He is the author of two books: Future Harvests and We Will Reap What We Sow. Both tackle the major issues impacting the future of food and farming.
In addition, Pelletier also writes a popular blog: The Food Futurist - www.hfgfoodfuturist.com
Water is a vital resource which is increasingly threatened. How should governments respond?
There are huge differences between regions. For instance, China and Canada have about the same amount of available water, but China has 1.5 billion inhabitants and Canada 35 million. However, Mother Nature seems to try to reconcile us all by causing similar problems everywhere. It is the second year in a row that wildfires burn not far from my home and with plenty of smoke to breath, and with this dry climate my garden and vineyard suffer. It is an interesting way to experience nature first hand.
In my opinion, the first response is to tackle waste. Just like food, a huge amount of water is wasted and a part of it is wasted through the waste of water-rich produced in the fields or post-harvest. In We Will Reap What We Sow, I mention that before the Great Depression of 10 years ago, in the USA lawns received more water than corn or a yearly basis. If water gets scarce, where would we use it: for food or for vanity?
Since money talks, my second response should be to make non-essential water quite expensive. People may not like it but it is a matter of time before it happens. There are other ways to landscape a front yard than with lawn. There are also better ways to reduce water usage in bathrooms.
This is a big problem and difficult to solve. It will require a global approach and considering the current state of affairs on climate change agreements and in the global relationships, future prospects do not make me burst of optimism.
Can you tell us a bit about your time as the Director of a Canadian salmon farm? It was in a bit of trouble before you came on board, how did you fix it up?
I guess the quick answer is: by changing everything. The harvesting planning was adverse, as about three quarters of the volumes were harvested at a traditionally depressed market timing, as the Pacific Northwest market would be more focused on buying wild salmon at that particular period of summer.
By shifting the harvesting planning in times where there is no fresh wild salmon on the market, we changed from (poor) market takers to market makers. Another important part of our new marketing strategy was to focus on Pacific Salmon instead of Atlantic salmon to have a specialty very much appreciated on the West Coast, and to grow it with our customers, according to their needs.
We managed a 180 degree turn from production driven (painfully selling at distressed prices what had been produced) to market driven (producing what was already sold or sellable at positive margins). Margin was more important than volume.
Our fish became an exclusive product that buyers were willing to pay at a very good price, because it was helping their business to grow, thanks to all of the above. Next to that, I added and implemented a professional sales organization, quality control and processing cost reduction. I also shifted performance objectives to a margin-driven decision making. It was not about costs or prices alone or the one versus the other. It was about moving margin up, all together.
When change deliver better results, there is better support within the organization. To put it simply, if a new product or a change in production systems generated more margin, it was good change. If it hurt the margin, it was a bad change and we forgot about it.
Not only was success quick to materialize, but the Canadian salmon farming unit that were last in class ended up generating the highest margin per kg of all units worldwide. I had had similar experiences and activities previously in the pig and poultry businesses before, as well as with our Chilean salmon farming unit. I kind of knew what I was doing.
Should governments be legislating changes in food production, or is it better left to the marketplace/producers?
Earlier, I mentioned that I hoped for more collaboration and altruism. This is an example of it. Governments should govern. Some do. Some a bit less. Sometimes, governments seem more preoccupied with ongoing campaigning than governing, and that is not good. Opposite to that, businesses should run their businesses, but in a number of occurrences they seem as much preoccupied with being involved in governing.
My opinion is that producing better food and, at least as importantly, better nutrition is everybody’s responsibility: governments, businesses, non-profits, producers, consumers, children, parents, teachers, you name it.
Why is it important? For a simple reason: a society of unhealthy people will inevitably decline, and the social cost to society is a heavy financial burden that weakens society and its members. A prosperous society that wants a future takes good care of its members.
Do you believe that some leaders are perhaps not focussing on issues threatening the food supply? What can the industry do to combat this?
I don’t think that for many it is a deliberate choice. I think that they probably do not even realise what they neglect.
A few governments and businesses do indeed choose to do nothing, but they are a minority et we know who they are as they boast about it. Most just take a prudent (probably too prudent) approach and we lose precious time.
Then there is the third group of those who are ahead and deliberately choose to change their ways, but unfortunately, they are a minority and do not have enough traction yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment