Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland

1500-3000 || 3000

Abstract
In light of diverse geographic, economic, and societal factors, Iceland’s food supply is
increasingly dependent on international exports. From an environmental perspective, Iceland
faces a lack of arable land and short growing seasons. Economically, a trade imbalance
resulting from growing imports of food products leaves Iceland vulnerable to currency
devaluation. Increased competition from foreign firms has also resulted in a need for expensive
subsidies to keep Iceland’s agricultural industry afloat. Finally, fatalistic cultural values have
minimized food security as a threat in the public policy space.

The importance of food insecurity should be further emphasized as Iceland considers its future,
especially given growing concerns in regard to climate change and global economic downturns.
When considering the future, Iceland can turn either internally or externally. On one hand,
Iceland can further embrace tourism and the globalization it is associated with. In this train of
thought, increasing prosperity can buy Iceland the security it needs. On the other, Icelanders
could attempt to boost national food production by implementing new technologies and
overcoming behavioral biases to increase the supply and demand of locally grown products. In
either case, Icelanders will be balancing familiar problems of solidarity and collaboration,
sustainability and commerce.

Introduction
A land of desolate beauty and timeless resilience, Iceland has been characterized in the past
and present by its power to adapt and survive; however, in the 21st century, Iceland no longer
operates in isolation. It is now deeply intertwined in the global economy, managing booms and
busts at home and abroad. Moving into the future, Iceland must carefully consider its priorities,
relationships, and indeed its survival on the international stage.

In considering the growth and sustainability of a nation, the issue of food insecurity stands apart
as both a pressing and underemphasized issue. Iceland’s unique geographic, economic, and
cultural factors have led to a lack of preparedness for combatting transitory food insecurity. On
many fronts, the country lacks the underlying infrastructure to mitigate the effects of catastrophic
food shortages.

More concretely, for the purposes of an analysis of Iceland, food insecurity refers to when
individuals must compromise on food intake, quality, variety, or desirability because of lack of
money and other resources (USDA ERS 2018). Expanding beyond just constructs of
undernutrition, contemporary discussions of food insecurity are multifaceted, spanning topics
such as the quality of available food products and anxiety surrounding non-monetary resources
that affect the accessibility of food (Habicht, Pelo, Frongillo 2014).

While applying the concept of food insecurity to Iceland it is important to further draw a
distinction between chronic, poverty-related food insecurity and transitory food insecurity that
impacts Iceland on a country-wide level. While unemployment and poverty rates spiked after the
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
2008 financial crisis (Trading Economics 2019), this analysis instead focuses on transitory food
insecurity that would affect Icelanders regardless of their relative level of prosperity. More
specifically, according to the FAO Food Security Program, transitory food insecurity results from
“short-term shocks and fluctuations in food availability and access” (2019). These fluctuations
can result in natural disasters, terrorism, economic downturns, and diseases affecting
agricultural products.

Iceland has important decisions to make regarding how they will manage the usage of its
resources and policies to maximize national food security in the years to come. This will involve
fully understanding the factors that contribute to the structure of its current food systems and
considering solutions to mitigate future transitory food insecurity whether through internal
development or external relationships.

Case Examination
Factors Leading to Transitory Food
Insecurity
As a country, Iceland faces a unique set of factors that make it especially susceptible to and
unprepared to recover from periods of transitory food insecurity. Broadly, Iceland lacks the
agricultural infrastructure to be self-sufficient in providing its citizens with diverse and affordable
food products. Various factors contribute to Iceland’s three primary issues: (1) a relatively
unproductive agricultural industry, (2) a dependence of foreign imports, and (3) a lack of societal
and political attention to food security-related issues.

Geographic & Environmental Factors

One of the key underlying drivers of transitory food insecurity results from barriers to agricultural
self-sufficiency. As a result of various geographic and environmental factors, Iceland’s present
circumstances limit the proliferation of diverse produce and livestock.

These barriers are as immutable as Iceland’s physical location as a relatively isolated island in
the North Atlantic. While Iceland’s annual temperatures are considered mild and consistent in
light of its northern latitude, the country still faces relatively cool temperatures with an annual
mean of around 5°c (Worldmark Encyclopedia, 2019). This results in a short, four-month
growing season from May to September, with the winter months limiting cultivation to grass and
barley growth (Helgadóttir, Eythórsdóttir, Jóhannesson 2013).

