Statement on the National Food Policy Report

mennessä | 09.06.2026 | in English | 0 Kommenttia

This is an unofficial translation of our statement in Finnish which you can find here.

to: Parliament’s Committee for the Future

Subject: VNS 1/2026: Statement on the National Food Policy Report

We thank the Parliament’s Committee for the Future for the opportunity to submit a statement on the Food Policy Report regarding the national food strategy. In accordance with the request, our statement focuses on the soil health and the concept of micro-farming, as well as broader related recommendations, providing context from the perspective of the Finnish Permaculture Association.

Background

The Finnish Permaculture Association promotes a sustainable lifestyle and society based on permaculture principles. By utilizing permaculture, sustainable systems are developed that equally meet the needs of individuals, human communities, and nature in both the short and long term. Sustainability involves, among other things, moving away from the fossil fuel economy—including in agriculture—as well as the regeneration of nature and natural resources, and resilience.

At the heart of permaculture are three ethical principles that are always taken into account:

  • care for the earth (nature) – caring for the land, forests, water, air, and living beings, and recognizing the intrinsic value of nature
  • care for people – caring for oneself, loved ones, and communities locally and globally
  • fair share – balancing consumption in relation to ecological sustainability and the needs of future generations, and returning surplus to the circulation.

Permaculture design is based on a set of general design principles; by following these, we can create systems that are productive and self-regenerating, and that are better able to adapt to changes in the environment.

Soil health

Soil health is the most critical factor for the sustainability and resilience of our food system. However, soil health has been systematically degraded over the past decades, and as a result of post-war structural changes and intensive agriculture, a significant portion of the topsoil in Finland’s fields has been lost—in the most critical farming areas, humus loss has reached nearly half of the original amount. (On mineral soils, this change corresponds to a loss of approximately 220 kg of carbon per hectare per year.)[1] According to the FAO, 33% of the world’s land is already degraded, and over 90% may be at risk by 2050 [2].

Ultimately, the loss of soil fertility stems from agriculture’s transition into the fossil fuel economy—that is, the chemicalization, mechanization, and industrialization of agriculture. Cheap energy has allowed the meaning of the word “efficiency” to shift to refer to the production of a unit of food per hour of human labor, despite the enormous inefficiency in the use of energy and other resources. The land is being plowed and tilled more frequently and more intensively with increasingly heavy machinery. Artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels based on the fossil economy have enabled a shift toward monoculture and monocropping, as well as the separation of crop production and livestock farming, the emergence of complex interdependence in the food system, and the fragmentation of value chains (specialization). As soil structure and vitality have deteriorated, ever-larger machines have been introduced, and eventually erosion destroys living soil permanently.

The situation will not be decisively improved by superficial solutions, such as direct seeding, buffer zones, or reducing tire pressure, without addressing systemic flaws—the greatest of which is dependence on the fossil fuel economy and the farming system it enables, where sustainability concerns can be sidestepped by increasing energy use. Organic farming, regenerative agriculture, and agroecology are steps in the right direction, but they are not necessarily sufficient, as dependence on the fossil fuel economy persists due to the use of heavy agricultural technology.

A genuine transition to a sustainable food system and agriculture requires reducing the demand for production efficiency (measured in terms of human labor per unit of food) and increasing actual energy and resource efficiency. Ways to achieve this include a shift to permanent farming systems, such as edible forest gardens and agroforestry, combined with long-term grazing systems. At the same time, the production of monogastric livestock and the use of annual forage crops for animals should be dramatically reduced, as they consume food that could be used by humans. In animal production, preference should be given to perennial grasslands, natural pastures, and traditional biotopes, all of which sequester carbon. Annual crops should be produced for human consumption in intensive small-scale farming systems, whose byproducts can be utilized in animal production. The entire food chain should be based on local resources and production and be as independent as possible from imported inputs and global value chains. This also includes domestic seed production for garden plants, which is effectively prohibited by legislation. There is no food security without seed self-sufficiency.

Microfarming

In our view, microfarming is not an established concept. It likely refers to farming on a small area—without specifying the size of the cultivated area. In our view, it is unclear whether the concept of micro-farming brings anything new to the discussion in relation to the concepts of home-gardening and small-scale farming. Livestock can also be raised on a small scale. On the other hand, the scale of production alone does not directly reflect the sustainability of farming or its significance for the food system. Currently, most very small-scale (micro) farming is subsistence farming for personal use, on a non-commercial basis. According to a study by Rappen et al. [3], 30% of the urban population and 70% of the rural population engage in gardening. Animals are also kept for subsistence production. Subsistence farming can be practiced in one’s own yard, as allotment or community garden farming, or as container gardening in urban environments, or even on balconies or rooftops. Newer forms of small-scale farming include various types of community-supported agriculture, in which the community’s consumer members are partially or fully responsible for the farming.

