Cecile Duranton: “In 2050, the majority of our food will come from local, regenerative farms”
Cecile Duranton is the Managing Director of Time for the Planet – a French non-profit “enabling citizens all over the world to act collectively against climate change.” She was previously an agronomy engineer, working on soil management and crop production in countries such as Brazil, Vietnam and New Zealand.
We chatted about a range of topics: from resilient food systems to a problem currently facing French farmers.
Below is a round up of our conversation, edited for brevity and clarity.
Cecile, you predict that “in 2050, the majority of our food will come from local, regenerative farms." What is regenerative farming and how does it differ from conventional farming?
When we say conventional farming, it sounds like a very old thing. It’s actually very new. It started during ‘The Green Revolution,’ just after World War Two, so less than 100 years ago. They had a huge challenge after the war to feed everyone and have cheap food. The way they did it was by introducing lots of artificial inputs to crops that would boost production very quickly.
At the beginning, it seemed really great because you didn’t have to take into account the constraints of your land’s ecosystem. But, what we probably didn’t realise at the time was the long-term consequences of using all of those inputs. We all know the problem with pesticides, for instance. They kill biodiversity, like animals, plants and pollinators.
The whole point of regenerative farming is to rebuild the soil and the ecosystems that have been destroyed. You do that by growing crops that are adapted to specific places, soils and climates. You don’t try to grow crops that are not fit for a place, which requires a lot of chemicals.
From a farmers perspective, what would you say are the benefits of regenerative farming?
I’d say there are lots. One big one is resilience. The fewer artificial inputs farmers have, the less dependent they are on other people. Most fertiliser today is produced in China and, during COVID, they shut the factories for months. It was terrible. I knew farmers who didn’t have any way to get their inputs and they were not ready for that. They lost huge yields. Even if we don’t love to talk about it, with climate change, there could be tension between countries in future. The more we rely on local and natural resources, the better it is.
You mentioned rebuilding the soil. How long does that typically take?
It’s not the same everywhere and really depends on the soil and how much it was degraded. I’ve seen some cases where, in two or three years after transitioning, they already have a pretty good yield. In colder countries, where plants take longer to grow, it can take longer.
Because of that, the earlier we get started with the transition, the better it is. Farmers have to try stuff and see what’s working.
You also predict that more of our food will come from local farms. Why is that important?
I think for a few reasons:
With conventional farming, you can grow pretty much anything, anywhere. But growing tomatoes in Sweden, for instance, is not easy. It requires a lot of extra resources and energy. It’s always better to grow a crop where it’s meant to grow; where it has the right soil and climate.
When you transport food long distances, most of the time, you waste quite a lot because it just goes bad. Eating more locally will help to reduce that.
With that in mind, what are your thoughts on other new, potentially hyper-localised ways of producing food, like vertical farming and lab grown meat?
I think it’s important we stay open to other systems and we don’t close off any option at the moment. We need to work out how we can mix different solutions. I wouldn't say let's just go full on regenerative farming. Because that's risky.
But we do need to be careful.
When we think about food systems, we need to think not just about their carbon emissions, but also their power use, pollution and resilience in the long term.
One of the things I think may be a problem with vertical farming is the amount of power that needs to be used. The more power we use, the more pressure we put on our energy systems.
While it’s not easy, we need to fully assess the long term impact of the technologies we adopt. We need to try to see into the future and not just think about the short term. I’m pretty sure the people who started the Green Revolution didn’t think it was going to be difficult now…
I’m with you. The big question is, of course: how do we get more farmers to adopt regenerative practices?
The first thing is that regenerative farming requires another set of skills to conventional farming and farmers need training. I really think we need to step up on that.
We need to have local organisations that will help farmers. People they can trust because they actually know the local ecosystems and will support in the field, not just apply a global formula. Those organisations might be government funded.
Are there any other ways governments can help?
There are. The first few years of transitioning is costly for farmers. It normally takes more manpower and, until the soil is regenerated, you have less revenue from what you sell, because you have less production.
We also have to remember that many farmers invested a lot in conventional farming. When the Green Revolution happened, we asked farmers to invest in buildings and machinery. A lot of them have debts from this.
If we don't support farmers financially then why would they do it? They need to pay bills so subsidies are important.
They also need to know that, when they start transitioning, society is actually going to pay for the product.
A few years ago, France decided that at least half of the food bought by the public sector had to be organic or locally produced. It meant that organic milk demand was going to go up and a lot of farmers decided to transition. It takes two or three years to transition to organic, to have the label on everything. But this law that passed is not really applied. So you have a lot of milk that is produced organic and has a higher cost to produce because of the transition. And it's just sold at the price of conventional milk.
We need to be able to guarantee farmers are paid a fair price.
Do you have any thoughts on how we do that?
I think we need to help people realise the true cost of food. If we look at food as a proportion of household budgets today, compared to 50 years ago, the difference is absolutely huge. Now, we use nearly nothing for food compared to before.
When we think about the cheap, cheap, cheap food we have today, it uses systems that exploit people and the planet. If you are getting cheap food, somewhere else, someone has a very bad salary, and has barely enough to feed their family.
A lot of us can afford to pay a little bit more for food and have less consumption of other things. That’s how we support farmers.
I’m all for it. Cecile, it’s been a pleasure to chat. Thanks again for your time.
Readers – it’s now over to you. How do you think we can ensure the majority of our food comes from local, regenerative farms in 2050? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.