Towards a Sustainable Food System in the Baltic Sea Region

  • Markus Larsson


This chapter compares conventional agriculture and Ecological Recycling Agriculture (ERA) in terms of environmental and socio-economic effects. Environmental effects are assessed with a focus on nutrient losses. Socio-economic effects pertain to production, and costs and benefits at the macro, firm and household level. At the regional level, the main challenge is to make agriculture more environmentally friendly and reduce nutrient losses while maintaining food production. At the national level, it is to shift the product mix towards more vegetables and less meat and to address the geographical division between animal and crop production. The local level challenge is to achieve sustainable environmental, economic and social rural development. Finally, the chapter looks at the expansion of EU and its implications for the sustainable governance of the Baltic Sea.


Sustainable agriculture Eutrophication Baltic Sea Sustainable food system 


  1. Ahtiainen, H., Hasselström, L., Artell, J., Angeli, D., Czajkowski, M., Meyerhoff, J., et al. (2012). Benefits of meeting the Baltic Sea nutrient reduction targets—Combining ecological modeling and contingent valuation in the nine littoral states (MTT Discussion Papers 1), MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  2. Alkan-Olsson, J. (2004). Alternative economic instruments of control. In L. Lundqvist, A. Jonsson, V. Galaz, M. Löwgren, & J. Alkan-Olsson (Eds.), Sustainable water management: Organisation, participation, influence, economy. VASTRA Report 5. Gothenburg University, Gothenburg (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  3. Brink, C., van Grinsven, H., Jacobsen, B. H., Rabl, A., Gren, I.-M., Holland, M., et al. (2011). Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment. In M. A. Sutton, C. M. Howard, J.-W. Erisman, G. Billen, A. Bleeker, P. Grennfelt, H. van Grinsven, & B. Grizzetti (Eds.), The European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA) (pp. 513–540). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (1999). Consumption patterns and climate change: Consequences of eating and travelling in Sweden. Ph.D. thesis. Stockholm University, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  5. Collentine, D. (2002). Search for the northwest passage: The assignation of NSP (non-point source pollution) rights in nutrient trading programs. Water Science and Technology, 45(9), 227–234.Google Scholar
  6. CTN. (2001). Ät S.M.A.R.T. – ett utbildningsmaterial om maten, hälsan och miljön (In Swedish) [Eat S.M.A.R.T—an educational package on food, health and the environment]. Accessed October 28, 2016.
  7. CTN. (2008). Ät S.M.A.R.T. Så här kan du äta för att både kroppen och miljön ska må bra (In Swedish) [Eat S.M.A.R.T. Eat like this and both you and the environment will feel well] Centrum för tillämpad näringslära/Centre for Applied Nutrition (CTN), Samhällsmedicin. Stockholm: Stockholms läns landsting.Google Scholar
  8. CTN. (2015). Ät S.M.A.R.T. Accessed October 28, 2016.
  9. Dahlberg, K. A. (1993). Regenerative food systems: Broadening the scope and agenda of sustainability. In P. Allen (Ed.), Food for the future: Conditions and contradictions of sustainability. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, L. (2004). Global trade, food production and ecosystem support: Making the interactions visible. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  11. Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321(5891), 926–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eko-Mat Centrum. (2014). Hållbar mat i offentlig sektor. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  13. Eko-Mat Centrum. (2015). Ekologiskt i offentliga storhushåll 2014. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  14. Elofsson, K. (2003). Cost-effective reductions of stochastic agricultural loads to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 47(1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elofsson, K. (2007). Cost uncertainty and unilateral abatement. Environmental & Resource Economics, 36(2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2013). Overview of CAP reform 2014–2020. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  17. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Granstedt, A. (2000). Increasing the efficiency of plant nutrient recycling within the agricultural system as a way of reducing the load to the environment—Experience from Sweden and Finland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 80(1–2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granstedt, A., Seuri, P., & Thomsson, O. (2008). Ecological recycling agriculture to reduce nutrient pollution to the Baltic Sea. Journal of Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 26, 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gren, I.-M. (2001). International versus national actions against nitrogen pollution of the Baltic Sea. Environment and Resource Economics, 20(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gren, I.-M., Elofsson, K., & Jannke, P. (1997a). Cost-effective nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. Environment and Resource Economics, 10(4), 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gren, I.-M., Söderqvist, T., & Wulff, F. (1997b). Nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea: Ecology, costs and benefits. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gren, I.-M., & Folmer, H. (2003). Cooperation with respect to cleaning of an international water body with stochastic environmental damage: The case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 47(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. HELCOM. (2003). The Baltic Marine Environment 1999–2002. In Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 87, HELCOM, Helsinki. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  25. HELCOM. (2004a). The fourth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-4). In Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 93. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  26. HELCOM. (2004b). 30 years of protecting the Baltic Sea—HELCOM 1974–2004. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  27. HELCOM. (2005). Nutrient pollution to the Baltic Sea in 2000. In Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 100, HELCOM, Helsinki. Accessed October 28, 2016.
  28. HELCOM. (2007a). HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan. HELCOM Overview 2007. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland.Google Scholar
