Tag Archives: five

Scotland: time for a National Food Service? Updated for 2026





Scotland’s brief period at the top of the international news agenda last month is over, for now. But the debate leading up to the independence referendum revealed a huge desire to make Scotland a better place.

Since the referendum, thousands of Scots have joined political parties for the first times in their lives, and the networks formed during the campaign are busy planning for the future. Conversations about change are continuing.

This Thursday and Friday in Glasgow, farmers from Scotland, India, Malawi and Trinidad and Tobago and campaigners from Canada and California will join nutritionists, climate scientists and experts on food poverty and food banks at the Nourish Scotland conference to discuss how to make food in Scotland better, fairer, healthier and more sustainable.

Only one in five Scots get their ‘five a day’

It’s a formidable challenge. More than a quarter of people in Scotland are obese. Only one in five adults eats five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, and Scots eat less fruit, vegetables and fish than their English neighbours.

There is a huge and growing inequality of diet between rich and poor, and the number of people using food banks has risen sharply in the past two years. Supermarkets dominate food retail, and highly processed food features prominently in many people’s diets.

Industrial farming methods are harming soil quality and biodiversity. Meanwhile 40% of Scotland’s food is imported, with serious implications for our carbon footprint and for our impact on the lives of others.

But the resources available are also impressive. Despite its high rate of imports, Scotland is a net exporter of food, producing far more than it eats. The seas around Scotland are rich in fish and seafood. There is plenty of arable land – around the same area per person as in India, which produces almost all of its own food.

To grow enough vegetables for everyone in Scotland to eat the recommended quantity would require an area of land smaller than that taken up by Scotland’s urban gardens.

A more holistic food policy

Change is required on many different levels if we are to make sure everyone in Scotland can eat well, as well as playing our part in ensuring everyone in the world can eat well, without trashing the planet.

Crucially, we need to look at our food system as a whole. For many years, government policy on food production in Scotland has been all about profit and export – and the food industry has been allowed to pursue ever greater profit regardless of the social, environmental and health impact in Scotland and beyond.

Nutrition has been seen largely as the responsibility of individuals, with government providing dietary advice but making little attempt to make healthy food more available and affordable.

The Scottish government has started to take small steps towards a more holistic food policy. For example, it has committed to extending the provision of free school meals, and improving the quality of food in schools and hospitals.

Food, and the land that produces it, as common goods?

Land – intimately bound up with food – is also receiving some long overdue attention.

Distribution of land in Scotland is more unequal than anywhere else in Europe, with fewer than one thousand people owning half of all land. Many landowners use their land for recreational hunting, shooting and fishing, rather than for food production.

The Scottish government has promised to make land distribution fairer, and a recent government study recommended limiting the size of landholdings and giving tenant farmers the right to buy the land they farm.

Legislation introduced in 2003 to help communities acquire land has already allowed 500,000 acres of land to come under community ownership, and a target of a million acres has been set for 2020.

A new strategy published for consultation this year, entitled ‘Becoming a Good Food Nation’, sets out aspirations for government policy to focus on health, particularly for children, and to support the production and sale of locally grown food, including through public sector food buying.

These are steps in the right direction, and the impetus towards a fairer, more sustainable food system is being driven forward by a diverse movement of small farmers and food businesses, community gardens, and networks established to increase access to affordable, healthy, local food.

However, the reality is that food remains overwhelmingly dominated by big, global businesses, which focus on profit, not on feeding people well or on preserving the planet for future generations.

There are, to be sure, positive initiatives by big business, for example to reduce salt content in foods and to use less packaging. But with food being primarily driven by profit, such voluntary programmes cannot bring about the huge changes we need.

If we started treating food as a common good, and farming and food production as services delivering good nutrition, good work, strong communities and healthy, biodiverse, resilient environments, we could create the potential for profound positive transformation.

Vegetables on prescription?

In Scotland, this could lead to farmers having a similar role as GPs (‘general practitioners’ – family doctors) do in the National Health Service: GPs are public servants at the same time as being small to medium enterprises. Vegetables could be available on prescription, and subsidised for low-income families.

It could mean people sharing responsibility for food production, as citizens not just consumers, with much more of our food coming from allotments, community gardens and farms in and around cities.

Government could adopt a zero-tolerance approach to hunger in Scotland, monitoring it, measuring it, and finding a better long-term solution than food banks.

Small-scale, organic, sustainable farming could be supported through public subsidies, and food policy focused on production for local people rather than for export. Trees could be planted on pasture, reducing the risks of soil erosion and flooding.

We could introduce rules to help ensure the food we do import is produced to high social and environmental standards.

These are just a few of the many, many things we could do to radically reshape food in Scotland for the better. Food sustains and nourishes not just individuals but also families, communities and our whole society. It’s too important to be left to the market.

