UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI SCIENZE GASTRONOMICHE
HOW LOCAL INITIATIVES CAN TRANSFORM THE CONVENTIONAL FOOD SYSTEM
THE CASE OF MATGALLERIET IN BERGEN (NORWAY)
RELATORE:
Prof. Scaltriti Bruno
TESI DI LAUREA DI:
Inderhaug Martin Haaskjold
ANNO ACCADEMICO 2012/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FOOD CHALLENGES
1.1 Global……………………………………………………………………3
1.2 Norway…………………………………………………………………..7
1.3 Hordaland……………………………………………………………….11
- INITIATIVES THAT CAN TRANSFORM THE CONVENTIONAL FOOD SYSTEM
2.1 Theoretical background and examples……………………………….…16
2.2 The case of Fisk FråFjorden (Fish From the Fjord)…………...….……24
2.3 Maintaining culture through culinary offers……………………………27
- THE CASE OF MATGALLERIET
3.1 Political background……………………………………………………29
3.2 Conceptual role in the food chain………………………………………31
3.3 Business description…………………………………………….………34
3.4 Definition of services……………………………………...……………35
3.4.1 Production area
3.4.2 Service area
3.4.3. Bar counter
3.4.4. Art and educational area
3.4.5. Food Market
3.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………39
REFERENCES….…..……………………………………………………....41
I. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FOOD CHALLENGES
1.1 Global
“There is an enormous window of opportunity, to change the world of food…”
-JosèGraziano da Silva
At the 25.march 2013, Director of FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), JosèGraziano da Silva is holding a conference at the University of Gastronomical Sciences, with subjects emphasizing the importance of protecting biodiversity and reducing food waste.
Since the 1990s when the hungry were numbering more than one billion, we have until the latest statistics of 2012 – been able to reduce the number of human beings suffering undernourishment to 868 million ( But for the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone on the planet, which is enough to feed 10 billion people, the population peak we expect by 2050 (
In this context – it is not acceptable and very difficult to believe that one human being of every 8 survive their day without meeting the fundamental human right of filling its stomach.
By looking at the numerical materials we are present with today, it is relatively simple to spot that the major global food challenges lies to a great extent in the conventional food distribution system (Fig. 1).
The goal of food distribution is not only to connect the producers, to consumers, but also to allocate the food accordingly. Challenges arise in deciding how the food will be distributed among the people, who have the power of distribution, and what methods should be used for distribution. The establishment of markets in which producers directly sell their food to consumers is the most traditional method of distribution. However, due to many cases of inefficiency, food is usually transported to a central location and then distributed to outer cities and villages.
Consumers have difficulty purchasing their favoritefood because of their inability to access markets and/or their inability to afford the costs. On the other end, farmers cannot sell their produce for the similar reasons. Therefore, the main problems with the current distribution system are the lack of markets, the inadequacy of transportation to markets, and the inability to afford the costs of production and consumption.
Fig. 1 – The flow chart of the agro-food supply chain
Source: Scaltriti, 2012
Another great issue in our agro-food chain is its increasing complexity and length, with a highly heterogeneous structure: It is made up of stakeholders whose economic size and number at each level are very unequal.Grievink, (2003) depicted this using an hourglass, which provides an explanatory illustration of the situation in Europe (figure 2).
The consumers are on the top, and are very numerous, but they are not coordinated. At the bottom are the farmers which are fragmented and usually of modest or low economic size. The level of the narrow neck constitutes the central group of stakeholders, whose role includes the buying desks of the retail groups. The economic power in relation to their size is highly unequal. They have significant power because a growing number of upstream stakeholders and firms have to use them as an intermediary in order to put their products on the market. As the large-scale retail sector has become highly concentrated, several large buying desks are becoming an increasingly obligatory stopping point for product marketing. They also impose on their suppliers certain conditions, standards and technical demands that must be met (known as ‘private standards’), which may lead to some of them being excluded. (Bonny, 2006)
Fig. 2 – An illustration of the agro-food chain in six European countries with the number of stakeholders at each level
Source: Grievink, 2003
The large-scale retail sector also has a considerable influence on consumers, the natural environment and more broadly speaking models of socio-economic development that are directed towards the progression of purchased consumption and the ‘commodification’ of food.