  29. HELCOM. (2007b). Towards a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication. HELCOM, Helsinki. HELCOM Overview 2007. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland.Google Scholar
  30. HELCOM. (2011). The fifth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-5). In Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 128. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  31. HELCOM. (2015). Updated fifth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-5.5). In Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 145. Accessed October 28, 2016.
  32. Hoffman, R., Wivstad, M., Mie, A., Wallenbeck, A., & Ullvén, K. (2014). Varför Köpa ekologisk mat? Får vi det vi förväntar oss? Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, EPOK—Centre for organic food & farming Accessed November 1, 2016.
  33. Hoffman, R., & Wivstad, M. (2015). Why do (don’t) we buy organic food and do we get what we bargain for? Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, EPOK—Centre for organic food & farming. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  34. IFOAM. (2008). International federation of organic agriculture movements. Accessed November 8, 2016.
  35. Jordbruksverket. (2014). Marknadsöversikt - Spannmål. Rapport 2014:08. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  36. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  37. Kirchmann, H., & Bergström, L. (2001). Do organic farming practices reduce nitrate leaching? Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7–8), 997–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kloppenburg, J., Jr., Lezberg, S., De Master, K., Stevenson, G. W., & Hendrickson, J. (2000). Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining the attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization, 59(2), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. KRAV. (2016). KRAV standards 2016. Uppsala: KRAV. Accessed November 8, 2016.
  40. Larsson, M. (2005). How agricultural reforms can revitalize the Baltic Sea: Cost efficient measures to curb eutrophication. Ekologiskt Lantbruk nr. 43. Uppsala: The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  41. Larsson, M. (2006). Production, consumption and the Baltic Sea: Measures to curb eutrophication. In B. Frostell (Ed.), Science for sustainable development: Starting points and critical reflections, Proceedings of the 1st VHU Conference on Science for Sustainable Development, 14–16 April 2005, Västerås, Sweden (pp. 200–209). Uppsala: Swedish Society Science for Sustainable Development VHU.Google Scholar
  42. Larsson, M. (2012). Tackling uncertainty—Resilience and social capital. In M. Nyström (Ed.), Glimpsing paths. Being and acting in times of uncertainty (68–73). Uppsala, Sweden: Cemus/Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD) Uppsala, Uppsala University and the Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. Larsson, M., & Granstedt, A. (2010). Sustainable governance of agriculture and the Baltic Sea—Agricultural reforms, food production and curbed eutrophication. Ecological Economics, 69(10), 1943–1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larsson, M., Granstedt, A., & Thomsson, O. (2012). Sustainable food system—Targeting production methods, distribution or food basket content? In M. Reed (Ed.), Organic food and agriculture: New trends and developments in the social sciences (pp. 197–216). Intech.Google Scholar
  45. Larsson, M., Milestad, R., Hahn, T., & von Oelreich, J. (2016). The resilience of a sustainability entrepreneur in the Swedish food system. Sustainability, 8(6), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Larsson, M., Morin, L., Hahn, T., & Sandahl, J. (2013). Institutional barriers to organic farming in Central and Eastern European countries of the Baltic Sea region. Agricultural and Food Economics, 1(5), 1–20.Google Scholar
  47. Milestad, R. (2003). Building farm resilience. Prospects and challenges for organic farming. Ph.D. dissertation, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  48. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  49. MVB. (2005). A strategy for ending eutrophication of seas and coasts (Memorandum 2005:1). Stockholm: The Swedish Environmental Advisory Council/Miljövårdsberedningen.Google Scholar
  50. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), 2. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  51. Pretty, J. (2000). Supporting policies and practice. In N. Röling & M. A. E. Wagemakers (Eds.), Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1491), 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., & Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III, F. S., & Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Accessed October 31, 2016.
  55. SEPA. (2008). Sweden’s obligations in the Baltic Sea action plan, Rapport 5830. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (In Swedish). Accessed November 8, 2016.
  56. SEPA. (2016). Environmental objectives portal. Accessed November 8, 2016.
  57. Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. SOU. (2004). Hållbara laster - Konsumtion för en ljusare framtid, Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU) 2004: 119 (In Swedish). Stockholm: Ministry for Rural Affairs.—konsumtion-for-en-ljusare-framtid. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  59. SOU. (2005). Bilen, biffen, bostaden. Hållbara laster—smartare konsumtion, Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU) 2005: 51 (In Swedish). Stockholm: Fritzes.—hallbara-laster-smartare-konsumtion. Accessed October 28, 2016.
  60. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1–17. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor and Francis Online. (2015). Aims and scopes. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems Journal. Accessed October 2, 2015.
  62. Turner, R. K., Georgiou, S., Gren, I.-M., Wulff, F., Barrett, S., Söderqvist, T., et al. (1999). Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic Sea: An interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecological Economics, 30, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UN. (2015). Global Sustainable Development Report, 2015 edition. Accessed November 1, 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Larsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Fores—Forum for Reforms Entrepreneurship and SustainabilityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations