integrated scenarios of sustainable food production and

7/30/2019 Integrated Scenarios of Sustainable Food Production And

1/13

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policyhttp://sspp.proquest.com

2013 Lorenz & Veenhoff Summer 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 21

ARTICLEIntegrated scenarios of sustainable food production andconsumption in Germany

Ullrich Lorenz & Sylvia VeenhoffOffice of Sustainability Strategies and Scenarios, Federal Environment Agency, Wrlitzer Platz, Dessau, 06844 Germany (email:[email protected]; [email protected])

Making food production and consumption more sustainable is a highly complex venture, requiring varied policy in-struments. While finding an integrated and coherent approach is difficult, the use of strategic foresight might help tofill the gap. This article presents the results of an extensive scenario-building process in which we searched for sus-tainable solutions regarding food production and consumption in various possible future contexts in Germany. First,so-called context scenarios were formulated to describe different developments beyond the control of the relevantplayers, but that might have a significant impact on food production and consumption. Second, strategic food sce-narios were developed to examine a wide range of sustainable solutions. Finally, the context and strategic food sce-narios were merged and assessed to provide policy makers with a helpful reality check" on different strategy optionsand guidance in prioritization. We explain the underlying methodology and, after a brief discussion of the main ad-vantages and limitations of our approach, we draw some conclusions for sustainable food-consumption policy,highlighting the important role of society.

KEYWORDS: food consumption, sustainability, strategy, public policy

Introduction

Making food production and consumption moresustainable is a highly complex venture. On a globalscale, with 800 million people starving, food securityis the key issue (Knickel, 2002; Wiegmann et al.

2005; Reisch et al. 2010; EEA, 2011; UNCSD,2011). In Germany, where food is more abundantthan ever before, and the variety is immense whileprices are low, food security is not the problem. Atthe same time, consumers evince increasing uneaseabout the ecological integrity of food. Pesticides indrinking water and wine, hormones and antibiotics inmeat, salmonellae and nicotine in eggs, and preserv-atives and additives in food head the list of consumerconcerns (Umweltbundesamt, 1998; 2010; Kessner,2007; Du, 2012). It is the entire food-supply chainfrom the field to the processor to the retailer to con-sumption to waste treatment and disposalthat cre-ates huge environmental pressures and is far frombeing effectively addressed (Umweltbundesamt,2002; Collins & Fairchild 2007; Virtanen et al.2011). Wiegmann et al. (2005) show, for example,that in 2004 the stages and operations pertaining tofood accounted for 16% of German greenhouse-gas(GHG) emissions, the same share as for mobility.

Food production and consumption have alsobeen linked with negative health effects. Currently,no one can rule out a direct or indirect correlation

between the increase in nutrition-related diseases(especially allergies and cardiovascular diseases) andpollutant residues in food, artificial food additives,and the high degree to which food is processed today(Kearney, 2010; Weiss, 2011; Zessner et al. 2011;Hermanussen et al. 2012; Lindeberg, 2012). There-

fore, comprehensive action toward sustainable foodproduction and consumption requires an understand-ing of the entire food-supply chainand not only ofagricultural structures and practices, but of trade andtransportation systems (including global equity), theretailing and marketing of products, and finally, thecomplexities that motivate consumer demand, and theways in which food is treated, processed, and dis-posed. In other words, in addition to the ecological,social, and economic aspects of food production andconsumption, public health is an important part ofenhancing the sustainability of the food sector (seeReisch et al. 2010).

As complex as the topic of sustainable food pro-

duction and consumption is, just as varied are theavailable policy instruments to steer the food systemtoward more sustainable outcomes. Instruments typi-cally applied are information-based, market-based,and regulatory (Lorek et al. 2008). Nevertheless, de-spite growing interest in sustainable food policies onthe part of policy makers, an integrated and coherentapproach has thus far been difficult to find. Many ofthe instruments are designed one-dimensionally for


2/13

Lorenz & Veenhoff: Sustainable Food Scenarios

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://sspp.proquest.com Summer 2013 | Volume 9 | Issue 2

2

specific policy domains and do not recognizeenvironmental and health tradeoffs (Reisch et al.2011). Additionally, measures might lose their effec-tiveness or be postponed, when unexpected develop-ments such as the collapse of global trade or weathercatastrophes due to the onset of climate change shiftpolitical priorities (WEF, 2012). Strategic foresightcan help to address this problem by providing an in-tegrated vision of what a sustainable food systemcould look like in the future when shaped by differentmeasures (Reisch et al. 2011).

This article presents the results of an extensivescenario-building process in which we searched forintegrated solutions for sustainable food productionand consumption in various possible future contexts.We refer to integrated here as the act of consider-ing the entire food-supply chain in the scenario pro-cess and providing an overview of the full range ofrelevant technical and social innovations and ideas aswell as stakeholder effects. As a first step in this

project, we generated so-called context scenarios todescribe possible developments beyond the control ofthe relevant players, but which might have a signifi-cant impact on food production and consumption.Second, we developed strategic food scenarios,which are scenarios that are shaped by the differentplayers. The aim of the strategic food scenarios is toexamine a wide range of sustainable solutions forfood production and consumption. Sustainablesolutions are those that move current patterns of foodproduction and consumption toward beingenvironmental friendly, healthy, accessible to all(also in a global perspective) and embedded in a

stable economic system.Obviously, not all possible options for sustain-

able food production and consumption would equallymeet all criteria in the same way. This enables therepresentation of all potential sustainable solutionswithout a preselected and normative judgment aboutthe optimal intervention, which can vary from playerto player. And, finally, we evaluated the viability ofstrategic food scenarios under different contextscenarios. As a result, we provide policy makers withan assessment regarding both the realization and ro-bustness of each option. Reviewing strategic optionsagainst context scenarios has two objectives: to iden-

tify the robustness of each option (can a strategy op-tion be realized in a particular context scenario?) andto evaluate its strategic significance (how importantis a strategic option in a particular context scenario?).Hence, this method provides policy makers with avaluable reality check and supports them in priori-tizing strategy options (van der Heijden 2003;Rhydderch & Alexander, 2009).

Methodology

Project DesignVarious authors divide studies of the future into

three scenario categories: explorative (what can hap-pen in the future?), predictive (what will happen?)

and normative (how can a specific target be reached?)(Amara, 1981; Dreborg, 2004; Brjeson et al. 2006).This national case study applied the scenario-management approach developed by Fink & Siebe(2011), which is a type of exploratory scenario cate-gory that holds promise as a tool for policy develop-ment.

We selected the exploratory scenario option be-cause our aim was to find out how the external en-vironment around sustainable food production andconsumption (the context) might develop in thefuture. The same exploratory approach was applied toinvestigatepossible alternative solutions that movetoward sustainable food production and consumption.

Brjeson et al. (2006) use the terms external sce-narios and strategy scenarios for these two typesof exploratory undertakings, which, in our project,correspond with notions of context scenarios andstrategic food scenarios. We therefore divided theproject into three phases: the development of contextscenarios, the design of strategic food scenarios, andthe implementation of an evaluation phase in whichthe strategic food scenarios were reviewed against thecontext scenarios.

Volkery et al. (2008) state that integrating multi-ple perspectives and different types of expertise inscenario processes helps to create well-founded, pro-

vocative scenarios that represent a wide range of pos-sible futures. On the basis of this observation, thework in all three phases was done in a participatoryway during a series of workshops. For both scenariotypes (context scenarios and strategic food scenarios),we assembled groups of experts who represented abroad range of expertise and viewpoints. The aimhere was to increase the legitimacy of the scenariostudies by extending the sources of information andknowledge and creating an environment conducive toorganizational learning and change.

The context scenarios in the first instance weredeveloped during two 1-day workshops. Approxi-

mately thirty participants from politics, science, non-governmental organizations, and business attended.The strategic food scenarios were then separatelyelaborated during two additional 1-day workshopsinvolving approximately twenty experts. Participantswere chosen with expertise in agriculture, food pro-cessing, and retailing, as well as backgrounds in envi-ronmental, social, and health issues. Care was takento include a balanced mix of innovative and alterna-tive lifestyle representatives of civil society in addi-


3/13



3

tion to experts from business, academia, and politics.For the third stage, all of the participants from bothprevious scenario phases were invited to jointly dis-cuss the implications of the merged scenarios.

Scenario BuildingMany attempts to classify and streamline

scenario-building methodologies can be found in the

literature and there are several comprehensive over-views by Alcamo (2001), Brjeson et al. (2006), andKosow & Gassner (2008). This article does not at-tempt to categorize the different approaches or dis-cuss their merits or limitations. Instead, we focus onhighlighting some general principles of scenariobuilding and outline the methodology that we ap-plied, the STEEP process, as we explain in Figure 1.This is based on the four-step approach described inFink & Siebe (2011).

Step 1: System AnalysisAll scenario projects must begin by scoping the

scenario field, which means defining what exactly thesubject of the scenario process is and where theboundaries of the system lie. After that, all aspectsthat have a certain influence on the scenario fieldcalled influencing factorsare collected in a brain-storming phase. To achieve sufficiently broad con-sideration of all relevant aspects, the scenario field issystematically structured into different searchspheres. The search process typically handles sphereson different system levelsglobal, national, and sub-

ject specificand refers to different content-relatedspheres in society, technology, ecology, economy,and policy (STEEP) (e.g., Maack, 2001). The variousinfluencing factors are selected partly by desktopresearch and partly through a participatory process ina multidisciplinary workshop. Using all of the influ-encing factors that are identified for developing sce-narios, however, would be too complex and dilute the

scenario story. Therefore, for this project, the aimwas to select close to twenty influencing factors thatwere deemed to have the highest impact on the sub-ject. To select these major influencing factors, calledkey factors, we employed a cross-impact matrix(CIM) in which all influencing factors were checkedagainst each other with regard to causal relation (on ascale between 0 and 3). In a simple algorithm, weclassified active (row-wise sum), passive (column-wise sum), and interconnected (active sum and pas-sive sum combined) (Figure 2). Between 15 and 22of the active and interconnected factors were chosento be key factors after discussions in a workshop

(Gausemeier et al. 1998; Godet, 2000; Villacorta etal. 2011).

Step 2: Development of Future OptionsFor each of the key factors, possible develop-

ments into the futureso-called future options basedon the uncertainty of the factorswere identified,using a procedure analogous to that in Ogilvy &Schwartz (2004). First, relevant aspects for each keyfactor were collected and discussed in a participatory

Figure 1 General scenario process in four steps (adapted from Fink & Siebe, 2011).


4/13



4

process with the aim of identifying the two most im-portant ones. For both aspects, two different possiblefuture developments were jointly defined; for exam-ple, The importance of self-sufficiency could beeither high or low in society and the share of individ-ual contribution to the food supply could also be highor low. The crossing of two aspects with two devel-opments at each end resulted in a portfolio with fourdifferent fields (see Figure 3).

Each field is given an illustrative name and is

called a future option. In cases where participantswanted to have a fifth future option in the portfolio,this was discussed and added. In the rare case thatone of the portfolio fields was not plausible at all,only three future options were chosen. Finally, foreach of the key factors, between three and five futureoptions were available. Importantly, at that stage, thekey factors were discussed individually and not incombination with other factors as occurs in scenarioplanning described by Ogilvy & Schwartz (2004).This procedure ensures that more imaginable orthinkable future options will be identified in a crea-tive process (Fink & Siebe, 2011).

