessarily be available for food production, three bounds are assessed: 100% use, 75% use, 50% use hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 95

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT population: 1,762,791 total farming area: 185.8 km 2 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: Region One 9500 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 96

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT population: 3,802,253 total farming area: 5,852 km 2 Region Two Region Two 650 : 1 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: 650 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 97

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT population: 6,289,073 total farming area: 100 km 21,475 km 2 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: Region Three 50 km N 293 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 98

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT region one : Hamburg upper bound middle bound lower bound (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four 32% 4% 4% 3% (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four 24% 3% 3% 3% (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four 16% 2% 2% 2% hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 99

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT region two : 50 km radius Region Two 650 : 1 upper bound middle bound lower bound (1) Diet Scenario One (1) Diet Scenario One (1) Diet Scenario One 100% 100% 100% (2) Diet Scenario Two (2) Diet Scenario Two (2) Diet Scenario Two 64% 48% 32% (3) Diet Scenario Three (3) Diet Scenario Three (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four 66% (4) Diet Scenario Four 49% (4) Diet Scenario Four 33% 50% 37% 25% hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 100

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT region three : 100 km radius Region Three 293 : 1 upper bound middle bound lower bound (1) Diet Scenario One 100% (1) Diet Scenario One 100% (1) Diet Scenario One 100% (2) Diet Scenario Two 100% (2) Diet Scenario Two 100% (2) Diet Scenario Two 71% (3) Diet Scenario Three 100% (3) Diet Scenario Three 100% (3) Diet Scenario Three 73% (4) Diet Scenario Four (4) Diet Scenario Four (4) Diet Scenario Four 100% 83% 55% hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 101

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person 2. define three regions and quantify total agricultural area for food production available within 3. examine the effect of a shift towards more sustainable diet choices on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production Diet Five: diet according to recommendations by the German Society for Nutrition (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, DGE), produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Six: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two, except for a 30% reduction in meat consumption, corresponding to two meat-free days a week, produced at least according to EU organic standards. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 104

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person 2. define three regions and quantify total agricultural area for food production available within 3. examine the effect of a shift towards more sustainable diet choices on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production Diet Five: diet according to recommendations by the German Society for Nutrition (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, DGE), produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Six: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two, except for a 30% reduction in meat consumption, corresponding to two meat-free days a week, produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Seven: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two, except for a 60% reduction in meat consumption, four meat-free days a week, produced at least according to EU organic standards. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 105

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 1. quantify the land footprint for food production (m 2 ) for one person 2. define three regions and quantify total agricultural area for food production available within 3. examine the effect of a shift towards more sustainable diet choices on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production Diet Five: diet according to recommendations by the German Society for Nutrition (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, DGE), produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Six: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two, except for a 30% reduction in meat consumption, corresponding to two meat-free days a week, produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Seven: equal consumption quantities as Diet Two, except for a 60% reduction in meat consumption, four meat-free days a week, produced at least according to EU organic standards. Diet Eight: vegetarian diet, produced at least according to EU organic standards. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 106

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT then a shift towards more sustainable choices is examined hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 107

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT then a shift towards more sustainable choices is examined 3000 2500 Share plant products = 31% Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products Square meters 2000 1500 1000 500 Share plant products = 40% Share animal products = 57% Share animal products = 67% Share plant products = 38% Share animal products = 60% Share plant products =47% Share animal products = 51% *share is in terms of total land footprint 0 Diet 5: DGE, Organically Produced Diet (2,054 m 2 ) Diet 6: Status Quo, -30% Meat Organically Produced Diet (2,802 m 2 ) Diet 7: Status Quo, -60% Meat Organically Produced Diet (2,387 m 2 ) Diet 8: Status Quo, Vegetarian Organically Produced Diet (1,996 m 2 ) hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 108

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT Region Two Region Three 650 : 1 293 : 1 region 1 region 2 region 3 (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four (5) Diet Scenario Five (6) Diet Scenario Six (7) Diet Scenario Seven (8) Diet Scenario Eight 32% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four (5) Diet Scenario Five (6) Diet Scenario Six (7) Diet Scenario Seven (8) Diet Scenario Eight 100% 48% 49% 37% 56% 41% 48% 58% (1) Diet Scenario One (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four (5) Diet Scenario Five (6) Diet Scenario Six (7) Diet Scenario Seven (8) Diet Scenario Eight 100% 97% 99% 83% 100% 91% 100% 100% hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 109

