This book draws together chapters by leading global experts to explore the complex relationship between food security and sociopolitical stability up to roughly 2025. It offers new insights building on lessons learned since the 2008 and 2011 global food price spikes sparked political unrest that toppled multiple governments and spurred a global land rush unlike any seen since the nineteenth century. The volume opens with three broad background papers that discuss the full sweep of the topic and likely scenarios over the coming decade for the global food economy and climate patterns relevant to food production. These chapters are followed by a group of thematic papers, cutting across major world regions to look at core stressors or responses: the policies, technologies, and key resource inputs of the global food system. The last set of chapters explore the political economy of food security strategies in key developing countries and regions. These chapters explore how emerging market firms and governments might attempt to satisfy growth in domestic food demand in the face of various global stressors, through a range of labor, land, technology, trade, water, and related actions or policies, as well as which sociopolitical instability risks might be associated with those strategies.
Recent studies have projected significant climate change impacts in Africa. In order to understand what this means in terms of human well-being at local level, we need to understand how households can cope and adapt. This need has led many authors to argue for approaches to adaptation that are based on vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability is one of the key terms in the climate change literature, but little progress has been made in the field of its quantification. Typically, indicators are combined according to a weighing scheme, with the identification of indicators and the weighing schemes based on expert judgment rather than empirical evidence. In addition, most quantitative assessments are applied to countries or other administrative units, whereas managing climate risk has traditionally been the responsibility of households. We therefore focus on the adaptive capacity of households. We analyze the coping strategies and vulnerability to climatic stresses of agro-pastoralists in Mozambique and test the validity of a number of commonly used vulnerability indicators. We derive a household-level vulnerability index based on survey data. We find that only 9 out of 26 indicators tested exhibit a statistically significant relationship with households' vulnerability. In total, they explain about one-third of the variation in vulnerability between households, confirming the need for more research on underlying determinants and processes of vulnerability. With inclusion of local knowledge, our study findings can be used for local targeting, priority setting and resource allocation. Complemented with studies analyzing climate change impacts and findings from country-level adaptive capacity studies, governmental policy can be informed.
100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are used almost universally to compare emissions of greenhouse gases in national inventories and reduction targets. GWPs have been criticised on several grounds, but little work has been done to determine global mitigation costs under alternative physics-based metrics. We used the integrated assessment model MESSAGE to compare emission pathways and abatement costs for fixed and time-dependent variants of the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) with those based on GWPs, for a policy goal of limiting the radiative forcing to a specified level in the year 2100. We find that fixed 100-year GTPs would increase global abatement costs (discounted and aggregated over the 21st century) under this policy goal by 5–20 % relative to 100-year GWPs, whereas time-varying GTPs would reduce costs by about 5 %. These cost differences are smaller than differences arising from alternative assumptions regarding agricultural mitigation potential and much smaller than those arising from alternative radiative forcing targets. Using the land-use model GLOBIOM, we show that alternative metrics affect food production differently in different world regions depending on regional characteristics of future land-use change to meet growing food demand. We conclude that under scenarios of complete participation, the choice of metric has a limited impact on global abatement costs but could be important for the political economy of regional and sectoral participation in collective mitigation efforts, in particular changing costs and gains over time for agriculture and energy-intensive sectors.
Grazing systems dynamics are driven by a complex combination of socio-economic, political and environmental contexts. Although the drivers and dynamics can be highly location-specific, we focus on describing global trends as well as trends by agro-ecological, socio-economic and political contexts. Global grasslands have expanded in area over the last decades. A decreasing trend has however been observed since the 21st century. Grazing systems' management has also intensified. While these dynamics can have socio-economic and environmental benefits, they have often led to unsustainable systems, exemplified by deforestation and land degradation. Opportunities for land expansion without damaging forests and natural ecosystems are increasingly limited around the world and future increases in grazing systems production will need to mainly come from increases in productivity per animal and per unit area. We highlight some priority research areas and issues for policy makers to consider to help the movement towards more sustainable systems.
The world's climate is continuing to change at rates that are projected to be unprecedented in recent human history. Some models are now indicating that the temperature increases to 2100 may be larger than previously estimated in 2001. The impacts of climate change are likely to be considerable in tropical regions. Developing countries are generally considered more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than more developed countries, largely attributed to a low capacity to adapt in the developing world. Of the developing countries, many in Africa are seen as being the most vulnerable to climate variability and change. High levels of vulnerability and low adaptive capacity in the developing world have been linked to factors such as a high reliance on natural resources, limited ability to adapt financially and institutionally, low per capita GDP and high poverty, and a lack of safety nets. The challenges for development are considerable, not least because the impacts are complex and highly uncertain. The overall aims of DFID's new research programme on climate change and development in sub-Saharan Africa are to improve the ability of poor people to be more resilient to current climate variability as well as to the risks associated with longer-term climate change. The programme is designed to address the knowledge implications of interacting and multiple stresses, such as HIV/AIDS and climate change, on the vulnerability of the poor, and it will concentrate on approaches that work where government structures are weak. To help identify where to locate specific research activities and where to put in place uptake pathways for research outputs, information is required that relates projected climate change with vulnerability data. ILRI undertook some exploratory vulnerability mapping for the continent in late 2005 and early 2006, building on some livestock poverty mapping work carried out in 2002. The work described here is a small piece of a larger activity that involved the commissioning of several studies on ...
Rwanda's agricultural sector is facing severe challenges of increasing environmental degradation, resulting in declining productivity. The problem is likely to be further aggravated by the growing population pressure. A viable pathway is climate smart agriculture, aiming at the triple win of improving food security and climate change adaptation, while contributing to mitigation if possible. The Government of Rwanda has initiated ambitious policies and programs aiming at low emission agricultural development. Crop focused policies include the Crop Intensification Program (CIP) which facilitates access to inorganic fertilizer and improved seeds. In the livestock subsector, zero-grazing and improved livestock feeding are encouraged, and the Girinka program provides poor farm households with a crossbred dairy cow. In this study, we aimed at assessing the potential impact of these policy programs on food availability and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 884 households across different agro-ecologies and farming systems in Rwanda. Household level calculations were used to assess the contribution of current crops, livestock and off-farm activities to food availability and GHG emissions. Across all sites, 46% of households were below the 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 line, with lower food availability in the Southern and Eastern Rwanda. Consumed and sold food crops were the mainstay of food availability, contributing between 81.2% (low FA class) to 53.1% (high FA class). Livestock and off-farm income were the most important pathways to higher FA. Baseline GHG emissions were low, ranging between 395 and 1506 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1 per site, and livestock related emissions from enteric fermentation (47.6–48.9%) and manure (26.7–31.8%) were the largest contributors to total GHG emissions across sites and FA classes. GHG emissions increased with FA, with 50% of the total GHG being emitted by 22% of the households with the highest FA scores. Scenario assessment of the three policy options showed strong differences in potential impacts: Girinka only reached one third of the household population, but acted highly pro-poor by decreasing the households below the 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 line from 46% to 35%. However, Girinka also increased GHG by 1174 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1, and can therefore not be considered climate-smart. Improved livestock feeding was the least equitable strategy, decreasing food insufficient households by only 3%. However, it increased median FA by 755 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 at a small GHG increase (50 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1). Therefore, it is a promising option to reach the CSA triple win. Crop and soil improvement resulted in the smallest increase in median FA (FA by 755 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1), and decreasing the proportion of households below 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 by 6%. This came only at minimal increase in GHG emissions (23 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1). All policy programs had different potential impacts and trade-offs on different sections of the farm household population. Quick calculations like the ones presented in this study can assist in policy dialogue and stakeholder engagement to better select and prioritize policies and development programs, despite the complexity of its impacts and trade-offs.