Step 3: Scenario DevelopmentTo build credible and coherent scenarios, a con-

sistency analysis was applied: optional future statesof each key factor were checked pairwise with allother optional future states, applying a scale from 2(these two developments cannot occur at the sametime), 1 (can occur, but do not really make sense), 0(mutual coexistence), +1 (makes sense), to +2 (mu-tual support, synergy). All scenario-workshop par-

ticipants carried out this pairwise check for con-sistency. Ideally, this judgment should be made byconsensus after deliberations within the group. Suchdiscussions are often very time consuming, so that,alternatively, participants filled in a consistency ma-trix at home and deviations were discussed afterwardamong members of the group.

Having 22 key factors with four options each

Figure 3Example of a portfolio of future options. Importanceof self-sufficiency in society can be either low or high. Thesame applies to the share of individual contribution to foodsupply. Four combinations are built and described.

Figure 2 Example of a simple cross-impact matrix and the corresponding graphical representation. The matrix is read from left toright: Factor A has no impact on Factor B, a small impact on Factor C and a relatively strong impact on Factor D. This kind of

assessment is done for all factors considered. The result is shown on the right-hand side. The location of each factor depends on itsactive and passive sum (x-value/y-value) (Fink & Siebe, 2011).


5/13



5

would mean over one trillion possible scenarios (422

combinations). A scenario is typically built on thebasis of one option for each key factor and the aim isto identify those scenarios that are widely consistent.A software tool helps to identify all consistent combi-nations of options.1 Combinations classified as incon-sistent (-2) are not further considered in the calcula-tions, which substantially reduces the number ofplausible scenarios, though a few thousand possiblescenarios still remain. Some of them will only differin one or two factors, while others will differ greatly.It is then possible to group these remaining scenarios

in clusters according to their similarity (expressed asdistances), which can be visualized by multidimen-sional scaling. With the help of this kind of automaticvisualization, scenario clusters can be identified. Theidea is to select the clusters most removed from eachother so as to open up the scenario space as wide aspossible. Every cluster (along with its characteristics)represents one scenario.

Step 4: Analysis, Mapping, and Interpretation

of ScenariosIn the fourth step, the scenarios were supple-

mented with descriptions. To ensure that we analyzedeach scenario in more detail, we first asked the fol-lowing questions: What are the main characteristicsof the scenario? How does the scenario differ fromthe others? Who are the winners and losers? In a sec-ond step, the workshop participants evaluated all sce-narios and we posited the following questions: Whichof the scenarios were the most similar to today?Which of the scenarios are the ones we would like to

1Scenario Manager developed and maintained by ScMI AG.

see? Which scenario do we expect to actually hap-pen?

The Resulting Scenarios

Context Scenarios

Context scenarios explore possible external set-tings in which sustainable food production and con-sumption must take place and that players and per-formers of sustainability policy cannot influence di-rectly. A set of 22 key factors was chosen in a work-shop (see Appendix A). For each of these elements,participants identified up to five options and checkedfor consistency. After calculation of all possiblecombinations, four consistent clusters of all plausiblescenarios were finally selected and graphically repre-sented. In Figure 4, we have grouped these fourclusters in a cross, spanned by the dimensions socialinclusion/exclusion and economic stagnation/growth to reduce the complexity of the project re-

sults.Very short descriptions based on the plausible

and coherent option bundles of each cluster follow.The workshop participants considered all of thesescenarios to be possible options for future develop-ments through 2040. It is important to note that thesekinds of scenarios are not meant to be a prognosis(Fink & Siebe, 2011).

Scenario 1: Sustainable LifestyleHealth and sustainability are the predominant

values in society. The economy is prospering andsocial cohesion is high, developments made possible

by a culture of openness and responsibility. Materi-alistic values are no longer in the foreground. Peopleare predominantly oriented around LOHAS (Life-styles of Health and Sustainability) and consume witha notable sense of responsibility (the concept ofLOHAS was developed by Ray & Anderson, 2001).These values are reflected in global network policies:there is intensive international cooperation. Climatechange is occurring, but the national consequencesare manageable.2

Scenario 2: Regional TogethernessPeople in Germany take responsibility for them-

selves. Groups and communities organize their liveson their own in a crisis-like environment. Globally,people are poor and face environmental threats. Eco-nomic growth as a goal has become irrelevant. People

2 It must be acknowledged that this scenario is not reallysustainable from a global perspective as climate change wouldhave severe consequences globally and also the LOHAS strategy isdisputable in terms of its effectiveness. The participants named thescenario.

Figure 4 A simplified multidimensional scaling of contextscenarios. The four scenarios are organized in a cross alongthe dimensions social inclusion/exclusion and economicstagnation/growth.


6/13



6

act locally and regionally while materialistic valuesare of minor interest. Technological innovations op-erate in the background and environmental protectionis mainly driven by sufficiency and partly by con-sistency strategies (for a definition of sufficiencyand consistency strategies, see e.g., Huber (2000)).Efficiency plays a minor role in this scenario.

Scenario 3: Alone Against the WorldAll circumstances point to a serious crisis: envi-

ronmental degradation is progressing and interna-tional cohesion is weak. This leads to a national andindividual reorientation with a quest for maximumprofit. The state takes care of its people at a very lowlevel, adopting a dominant and authoritarian role.Profit maximization endangers global society. In sucha setting, sustainability plays a minor role. People areacting as individuals in a setting of low social cohe-sion warding off a dominant state.