 


 

The conference: Nourish Scotland takes place in Glasgow this week on 16th and 17th October 2014.

Pete Ritchie is the director of Nourish Scotland. Nourish aims to reshape the way food works in Scotland into a system that’s fair, healthy, affordable and sustainable.

Miriam Ross is a freelance writer and researcher.

 




385475

Five ways to stop the world’s wildlife vanishing Updated for 2026





Full marks to colleagues at the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London for the Living Planet Report 2014 and its headline message which one hopes ought to shock the world out of its complacency: a 52% decline of wildlife populations in the past 40 years.

Over the summer I re-read Fairfield Osborne’s 1948 classic Our Plundered Planet – the first mass-readership environmental book that detailed the scale of the damage humanity wrought on nature.

Faced with the figures in this report it is easy to slip into despondency and to blame others. But this would be a mistake. At the time, Osborne’s report must have been equally alarming, but the eclectic conservation movement of which he was part responded with confidence, hope and vision.

Their achievements were huge: the creation of a reserve network that forestalled the extinction of African creatures such as the elephant and rhino; the creation of a nature conservation agency, the International Union for Conservation of Nature) (IUCN) within the UN; and a raft of international wildlife agreements.

But what can we do now?

Today, conservation-minded people will probably be wondering what can be done to reverse wildlife declines.

For me the question is: how can today’s conservationists leave a wildlife legacy for the 21st century? I think there are five ways we can change conservation to better fit the circumstances we face.

1. Decentralise and diversify

The effort to ensure that nature conservation became a policy area of the UN necessitated developing a strong international conservation regime.

This has served us well, but the world has changed: centralised authority has given way to messy, networked governance organised across many levels.

If the Balinese want to restore Bali Starling populations in coconut plantations I say applaud their vision and learn from their innovation.

What matters is that wildlife populations flourish, not that some institutionalised notion of a ‘wild species’ gains global consensus. It is time to nurture diversity in conservation practice.

2. View wildlife as an asset

Since the 1990s conservation has become overly technocratic, with nature framed as a natural resource and stock of capital available for human economic development. Given human self-interest this just leads to arguments over who gets what share.

I suggest a better way to frame environmental policy is in terms of natural assets – places, attributes and processes that while representing forms of value to invest in, are also at risk of being eroded and must be protected.

We’ve done this before – think of great national parks where wildlife conservation, natural beautification and outdoor recreation combine for the benefit of wildlife, while also emphasising regional or national identity, health and cultural and economic worth.

3. Embrace re-wilding

Re-wilding is gaining traction. I see re-wilding as an opening, an opportunity for creative thinking and action that will affect the future.

A key theme is restoration of trophic levels – in which the missing large animals at the top of the food chain are reintroduced, allowing natural ecosystem processes to reassert themselves.

We might ask whether today’s reported declines in wildlife are a symptom of the ecosystem becoming more simple and, if so, whether re-wilding will lead to more abundant wildlife. Ecological intuition suggests the latter but in truth we don’t know.

In my view we need large-scale, publicly-financed re-wilding experiments to explore and develop new ways of rebuilding wildlife populations as an asset for society.

4. Harness new technologies

It’s clear that wildlife conservation is moving from being a data-poor to a data-rich science. The methods that underpin the Living Planet Report are state-of-the art, but even so we have yet to capture the analytical potential of ‘big data’.

Recent rapid developments in sensor technologies look set to bring about a step change in environmental research and monitoring.

In ten year’s time, I predict that the challenge for indexing the planet will shift from searching out and compiling data sets to working out how to deal with an environmental ‘data deluge’.

Despite this, wildlife conservation lacks a coherent vision and strategy. There are plenty of interesting technological innovations, but they are fragmented and individualistic in nature. We need leadership and investment to better harness them.

5. Re-engage the powerful

Like it or not, the wildlife conservation movement was at its most influential – as a policy and cultural imperative – when it was filled with active members drawn from the political, aristocratic, business, scientific, artistic and bureaucratic elites.

This was between 1890 and 1970. Over the past 40 years conservation organisations have become more professional, building close working relations with bureaucrats, but approaching other elites simply as sources of patronage, funds and publicity.

Conservation organisations must open-up, loosen their corporate structures and let leaders from other walks of life actively contribute their opinion, insight and influence to the cause.

But above all, keep caring

These are five starting points for discussion rather than prescriptions. Perhaps the greatest asset we have is the deep-rooted sense of concern for wildlife found across cultures, professions and classes.

It’s time to open up the discussion, to put forward new ideas for debate, and to ask others to suggest new and novel ways to save wildlife.

 


 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Paul Jepson is Course Director, MSc Biodiversity, Conservation and Management at the University of Oxford. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Also on The Ecologist

 

The Conversation

 




384756