Estimates of global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions attributable to livestock range from 8 to 51%. This variability creates confusion among policy makers and the public as it suggests that there is a lack of consensus among scientists with regard to the contribution of livestock to global GHG emissions. In reality, estimates of international scientific organizations such as the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are in close agreement, with variation mainly arising on how GHG emissions are allocated to land use and land use change. Other estimates involve major deviations from international protocols, such as estimated global warming potential of CH4 or including respired CO2 in GHG emissions. These approaches also fail to differentiate short-term CO2 arising from oxidation of plant C by ruminants from CO2 released from fixed fossil C through combustion. These deviances from internationally accepted protocols create confusion and direct attention from anthropomorphic practices which have the most important contribution to global GHG emissions. Global estimates of livestock GHG emissions are most reliable when they are generated by internationally recognized scientific panels with expertise across a range of disciplines, and with no preconceived bias to particular outcomes.
Food security is high on the global policy agenda. Demand for food is increasing as populations grow and gain wealth to purchase more varied and resource-intensive diets. There is increased competition for land, water, energy, and other inputs into food production. Climate change poses challenges to agriculture, particularly in developing countries (1), and many current farming practices damage the environment and are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG). In an increasingly globalized world, food insecurity in one region can have widespread political and economic ramifications (2).
Investments in animal health and Veterinary Services can have a measurable impact on the health of people and the environment. These investment cases require a baseline metric that describes the burden of animal health and welfare in order to justify and prioritise resource allocation and from which to measure the impact of interventions. This paper is part of a process of scientific enquiry in which problems are identified and solutions sought in an inclusive way. As such, it poses the broad question of what a system to measure animal disease burden on society should look like and what value will it add; and does this in a way so as to be accessible by a wide audience which is encouraged to engage in this debate. Given that farmed animals, including those raised by poor smallholders, are an economic entity, this system must be based on economic principles. These poor farmers are negatively impacted by the disparity in animal health technology which can be addressed through a mixture of supply-led and demand-driven interventions, reinforcing the relevance of targeted government and non-governmental organisation financial support. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme will glean existing data to measure animal health loss for carefully characterised production systems. Consistent and transparent attribution of animal health loss will enable meaningful comparisons of burden to be made between diseases, production systems and countries, as well as how it is apportioned by people's socio-economic status and gender. GBADs will produce a cloud-based knowledge engine and data portal through which users will access burden metrics and associated visualisations, decision support in the form of future animal health scenarios and the outputs of wider economic modelling. The vision of GBADs – strengthening the food system for the benefit of society and the environment – is an example of One Health thinking in action.
Forage-based livestock production plays a key role in national and regional economies, for food security and poverty alleviation. Livestock production is also considered as a major contributor to agricultural GHG emissions, however. While demand for livestock products is predicted to continue to increase, there is political and societal pressure both to reduce environmental impacts and to convert some of the pasture area to alternative uses such as crop production and environmental conservation. Thus it is essential to develop approaches for sustainable intensification of livestock systems to mitigate GHG emissions, addressing biophysical, socioeconomic and policy challenges. This paper highlights the potential of improved tropical forages in crop-livestock systems, and linked with policy incentives, to enhance livestock production while reducing its environmental footprint. We give examples for sustainable intensification to mitigate GHG emissions based on improved forages in Brazil and Colombia and suggest future perspectives.
Forage-based livestock production plays a key role in national and regional economies, for food security and poverty alleviation, but is considered a major contributor to agricultural GHG emissions. While demand for livestock products is predicted to increase, there is political and societal pressure both to reduce environmental impacts and to convert some of the pasture area to alternative uses, such as crop production and environmental conservation. Thus, it is essential to develop approaches for sustainable intensification of livestock systems to mitigate GHG emissions, addressing biophysical, socio-economic and policy challenges. This paper highlights the potential of improved tropical forages, linked with policy incentives, to enhance livestock production, while reducing its environmental footprint. Emphasis is on crop-livestock systems. We give examples for sustainable intensification to mitigate GHG emissions, based on improved forages in Brazil and Colombia, and suggest future perspectives.
Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.