In addition to issues of climate, Iceland’s soil composition is also counterproductive to extensive

cultivation. As an island on the Mid-Atlantic range, Iceland is largely composed of volcanic
parent materials. This results in two predominant types of soils, volcanic Andosols under
vegetation and infertile, carbon-poor Vitrisols (Arnalds 2008). While Andosols are relatively
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
conducive to vegetation growth, they are highly vulnerable to erosion when vegetation is
weakened.

High levels of tectonic and volcanic activity that can potentially further reduce arable land. For
example, in examining the effects of the volcanic eruption at Eyjafjallajökull glacier, it is clear
that deposited ash creates major problems for farmers by reducing soil quality and suppressing
the growth of fodder for grazing (Johannsson 2011). Additionally, seismic activity has the
potential to disrupt infrastructure like roads allowing for the transportation of food and power
grids which allow for the safe storage of foods (Invest IS 2019).

Man-made environmental changes have an equal part to play in affecting Iceland’s present level
of agricultural productivity. Dating back to Viking colonization, agricultural practices have
exacerbated erosion and reduced arable land. Pre-colonization, Iceland was carpeted by more
diverse and dense Arctic flora, as well as substantial birch forests (Olafsdottir, Schlyter,
Haraldsson 2001). Norse settlement would fundamentally change this version of the Icelandic
biome.

Application of Norse medieval agriculture came in the form of grain-based agriculture that
supported the proliferation of various livestock including cows, sheep, horses, and goats
(Hartman, Ogilvie, Ingimundarson, Dugmore, Hambrecht, Mcgovern 2017). As populations
grew, larger swaths of land were cleared for agriculture and grazing. These actions would
deeply impact the fragile Icelandic environment as irreversible erosion occurred in both the
lowlands and highlands of the country. These early developments in agriculture have lasting
effects on contemporary output by limiting the surface area of arable, non-eroded land (Caitlin,
Bolender 2018).

Of course, these man-made changes to the environment are not limited to the past. Now in
contemporary times, climate change has a wide array of effects on food delivery within Iceland,
as warmer temperatures have raised concerns about “changing fish populations… new pests
previously nonexistent for Icelandic crops, ocean acidification… and sea level rise [affecting]
low-lying farmland” (Jacobson 2016).

As a result of these climatic and environmental factors, Iceland is not currently agriculturally
self-sufficient. While notably, Iceland produces sufficient quantities of meat and dairy, it lacks
diversity in the food categories of fruits, cereals, and beans (Halldórsdóttir, 2016). This is largely
due to a disproportionate emphasis on raising livestock with 90% of cultivated land being used
for grazing and grain production meant for animal consumption (Helgadóttir, Eythórsdóttir,
Jóhannesson 2013). Accordingly, the country is inextricably dependent on imported food goods
and thus inherently affected by a larger spectrum of economic and societal issues related to
globalization.

Economic Factors
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
Iceland’s suboptimal level of food production, resulting from climatic and environmental factors,
has pressing economic ramifications. The impacts of the 2008 financial crisis make it impossible
to deny the country’s vulnerability to fluctuations in the global economy.

In the context of food security, Iceland faces an increasingly large trade imbalance as food
imports have grown 9% year over year (Trading Economics 2019), with less than ¼ of
vegetables grown domestically. While this has been correlated with decreasing food prices in
recent years, economic downturns or political unrest in any one of Iceland’s trade partners could
lead to a spike in food prices (CEIC 2019).

For example, during the last global recession, the Icelandic Krona plummeted by more than
48% (Dennis 2008). As a result of this economic downturn and currency devaluation, Iceland’s
consumer price index spiked as many of the goods in Iceland’s market basket were of foreign
origin. This exacerbated consumers’ existing struggles with unprecedented levels of household
debt (CEIC 2019).

In addition to issues of currency devaluation affecting imported food prices and accessibility,
Iceland must also consider how economic policies shape national food production. As Iceland’s
currency has since recovered to pre-recession levels, the country has seen a growth in imports
of competitively priced food.

Currently, Iceland’s agricultural industry is propped up by strong government subsidies resulting

in significant market distortions compared to other EU countries (OECD 2014). While the
existence of these policies encourages national food production, there are limits to the levels of
price supports and tariffs Iceland can raise. Competition from larger foreign food retailers like
Costco will only intensify in response to the tourism boom.

Ultimately, when considering how economic factors contribute to Iceland’s level of food security,
the issue lies in long-term stability and affordability. Current market forces are favorable with a
relatively high-value Krona and a influx of tourists reducing the cost of imported goods; however,
with every boom, there is a bust. Growing dependence on imported goods threatens the native
Icelandic agricultural industry and leaves consumers subject to significant price fluctuations.

Societal & Political Factors

Iceland’s lack of preparedness in facing transitory food insecurity also stems from societal
attitudes that cause a lack of political attention. On a broad level, there is simply a lack of
awareness among consumers about food insecurity. According to surveys conducted by, 49% of
Icelanders had not heard of the concept of food insecurity and 88% of survey respondents
seldom or never thought of food insecurity (Johannsson 2011). Correlated with this lack of
concern is a lack of food storages. Currently, 78% of Icelandic families have less than one week
of food stores and would thus be highly susceptible to transitory food insecurity in the case of a
catastrophic event (Johannsson 2011).
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
Icelandic cultural values also contribute to this lack of emphasis on food insecurity as a national
issue. In considering threats to food insecurity, studies on Icelandic Cultural Theory show that
Icelanders are relatively unconcerned with the impacts of catastrophic events and natural
disasters. Generally, Icelanders tend to have a “fatalistic worldview” and tend to believe that
their actions cannot affect potential disasters.

As a result of this lack of consumer interest and awareness, food insecurity is also an
under-emphasized issue in the political space. In a report conducted by the Icelandic Foreign
Minister in 2009 to assess risks facing Iceland, food insecurity was framed as a relatively
insignificant threat. For example, in the decade between 2001 to 2011, food security was only
discussed for 82 minutes by the Icelandic parliament (Bailes, Johannsson 2011). Among this
limited discussion, issues, like import cessation and infrastructural failures that would limit food
transport, were framed as improbable (Icelandic Foreign Minister 2009).

Influenced by cultural values, the resilience-based philosophy found in Icelandic political rhetoric
has been “widely criticized for its nebulous and indiscriminate use in strategic planning”
(Jacobson 2016). Oftentimes, this type of rhetoric has been used to frame political problems like
food insecurity as overly simplistic and fatalistic, with an emphasis on bouncing back from
potential crises rather than preparing. Unfortunately, these attitudes instill significant political
inertia, resulting in highly limited administrative contingency plans to address food insecurity.

Potential Solutions to Food Insecurity

Iceland’s food systems face a set of unique challenges that limit its present self-sufficiency and
future sustainability. Certain factors are inherent to Iceland’s geographical location, as
short-growing seasons and infertile soils that limit food production. Other factors are a result of
Iceland’s increasing participation in the global economy and the resulting dependence on
imports. These environmental and economic factors intertwine with fatalistic cultural values that
result in a lack of political attention and support.

Looking into the future, uncertain political alliances and certain climate change will only increase
the prominence of existing challenges to food production and distribution. As such, Iceland must
carefully consider its path forward. Given the aforementioned circumstances, Iceland has can
weigh the following options to either continue building alliances internationally or develop
solutions to food insecurity internally.

Arguments for External Development

EU Membership:
To discuss how Iceland can further embrace globalization and improve its food insecurity with
international resources, one must first understand the country’s current role in the global
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
economy. As a former Danish colony, Iceland has strong ties to the European Union and of its
top five trade partners, four are EU member states (Trading Economics 2019).

Accordingly, one potential solution to alleviate food insecurity lies in further increasing trade with
Europe by attempting to join the EU. Studies highlight how Iceland’s GDP could grow by as
much as 6% upon joining the European Union (Bjarnason 2010). This increase in prosperity
would primarily result from two key benefits. First, Iceland could benefit from EU subsidies for
infrastructural development and agricultural growth. This could greatly improve the productivity
of Iceland’s agricultural industry. Second, Iceland’s trade balance could potentially improve as
there would be decreased tariffs and thus an increased volume of exported goods to EU
countries (Bjarnason 2010).

The implicit understanding under this argument is that Icelandic agricultural production will be
too difficult to scale to a point of self-sufficiency, with trade relationships more effectively utilizing
Iceland’s resources. This is supported by studies highlighting how current policy instruments
keeping key agricultural sectors afloat are inefficient and ultimately unsustainable.

However, there are significant counter arguments for this path of international dependence. To
first address EU membership, Iceland is actually ineligible for certain subsidies related to
structural aid as Iceland’s GDP is higher than the EU average (Bjarnason 2010). Additionally,
while increased foreign investment may increase the market value of Icelandic companies, their
intrinsic value will be largely unaffected, pointing to how inflated figures for GDP growth may not
yield significant improvements to household prosperity on a per capita basis. Finally, with even
lower tariffs for imported goods, Icelandic agriculture will most likely further specialize, thus
further reducing its self-sustainability in the case of a catastrophic event.

Tourism Growth:
With the growth of tourism, trade-offs in land usage are becoming increasingly important to
consider. In the context of a common land classification framework from the Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment, Iceland must choose between zoning land to provide “provisioning
services” like agricultural production and protecting ecosystems for the “cultural services” they
provide in terms of recreation and aesthetics (Alcamo 2003).

Given the magnitude of tourism growth, one can argue that environmental conservation for the
sake of “cultural services” provides more intrinsic and monetary value to Iceland than traditional
agricultural production. Currently, the percentage of Icelanders employed in the agricultural
industry is lower than ever before with agriculture contributing only 5.8% to total GDP (Index
Mundi 2019). In contrast, tourism’s contribution to GDP has outpaced predictions, growing from
3.2% to 8.6% in just the past 8 years. With tourism numbers growing as much as 39% annually,
it appears that in the long-term the tourism industry could dominate even more of Iceland’s
economy (Carey 2019).
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
In addition to rezoning land to further protect areas of natural beauty, Iceland could take further
steps to subsidize tourism. For example, the government could re-assign a proportion of the 18
billion ISK in subsidies provided to the agricultural sector to instead build up infrastructure that
supports tourism (OECD 2014). Economic incentives could also be provided to encourage
large foreign food retailers and restaurants to open locations in Iceland, thus providing a greater
diversity of food options in the case of transitory food insecurity.

However, there are considerable counterarguments that point to unrealistic expectations for
tourism growth and foreign investment in the coming years. While the numbers of visitors
continue to increase, growth has begun to slow down for the first time since 2011. Additionally,
with the downfall of budget airlines like Wow Airlines as well as rising currency valuations,
Iceland may become an increasingly expensive destination for travelers (Carey 2019).

The underlying concern here is that increasing GDP is not enough to alleviate the problem of
food insecurity in its entirety. Whether Iceland joins the EU or finds ways to continue growing its
tourism industry, increased prosperity is not a cure-all for transitory food security. Uncontrollable
factors reducing food availability like the threat of a natural disaster, energy shortages, and
terrorism cannot be as simply resolved with monetary investment.

Arguments for Internal Development

Iceland’s other option for improving transitory food security lies in increasing its agricultural
self-sufficiency, thus decreasing its reliance on foreign imports. As a country, they can take a
two-pronged approach that addresses both the supply and demand of locally grown foods.

Improving Agriculture with Technology:

From the supply side, there have been promising technological developments that could
potentially increase the efficiency of food production. By taking into account its existing
strengths and limitations as a country, Iceland could apply a new set of technologies to improve
the productivity and yields of its farmers.

Given their relatively small agricultural workforce, it is feasible to the Icelandic government to
link together individual producers within a given industry in an SMS-powered network for advice
and troubleshooting. For example, in a case study conducted with herders in Mongolia,
SMS-based services greatly increased access to instant and accurate weather information, with
additional capabilities to disseminate information about “animal disease outbreaks, snow depth,
pasture carrying capacity and meat market price” (Mercy Corps 2017). This could reduce
information gaps faced by farmers in rural Iceland and help individual firms “fertilize, harvest and
sell products more effectively” (Samberg 2018).

There also unique synergies between Iceland’s agricultural sector and its thriving geothermal
energy industry. While high-heat steam at 160-350˚C is used to generate electricity, wastewater
created as a byproduct of electrical generation still has a temperature of at least 130˚C (Dell,
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000
Sidebotham, Guido 2011). This excess heated water has traditionally been used to heat
greenhouses, in a generally inefficient process with high costs for labor and materials.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence in interest to apply geothermal heat in agriculture.
Promising developments have been made in “shallow system of heated ground” that utilizes an
underground piping system similar to heated sidewalks. In initial tests at a heated garden in
Hveragerdi, tomatoes in heated plots grew by more than 45.2% more than tomatoes in
unheated tomatoes (Dell, Sidebotham, Guido 2011).

Increasing Demand for Local Produce

On the demand side, Iceland can focus on reducing behavioral barriers towards the
consumption of locally grown foods. Surveys highlight that 88% of Icelanders who had
purchased local food were satisfied or very satisfied when evaluating local foods on quality,
comparable price, and sustainability (Halldórsdóttir, Nicholas 2016). However, despite relatively
high awareness and approval of local food, lower percentages of consumers agreed that local
food was actually sustainable.

In light of this bias against the sustainability of local food, Iceland can take steps to adjust
consumer perceptions. According to studies on promoting alternative foods networks, an
approach Iceland could take is promoting the concept of “defensive localism” (Winter 2003). By
associating Icelandic grown foods as less susceptible to disease outbreaks and detrimental
intensive industrial farms, Iceland could position local foods as safer and better alternatives.

Despite the appeal of these innovative developments, there are significant counterarguments.
One can easily argue that the pace of technological development and implementation in Iceland
is too slow to allow Icelandic producers to compete with foreign firms in the foreseeable future.
In shifting consumer preferences to favor nationally grown products, further studies must be
conducted to analyze the price elasticity of Icelandic consumers. No matter how much
preferences and branding may shift public sentiment, if foreign products are significantly
cheaper it will be difficult to shift the demand curve for local produce.

Conclusion
Iceland is an exemplary case study for examining how transitory food insecurity arises and how
a country can attempt to seek solutions to this insecurity both internally and externally. While
there is no clear path forward for Iceland, as there is no way to ever completely eliminate the
risk of transitory food insecurity even with complete agricultural self-sufficiency, the issue of food
insecurity is clearly one worth further analyzing.

Larger lessons can also be drawn from this case study. The short term allure of decreased food
prices from foreign firms has dangerous implications for a nation’s self-sufficiency. The collateral
benefit globalization comes with a hidden risk of collateral damage as economic fluctuations are
inevitable.
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000

Case Study Questions

1. Should Iceland turn its focus on to self-sustainability or embrace globalization and rely
on imports?
2. How will continued growth of tourism industry affect food insecurity? What about the
burst of the tourism bubble?
3. Out of all the factors contributing to food insecurity, which do you think is most
addressable or most urgent?

