Climate action shouldn't target poor famers

Rowan Williams's call to eat local ignores the plight of producers – and doesn't necessarily help the environmental cause
James MacGregor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 October 2009 09.00 BST
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has urged UK consumers to reduce their carbon footprint by shunning fruit and vegetables that have been flown from Africa.
But while many of his comments on climate change are sensible, this one is not. If followed, it could condemn hundreds of thousands of Africans to poverty.
Williams is well-meaning but he has fallen into a classic trap in treating the environment as sacrosanct, and worse, seeing simple solutions to complex environmental problems.
Stopping this trade would make hardly any impact on climate change but would harm over one million people in sub-Saharan Africa who depend on it for their livelihoods, and to pay for healthcare and the education of their children, girls in particular.
Air-freighted fruit and vegetables contribute less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions.
Air freight is easy to demonise but even with transport included, African fruit and vegetables largely result in lower emissions than European ones that are grown in heated greenhouses. Far greater emissions result from the domestic transport of food goods within the United Kingdom than from flying them here in the first place, as the vast majority of African produce (over three-quarters) arrives in the UK in the belly of scheduled passenger planes.
Kenya's per capita emissions are just 0.2 tonnes per person per year. The average UK citizen emits 50 times more. Is it ethical to penalise Kenyan farmers for our excesses?
I worry that simplistic reactions to climate issues, such as counting "food miles", might change people's behaviour in ways that are actually bad for global sustainable development. We need to stop thinking about "food miles" and start thinking about "fair miles" (pdf), focusing less on how far food has travelled and more on how it has been produced and by whom.
On this occasion, I fear that Williams's comments might inspire a boycott of African products, with repercussions across the continent.
It is clear we are going to be living in a world increasingly dictated by climate. How we act now and in the near future will determine how quickly we hit climate change that is catastrophic.
Williams is missing a potential win-win which would have appeal across his global flock. Our consumption of African produce injects some £200m per year into rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty is most acute.
The purchase of African produce is the single most important way that UK consumers engage with sub-Saharan Africa. Solidarity between UK consumers and African farmers should be at the cornerstone of our consumption patterns, mixing local and global social justice across the seasons.
I suggest Williams adopts a more nuanced approach that encourages UK consumers to eat local in season, and eat development-friendly out of season. In this way, they'll be supporting some of the world's poorest farmers by continuing to buy the food they produce.