Technological and institutional innovations in agri-food systems (AFSs) over the past century have brought dramatic advances in human well-being worldwide. Yet these gains increasingly appear unsustainable due to massive, adverse spillover effects on climate, natural environment, public health and nutrition, and social justice. How can humanity innovate further to bring about AFS transformations that can sustain and expand past progress, while making them healthier for all people and for the planet that must sustain current and future generations? This report was commissioned by the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability in response to an invitation from the journal Nature Sustainability, which—in collaboration with its new sister journal, Nature Food—wanted to devote its 2020 expert panel to this topic. The panel brought together experts who come from many different continents and who span a wide range of disciplines and organizations—from industry and universities to social movements, governments, philanthropies, institutional and venture capital investors, and multilateral agencies. The panel synthesized the best current science to describe the present state of the world's AFSs and key external drivers of AFS changes over the next 25–50 years, as well as tease out key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic experience this year. As is increasingly widely recognized, the costs that farmers and downstream value chain actors incur and the prices consumers pay understate foods' true costs to society once one accounts for adverse environmental, health, and social spillover effects. Inevitable demographic, economic, and climate change in the coming decades will catastrophically aggravate these problems under business-as-usual scenarios. Innovations will be needed to facilitate concerted, coordinated efforts to transition to more healthy, equitable, resilient, and sustainable AFSs.
Open Access Journal; Published online: 19 Nov 2019 ; Our understanding of food security in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been hampered by limitations in the temporal and spatial representativeness of data. Food balance sheets provide scalable estimates of per capita food availability, but fail to represent food access, stability and their causal linkages. In contrast, rural household surveys represent detailed conditions for one or multiple points in time, but are influenced by survey timing and are often limited in geographical coverage. This study draws on a large sample of rural land-holding households in SSA (n = 6,353) to identify household level food access deficiencies and to understand the associations with rural livelihoods and food sourcing behavior throughout the year. Food access deficiencies were identified using food security of access and diet diversity indicators. Dietary diversity and channel of access (farm or purchased) were enumerated for the "flush" and "lean" periods and food security of access was enumerated for the lean period only - making the results of this study independent of survey timing. As many as 39% of households were classified as severely food insecure (in terms of food access) and as many as 49% of households were likely to be deficient in micronutrients in the lean period. Vulnerability to food insecurity and micronutrient deficiencies differed by household composition, agricultural livelihood characteristics and agro-ecological zone. Dairy, fruit and vitamin A-rich produce were predominantly accessed through the farm channel. Households with a livestock component to their farm had a lower prevalence of severe food insecurity and higher diet diversity scores. These findings have implications for the development of nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. Interventions need to be tailored to agro-ecological zone, household composition, scale of operation and production mix. Increasing income will not necessarily result in improved diet diversity or healthy dietary choices. Interventions focused on income generation should monitor and promote crop and livestock production diversity and provide nutrition education. ; United States Agency for International Development ; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ; European Union ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; International Fund for Agricultural Development ; Department for International Development, United Kingdom ; Peer Review
As global demand for livestock products (such as meat, milk, and eggs) is expected to double by 2050, necessary increases to future production must be reconciled with negative environmental impacts that livestock cause. This paper describes the LivestockPlus concept and demonstrates how the sowing of improved forages can lead to the sustainable intensification of mixed crop–forage–livestock–tree systems in the tropics by producing multiple social, economic, and environmental benefits. Sustainable intensification not only improves the productivity of tropical forage-based systems but also reduces the ecological footprint of livestock production and generates a diversity of ecosystem services (ES), such as improved soil quality and reduced erosion, sedimentation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Integrating improved grass and legume forages into mixed production systems (crop–livestock, tree–livestock, crop–tree–livestock) can restore degraded lands and enhance system resilience to drought and waterlogging associated with climate change. When properly managed tropical forages accumulate large amounts of carbon in soil, fix atmospheric nitrogen (legumes), inhibit nitrification in soil and reduce nitrous oxide emissions (grasses), and reduce GHG emissions per unit livestock product. The LivestockPlus concept is defined as the sustainable intensification of forage-based systems, which is based on three interrelated intensification processes: genetic intensification – the development and use of superior grass and legume cultivars for increased livestock productivity; ecological intensification – the development and application of improved farm and natural resource management practices; and socio-economic intensification – the improvement of local and national institutions and policies, which enable refinements of technologies and support their enduring use. Increases in livestock productivity will require coordinated efforts to develop supportive government, non-government organization, and private sector policies ...
