Circular bioeconomy should be planned in synergy with wider sustainability transitions

Sustainability transition in agriculture and food are driven by the evolution of consumer values and food diets, market power and organisation of food industry and retail, technology development, and environmental and agricultural policies. These are under change. But what kind of sustainability transition would provide best circumstances for circular agriculture and food economy? Key issues, emphasised in bold letters, are analysed below.

Global energy and fertiliser prices have been relatively low most of the time since 1980’s. Low prices of plant protein imported to the EU have suppressed domestic plant protein production. Imported protein feeds, excessive use of chemical fertilisers and plant protection chemicals have promoted, on their part, significant regional and farm level specialisation of agricultural production, even monocultures. While specialisation has contributed to decreased real prices of food over the last 3-4 decades, it has resulted in regional nutrient surpluses with harmful effects on ground and surface waters, biodiversity and soil organic carbon, and in increased GHG emissions. However, increasing prices of plant protein, energy and fertilisers – partly influenced by climate policies - give a reason and incentives for finding feasible domestic and European solutions.Diversity of the right kind is necessary for transition to more sustainable agri-food system. Any diversity does not work in Finland since Nordic conditions pose specific challenges for agricultural productivity and value creation. Livestock dominance in both consumption and production of food has been prevalent in Finland and in other Nordic countries. This dominance could be partly decreased by decreasing the role of livestock products (meat and dairy products) and increase plant proteins in food diets.

However, there are significant problems to be solved. The risks of protein crop production, and especially the economic risks, are very significant in Finland and not likely to be relieved by climate change with increased extreme events and pest and disease pressure. Severe losses can realise in the quantity and quality of protein and oilseed crops, resulting in low profitability in Nordic conditions. Low crop yields could be compensated by value added products where the raw material costs are relatively low. However, value chains of competitive high value-added plant protein products for consumers also take time to be developed. They still often imply a smaller share of income for farmers than in value chains of livestock products. For example, the share of raw material costs in consumer food products from pea protein is relatively low. It is not evident that the raw material for plant protein foods will be produced in Finland in larger scale, or that farmers are willing to shift from livestock production to plant production with even higher risks and lower income.

Several studies reported in the literature, as well as practical experiences, suggest significant potentials for strategic partnership between diversified cropping and livestock production. Such potential becomes evident when considering increased plant protein production for human and feed use. There is a possibility of using plant proteins of insufficient quality (for human consumption) for feeding bovine animals. Combining plant (protein) production and livestock production seems reasonable and favoured by improved possibilities for cropping diversification through temporary grasslands - relatively robust under climate change - used in dairy and beef production in Finland and other Nordic countries. Grass harvest can also be utilised in biogas production based on manure. Biogas production, if properly designed, can function as a major nutrient recycling operator locally, dividing nutrients of manure and biogas digestate in phosphorous and nitrogen rich components. Strategic partnerships and cooperation between crop and livestock farms may guarantee customers and value for renewable fertilisers. These developments have been long inhibited by low prices of energy, fertilisers and imported protein feeds, but the situation is changing.

This all is connected to global levels. The concept of planetary boundaries defines how various resources are utilised without depletion or deterioration of any resource. More sustainable low carbon production of crops and livestock products with improved circularity might be the way how agriculture and food sector is kept within planetary boundaries in Finland where relatively high self-sufficiency of basic foods has been maintained despite harsh climate conditions for agriculture.

Current production systems have shown some robustness under varying and difficult weather and market conditions in Finland already. This robustness and knowledge base should not be underestimated or lost. On the other hand, it is important to diversify crop production and develop new value-added products responding to customer needs and preferences, develop production systems and cooperation and networks between farmers and industrial enterprises. Then economic sustainability of agriculture could be improved through utilising synergies between cropping diversification, livestock production, climate change adaptation and mitigation, as well as healthier diets.

Some recent sustainability and responsibility programs of food industry have shown that food product manufacturing firms are able to agree with farmers on more sustainable production practices at farms and along the food chain, thus responding to consumers’ worries about the sustainability and climate impact of food. This development is still in early phases. While there is a need to show significant improvements in e.g. carbon footprint of agricultural products, one may expect positive results since such programs have evidently identified at least some of the synergies needed for sustainable transition.