Small and diverse farms can be more productive in terms of land area and external inputs than the current dominant “intensive production.” Efficiency and productivity should therefore be examined from multiple perspectives and through various possible scenarios, rather than based on current price ratios of production inputs and final products, which are artificial (e.g., externalities are not taken into account). It is precisely for this reason that we must actively seek new and diverse ways to utilize human labor more than before in an economically, socially, and humanely sustainable manner. The current economic system can even lead to the exploitation of labor, as has been seen in the berry sector.

Although subsistence farming is broadly driven by a desire for more natural production [4], among agroecological movements, only the permaculture movement has widely embraced subsistence farming or “self-sufficiency.” This is not because permaculture cannot be applied on a larger scale, but rather because of the idea that we should all strive to transition, at least partially, from consumers to producers when it comes to meeting our own basic needs. This would help support the ability to produce food intensively and labor-intensively. The more people possess basic farming skills, the more feasible it becomes to scale this type of food production to a level significant for food security and societal resilience when the need arises. Self-sufficient food production also brings greater appreciation for food production more broadly and can serve as a channel for new professional farmers to enter the sector.

Attracting new professional farmers can no longer rely primarily on generational succession. For those coming from outside agriculture and the farming community, financing and supportive structures must be found to start production that do not require massive indebtedness and the financial burden and risk that come with it. Requiring maximum returns from the outset by financiers places excessive pressure on new farmers and drives them toward unsustainable solutions, as short-sighted, chemical-based plant protection and fertilization methods yield the fastest results.

The family farm should no longer be considered the only valid basis for farm ownership. Other models, such as partnership farming and community farming, implemented through various corporate forms or cooperative models, as well as various solutions for farm ownership and management based on local communities, should be developed and supported. The ability to farm the land is a fundamental right, and to guarantee this, land ownership must not be concentrated.

Recommendations

  1. We understand that a complete decoupling of the Finnish food system and agriculture from the fossil fuel economy is not currently a feasible political goal. However, the sustainability transition could shift from a distant goal to a practical necessity surprisingly quickly as ecological tipping points are crossed or societal crises unfold. Therefore, elements of a permaculture-based sustainability transition should be incorporated into future policy actions as much as possible. We recommend the following measures:
  2. Identifying and supporting local and regional food system innovations (including social innovations) when they aim to build genuinely sustainable and transformative agroecological systems. Integration with local resources and a shift away from foreign inputs and fossil fuels should be key objectives.
  3. Livestock production should be steered more toward grazing on perennial pastures, natural pastures, and traditional biotopes, and away from monoculture production. At the same time, production’s dependence on mechanization must be reduced.
  4. Agriculture’s dependence on the fossil fuel economy should be actively reduced. Under no circumstances should agricultural subsidies be directed toward supporting the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or fossil fuels.
  5. The food system’s dependence on the fossil fuel economy should be studied, for example, by simulating the impact of oil and natural gas prices doubling and quintupling on the food system.
  6. Agricultural policy and subsidy structures that support agricultural specialization, the growth of farm sizes, and the regional differentiation of production should be dismantled.
  7. The transition to regenerative organic farming should be supported.
  8. Agroforestry and forest gardens should be supported, and restrictions that hinder them should be removed from the conditions for agricultural subsidies.
  9. Agricultural subsidies should be targeted at small-scale farming and start-up support for small farms, not just through generational succession. It should be possible to become a farmer from outside the agricultural sector.
  10. True food security requires that as many people as possible have the skills and opportunity to produce food, even on a small scale. Therefore, sustainable subsistence and self-sufficient farming and the related expertise should be supported, for example, through project funding and training.
  11. Barriers to the commercial and non-commercial production of seeds suitable for local conditions should be removed.
  12. The basics of food production should be added to the elementary school curriculum. Schools should be encouraged to establish school gardens.

1. Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1456–1469.

︎2. FAO & Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS). 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy.

3. Rappe E, Linden L, Koivunen T. Puisto, puutarha ja hyvinvointi. Viherympäristöliiton julkaisu 28. Gummerus, Jyväskylä 2003.

4. Koivusilta, L., Vaarno, J., Marttunen, K., Hynynen, A., Nieminen, T., Niemi, J.K., Harjunpää, N., Vuorenmaa, E. ja Mäki, M. 2018. Kotitarveviljely ja hyötyeläimet Suomessa ja kotitarvetuotantoon motivoivat tekijät. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 49/2018. Luonnonvarakeskus, Helsinki. 46 s.

For more information contact

Erkki Pöytäniemi, chair of board, erkki(ät)iso-orvokkiniitty.fi, 050-5505225

Tanja Airio, vice chair, tanja(ät)niipala.fi, 045-78756805

Elisa Ojutkangas, secretary, elisa.ojutkangas(ät)gmail.com