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS adjustments & assumptions hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 110

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS adjustments & assumptions in some cases data was assumed or adjusted to compensate to make diets more nutrient complete or more comparable in terms of quantity between diets. for example: with a reduction in meat, an equal quantity (kg) substitute of legumes and/or eggs was added hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 112

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS adjustments & assumptions in some cases data was assumed or adjusted to compensate to make diets more nutrient complete or more comparable in terms of quantity between diets. for example: with a reduction in meat, an equal quantity (kg) substitute of legumes and/or eggs was added if there were no consumption quantities available, recommendations from the German nutrition society were used. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 113

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for land footprint for food production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 114

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for land footprint for food production here, we imagine that everyone is eating according to the exact same consumption quantities. yields, especially in the case of organic production methods are highly contextual and can vary greatly depending on soil characteristics, management practices, crops and growing conditions. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 116

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for land footprint for food production here, we imagine that everyone is eating according to the exact same consumption quantities. yields, especially in the case of organic production methods are highly contextual and can vary greatly depending on soil characteristics, management practices, crops and growing conditions. meat quantities for the current conventional diet were broken down between livestock species, while the organic meat quantities were not. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 117

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for regional self-sufficiency hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 118

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for regional self-sufficiency not all agricultural land is available for food production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 119

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for regional self-sufficiency not all agricultural land is available for food production it can be used for other purposes such as biogas or textiles agricultural land itself is broken down between: arable land, permanent grassland and permanent cropland (not all is suitable for food production) the analysis assumes the closest producer will deliver to the closest consumer hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 122

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS limitations for regional self-sufficiency not all agricultural land is available for food production it can be used for other purposes such as biogas or textiles agricultural land itself is broken down between: arable land, permanent grassland and permanent cropland (not all is suitable for food production) the analysis assumes the closest producer will deliver to the closest consumer the concentric circle around Hamburg does not include other large cities such as Bremen or Hanover, and therefore there is no other significant competition for food produced hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 123

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS 100 km Hamburg 100 km Bremen 100 km Hanover 50 km N hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 124

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS population: 82.2 million total farming area: 167,000 km 2 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: 492 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 125

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS self-sufficiency potential for Germany if 100% agricultural land is used for food production (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four (5) Diet Scenario Five (6) Diet Scenario Six (7) Diet Scenario Seven (8) Diet Scenario Eight 85% 87% 66% 99% 73% 85% 100% population: 82.2 million total farming area: 167,000 km 2 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: 492 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 126

ANALYSIS: ASSUMPTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS & LIMITATIONS self-sufficiency potential for Germany if 75% agricultural land is used for food production (2) Diet Scenario Two (3) Diet Scenario Three (4) Diet Scenario Four (5) Diet Scenario Five (6) Diet Scenario Six (7) Diet Scenario Seven (8) Diet Scenario Eight 64% 65% 49% 74% 54% 64% 76% population: 82.2 million total available farming area if 75% is used for food production: 125,250 km 2 ratio persons to 1 km 2 of farming area: 656 : 1 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 127

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 128

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 1. individual consumption choices have a significant impact on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 129

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 1. individual consumption choices have a significant impact on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production in sum, the overall land footprint to produce food for entire population 2. meat consumption quantities play the largest role in determining the required agricultural land for food production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 131

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 1. individual consumption choices have a significant impact on the individual agricultural land footprint for food production in sum, the overall land footprint to produce food for entire population 2. meat consumption quantities play the largest role in determining the required agricultural land for food production with the potential to overcome the yield-limiting barrier of organic agriculture when meat consumption quantities are reduced hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 132

Square meters DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 133

Square meters DISCUSSION OF RESULTS best scenario 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 134

Square meters DISCUSSION OF RESULTS most realistic scenario 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 135

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 136

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP examples of AFNs: community supported agriculture (CSA) food cooperative (food co-op) online marketplace regional networks delivery boxes and many more! hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 137

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP price premiums of organic products are one of, if not the, most significant deterrents for consumers at purchase point willingness to pay refers to the largest sum a consumer is willing to pay for a product or service hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 139

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP price premiums of organic products are one of, if not the, most significant deterrents for consumers at purchase point willingness to pay refers to the largest sum a consumer is willing to pay for a product or service which factors can affect consumers willingness to pay for more expensive products? hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 140

FACTORS TO INCREASE WILLINGNESS TO PAY AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 141

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 142

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 143

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 144

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 145

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 146

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare support local community hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 147

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare support local community diversity of product hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 148

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare support local community diversity of product convenience hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 149

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare support local community diversity of product convenience social contact hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 150

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP diversity of product health & nutrition superior taste transparency environmental concern animal welfare support local community convenience hamburg.bio social contact HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis knowledge sharing Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 151

CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK while the industrialized global food system has theoretically accomplished its main goal: to maximize yields at minimal costs, it fails to recognize the significant negative impacts on environment, health and social equity hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 153

CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK while the industrialized global food system has theoretically accomplished its main goal: to maximize yields at minimal costs, it fails to recognize the significant negative impacts on environment, health and social equity one option towards a more sustainable system of production is organically & locally produced foods there is potential to feed the regional community with regionally produced, organic foods but this is dependent on individual diet choices, and the number of persons to be fed compared to the agricultural area available for food production, as well as a number of other ambitious assumptions hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 156

CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK while the industrialized global food system has theoretically accomplished its main goal: to maximize yields at minimal costs, it fails to recognize the significant negative impacts on environment, health and social equity one option towards a more sustainable system of production is organically & locally produced foods there is potential to feed the regional community with regionally produced, organic foods can be promoted through AFNs which may provide the right balance of factors to increase consumers willingness to pay more for organic products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 157

CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK In the end, each of can make a difference. Collective small changes at the individual scale, such as eating meat free just one or two days per week, would have big effects on a community, regional, national and international scale. Increased demand for products produced in a sustainable manner can contribute to providing healthy, fresh food to consumers, minimize global sustainability challenges and nurture the environment. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 158

for any questions or comment please contact: Sarah Joseph: s.joseph2590@gmail.com supervisors: Prof. Irene Peters Ph.D.: irene.peters@hcu-hamburg.de Prof. Dr. Hanno Friedrich: hanno.friedrich@the-klu.org THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 159

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 2nd: status quo, Food group Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) Land footprint of conventional production (m 2 ) % of total land footprint Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) conventionally-produced diet Cereals & cereal products 95.6 231.0 10% 272,460 Potatoes & potato products 70.7 21.0 1% 48,076 Rice 5.3 11.0 0% 19,981 Legumes 0.4 0.5 0% 1,392 =2,388.5 m 2 Sugar products Vegetables 48.0 95.4 30.0 30.0 1% 1% 170,400 24,804 Fruits 110.5 99.0 4% 60,775 Oils & fats 19.9 119.0 5% 68,655 main characteristics: Beef Pork 13.0 52.6 351.0 468.0 15% 20% 13,780 88,894 Poultry 18.5 150.0 6% 24,420 a high meat intake of 87 kg per Sheep/goat 0.9 24.0 1% 2,187 person, per year. a low legume intake of just 0.4 kg per year. Eggs Other meat Fish & fish products Milk & milk products Coffee/cocoa/tea 13.3 2.0 14.1 118.8 0.0 84.0 23.0 18.0 602.0 127.0 4% 1% 1% 25% 5% 18,620 2,320 14,523 57,024 - Nature conservation 0.0 0.0 0% - Total 679 2,388.6 100% 888,311 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 160

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 3rd: ecological, Food group Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) Land footprint of conventional production (m 2 ) % of total land footprint Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) organically-produced diet Cereals & cereal products 120.0 350.0 15% 342,000 Potatoes & potato products 70.0 50.0 2% 47,600 Rice 0.0 0.0 0% - Legumes 40.0 56.0 2% 139,200 =2,345.6 m 2 Sugar products Vegetables 5.0 165.0 0.0 99.0 0% 4% 17,750 42,900 Fruits 91.3 100.4 4% 50,215 Oils & fats 5.0 50.0 2% 17,250 main characteristics: Beef Pork 37.0 700.0 30% 39,220 62,530 Poultry 48,840 a meat intake of 37 kg per Sheep/goat 89,910 person, per year, 60% lower than the current averages a high legume intake of 40 kg Eggs Other meat Fish & fish products Milk & milk products 9.0 0.0 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 730.0 0% 0% 31% 12,600 - - 47,712 per year. Coffee/cocoa/tea Nature conservation 0.0 0.0 160.2 50.0 7% 2% - - Total 642 2,345.6 100% 957,727 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 161

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 4th: status quo, Food group Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) Land footprint of conventional production (m 2 ) % of total land footprint Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) organically-produced diet Cereals & cereal products Potatoes & potato products 95.6 70.7 279.5 30.2 9% 1% 272,460 48,076 Rice 5.3 11.7 0% 19,981 Legumes 0.4 0.6 0% 1,392 Sugar products 48.0 37.8 1% 170,400 Vegetables 95.4 40.2 1% 24,804 Fruits 110.5 121.8 4% 60,775 Oils & fats 19.9 149.9 5% 68,655 Beef 13.0 449.3 14% 13,780 Pork 52.6 599.0 19% 88,894 =3,101.6m 2 Poultry 18.5 192.0 6% 24,420 Sheep/goat 0.9 30.7 1% 2,187 Eggs 13.3 107.5 3% 18,620 Other meat 2.0 29.4 1% 2,320 Fish & fish products 14.1 23.0 1% 14,523 Milk & milk products 118.8 788.6 25% 57,024 Coffee/cocoa/tea 0.0 160.2 5% - Nature conservation 0.0 50.0 2% - Total 679 3,101.6 100% 888,311 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 162

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 5th: DGE recommendations, organically-produced diet compared to current consumption habits: 4% less cereals and cereal products 16% more potatoes and potato products 70% less sugar and sugar products 73% more vegetables 1% less fruit 4% less milk and dairy products 73% less meat and sausages 37% less fish 35% less eggs 36% less fats and oils hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 163

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 5th: DGE recommendations, Food group Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) Land footprint of organic production (m 2 ) Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) organically-produced diet Cereals & cereal products Potatoes & potato products 91.3 82.1 266.8 35.1 260,062.5 55,845.0 Rice 0.0 0.0 - Legumes 40.0 56.0 139,200.0 Sugar products 14.4 11.3 - compared to current consumption habits: Vegetables Fruits 182.5 109.5 76.9 120.7 47,450.0 60,225.0 decrease in meat intake by 73% Oils & fats Beef 12.8 96.3 44,073.8 share of total animal products of total land footprint for food production = 57% Pork Poultry Sheep/goat 32.1 487.9 52,162.5 Eggs Other meat Fish & fish products 8.9 14.5 9,146.4 Milk & milk products 102.2 678.4 49,056.0 =2,054.1 m 2 Coffee/cocoa/tea Nature conservation n.a. n.a. 160.2 50.0 - - Total 675.73 2054.1 717,221.2 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 164

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 6th: current consumption + two meat free days per week, Food group Cereals & cereal products Potatoes & potato products Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) 95.6 70.7 Land footprint of organic production (m 2 ) 279.5 30.2 Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) 272,460 48,076 organically-produced diet Rice Legumes 5.3 30 11.7 42.0 19,981 104,400 Sugar products 48.0 37.8 170,400 compared to current consumption habits: Vegetables Fruits 95.4 110.5 40.2 121.8 24,804 60,775 decrease in meat intake by 30% Oils & fats Beef 19.9 149.9 68,655 share of total animal products of total land footprint for food production = 68% Pork Poultry Sheep/goat 70.2 1067.0 74,412 Eggs Other meat Fish & fish products 14.1 23.0 14,523 Milk & milk products 118.8 788.6 57,024 =2,802.0 m 2 Coffee/cocoa/tea Nature conservation n.a. n.a. 160.2 50.0 - - Total 679 2,802.0 915,510 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 165

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT 7th: current consumption + four meat free days per week, Food group Cereals & cereal products Potatoes & potato products Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) 95.6 70.7 Land footprint of organic production (m 2 ) 279.5 30.2 Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) 272,460 48,076 organically-produced diet Rice Legumes 5.3 30 11.7 84.0 19,981 104,400 Sugar products 48.0 37.8 170,400 compared to current consumption habits: Vegetables Fruits 95.4 110.5 40.2 121.8 24,804 60,775 decrease in meat intake by 60% Oils & fats Beef 19.9 149.9 68,655 share of total animal products of total land footprint for food production = 58% Pork Poultry Sheep/goat 40.1 609.8 42,527 Eggs Other meat Fish & fish products 14.1 23.0 14,523 Milk & milk products 118.8 788.6 57,024 =2,386.6 m 2 Coffee/cocoa/tea Nature conservation n.a. n.a. 160.2 50.0 - - Total 678 2,386.6 988,025 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 166

ANALYSIS: LAND FOOTPRINT FOR PRODUCTION, REGIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY & EFFECT Food group Quantity (kg / (cap* yr)) Land footprint of organic production (m 2 ) Calories per capita and year (kcal / (cap * yr)) 8th: vegetarian Cereals & cereal products 95.6 279.5 272,460 organically-produced diet Potatoes & potato products Rice 70.7 5.3 30.2 11.7 48,076 19,981 Legumes 30 98.0 104,400 Sugar products 48.0 37.8 170,400 compared to current consumption habits: Vegetables Fruits 95.4 110.5 40.2 121.8 24,804 60,775 no meat intake Oils & fats Beef 19.9-149.9-68,655 - an increase of 60 times legume consumption and 12% egg consumption Pork Poultry Sheep/goat - - - - - - - - - Eggs 15 228.7 16,800 Other meat - - - Fish & fish products 14.1-14,523 Milk & milk products 118.8 788.6 57,024 =1,995.7 m 2 Coffee/cocoa/tea Nature conservation n.a. n.a. 160.2 50.0 - - Total 646 1995.7 982,575 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 167

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 Square meters 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 3 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 168

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 Square meters 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 3 Diet scenarios 100.3 kg meat & products = 1100 m 2 46 kg meat & products = 700 m 2 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 169

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 Square meters 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 3 Diet scenarios 446 kg plants & products = 669 m 2 496 kg plants & products = 916 m 2 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 170

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 legume consumption is much higher for diet scenario 3 (40 kg compared to 0.4 for Diet Scenario 2) the land production efficiency of organically produced legumes is roughly 1.4 m 2 the land production efficiency of organically produced meat is roughly 15.2 m 2 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 171

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 legume consumption is much higher for diet scenario 3 (40 kg compared to 0.4 for Diet Scenario 2) the land production efficiency of organically produced legumes is roughly 1.4 m 2 the land production efficiency of organically produced meat is roughly 15.2 m 2 organically-produced legumes are nearly 11 times more land efficient than organically-produced meat hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 172

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 1 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 3 legume consumption is much higher for diet scenario 3 (40 kg compared to 0.4 for diet scenario 2) the land production efficiency of organically produced legumes is roughly 1.4 m 2 the land production efficiency of organically produced meat is roughly 15.2 m 2 organically-produced legumes are nearly 11 times more land efficient than organically-produced meat comparing scenarios 2 & 3: the reduction in meat consumption of 60% has compensated for the yield-limiting barrier of organic production hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 173

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 2 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 4 Square meters 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 4 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 174

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 2 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 4 Square meters 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 28% Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 4 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products 100.3 kg = 1100 m 2 100.3 kg = 1408 m 2 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 175

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 2 comparing diet scenarios 2 and 4 Square meters 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 23% Diet Scenario 2 Diet Scenario 4 Diet scenarios Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 176

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 3 comparing diet scenarios 4, 6 & 7 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products Square meters 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Diet Scenario 4 Diet Scenario 6 Diet scenarios Diet Scenario 7 hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 177

Square meters DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 3 comparing diet scenarios 4, 6 & 7 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0-0 kg meat +0 kg legumes -30 kg meat +30 kg legumes Diet Scenario 4 Diet Scenario 6 Diet scenarios -60 kg meat +60 kg legumes Diet Scenario 7 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 178

Square meters DISCUSSION OF RESULTS example 3 comparing diet scenarios 4, 6 & 7 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 11% 31% Diet Scenario 4 Diet Scenario 6 Diet scenarios Diet Scenario 7 Nature conservation Oils & fats Coffee/cocoa/tea Fruits Vegetables Sugar & products Legumes Rice Potatoes & products Cereals & products Milk & products Fish & products Meat & products hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 179

AFNs: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES & FACTORS TO INCREASE WTP alternative food network (AFN) COMMON CHARACTERISTICS: shortening distances between producers and consumers smaller farm sizes and scale usually focus on organic and/or closed-cycle reliance on alternative food purchasing venues commitment to social, economic & environmental considerations of food production Many times, AFNs are built on long-standing concepts and have been rebuilt with the input of new technologies and social structures. Other times, the traditional model remains, but are increasing in number of schemes and participation. hamburg.bio HCU_REAP_MSc._Thesis Sarah_Joseph February_26,_2017 181