Scenario 4: Two-class SocietyA materialistic and economic orientation domi-

nates society. Solidarity plays no roleproductivityand efficiency are the guiding principles. Society isdivided into poor and affluent classes. The economyis widely based on manufacturing finished goods

(second sector) and exports. Both the primary sector(production of raw material and basic foods) and thetertiary sector (service industry) play a minor role inGermany. Global policy is oriented toward access tonecessary resources. The whole setting is dominatedby strong economic and political forces. Environ-mental protection is not important at all.

Evaluation of the Context Scenarios

All workshop participants assessed which of thescenarios were the most similar to today, which theywould like to see, and which they expected to wit-ness. The result is visualized in Figure 5. In the viewof the participants, conditions in Germany todayinthe light of the financial crisisare most similar toScenario 3 (Alone Against the World). Pessimistsexpected that we would dive deeper into this sce-nario, while optimists expected Germany to movetoward a healthy and sustainable lifestyle (Scenario1). Interestingly, none of the participants expected tosee regional togetherness or a two-class society (Sce-narios 2 and 4). The desired future, though, is mainlyshown in Scenarios 1 (Sustainable Lifestyles) andScenario 2 (Regional Togetherness)so it stands incontrast to the current situation in terms of socialcohesion. However, all of these scenarios were con-sidered plausible futures in which sustainable food

production and consumption must take place.

Strategic Food ScenariosTo build strategic food scenarios for sustainable

food production and consumption, eighteen key fac-tors (see Appendix B) were identified in a workshopwith eighteen participants from universities, business,agriculture, nongovernmental organizations, and thestate environmental agency. These participants hadexpertise in public health, food production and re-tailing, urban farming, permaculture, food waste,slow food, consumer advice, sociology, and ecology.

As was the case for the context scenarios, for

each of these key factors, the participants worked outpossiblebut only sustainablefuture develop-ments. Each of the alternatives is thought to be moresustainable than the situation today, but of course thedegree can differ from option to option. The resultswere also clustered and graphically represented aftermultidimensional scaling (Figure 6). Seven clustersof strategic food scenarios representing possible al-ternatives for future sustainable food production andconsumption were chosen.

To better understand the differences, the sevenstrategic food scenarios are grouped as ranging fromglobal orientation to local focus (vertical axes). We

can also distinguish who the central players are indesigning sustainability: in the upper half of the il-lustration, it is the customer who demands more sus-tainable food production, trading, and consumption(who is actively aware about health and sustainablefood options). In the lower part of the illustration, thedrivers of sustainable development are either theeconomy (agriculture, the food industry, and the re-tailers) or public authorities. In the following sec-

Figure 5 Visualization of context scenarios. Today is seento be similar to Scenario 3. Two scenarios are expected: apositive future with economic growth and more socialcohesion and a more negative future with even greater socialexclusion and a stagnant economy.


7/13



7

tions, we describe the seven strategic food scenariosin more detail.

Scenario 1: Public Sector Takes Care of YouA clear division of labor and responsibility is

established in this scenario. Hardly anyone preparesfood or eats at home. Public cafeterias, bistros, andcafes are widely available and public authorities en-sure that food production is healthy and efficient withrespect to the use of resources. Where possible, re-gional and seasonal food is prepared in a sustainableway (e.g., closed resource cycles, socially friendly).Agricultural production is mainly organic, and dietsinclude only small proportions of meat. Trade plays aminor role and only takes place between regions, notinternationally. Smaller-scaled agriculture is there-fore established, supervised, and managed by publicauthorities. Indeed, the main driver for sustainabilityis thepublic authority.

Scenario 2: Self-sufficiency or Back to the

RootsOnly on a Higher LevelThe food industry is marginalized. Food produc-

tion and preparation is in the hands of the consumer.Agricultural production is organized in small units,even in houses and/or urban gardens, and depends onintensive social communication and networking.However, basic products like cereals are still pro-duced on a larger scale outside of metropolitan areas.The entire production of food and agricultural goods

is oriented toward regional and local consumptionrather than global trade. The main driver for sustain-ability is the autonomous and self-sufficient society.Efficiency is not the dominant principle, but insteaddevelopment is guided by sufficiency and ecologicalprinciples. Slower turnover and the closure of re-source cycles reduce environmental pressures.

Scenario 3: Think Global, Act LocalThe food industry has been required to adapt.

The consumer is competent and aware, and demandshealthy and sustainable (e.g., fair, regional, organic)products. Preparing meals at home is an importantpart of daily life; therefore, regional production andmarkets experience a renaissance. People accept re-gionally available food, while convenience and pre-pared food is less in demand than today. Agriculturehas a regional focus, with innovations accepted andapplied insofar as they support organic farming.Transboundary import/export, especially over longdistances, does not take place on any major scale.

The main driver for sustainability is the orientationand knowledge of consumers, whose informed pur-chasing decisions create regional markets.

Scenarios 4/5: Organic Products Made in

Germany and Its My ChoiceThe food industry, distributors, and consumers

share responsibility for sustainability in these twoscenarios. Consumers are conscious about nutrition

Figure 6 Multidimensional scaling of sustainable food scenarios. This representation has been slightly modified and simplified fromthe original output to make it more illustrative.


8/13



8

and food quality and are highly ecologically sensi-tive. For this reason, higher prices are widely ac-cepted. Self-sufficiency plays no role in foodproductionmainly because there is no time and noneed for it. Food producers must comply with sus-tainability standards to succeed in the market. Or-ganic fast food and organic convenience food are thechoice in Organic Products Made in Germany,while in Its My Choice people take time to cookand eat at home, which is the main difference be-tween these two scenarios. Agriculture is innovativein both cases and organic farming is standard prac-tice, even on a large scale. Technology and renewa-ble energy help make organic food available all yearround, with imports limited to the necessary mini-mum. The main drivers for sustainability are both thedemand for and the supply of sustainable products.Economy and societyare the main players.

Scenario 6: Innovations

The food industry implements radical innova-tions in food production and distribution so that en-ergy consumption and GHG emissions are low. Pub-lic health and animal welfare issues are no longerconcerns. Consumers are trustful of controls and ofthe self-commitment of the food-production chain.They enjoy inexpensive convenience food and havingmeals with family and friends is an important part ofeveryday life. Elements of self-sufficiency do notplay a role in this scenario. Agriculture is very effi-cient in terms of energy consumption and operateswith a high level of productivity. The main driver forsustainability is efficiency due to (technological) in-

novations and the main player is industry in general.

Scenario 7: Global Economy Sets the

FrameworkThe food industry is booming. Consumers prefer

convenience food and one of the main criteria is

price. Products are imported from wherever they areinexpensive. Due to this particular priority, all kindsof food are available all year round. Time and costare the key issues for both producers and consumers.Labeling and state control ensure that health andsustainability standards are fully met. Agriculturalproduction in other countries is far more efficientthan in Germany, so German farmers focus on energyand fiber crops and food is mainly imported. In eco-nomic terms, this is the most beneficial division oflabor. The main driver for sustainability is efficiencydue to the highly effective division of labor and op-timization supported by incentivizing policies andstrong economic interests.

Evaluation of the Scenarios by the Scenario

Development Group

All of the participants in the scenario workshopswere again asked to evaluate the scenarios probabil-ity, desirability, and similarity to todays situation.Resemblance to contemporary conditions does notimply that the current system is already sustainable,but it illuminates which strategic food scenario al-ready exists in rudimentary form. This evaluationwas visualized on a map of the future (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Mapping of similar to today, expected (orange area), and desired (green area) strategic food scenarios. The circlednumbers show the strategic food scenarios described above.


9/13



9

The expected future and the current situationnearly align while the desired future is rather distant.The experts who were part of the consultation envi-sion a current orientation toward a global economyand little consumer autonomy. They do not expectthis to change, but they would like consumers to bemore empowered and to desire a stronger regionaland local orientation.

Sustainable Solutions in Different Contexts

After the expert participants developed contextscenarios and strategic food scenarios, the two werereviewed against each other. The objective of thisexercise was to learn how the strategic food scenariosmight work in each context scenario. In practicalterms, this meant first looking at the portfolio of thefour context scenarios along their dimensions socialinclusion/exclusion and economic growth/stagnation (see Figure 4).

As shown in Figure 8, we then allocated, in adiscursive process, the strategic food scenarios intothis portfolio. Social exclusion plays a major rolein Scenarios 1, 5, 6, and 7 while Social inclusion isprominent in Scenarios 2, 3, and 4.

The allocation of strategic food scenarios toeconomic development (steady state vs. growth)opens up room for more discussion and insight.Economic development is not an explicit factor inthe strategic food scenarios. Trade, retailing, sourceof resources, and innovations, however, are implicitlyconnected to the economic system. In that light, some

of the strategic food scenarios require economicgrowth while others might also work underconditions of crisis, though the interpretation isdifferent. In the following two subsections, wediscuss how a given strategic food scenario could beinterpreted in a particular economic setting. We alsoreflect on which players will be the main drivers forsustainability.

Solutions in a Context of Economic Stagnation/Recession

Strategic Food Scenarios 4 (Its My Choice), 5(Organic Products Made in Germany), 6 (Innova-tion), and 7 (Global Economy Sets the Framework)require a high level of economic activity and con-sumption. A sustainable food strategy mainly basedon trade, innovation, and technology would not be arealistic option under uncertain economic conditions.Scenario 6 might fit when innovation is used as anengine for triggering economic development (by in-creasing debt, most probably).

Scenario 1 (Public Sector Takes Care of You)could be a solution that fits exactly to the negativeconditions described in Context Scenario 3 (SocialInclusion/Economic Crisis). The public sector is thelast anchor for civil society and national industry.This solution tries to maintain the structures neededin the food sector to guarantee the population a basicfood supply. When the economy is down and peoplebecome destitute, the state takes care of them as asocial measure, using what we know today as soupkitchens and food pantries. Environmental relief

Figure 8 Merged context scenario crossed with strategic food scenarios along the dimensions economic growth/stagnation andsocial inclusion/exclusion.


10/13



10

comes mainly from the low production and con-sumption volumes. People have little interest in sus-tainability values, although the footprint of poorerpeople is significantly smaller (Borgstedt et al. 2011).It would be very expensive, though, if the publicsector took care. This scenario does not thereforeseem to be very stable because it means a viciouscircle of debt both for the people andthe state. Socialorder would be endangered and the reactions of thestate could be authoritarian or the state could evencollapse leading to anarchistic conditions. Both alter-natives have a high potential for violence and are thebasic ideas of sustainability. In light of the financialcrisis, one can get a small sense of this scenario bylooking at countries like Greece, where suchconditions are already manifest.

If, in an extreme variant, the public sector is notable to guarantee social welfare anymore (due to alack of public money, dissolving institutional struc-tures, or the like), no other option seems available

except for people to start to work together and helpthemselves as described in Scenario 2 (Self-sufficiency). This scenario, however, would require adifferent context of social inclusion and economicstagnation. We would be moving from Context 3(Alone Against the Rest of the World) and Context 4(Two-class Society) to Context 2 (Regionally To-gether). Here, civil society takes a leading role, peo-ple are forming small groups and in general socialcohesion is high. This is a natural process of humanadaptive capabilities and will to survive as experi-enced, for example, after the Second World Warwhen there was hardly any formal economic activity

and people had to develop their capacity for self-sufficiency.