Producing more food is not anymore the sole solution. It is not the lack of food that is the problem, but it is the lack of food access. But anyhow we often hear that ‘we have to increase the global food production’. Lars PederBrekk, Agricultural Minister of Norway, declared on august 2010 that “To feed a growing population, the global food production must be doubled within 2050” (
Autumn 2010 he again declared: “The world needs more food. Much more.” And he continued: “Today we are about one billion starving. At the same time the population is growing. If everybody shall have the possibility to satisfy the stomach in 2050, the food production must increase with 70 percent.” (
But the proposed argument that increased food production equals less hunger is nothing else then inconsistent. The last big explosion of the food prices taking place in the beginning of the 1970’s, is extensively described by Susan George in her book “How the other half dies”. She pointed how the food crisis was rationalized away from the real cause, and instead explained by catastrophically yields, even though the yields were just down one percent from the record year of 1971, (George, 1977).
The intense protests that phased out in step with the increase of food prices, was therefore not due to a limited ability to produce enough food. The problem was that millions of people simply couldn’t afford it.
"Population is the issue you blame if you can’t admit to your own impacts", said the British writer George Monbiot (Klassekampen, 2011).
The paradox is getting more complete when considering that one third of all the food produced in the world is lost or wasted every year. That is enough to feed an extra 500 million people without putting additional pressure on natural resources (
In 2013 we have also reached the point where there amount of people overweight are almost the double compared to the 868 million undernourished, which further on illustrates one of the great contrasts of our world: the unequal distribution of food, of income and of opportunities (
In addition to food waste, hunger and unequal distribution, we are at the same time experiencing a great reduction of biodiversity – which puts forward an even more worrying picture for our future generations. (Butchartet al., 2010)
About 7000 species of plants have been cultivated for consumption in human history. The great diversity of varieties resulting from human and ecosystem interaction guaranteed food for the survival and development of human populations throughout the world in spite of pests, diseases, climate fluctuations, droughts and other unexpected environmental events.
Presently potatoes, maize, wheat, rice and soy are responsible for ¾ of all food intakes ( Due to the dependency on this relatively small number of crops for global food security, it will be crucial to maintain a high genetic diversity within these crops to deal with increasing environmental stress and to provide farmers and researchers with opportunities to breed for crops that can be cultivated under unfavorable conditions, such as drought, salinity, flooding, poor soils and extreme temperatures.
The conservation and sustainable use of plants and animals is necessary meet growing environmental challenges and adopt climate change. The loss of these resources or a lack of adequate linkages between conservation and their use poses a severe threat to the world’s food security in the long term. The potential of plant genetic resources for food security, sustainable livelihoods, adequate nutrition and adaptation to climate change is enormous, if managed in a sustainable manner.
1.2. Norway
“Every country must utilize its inherent natural conditions for food production. We must utilize all resources, and we must utilize the resources where they exist.”
-Food and Agriculture minister, Lars PederBrekk
To understand the challenges and importance of developing traditional agriculture and to preserve the rural industries in Norway – it is helpful to look at the today’s food challenges from a global perspective. Many of the challenges we see abroad related to food access are not applicable to the present population in Norway – it could however become one day.
Norway’s self-sufficiency rate is according to the Government estimated at 50% for agricultural produce, while closer to 100% on products such as milk, meat and eggs. However, when excluding products made of resources from abroad such as feed, the self-sufficiency rate is lower. On the other hand, when including exported goods such as fish, the rate is higher. Nevertheless, that present Norway import 50% of the food it consumes, based on calories, stands as an important fact.
But even this number has its scruples, because the degree of self-sufficiency is not just a question of where the final product is produced, but is also a question about where the resources it has been made of are produced. But in the debate about Norwegian self-sufficiency is this anyhow not obvious.
To make an example:” Idun Ketchup” is produced in Norway, of Stabburet. But it does not mean that the tomatoes are grown in Norway. EspenLøkeland-Stai, author of “A Nation of Meatheads –nine myths and one lie about Norwegian Agriculture” asked Idun in 2011 where their tomatoes were coming from, and they replied: “Primarily the tomatoes that are used in Idun Tomato Ketchup are bought from China.” There is little arguing that Idun Tomato Ketchup therefore is not a product of Norwegian agriculture. But then what about a chicken that is fed up in Norway? It has one important shared thing with the ketchup from Stabburet: Both are wholly or partly produced on imported raw materials. But when the self-sufficiency rate is calculated it is just the chicken that is considered 100% Norwegian. The self-suffiency rate used by the Norwegian government doesn’t say anything about how the food is produced or where the raw materials come from. So a chicken produced in Norway is recognized as 100% Norwegian, even though it has been fed up by feed coming from abroad. The last ten years use of soy has increased with 33% according to the Norwegian Agricultural Authority, and in 2010 it was imported more than 200.000 tons of soya beans or flour. Actually, according to Aftenbladen, (a well-known newspaper in Norway) 05.03.2013, Norwegian agriculture is just one single boatload away from complete and utter breakdown. The leader of the Norwegian Farmer’s Union, Nils T. Birch stated that chicken production will stop almost immediately and swine production after short time, also stop.
Norwegian meat and sometimes milk production is fully dependent on imported raw materials for animal feed, and once a month is a large ship docked in Fredrikstad with soy for a value of more than 12 million Euros. The Brazilian firm Amaggi is the dominating actor for delivery to the Nordic countries, and Norwegian agriculture is therefore in some sense in Brazilian hands. It is in any case a frightening reality that represents very explicitly that something is non-coherent.
In any case, the Government has decided, as of “Meld. St 9 (2011-2012)” under point 1.3.1, to maintain the self-sufficiency rate by adopting itself to an increased population in the following years, by stimulating increased production of agricultural goods. The government has under the same point also emphasized on the use of national resources like forage and pasture. Moreover, it is specified that national food production has a value that goes further than just being pointed to satisfy the market, but that it also has an intrinsic value.
Even though many of the global food safety issues can seem far away for Norway, the report from the Parliament do articulate the fact that Norway like many other countries, have been affected by bad weather such as drought and floods, and that the importance of protecting plant and animal biodiversity, will increase in beat with the coming climate changes.
But Norway is a peculiar country in a global context when it comes to agriculture, as it is differentiating itself from most other countries, by which very few areas – if any at all – are sufficient enough to be able to survive on agriculture alone. What recognizes our use of food resources through the history is that it has been far away from home – for example on the sea, in the mountains and in the forests.
Looking from the perspective and considering Norway’s climate, nature and geography it has a potential cultivated land use of 6%, which represents among the smallest areas of potential arable land of all European countries. The arable land in use corresponds to 2, 8%, and is de facto the lowest.(Strand, Bekkhus , 2008)
The statistics, which are made of data from 2008 shows, that the agricultural land in Norway can be increased by more than 100 % if required. (Strand, Bekkhus , 2008)
Harsh climate and difficult terrain explains to some extent the low arable land, while on the other hand – the abundance of rain in combination with relatively big areas of grassland gives Norway very good natural opportunities for grazing and mowing. From a global perspective of utilizing its inherent resources – production of meat and milk from both sheep and cows therefore becomes more coherent in Norway, than what it would be for many other countries.
In addition to the relatively low use of natural arable resources, the number of employment in the agricultural sector has been reduced drastically the last decades. Since 1990, the number of farms have been reduced with 50% from 96 300 to 46 650 in 2010, which means that almost 7 farms has been closed down every day averagely. At the same the national occupational proportion in the agricultural sector has been reduced from 20% in 1950 to 2, 1% in 2007. (
In accordance with the report from the parliament and the potential of Norwegian food production, the stimulation of increased consumption of Norwegian food is an important issue, but there is indeed a paradox between the numerous demands asked of agriculture and the ongoing decrease in the number of farms and farmers.
Monopoly in the food chain is another great issue in Norway, which has a very particular situation. As a matter of fact, four retail chains own over 99% of the total grocery market, whereof NorgesGruppen is the largest with 40% of the shares ( This fact gives the big actors an enormous power of which products that shall be sold at the Norwegian market. It has been revealed numerous times how these retailers use this power to keep products out of the shelves and to push the price down on chosen products. In addition to control the grocery market, these chains also receive an increasingly larger control over the other parts of the food chain. We are witnessing both an horizontal and vertical concentration of power. This naturally has big consequences, not just for range of products we are able to pick in the shops, but also it has consequences for how food shall be produced, which raw materials to be used, the working conditions in the whole food chain, and how resources shall be divided and maintained.
The retailer’s increasing power contributes to that food production is governed through a unilateral competition on price, not quality and diversity.
The Norwegian Food Chain Committee (Matkjedeutvalget) has presented many proposals to regulate the retailer’s power. These measures are certainly all very well, but if the retailer’s power shall be challenged, then also the logic they are governed by, have to be challenged. The crucial aspect is not the amount of retailers. For example if there would have been competition between Rema 1000, NorgesGruppen, Wal-Mart and Carrefour, it would not challenge the unilateral price competition.
What is needed is a counter-power that can challenge the logic that is controlling the current food industry, at all stages in the food chain.
It is therefore important to build and facilitate alternative production, distribution and marketing channels, that operates independently of the big actors. The Farmers Market is one out of few examples, but it is today weak and unstable, and has too little extent to be able to challenge the dominating actors. The crucial point is that there must be created independent channels in all the stages, that are adapted to smaller actors in the food production.