The socio-economic condition in most COMESA countries is characterised by persistent high poverty levels and low food security. This is further compounded by the susceptibility of agriculture to climatic variability and other hazards as well as the vulnerability of impoverished and malnourished households to HIV/AIDS, market shocks and prolonged violent conflict. One of the biggest challenges governments in Africa face, with notably few exceptions, is the lack of sufficient financial and human resources to undertake the required action when disaster arises. This starts from the inability to address the underlying causes of disasters, including recurrent poverty that stifles household resilience (NEPAD, 2007). ; Non-PR ; IFPRI2; ReSAKSS ; DSGD
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.
Action Track 2 works to catalyse a shift in consumer behaviour that will create and build demand for sustainably produced agriand ocean food products, strengthen shorter value chains, promote circular use of food resources, helping to reduce waste and improve nutrition, especially among the most vulnerable. This Action Track recognises that current food consumption patterns, often characterised by higher levels of food waste and a transition in diets towards higher energy, more resource-intensive foods, need to be transformed. Food systems in both developed and developing countries are changing rapidly. Increasingly characterized by a high degree of vertical integration, evolutions in food systems are being driven by new technologies that are changing production processes, distribution systems, marketing strategies, and the food products that people eat. These changes offer the opportunity for system-wide change in the way in which production interacts with the environment, giving greater attention to the ecosystem services offered by the food sector. However, developments in food systems also pose new challenges and controversies. Food system changes have responded to shifts in consumer preferences towards larger shares of more animal-sourced and processed foods in diets, raising concerns regarding the calorific and nutritional content of many food items. By increasing food availability, lowering prices and increasing quality standards, they have also induced greater food waste at the consumer end. In addition, the risk of fast transmission of food-borne disease, antimicrobial resistance and food-related health risks throughout the food chain has increased, and the ecological footprint of the global food system continues to grow in terms of energy, resource use, and impact on climate change. The negative consequences of food systems from a nutritional, environmental and livelihood perspective are increasingly being recognized by consumers in some regions. With growing consumer awareness, driven by concerns about the environmental and health impacts of investments and current supply chain technologies and practices, and by a desire among new generations of city dwellers to reconnect with their rural heritage and to use their own behaviour to drive positive change, opportunities exist to define and establish added-value products that are capable of internalising social or environmental delivery within their price. These forces can be used to fundamentally reshape food systems by stimulating coordinated government action in changing the regulatory environment that in turn incentivises improved private sector investment decisions. Achieving healthy diets from sustainable food systems is complex and requires a multi-pronged approach. Actions necessary include awareness-raising, behaviour change interventions in food environments, food education, strengthened urban-rural linkages, improved product design, investments in food system innovations, public private partnerships, public procurement, and separate collection enabling alternative uses of food waste can all contribute to this transition. Local and national policymakers and small and large scale private sector actors have a key role in both responding to and shaping the market opportunities created by changing consumer demands.
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.
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.
This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is a strategic partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth. CCAFS is carried out with support from CGIAR Fund Donors and through bilateral funding agreements. This research has received funding from the European Union's FP7 Project FoodSecure (grant agreement no. 290693), the European Union's Horizon 2020 project CDLINKS (grant agreement no. 642147), and with technical support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The views expressed in the document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of CGIAR, Future Earth, or donors. The contributions of PS, MH, and JFS contributes to the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI funded DEVIL project (NE/M021327/1) and to UGRASS (NE/M016900/1). FK acknowledges the support from IIASA's Tropical Futures Initiative (TFI) and the GCP's Managing Global Negative Emissions Technologies (MaGNET) program (www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/magnet.html). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
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).