While this is an extreme example, it does mapout a pathway. When the economy becomes unstableor is stagnant, people start fending for themselves, in-cluding producing their own food, a process than cancreate conditions for social solidarity, mechanisms ofsimple exchange trade, and closer cooperation. Sucheffects can often be seen in regions where industriesbreak down completely. People start taking mattersinto their own hands by building gardens, formingcommunities, and reorienting themselves to regionaland local markets, as has been visible in Detroit in

recent years (see also Conner et al. 2008; Dubuisson-Quellier & Lamine, 2008; Hemphill & Leskowitz,2012).

Solutions in a Context of Economic GrowthStrategic Food Scenarios 4 (Its My Choice) and

5 (Organic Products Made in Germany) certainly re-quire a positive economic setting, because industryand trade are very active, balanced by the power ofthe consumer. Economic growth is not explicitly

needed, but then again economic stagnation or re-cession would make these scenarios impossible. Ad-ditionally, society is neither divided nor community-based.

Strategic Food Scenarios 6 (Innovation) and 7(Global Economy Sets the Framework) have a strongfocus on economic growth and global expansion.Interestingly, the German government seems to favorthis strategy, most notably in the reportNational Re-search Strategy Bioeconomy 2030 that has the aim ofsecuring the global food supply (Federal Ministry ofEducation and Research, 2011). Additionally, work-shop participants rated this scenario as being similarto today (see Figure 5). This setting requires stableglobal political conditions and no trade barriers orcomparable obstacles. Comparable circumstances aredescribed in Chambers et al. (2007), Brunner (2009),and Belz & Schmidt-Riediger (2010).

We already described Strategic Food Scenario 2(Self-sufficiency) in a context of economic stagna-

tion. But it can also be thought to take place infavor-able economic conditions, under which this scenarioreflects the free will to do it yourself and to takecare of yourself. Evidence of such a developmentcan be found in, for example, Hemphill & Leskowitz(2012) who interviewed ten do it yourself activists.Recent work by Van Timmeren et al. (2004), Hirschet al. (2010), and Aiken (2012) supports this idea ofdevelopments toward self-sufficiency. In the longrun, we will see how the food industry reacts. It islikely that such a huge sector will conduct verystrong campaigns against self-sufficiency because ofthe potential loss of market share. In the best case

from the point of view of sustainabilitya strongdemand for sustainable products might stimulate achange of production methods and product portfolio.Currently, there is no clear picture or vision of howsociety might function if the majority of people triedto be independent of an efficient division of labor.The question remains if such a scenario could ever bemainstreamed.

Strategic Food Scenario 3 (Think Global, ActLocal), described as a regional option, is based onstrong communities. Therefore, we consider it to berelatively stable and resilient. We do not see in thiscase neoliberal economic growth or economic reces-

sion in extreme forms. This strategic food scenariowill work in different economic settings and willstabilize society with a regional or local focus.

Discussion/Conclusions

The use of scenarios should be advantageous tostakeholders for two reasons: they open the mind (ofa group) to possible future developments and enablethinking about topics in all their complexity in a sys-


11/13



11

tematic fashion. In the scenario-management ap-proach, these two benefits are achieved as follows:options are built out of all key factors with no limita-tion or condition in mind, and consistencies arechecked between two factors at once pairwise, whichreduces complexity for the stakeholder (see alsoHalford et al. 2005). Computer software helps to de-velop scenarios with maximum consistency and plau-sibility. An expert panel analyzes the interdependen-cies of the factors and crystallizes them into a concisescenario story. Lively and, to a certain extent, contro-versial discussions in the workshop situations preparethe ground for creative solutions and outcomes.

Of course, the scenario-management approachalso has some limitations. One lies in the need forsoftware to help formulate the scenarios consistently.Moreover, filling in the relevant matrices is a verytime-consuming and demanding process. The overalltime commitment of scenario management is greaterthan in scenario planning or other normative meth-

ods, because one needs to fill in, calculate, evaluate,and interpret the consistencies. One major drawbackis common to all scenario methodologies: the sce-narios always belong to the group that worked themout. The quality of any scenario process is thus de-termined by the preparation of the content, the selec-tion of participants, and the transparency and repro-ducibility of the outcomes (Maack, 2001).

Differentiation between context scenarios andstrategic food scenarios enables parts of the work tobe reused. In our project, the context scenarios willalso be applied to different strategic scenarios inother topic areas, such as sustainable housing or sus-

tainable leisure activities. In the future, additionalthemes might be evaluated and assessed against thesecontexts, which will give a rather consistent pictureand will enable the context scenarios to serve as amore generic tool.

This process of differentiation also helps toidentify and classify strategies as either relativelyrobust or focused. By definition, robust strategies areless sensitive to uncertainty about the future, whilefocused strategies might be more effective reachingthe underlying goals but are sensitive to changes inthe future. For risk-averse policy makers, robuststrategies can be expected to perform reasonably

well, at least compared to the alternatives, even ifsociety and policy are confronted with surprises orcatastrophes. Robust strategies may also offer a moresolid basis for consensus on political action amongstakeholders with different views of the future, be-cause such strategies can provide reasonable out-comes no matter whose view proves correct(Rhydderch & Alexander, 2009). A conclusion of thisstudy is that current political strategy is exclusivelydependent on economic prosperity and that there is

no robust strategy which performs well in all contextscenarios. We discovered, however, that more soli-darity and empowerment of consumers are the mostrobust elements in the strategic food scenarios, whichmight lead to more sustainability under both favora-ble and unfavorable economic conditions.

In recent work, Reisch et al. (2011) stated that acoherent framework bringing together policy instru-ments (e.g., information-based, market-based, regu-latory, self-commitment) and environmental, eco-nomic, and societal contexts is still lacking. Our ap-proach might contribute to filling exactly this gap.Scenarios exploring the relevant context and mergingthese with strategic options has proven to be a usefulinstrument supporting the development and evalua-tion of political strategies, especially in the highlycomplex field of sustainability.