References:
1. Definitions of Food Security. USDA ERS; 2018 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definiti
ons-of-food-security.aspx
2. Habicht J-P, Pelto G, Frongillo E, Rose D. Conceptualization and Instrumentation of
Food Insecurity. Research Gate. 2004 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237712682_Conceptualization_and_Instrument
ation_of_Food_Insecurity
3. Iceland Unemployment Rate. Trading Economics. [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://tradingeconomics.com/iceland/unemployment-rate
4. An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security [Internet]. FAO Food Security
Programme; [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/3/al936e/al936e00.pdf
5. Iceland. Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations. Encyclopedia.com; 2019 [cited
2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/germany-scandinavia-and-central-europe/scandina
vian-political-geography/iceland#FLORA_AND_FAUNA
6. Helgadóttir Á., Eythórsdóttir E., Jóhannesson T. Agriculture in Iceland – A grassland
based production. Grassland Science in Europe [Internet]. 2013;18. Available from:
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/FullTextPDF/2013/20133335535.pdf
7. Arnalds O. Soils of Iceland. Jokull [Internet]. 2008Jan; Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298259254_Soils_of_Iceland
8. Johannsson O. Food Security in Iceland: Present Vulnerabilities, Possible Solutions.
University of Iceland; 2011 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/7794/3/OrriJohannsson FoodSecurity Final.pdf
9. Seismic Activity [Internet]. Data Center in Iceland: Natural Disaster Risk. Invest IS;
Available from: https://www.invest.is/files/invest.is/publications/natural-disaster-risk.pdf
10. Olafsdottir R, Schlyter P, Haraldsson HV. Simulating Icelandic vegetation cover during
the Holocene Implications for long-term land degradation. Geografiska Annaler, Series
A: Physical Geography. 2001;83A(4):203–15.
11. Hartman S, Ogilvie A, Ingimundarson JH, Dugmore A, Hambrecht G, Mcgovern T.
Medieval Iceland, Greenland, and the New Human Condition: A case study in integrated
environmental humanities. Global and Planetary Change. 2017;156:123–39.
12. Catlin KA, Bolender DJ. Were the Vikings Really Green? Environmental Degradation
and Social Inequality in Icelands Second Nature Landscape. Archeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association. 2018;29(1):120–33.
Transitory Food Insecurity in Contemporary Iceland
1500-3000 || 3000

13. Jacobson HJ. The values underpinning Iceland's food system risk Implications for
resilience planning [thesis]. 2016.
14. Halldórsdóttir Þ, Nicholas K. Local food in Iceland: identifying behavioral barriers to
increased production and consumption. IOP Science Environmental Research Letters;
2016. Available from:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/115004/meta
15. Iceland Balance of Trade [Internet]. Trading Economics. [cited 2019May5]. Available
from: https://tradingeconomics.com/iceland/balance-of-trade
16. Iceland CPI: Food and Non Alcoholic Beverage Change [Internet]. 1993-2019 Monthly
CEIC Data. CEIC; 2019 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/iceland/cpi-food-and-non-alcoholic-beverage-cha
nge
17. Dennis Neil. Icelandic krona sinks as yen soars [Internet]. Financial Times. Financial
Times; 2008 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.ft.com/content/3afe4c14-9385-11dd-9a63-0000779fd18c
18. OECD (2014), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2014: OECD Countries, OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2014-en
19. Bailes AJK, Johannsson O. Food Insecurity in Iceland. Icelandic Review of Politics &
Administration. 2011;7(2):491–509. Available from:
http://www.irpa.is/article/view/b.2011.7.2.1/pdf_217
20. Icelandic Foreign Minister. A Risk Assessment for Iceland: Global, Societal, and Military
Factors . A Risk Assessment for Iceland: Global, Societal, and Military Factors 2009.
21. Bjarnason M. Economic Impact of EU Membership. Amsterdam University Press. 2010.
22. Alcamo J. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press; 2003.
23. Iceland GDP - composition by sector [Internet]. Index Mundi. 2018 [cited 2019May5].
Available from: https://www.indexmundi.com/iceland/gdp_composition_by_sector.html
24. Carey I. Why Iceland's Tourism Boom May Finally Be Over [Internet]. Skift; 2019 [cited
2019May5]. Available from:
https://skift.com/2019/01/16/why-icelands-tourism-boom-may-finally-be-over/
25. On-Demand Weather Information via Mobile SMS is Now Available to Mongolian
Herders [Internet]. Mercy Corps; 2017 [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
http://mercycorps.org.mn/beta/index.php/en/news-mcm/691-on-demand-weather-informa
tion-via-mobile-sms-is-now-available-to-mongolian-herders
26. Samberg L. How new technology could help to strengthen global good security
[Internet]. World Economic Forum. [cited 2019May5]. Available from:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/food-security-s-social-network
27. Dell R, Sidebotham G, Guido V. Geothermal Heat in Agriculture: Preliminary Results of
an Energy Intensive System in Iceland. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions
[Internet]. 2011;34. Available from:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/makalinao2/docs/30-3-art2.pdf
28. Winter M. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of
Rural Studies. 2003;19(1):23–32.