Food security researchin the context of Global Environmental Change

Diana Liverman

Chair, GECAFS

Food security…

... exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

(World Food Summit 1996)

Much more than just agricultural production…. Food security is underpinned by food systems

Simulated maize yields:baseline and changes by 2055

(from Jones & Thornton, 2001)

present 2055™

Climate and livelihoods in the Mexican countrysideWhat determines crop yields?

– climate, water and soils – access to labour and inputs

(finance, seeds, fertilisers)– crop choice (environment,

food and feed preference, markets)

Determinants of Crop Choice

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Market Viability

Climate

Finances

Livestock

Crop Rotation

Subsistence

Percent of households

Nazareno

Plan de Ayala

Los Torres

‘Double Exposure’

Based on work by Liverman and Appendini and H.Eakin

Food security in the Mexican countryside

Food security depends on what can be grown, sold or purchased

• If selling for market food security also depends on – prices obtained for commercial crops– access to markets – debts

• Storage and processing of food (e.g. refrigeration, cooking fuel)

• Food security implies a diverse diet, some of which may need to be purchased

• Culture influences food security (e.g. maize preferences, advertising)

• Ability to purchase adequate food may also depend on funds needed for other household activities (education, health)

• Importance of government support programmes (e.g. crop and food subsidies, agricultural extension)

7

12

Multiple Exposure: Food insecurity arises from overlapping and interacting stressors

Misselhorn 2005 Global Environmental Change

Food Security

FOOD UTILISATION

FOOD ACCESS

• Affordability• Allocation• Preference

• Nutritional Value• Social Value• Food Safety

FOOD AVAILABILITY

• Production• Distribution• Exchange

Environmental Security /

Natural Capital• Land use• Ecosystems

stocks, flows and services

• Access to natural capital

Social Welfare• Income• Employment • Wealth• Social & political

capital• Human capital• Infrastructure• Peace• Insurance

Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to:

Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology

Processing & packaging food: raw materials, standards, consumer demandDistributing & retailing food: marketing, advertising, trade

Consuming food: preparation, consumption

Food Systems compriseActivities and Outcomes

Ericksen, P. 2006. Submitted to Global Environmental Change

Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (I)

• Identifies interactions of global change with the social system– multiple vulnerabilities within the food system– feedbacks to the Earth System from the food system– cross cutting issues such as embodied water and

carbon in food

• Allows analysis of multiple food system outcomes – food security– ecosystem services– social welfare

• Identifies possible intervention points for improving any desired outcome– Irrigation, crop improvements– Improve distribution, diversify incomes– reduce GHG emissions

• Analyses tradeoffs between outcomes of different management options for achieving desired outcome– Fairtrade food consumption vs. embodied carbon– Fisheries biodiversity vs. runoff from intensive

agriculture– Land for food vs land for biodiversity or biofuels

Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (II)

• Engages new stakeholders with global change– Development agencies and non-governmental

organizations– International institutions focusing on food and

agriculture (FAO, CGIAR, WB)– Regional inter-governmental agencies (SADC,

CARICOM)

Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (III)

Food System approach identifies key actorsExample from flood-prone Bangladesh

Environmental Issue

Food System Implication

Vulnerable Actors

Actors responsible for

reducing vulnerability

Increased monsoon river flows

Flooding of rivers and croplands lead to loss of crops and lives

Small, marginal farmers; women and children

Local government agencies; community; NGO workers

Increased urbanization

Increase in peri-urban intensive agriculture

Small, marginal farmers

National government bureaucrats and technicians

Vulnerability of the food system to GECis mediated by coping capacity

Source: Multi-authored analysis of IGP food system vulnerability to GEC. GECAFS Report. In prep.

Example: Nutritional diversity (milk) in the Indo-Gangetic Plain

Milk production is sensitive to drought (it decreases)

Rural areas:

Urban areas:

Weak coping capacity• weak markets• poor infrastructure• low income• poor storage or processing

HIGH vulnerability• access to milk decreases• nutritional value decreases

Strong coping capacity• robust markets• sufficient infrastructure• higher income• good storage and processing

LOW vulnerability• access to milk maintained• nutritional value maintained

Food security outcome

IdentifyAdaptation

Analyse Feedbacks

BuildScenarios

Assess Vulnerability

Adapted Food Systems

Current Food Systems

SupportDecision-Making

GECAFS integrates researchto support decision-making

EstablishAgenda

Key Policy Goals• Increasing food self-

sufficiency• Improving trade policies

& competitiveness

GEC examples• Increasing

extreme events• Changes in sea

currents & level

GEC examples• Reduced glacier

and snow melt• Increasing GHG

emissions

Key Policy Goals• Increasing and

diversifying ag production

• Reducing seasonal ag. labour migration

GEC Examples• Increased climate variability

& ENSO• Veld degradation and

biodiversity loss

Key Policy Goals• Enhanced rural infrastructure &

market access• Better disaster response &

“safety nets”

Caribbean Indo-Gangetic Plain

Southern Africa

Example StakeholdersNational agriculture & environment ministriesRegional Intergovernmental Organisations

(CARICOM, IICA)Regional research bodies

(FAO, MACC, CIMH, UWI, CARDI)

Example StakeholdersState & National agriculture & environment

ministriesNARES & CGIAR, NGOs (NWCF, BUP)GEC Research Institutes (GCISC, APN)

Example StakeholdersNational agriculture & environment ministries

Regional universitiesRegional IGOs & NGOs (SADC, NEPAD, FANRPAN)International agencies (e.g. WFP, USAID, FewsNet)

Science Agencies

Development Agendas

Policy Makers

Resource Managers

Natural Science

Social Science

e.g.NRF &

UK-ESRC vulnerability

research

e.g.CGIAR, FAO, DFID/IDRC

e.g.farmers, water

managers, range conservation NGOs

e.g.national

agriculture & environment

ministries; district administrators.

e.g.technology development to reduce GEC impact on

maize productivity

e.g.comparative studies of land tenure and crop insurance schemes

How can Southern African food systemsbe adapted to reduce vulnerability to GEC?

GECAFS Science Plan

GECAFS Southern Africa Science Plan / FANRPAN Collaboration

Food System interactions with GECand socioeconomic contexts

Source: Zurek, M. & Ericksen, P. (2006) A Conceptual Framework Describing Food System – GEC Interactions. In prep.

Food System ACTIVITIESProducing

Processing & PackagingDistributing & Retailing

Consuming

Food System OUTCOMESContributing to: Food Security, Environmental

Security, and other Societal Interests

FoodAvailability

FoodUtilisation

FoodAccess

EnvironCapital

Social Welfare

SocioeconomicDRIVERS

Changes in:Demographics, Economics,

Socio-political context, Cultural context

Science & Technology

DRIVERS’Interactions

GEC DRIVERSChanges in:

Land cover & soils, Atmospheric Comp., Climate variability & means,

Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling,

Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity, Sea level

‘Natural’DRIVERS

e.g. VolcanoesSolar cycles

Environmental feedbackse.g. water quality, GHGs

Socioeconomic feedbackse.g. livelihoods, social cohesion

Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.

Using scenarios to investigateplausible futures for food security

Step 1: Convene diverse group of researchers and stakeholders

Step 2: Identify uncertainties (key questions)

Step 3: Identify global environmenmental changes and socioeconomic drivers

Step 4: Describe assumptions in scenarios (story lines)

Step 5: Assess qualitatively the implications for food system outcomes

Production

Distribution

Inter-RegionalExchange

Intra-Caribbean Exchange

Affordability

Allocation

Preference

Food SafetyIn

crea

se

Dec

reas

e

NutritionalValue

Social Value

Global Caribbean

Caribbean OrderFrom Strength

CaribbeanTechnoGarden

CaribbeanAdapting Mosaic

per scenario

Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.

++

+0

_

_ _

Scenario-based Food Security outcomesfor the Caribbean

High-priority research issues onthe 5-10 year horizon for GECAFS

• Stronger partnerships with key stakeholders (FAO, CGIAR etc.)

• Improved understanding of how Global Environmental Change (GEC) will additionally affect food security across different regions and among different socioeconomic groups

• Additional Partner Projects in other regions.

• Better assessments of how adaptation strategies designed to cope with GEC and changing demands for food will affect the environment, societies and economies.

• Enhanced communication methods to strengthen science-policy dialogue aimed at improving regional policy formulation capacity for food security and environmental governance.

• Contributions to innovative ESSP agendas