Acknowledgement

The project was funded by the German FederalEnvironment Ministry, Contract Number FKZ-3710 11162. The full German report is available at http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4425.pdf. We wouldlike to thank Andreas Fink and Hannah Rammig fromSCMI AG for conducting the project and Gunilla Zedighfor proofreading during the editing process. Any opinions,findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed inthis publication are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the German FederalEnvironment Agency.

References

Aiken, G. 2012. Community transitions to low carbon futures inthe Transition Towns Network (TTN). Geography Compass6(2):8999.

Alcamo, J. 2001. Scenarios as Tools for International Environ-mental Assessment. Environmental Issue Report No. 24. Co-penhagen: European Environment Agency.

Amara, R. 1981. The futures field: searching for definitions andboundaries. The Futurist15(1):2529.

Belz, F.-M. & Schmidt-Riediger, B. 2010. Marketing strategies inthe age of sustainable development: evidence from the foodindustry.Business Strategy and the Environment19(7):401416.

Brjeson, L., Hjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden,G. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a usersguide. Futures 38(7):723739.

Borgstedt, S., Christ, T., & Reusswig, F. 2011. Umweltbewusstsein

in Deutschland 2010: Ergebnisse einer ReprsentativenBevlkerungsumfrage [Environmental Awareness of Societyin Germany 2010: Results of a Survey]. Berlin:Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz undReaktorsicherheit (BMU) (in German).

Brunner, K.-M. 2009. Nachhaltiger konsum: am beispiel desessens [Sustainable consumption: the example of food]. SWS-

Rundschau 49(1):2949 (in German).Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K., & Traill, W.-B.

2007. Local, national and imported foods: a qualitative study.Appetite 49(1):208213.


12/13



12

Collins, A. & Fairchild, R. 2007. Sustainable food consumption ata sub-national level: an ecological footprint, nutritional andeconomic analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy andPlanning 9(1):530.

Conner, D., Knudson, W., Hamm, M., & Peterson, H. 2008. Thefood system as an economic driver: strategies and applica-tions for Michigan. Journal of Hunger and Environmental

Nutrition 3(4):371383.

Dreborg, K. 2004. Scenarios and Structural Uncertainty: Explora-tions in the Field of Sustainable Transport. Doctoral Disser-tation. Department of Infrastructure, Royal Institute of Tech-nology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Du, L. & Liu, W. 2012. Occurrence, fate, and ecotoxicity of anti-biotics in agro-ecosystems: a review.Agronomy for Sustain-able Development32(2):309-327.

Dubuisson-Quellier, S. & Lamine, C. 2008. Consumer involve-ment in fair trade and local food systems: delegation and em-powerment regimes. GeoJournal 73(1):5565.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2011. Food For Thought:Sharing Information on Food Production. http://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/food-for-thought. May 14, 2012.

Federal Ministry of Education and Research. 2011. National Re-search Strategy Bioeconomy 2030: Our Route towards a

Biobased Economy. Berlin: DruckVogt Verlag.Fink, A. & Siebe, A. 2011. Handbuch Zukunftsmanagement:

Werkzeuge der Strategischen Planung und Frherkennung[Handbook for Management of the Future: Tools of StrategicForesight]. New York: Campus Verlag (in German).

Gausemeier, J., Fink, A., Schlake, O., & Siebe, A. 1998. Szenarioprozesse [Scenario processes]. ZWF Zeitschrift frWirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 93(12):628631 (in German).

Godet, M. 2000. The art of scenarios and strategic planning: toolsand pitfalls. Technological Forecasting and Social Change65(1):322.

Halford, G., Baker, R., McCredden, J., & Bain, J. 2005. How manyvariables can humans process? Psychological Science 16(1):7076.

Hemphill, D. & Leskowitz, S. 2012. DIY activists: communities ofpractice, cultural dialogism, and radical knowledge sharing.Adult Education Quarterly63(1):5777.

Hermanussen, M., Gonder, U., Stegemann, D., Wesolowski, M.,Ulewicz-Magulska, B., Wartensleben, H., & Hoffmann, G.2012. How much chicken is food? Questioning the definitionof food by analyzing amino acid composition of modern con-venience products.Anthropologischer Anzeiger69(1):5769.

Hirsch, T., Sengers, P., Blevis, E., Beckwith, R., & Parikh. T.2010. Making Food, Producing Sustainability. Proccedingsof the 28th International Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems. April 1015, Atlanta. New York: ACM.

Huber, J. 2000. Towards industrial ecology: sustainable develop-ment as a concept of ecological modernization. Journal of

Environmental Policy and Planning 2(4):269285.Kearney, J. 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philo-

sophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci-ences 365(1554):27932807.

Kessner, L. 2007 Gesund essen: eine frage des geldes? [Healthyfood: a question of money?]. UGB-Forum 2:8992 (inGerman).

Knickel, K. 2002. Szenarien und Prognosen fr die Landwirtschaftbis 2030: Handlungsbedarf und Langfriststrategien fr dieUmweltpolitik [Scenarios and Prognoses for AgriculturalProduction in Germany until 2030: Needs for Action and

Long Term Strategies]. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt (inGerman).

Kosow, H. & Gassner, R. 2008. Methoden der Zukunfts: undSzenarioanalyse. berblick, Bewertung und

Auswahlkriterien [Methods of Foresight and ScenarioAnalysis]. Werkstattbericht No 103. Berlin: Institut frZukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung (in German).

Lindeberg, S. 2012. Dietary shifts and human health: cancer andcardiovascular disease in a sustainable world. Journal ofGastrointestinal Cancer43(1):812.

Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J., & Oman, I. 2008. Sustainable Con-sumption Policies Effectiveness Evaluation (SCOPE2): Con-clusion. Overath: Sustainable Europe Research Institute.

Maack, J. 2001. Scenario analysis: a tool for task managers. In R.Krueger, M. Casey, J. Donner, S. Kirsch, & J. Maack (Eds.),

Social Development Papers: Social Analysis, Selected Toolsand Techniques. pp. 6287. Washington, DC: World Bank.Ogilvy, J. & Schwartz, P. 2004. Plotting Your Scenarios. Em-

eryville, CA: Global Business Network.Ray, P. & Anderson S. 2001. The Cultural Creatives: How

50 Million Are Changing the World. New York: Broadway.Reisch, L., Scholl, G., & Eberle, U. 2010. Sustainable Food

Consumption. CORPUS Discussion Paper 1. Brussels:CORPUS.

Reisch L., S. Lorek, & S. Bietz. 2011. Policy Instruments forSustainable Food Consumption. CORPUS Discussion Paper2. Brussels: CORPUS.

Rhydderch, A. & Alexander, J. 2009. Scenario Planning.Guidance Note. London: Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre.

Umweltbundesamt. 1998.Die Bedeutung des Naturvermgens undder Biodiversitt fr eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Berichte6/98[The Importance of Natural Assets and Biodiversity for

Sustainable Development]. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt (inGerman).

Umweltbundesamt. 2002. Nachhaltige Entwicklung inDeutschland: Die Zukunft Dauerhaft UmweltgerechtGestalten [Sustainable Development in Germany: Shaping an

Ecologically Fair Future]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag (inGerman).

Umweltbundesamt. 2010. Umwelt Und Gesundheit Beitrge ausder Zeitschrift Umwelt, Juni 2009 [Environment and

Health Contributions from the Journal Umwelt, June2009]. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt (in German).

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD). 2011. Rio+20 Issue Briefs. http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/rio20issuesbriefs.html. May 14, 2012.

van der Heijden, K. 2003 Scenarios, strategy and the strategyprocess. Presearch Provoking Strategic Conversation 1(1):132.

Van Timmeren, A., Eble, J., Verhaagen, H., & Kaptein, M. 2004.The park of the 21st century: agriculture in the city. In F.Escrig (Ed.), The Sustainable City III: Urban Regenerationand Sustainability. pp. 303314. Boston: WIT Press.

Villacorta, P., Masegosa, A., Castellanos, D., Novoa, P., & Pelta,D. 2011. Sensitivity Analysis in the Scenario Method: A

Multi-Objective Approach. International Conference on In-telligent Systems Design and Applications. November 2224,University of Granada, Spain.

Virtanen, Y., Kurppa, S., Saarinen, M., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Usva,K., Menp, I., Mkel, J., Grnroos, J., & Nissinen. A.2011. Carbon footprint of food: approaches from nationalinput-output statistics and a LCA of a food portion. Journalof Cleaner Production 19(16):18491856.

Volkery, A., Ribeiro, T., Henrichs, T., & Hoogeveen, Y. 2008.Your vision or my model? Lessons from participatory land

use scenario development on a European scale. SystemicPractice and Action Research 21(6):459477.Wiegmann, K., Eberle U., Fritsche U., & Hnecke, K. 2005.

Umweltauswirkung von Ernhrung: Stoffstromanalysen undSzenarien [Effects of Food Consumption and Production onthe Environment: Material Flow Analysis and Scenarios].Hamburg: ko-Institut e.V. (in German).

Weiss, C. 2011. Convenience-lebensmittel. Teil 2: schnell,bequem, aber auch gesund? [Convenience food. Part 2:quick, convenient, but also healthy?]. Ernahrungs Umschau58(7):B25B28 (in German).
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturell_Kreativehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturell_Kreativehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturell_Kreative


13/13



13

World Economic Forum (WEF). 2012. Global Risks 2012, 7th Ed.Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Zessner, M., Steinmller, H., Wagner, K-H., Krachler, M., Thaler,S., Fazeni, K., Helmich, K., Weigl, M., Ruzicka, K., Heigl,S., & Kroiss, H. 2011. Gesunde ernhrung undnachhaltigkeit: grundlagen, methodik und erkenntnisse eines

forschungsprojektes in rahmen des proVISION programmesdes BMWF [Healthy nutrition and sustainability: principles,methods and findings of a research project launched as partof the proVISION program of the Austrian Federal Ministryof Science and Research]. sterreichische Wasser- und Ab-

fallwirtschaft63(56):8794 (in German).

Appendix A: List of Key FactorsContext Scenarios

Social Technological Environmental Economic Political

National

Social values andenvironmental awareness

Patterns of privateconsumption

Organization of daily life

Urban frameworks

Wellbeing/welfare

Social cohesion

Education

Social innovation

Dynamics ofinnovation

Structure ofnational economy

Target systems inbusiness andeconomy

Public budget

Structure of thepolitical system

Global

Global values and religion Global availabilityof resources

Climate change

Global state of theenvironment

Internationalenvironmentalprotection

Globalization andtrade

Global financeand capitalmarkets

Global wealth

Globalgovernance

Appendix B: List of Key FactorsFood Scenarios

Social Technological Economic Political

Willingness to pay for food

Food-preparation practicesin households

Buying patterns

Culturalimportance/settings offood

Awareness andresponsibility about food

Degree of out-of-homeconsumption

Knowledge andcompetencies ofconsumers

Lifestyle habits with regardto nutrition

Knowledge andcompetencies ofconsumers

Degree of technologicalinnovations in foodindustry

Degree of innovation inagriculture

Production of foodindustry

Sources of food (regional)

Degree of out-of-homeconsumption

Market share and positionof national agriculturalproduction

Food retailing

Role of consumer-protection policy

Use and supply ofresources

integrated scenarios of sustainable food production and

Documents